Insights

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement has been fairly predictable for many years as the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has maintained exclusive authority over investigating claims and bringing enforcement actions in federal courts across the country. President Trump’s recent pause on FCPA enforcement, the first of its kind since the statute was passed in 1977, has created significant uncertainty for individuals and businesses operating internationally regarding the future of FCPA enforcement. While DOJ is in the process of assessing what the future of FCPA enforcement, state attorneys general are stepping in. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Advisory (the “Advisory”) to California businesses explaining that violations of the FCPA are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The announcement signals a shift in FCPA enforcement where states may take the lead and pursue FCPA enforcement through their state unfair competition laws.

The settlement approval hearing in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.) is set for April 7, 2025. Commonly known as the “House Settlement,” the pending resolution between plaintiffs and the NCAA, if approved by Judge Claudia Wilken, could have far-reaching implications for higher education NCAA-member institutions and student-athletes.

On March 20, 2025, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into whether two leading proxy advisors’ advice involving the consideration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) constitutes deceptive or unfair trade practices under Florida law or a violation of Florida antitrust law.

On February 14th, 2025, the Department of Education (the “Department”) issued a Dear Colleague letter (the “Letter” or “DCL”) addressing what the Department thinks may constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other authorities. The Department also announced that it will begin “vigorously enforce[ing] the law” and assessing compliance no later than February 28th, and threatens that educational institutions that fail to comply with the Department’s new view of the federal nondiscrimination laws face investigation and loss of federal funding.

On February 13, 2025, a coalition of sixteen state attorneys general issued a “Multi-State Guidance Concerning Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Employment Initiatives” (the Guidance). Led by Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts and Attorney General Kwame Raoul of Illinois, and joined by the Attorneys General of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the Guidance is a direct response to concerns from the private sector in the aftermath of President Trump’s recent Executive Order 14173, which  directed federal agencies “to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.” The Guidance clarifies “the state of the law for businesses, nonprofits, and other organizations operating” in their respective states.

There has been a lot of talk about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) lately, largely due to two recent Executive Orders (EO 14151 and EO 14173) (collectively referred to as “the EOs”) signed by President Trump during his first days in office and subsequent implementing memos issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Justice Department. The EOs aim first to dismantle DEI “mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government.” Specifically, the EOs task the Director of the OPM with reviewing and revising all federal employment practices, union contracts, and trainings to ensure elimination of all DEI and related programs. They next direct federal agencies to combat private sector DEI through civil compliance investigations, to terminate equity-related initiatives, programs, grants, or contracts, and to require certifications (with potential False Claims Act liability if the certifications are not valid) that the contractor or grantee “does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.”  These EOs are discussed in detail in our prior Alert.

Artificial intelligence is now a mainstay in our daily lives. It’s in our phones and computers. It helps us draft emails and learn math. It recommends purchases and guides our online searches. It’s everywhere—and every sign suggests that it’s here to stay.

Democratic State Attorneys General took a series of actions to defend Biden Administration Rules on the environment, firearms, and immigration, in the final days before President Trump returned to the White House. While these State AGs argue that the rules at issue protect the public health and safety of their constituents and the nation, the incoming Administration has indicated that it may withdraw its support from some or all of these regulations. Notably, many of the Rules in question face legal challenges from Republican State Attorneys General. A look at the Democratic AGs’ actions is below.

Ten states held elections for state attorney general last month. Those states include: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. Of the ten elections, there was only one change in political party—Pennsylvania, from Democrat to Republican. Additionally, six states elected new attorneys general—North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. Notably, three attorneys general were elected governor of their respective states. Those incoming governors include Josh Stein of North Carolina, Bob Ferguson of Washington, and Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia. A summary of each new attorney general and attorney general turned governor is below, listed alphabetically.

On November 27, 2024, a group of eleven state attorneys general (the “AGs”) sued three of the world’s largest asset managers (the “Asset Managers”), accusing them of anticompetitive stock acquisitions, deceptive asset management practices, and an antitrust conspiracy to restrict coal output. The states seek declaratory and injunctive relief including divestitures, as well as fines under state laws, although the allegations could provide a basis for follow-on private treble damages claims under the antitrust laws.

On October 3, 2024, a group of twenty-two state attorneys general sent a letter to Nasdaq Chair Adena Friedman inquiring into the listing company’s “commitment to ensuring federal and State anti-discrimination laws are followed.”[1] The letter, penned by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, stems from a rule change Nasdaq promulgated in 2020 in an effort to increase diversity within boardrooms.

Plastic pollution is a growing concern worldwide, and State Attorneys General increasingly turn to litigation to address this issue. These lawsuits tend to focus on alleged deceptive advertising and misleading statements, but sometimes include public nuisance claims to address alleged injuries to the environment and public health. Broadly, the actions of State Attorneys General target companies directly for the products they sell and the claims they make to sell them, de-emphasizing consumer choice as a driver of these harms.

California Governor Gavin Newsom announced his plans to sign Senate Bill 1037, a bill designed in response to the “statewide housing shortage crisis” that will give Attorney General Rob Bonta new civil penalty authority to hold municipalities accountable from the moment they purportedly first violate the state’s housing laws. This marks a significant change in the law.

On Monday, July 15, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs released proposed rules (the “Proposed Rules”) which require certain New Jersey healthcare providers (i.e., physician assistants, physicians, nurses, and midwives) who provide perinatal treatment and care to pregnant persons to undergo bias training. The training is designed to root out prejudices and stereotypes that may negatively impact the quality of care delivered by these providers to patients during pregnancy, labor, delivery, postpartum, and neonatal periods.  The Proposed Rules were promulgated in an effort “to address pronounced racial disparities in maternal and infant health outcomes in New Jersey.”

As of July 1, Utah’s “Equal Opportunity Initiatives” law is in effect.  This law prohibits “discriminatory practices” at higher education institutions, public education systems, and government employers within Utah.  In response to the law, colleges and universities like the University of Utah, Southern Utah University, Utah State University, and Weber State University have reportedly already closed DEI offices and cultural centers.

With the increase in state-federal collaboration, now is the time to ensure that your company is in the best position to engage with and address potential regulatory enforcement actions. In light of the uptick in intergovernmental investigative and enforcement collaboration, namely among federal agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), and individual state authorities like state attorneys general offices (AGs), AGs are growing their enforcement capacity and increasing their activity in areas that have historically been left to federal agencies.

In a recent development that underscores the ongoing debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the United States, a group of 21 Republican State Attorneys General spearheaded by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has challenged the American Bar Association's (ABA) Standard 206 on Diversity and Inclusion. In a letter sent to the ABA in early June, the Republican AG group argues that the ABA Standard and its proposed revisions are unlawful due to the Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA).

On August 1, 2024, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, one of the final Title IX regulations of the U.S. Department of Education released on April 19, 2024, will go into effect. The new regulations address the previous administration’s rollback of Title IX protections, and include, among other things, an expanded definition of sex discrimination that provides new protections for LGBTQ+ individuals against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. For example, the new rules prohibit schools that receive federal funding from barring transgender students’ use of pronouns that correspond to their gender identities, or denying transgender students access to facilities, like locker rooms and restrooms, that match their gender identities. Other notable changes in the new regulations include the following: (1) protection from all sex-based harassment and discrimination, including that based on sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy or related conditions; (2) broadening the definition of “hostile environment” harassment to include conduct that is so severe or pervasive that it limits or denies a person’s ability to participate in the education program or activity; (3) increased accountability by requiring schools to take prompt and effective action to end any sex discrimination in their education programs or activities, prevent reoccurrence, and remedy its effects; and (4) protection against retaliation for students, employees, and others who exercise their Title IX rights.

Last week the New Jersey State Attorney General (AG) Matthew J. Platkin announced the creation of a new division: the Antitrust Litigation and Competition Enforcement Section (ALCES) within the Division of Law (DOL). The permanent and stand-alone section is based out of the DOL’s Newark office and is intended to reinforce the state’s capacity for robust antitrust protection. This marks yet another effort by a state AG to increase antitrust resources and focus on both large and small antitrust issues to promote fair and competitive markets.