State Attorney General Enforces Federal Statute: Something New or Déjà Vu?

Washington AG Bob Ferguson recently announced that he had filed a “first of its kind” lawsuit against a private company and its chief executive for violations of the 2010 Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA). AG Ferguson alleges that Internet Order, LLC, violated ROSCA’s limitations on “negative option” product purchase plans. While this action is a significant “first” under ROSCA, the more general idea that a State AG can sue a private entity to enforce a federal statute is something we have seen before.

During our country’s bicentennial year, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act created authority for State AGs to bring civil suits to enforce certain provisions of the federal antitrust laws. [Note: As counsel to the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly from 1971 to 1977, our own StateAGMonitor editor, Bernard Nash, was responsible for drafting the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act and executing the legislative strategy that overcame two filibusters prior to enactment.] Under Hart-Scott-Rodino, State AGs are authorized to seek treble damages as well as costs and attorney’s fees. State AGs are still exercising their authority under Hart-Scott-Rodino. In 2011 and 2012, 33 State AGs filed suits against Apple, Inc. and e-book publishers for alleged price-fixing. The Southern District of New York rejected Apple’s challenge to state standing. See In re Elec. Books Antitrust Litig., 88 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2014).

From Congress’ perspective, state enforcement is palatable across political camps as it mixes increased industry oversight with increased federalism. There are other examples of the joint federal-state enforcement model:

  • The Dodd-Frank Act created a new federal regulator, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to oversee a wide range of financial activity including auto lending, student loans, mortgage servicing, and other financial services. Dodd-Frank also provided authority for State AGs to investigate and sue consumer finance companies for unfair or deceptive activity, or for violations of rules promulgated by the CFPB. Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi, and New York recently initiated lawsuits against a diverse range of defendants.
  • The 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act permits State AGs to sue companies that sell, manufacture, or distribute unsafe or defective consumer products that “may affect such State or its residents.”
  • The 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act gives State AGs the power to bring civil actions in federal court where they have “reason to believe that an interest of one or more of the residents of that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected” by a violation of federal health privacy requirements contained in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
  • The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) provides for state enforcement where the AG “has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is threatened” by a website operator or online service provider who has violated substantive COPPA provisions. State AGs may seek injunctive relief along with damages and restitution on behalf of state residents.

In addition, there are enforcement agreements between federal agencies and various State AGs. For example, the U.S. Department of Labor and the New York AG’s Labor Bureau formed a partnership agreement to allow cooperation in enforcing federal wage and hour laws. Likewise, the National Association of Attorneys General and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signed a memorandum of understanding outlining their intent to maintain joint enforcement operations under federal and state employment discrimination laws.

The Washington AG’s ROSCA lawsuit serves as an important reminder: Businesses conducting federal compliance planning must recognize and take into account State AG authority under an array of important federal statutes with potent remedies

Maria Colsey Heard

Email: [email protected]
Tel: +1 (202) 420-4835

Maria Colsey Heard is a Washington, DC-based partner in Dickstein Shapiro’s State Attorneys General and Complex Dispute Resolution Practices. She represents clients who are being sued or investigated by the FTC, State AGs, and other state government entities. The subject matter can range from antitrust to consumer protection to licensing to unclaimed property. Maria works with her clients to resolve government inquiries in a way that serves the business function. She also crafts legislative and other public policy solutions to legal challenges.

Share

About Maria Colsey Heard

Email: [email protected]
Tel: +1 (202) 420-4835
Maria Colsey Heard is a Washington, DC-based partner in Dickstein Shapiro’s State Attorneys General and Complex Dispute Resolution Practices. She represents clients who are being sued or investigated by the FTC, State AGs, and other state government entities. The subject matter can range from antitrust to consumer protection to licensing to unclaimed property. Maria works with her clients to resolve government inquiries in a way that serves the business function. She also crafts legislative and other public policy solutions to legal challenges.