California – State Attorneys General Blog

October 31, 2024October 31, 2024 by Karen Lehmann Alexander

Multistate Coalition of AGs Files Amicus Brief in Support of the Affordable Care Act’s Preventive Care Mandate

On October 21, 2024, a multistate coalition of 24 attorneys general filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive care mandate. The challenged mandate requires private insurers to cover an array of preventive services (such as cancer screening, tobacco cessation, contraception, and immunizations) at no cost to consumers.

The case, Xavier Becerra vs. Braidwood Management, Inc., et al., involves a challenge to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which sits within the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and was instructed by Congress to issue recommendations for preventive medical services that, under the preventive services provision, health insurance issuers and group health plans must cover without imposing additional out-of-pocket expenses on patients.

In June 2024, the Fifth Circuit partially upheld a March 2023 ruling from a Texas district court and determined that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Appointments Clause because its members are principal officers of the United States who must be (but are not) nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. On that basis, it affirmed an injunction prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the preventive services provision against respondents.

Currently, the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear the case. The attorneys’ general amicus brief urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and make clear that the Task Force’s structure is constitutional and that the preventive services provision can be enforced. The brief was filed by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

A copy of the brief may be found here.

September 25, 2024September 25, 2024 by Karen Lehmann Alexander

Multistate Coalition of AGs Supports FDA’s Denial of Marketing Authorization for Flavored Vape Products

On September 3, 2024, a multistate coalition of 20 attorneys general filed an amicus brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to deny companies the ability to market and sell certain flavored e-cigarette products across state lines.

The amicus brief emphasized what the attorneys general described as the “serious health risks” of flavored e-cigarettes (particularly for youth), and argued that the FDA’s statutory authority over the introduction of new tobacco products into interstate commerce is a crucial complement to state and local regulation of flavored e-cigarettes. The attorneys general explained that while states have adopted a variety of measures to restrict sales of flavored e-cigarettes, these products continue to flow through interstate commerce, necessitating continued FDA oversight.

The case is Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, dba Triton Distribution, et al., and arises from a lawsuit filed by companies challenging the FDA’s denial of their applications to market and sell flavored e-cigarette products across state lines. In January 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the applicants’ challenge. The attorneys general encourage the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.

The amicus brief was filed by the attorneys general for Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. A copy of the brief may be found here.

August 7, 2024 by Karen Lehmann Alexander

California AG Says Further Consolidation in “Core” Markets Bad for Consumers

By Dillon Denio and Karen Alexander

The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently suggested in an interview with the online publication MLex that his office believes that further consolidation in markets that are “core” to American life—including the financial sector and the agriculture, airline, and grocery industries—does not serve the economy, consumers, or competition well.

The comments align with the California Attorneys General’s Office’s recent opposition to mergers and joint ventures in the airline and grocery industries. In 2021, California joined the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) successful lawsuit to prevent American Airlines and JetBlue Airways from consolidating their operations in Boston and New York City. In early 2024, California, along with six other state attorneys general, joined the DOJ’s lawsuit to prevent the $3.8 billion acquisition by JetBlue of Spirit Airlines. And in 2024, California was among the several states that joined the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) lawsuit to block the proposed merger between grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons.

The Attorney General’s comments and recent actions show California’s continuing opposition to mergers in the financial sector and the agriculture, airline, and grocery industries. Businesses in these “core” markets looking to consolidate with competitors should be aware that California’s Attorney General’s Office may challenge the deal.

July 12, 2024 by Karen Lehmann Alexander

California AG Reminds Major Pharmacy Chains and Health Data Companies to Comply with New Requirements of Confidentiality of Medical Information Act

On June 26, 2024, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sent letters to eight major pharmacy chains and five health data companies reminding them of their obligations to conform to the new California law concerning protected health information related to reproductive care. Companies receiving letters include CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Kroger, and Rite Aid.

New requirements of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), under Assembly Bill 352 (2023), effective July 1, 2024, provide additional protections for confidential patient information. Law enforcement cannot gain access to information concerning patients’ reproductive health or gender-affirming care without a warrant. In addition, pharmacies and health data companies are prohibited from disclosing patients’ abortions to anyone from another state without the patient’s consent. These companies must also enable security features to segregate and protect data concerning abortion, contraception, and gender-affirming care.

Attorney General Bonta spoke out to reinforce compliance with these new requirements, stressing that protecting patient information “is now more imperative than ever.” The letters asked these companies to provide the Attorney General with their policies demonstrating their compliance with AB 352 by July 31, 2024.

July 10, 2024July 10, 2024 by Karen Lehmann Alexander

Coalition of State Attorneys General Supports Registry of Consumer Protection Law Violations

On June 11, 2024, the attorneys general of New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Vermont wrote a letter to Rohit Chopra, the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), in support of the CFPB’s Nonbank Registration of Orders Rule. The Rule, which becomes effective September 16, 2024, will require nonbank entities that offer consumer financial products and services to register with the CFPB all final orders issued by courts or by federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies finding violations of consumer protection laws. The CFPB will use this information to compile a searchable online registry available to the public. Failure to register will be a violation of federal consumer financial law subject to CFPB enforcement, and remedies include potential civil monetary penaltie

In their letter, the state attorneys general stated that they support the Rule because the registry will enable them to spot emerging problems and engage in early prevention efforts. They also believe that the registry will be useful in prioritizing certain targets of investigations over others, targeting state-level or regional actors that might not draw attention from federal agencies, and negotiating resolutions with entities engaged in similar conduct.

Nonbank entities that offer consumer financial products and services should ensure that they are in compliance with the Rule following its effective date. Such entities should also be aware that the registry could result in increased enforcement from the CFPB and state attorneys general. As the state attorneys general point out in their letter, the registry may also be useful to such entities in identifying instances of specific conduct that courts or agencies have previously determined to be unlawful, deceptive, unfair, or abusive, and to shape their own marketing and compliance efforts accordingly.