State Attorneys General Update: COVID-19 Crisis
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.27.20
During times of disaster such as the COVID-19 crisis, State Attorneys General are focused on consumer protection and charity scams. Top issues we have seen to date include:
- Price Gouging: Attorneys General are very active ensuring consumers are not being price gouged for products and services in high demand. They are focused on retailers, and companies in the supply chains for both brick and mortar and online retailers. Attorneys General are also working with online platforms for third-party sellers to stop price gouging.
- False Advertising: Many states have sounded the alarm over product claims that either prevent or cure COVID-19 or related health claims. A company’s claim about the value of their products or services regarding the virus or other similar issues should expect scrutiny by the AGs and their staff. Some states have also identified scammers, including falsely offering credit for COVID-19 testing kits to induce consumers to provide their account information and mailing address.
- Refunds and Cancellations: Many Attorneys General are seeking to protect consumers from a diminution, interruption or cancellation of on-going contracts for goods and services that are interrupted because of cancellations or inability to perform.
- Charities: Attorneys General are issuing warnings to consumers of fake charities raising money for phony victims of the COVID-19 disease. Attorneys General will also look at the accuracy of promotional sales to benefit charities when retail advertisers promise a portion of each sale to a specified charity.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
