North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of North Carolina have reached a $500,000 settlement with Sharon Raynes Halliday and RAPHA Healthcare Services LLC, resolving a false claims lawsuit filed in July 2022 related to requests for payment submitted to the North Carolina Medicaid program.
Published in Law360 on May 23, 2024. © Copyright 2024, Portfolio Media, Inc., publisher of Law360. Reprinted here with permission.
On April 23, the FTC promulgated its final rule[1] banning noncompetes nationwide.[2]
While most commentary has focused on the scrutiny noncompetes would now garner at the federal level, few discussed the waterfall enforcement effect at the state level that would follow as state attorneys general could deploy their broad authority under state unfair or deceptive acts or practices, or UDAP, laws to treat noncompetes as separate and independent violations.[3]
Last week the office of the Attorney General of Connecticut announced that the state had reached a settlement with HighBazaar over allegations that the organization allowed the unlicensed sale of cannabis, and the presence of minors, at their outdoor social cannabis events in Connecticut. The settlement represents one of many enforcement actions aimed at eliminating the state’s gray market and protecting licensed businesses and consumers.
A coalition of Republican attorneys general representing 24 states has sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to block a new rule issued by the Biden-Harris administration as part of a suite of standards promulgated to reduce pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants.
Nebraska Attorney General (AG) Mike Hilgers is leading multistate coalitions in two lawsuits aimed at challenging the Biden administration and the State of California’s electric vehicle mandates on truck owners and operators nationwide. The lawsuits argue that these mandates exceed the constitutional and statutory authority of the federal government and California regulators.
A new Connecticut law expands the authority of the state’s attorney general to enforce certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Act).[1]
State attorneys general (AGs) have increased their scrutiny of the use of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in relation to data privacy laws, consumer protection statutes, and anti-discrimination laws. Our state AG team has issued a new white paper examining this trend, including a detailed look at the recent advisory opinion issued by the Massachusetts AG’s office, which provides guidance on how existing laws apply to AI. Understanding the potential legal implications of AI use is important to any consumer-facing business, include private equity firms and other investors.
A state attorney general (AG) and a major American corporation recently battled over the scope and applicability of the government contractor defense.
The case is about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals. These fluorine-related chemicals are used in a variety of products, including waterproof clothing, nonstick cookware, furniture, and food packaging. Opponents of PFAS refer to them as “forever chemicals” because, as they argue, PFAS compounds do not break down naturally and can contaminate the soil and drinking water.
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. (Spirit), a subsidiary of a company that produces fuselages for Boeing’s 737 jets, has filed a lawsuit against Texas in response to the attorney general’s (AG) recently initiated investigation into the company’s alleged manufacturing issues — which the AG says led to midair emergencies earlier this year. The lawsuit, filed on May 1, asserts that the state’s probe is unconstitutional and violates Spirit’s rights to be free from unreasonable searches.
On May 8, attorneys general (AG) from 14 states and the District of Columbia sent a letter to Congressional leadership opposing provisions of the recently proposed federal American Privacy Rights Act (APRA). In addition to the District of Columbia, the signatory states include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Their objections primarily center on the APRA’s preemption clause, which would nullify 16 state comprehensive data privacy laws that have been enacted since 2018.