This article was originally published on September 7, 2023 in Reuters and is republished here with permission.
State Attorneys General (AGs) uniquely wield power to enforce the law, direct policy, and effectuate political goals. Exercising their civil prosecutorial authority, State AGs have redefined priorities of paramount concern to CEOs and in-house legal counsel that impact the corporate and commercial landscape.
On August 11, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed House Bill 2222 (Public Act 103-0526) into law — bolstering Illinois’ antitrust prevention efforts by expanding the oversight purview of its Attorney General’s (AG) office with respect to health care transactions. Under the new law, the Illinois AG now has the power to review and assess certain “covered transactions” entered into between health care facilities and providers.
On July 25, Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa (the states), along with intervenors American Water Works Association and National Rural Water Association (the water associations), petitioned the Eighth Circuit to review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new rule requiring states to review and report cybersecurity threats to their public water systems (PWS).
On August 21, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by West Virginia Attorney General (AG) Patrick Morrisey and 26 other state AGs to participate in oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) et al. v. Community Financial Services Association of America et al., which concerns whether the CFPB’s statutory authorization violates the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. Morrissey and 26 other predominantly Republican state AGs have submitted an amicus brief arguing that it does. Morrissey is joined by the AGs for Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
On August 16, a coalition of seven state attorneys general (AG) announced a settlement with participants alleged to be involved in a “massive” robocall operation. The stipulated order, which names Scott Shapiro, Michael T. Smith, Jr., and Health Advisors of America (defendants), permanently bans Shapiro and Smith from initiating or facilitating robocalls; working in or with companies that make robocalls; and engaging in telemarketing. The settlement also requires the defendants to make monetary payments to the coalition, which is comprised of AGs from the states of Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Texas (the AGs).
Massachusetts Attorney General (AG) Andrea Joy Campbell announced the creation of a new Elder Justice Unit, which will use existing resources to protect and promote the safety and well-being of elders through enforcement actions, legislative advocacy, and community engagement and education.
On August 18, 2023, a New York Supreme Court judge has enjoined New York cannabis regulators from further processing, approving, or investigating any new or pending applications for a state conditional adult-use retail dispensary (CAURD) license, leaving New York’s nascent adult-use cannabis market in limbo.
Public water utilities and 3M have until August 28 to respond to the bipartisan coalition of 22 state attorneys general (AGs) that opposes their proposed $12.5 billion class action settlement over alleged per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS) contamination and is seeking to intervene in their litigation.
Connecticut Attorney General (AG) William Tong, along with Illinois, New Hampshire, and Tennessee AGs, jointly authored a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urging improved collaboration with state AGs.
In August, District of Columbia Attorney General (AG) Brian Schwalb issued a Supplemental Business Advisory (advisory) to provide guidance and examples to restaurants for complying with their legal obligation under the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) to adequately disclose all fees, including service fees, to customers. See D.C. Code § 28-3901, et seq. The advisory clarifies that the CPPA does not prohibit restaurants from charging such fees or surcharges, but emphasizes that “these fees may violate the CPPA if they are not timely, prominently, and clearly disclosed to diners before they place their orders.”