Florida Positioned to Eliminate the Business Rent Tax
On Monday, June 16th, the Florida Legislature is scheduled to vote on the final budget and annual tax proposal, bringing an end to the extended 2025 Regular Session. An amendment to House Bill 7031 has been filed containing the details of the tax relief plan.
The cornerstone of this legislation is the complete elimination of the sales tax on commercial leases effective October 1, 2025. Florida is the only state in the nation levying such a tax, and the elimination of this tax at the state and local level will only increases the state’s prominence as a top low-tax state.
At times it felt as though Florida’s 2025 Regular Session would never end due to a $4.5B budget disagreement and competing tax proposals from the Governor, House, and Senate. Ultimately, the leadership of House Speaker Perez and Senate President Albritton broke the stalemate by agreeing that the elimination of the business rent tax would be the foundation of the tax plan.
This business rent tax has been levied on any lease or license to use Florida real property owned by another person since 1969. The Florida Legislature started slowly reducing this tax in 2017 by fractions of a percent. In 2021, Florida’s Wayfair legislation allowed the most significant reduction of the business rent tax yet when the rate was reduced to 2.0% effective June 1, 2024. Just a year later and the Legislature is poised to completely eliminate the tax.
The repeal of this sales tax marks the first statewide tax eliminated since the intangibles tax in 2006 under then Governor Jeb Bush.
While other states are raising taxes, Florida is eliminating them. Once the bill is approved by the Legislature on Monday, it will be sent to Governor DeSantis for consideration.
Florida’s commercial landlords and tenants should not collect the tax on and after October 1, 2025.
Texas SB140: Changes to Telemarketing Law May Reshape Compliance and Litigation Risks
Texas is poised for a significant overhaul of its telemarketing regulations with the anticipated enactment of Senate Bill 140 (“SB140”). Awaiting Governor Abbott’s signature and scheduled to take effect on September 1, 2025, if enacted, SB140 will expand the scope of telemarketing regulation, introduce robust new consumer litigation rights, and impose some of the nation’s harshest penalties for noncompliance. Businesses marketing to Texas consumers—by phone, text, or multimedia message—should prepare for a new era of heightened risk and regulatory scrutiny.
What is in the Law?
Expansion of the Definition of Telemarketing Communications: SB140 broadens the definition of “telephone call” and “telephone solicitation.” The law will explicitly encompass text messages, image messages, and virtually any other transmission intended to sell goods or services, in addition to traditional voice calls. Marketing strategies that include Short Message Service (“SMS”), Multimedia Messaging Service (“MMS”), or similar campaigns will soon be subject to the same strict standards as voice calls. As a result, compliance failures in text or multimedia outreach could trigger the same penalties as non-compliant robocalls.
Private Right of Action Under the DTPA: SB140 introduces a new private right of action under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (“DTPA”) for violations of core telemarketing requirements. This includes failing to comply with call time restrictions, failing to register as a telemarketer, and failing to honor opt-out requests. The use of an automatic dialing announcing device (“ADAD”)—Texas’s term for autodialers and robocall systems—will also be enforceable under the DTPA. Consumers will be able to seek both economic damages and damages for mental anguish, significantly increasing potential exposure in litigation.
Unlimited Consumer Recovery and Serial Litigation Risk: SB140 allows consumers to recover damages for each violation, regardless of whether they have previously recovered for similar violations. This opens the door to serial litigation, enabling consumers to bring repeated actions for ongoing or repeated violations with no cap on recoveries. For businesses, this means that a single consumer could initiate multiple lawsuits, each carrying the potential for significant statutory damages.
Significant Financial Exposure for Noncompliance: The financial risks associated with noncompliance are substantial. Texas already imposes some of the highest penalties in the country for telemarketing violations, with statutory damages ranging from $500 to $5,000 per violation. With the new amendments, even technical missteps or isolated errors could result in considerable liability, especially given the possibility of treble damages for knowing or intentional violations under the DTPA.
Compliance Strategies and Best Practices
Given these sweeping changes, businesses should promptly review and update their telemarketing compliance programs. This includes auditing consent practices to ensure valid, documented consent for all forms of outreach, including texts and image messages. Disclosure procedures should be reviewed and updated, and opt-out mechanisms should be reliable and prompt. Businesses using autodialers or automated messaging should assess their practices for compliance with both the telemarketing statute and the DTPA, given the heightened risk of private litigation and the potential for mental anguish damages.
SB140 reinforces the importance of Texas’s telemarketing registration requirements, which have increasingly been the subject of recent litigation. Businesses should ensure they are properly registered before engaging in any covered telemarketing activities and have robust systems in place to honor opt-out requests and comply with call time restrictions.
Staff training and ongoing compliance monitoring will be important. Documenting all consent, registration, and opt-out activity will be essential for defending against potential claims. With SB140 expected to make Texas a new epicenter for telemarketing litigation, businesses should prepare for increased scrutiny and the real possibility of class action exposure.
Conclusion: A New Era for Telemarketing in Texas
SB140 represents a shift in Texas telemarketing law, with potentially far-reaching implications for any business that markets to Texas consumers. If enacted, the law’s effective date of September 1, 2025, leaves a narrow window for businesses to review and improve their compliance programs. The risks of noncompliance are steep, and the litigation environment is about to become significantly more challenging. Now is the time for businesses to act and ensure robust compliance in anticipation of this new regulatory landscape.
God Only Knows: California Moves to Ban Hemp Products
With the passing of Brian Wilson, it seems like an appropriate time to debut The Beach Boys to Budding Trends, and the governor of California’s proposed ban of hemp products reminds me of one of Brian’s great lyrics:
If you should ever leave meThough life would still go on believe meThe world could show nothing to me
What’s Going On?
As expected by many, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration proposed a permanent ban on many of the hemp products available in the state, as reported in SFGate (emphasis added):
The California Department of Public Health proposed the ban Friday, which would make a controversial earlier emergency ban permanent, according to a CDPH document shared with SFGATE. It’s now in a 45-day comment period, with a public hearing planned next month.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has spearheaded a ban on these hemp THC products, saying they are accessible to minors and pose a public health risk because they do not face the same safety standards as state-regulated marijuana products do. Newsom pushed for last year’s emergency THC ban and extended it in March. It is now set to expire in September.
Making the ban permanent will have a major adverse economic impact on the state, according to the analysis released Friday. The CDPH estimates that it will cause a $602 million decreasein revenue for California businesses for the first 12 months and a $3.14 billion decrease over five years. The ban will also cost 18,478 jobs over five years, force 115 businesses to close, and reduce state sales tax revenue by $192 million, according to CDPH’s estimate.
The analysis found that small, independent retailers like corner stores and grocery stores would be especially impacted over the first five years of the ban, with $1.9 billion in lost revenue and 5,567 lost jobs.
Friday’s proposal to permanently ban hemp THC comes after years of complaints from California’s licensed marijuana industry, which has claimed that it faces unfair competition from unregulated hemp companies. Marijuana companies face sky-high regulatory costs, especially in California, and can only sell their products through state-licensed retailers. Hemp companies, on the other hand, face almost no regulations and have historically been able to sell their intoxicating drugs almost anywhere, including liquor stores, grocery stores and online.
This disparity between the two industries has created pressure on governors like Newsom to protect their state-regulated cannabis companies. In California, these businesses are already increasingly failing under the weight of the high taxes and expensive regulations overseen by Newsom. Other states with robust state-licensed marijuana markets have also restricted hemp THC, including Oregon and Washington.
Licensed cannabis companies would gain $69.8 million and 232 jobs over the first five years of the proposed ban, according to the CDPH analysis. The department said “these numbers are comparatively low to retail sales lost in other sectors” because demand for hemp THC drinks is minimal at state-licensed stores.
The department also said illicit sales will probably fill the void if hemp THC products are permanently banned. “Out-of-state businesses and the illegal market will supply the California THC hemp market,” the report said.
Why Is This a Problem?
I have just been in the middle of knife fights in the legislative halls of Alabama and Mississippi where hemp products were under attack. I’m currently working on the next federal Farm Bill and what the hemp language ultimately looks like. And just today I read of similar efforts in Delaware. So, I’ll admit this is an issue that has been on my mind for a long time.
I completely understand why state-regulated marijuana operators are opposed to often unregulated hemp operators being able to conduct business without the onerous burden of regulations and taxation. I also believe that there are ways to even the playing field without prohibiting consumable hemp products entirely.
Are you worried about minors obtaining product? Put laws in place that prohibit access to minors and spend the time and money enforcing those laws. The money can come from fees paid by hemp manufacturers and retailers in the form of licensing/permitting fees and taxes on hemp.
Worried about the safety and potency of products? Put extensive rules in place that govern testing requirements and potency caps, with the latter possibly tailored to where the products are sold. Perhaps grocery stores and gas stations/convenience stores would be limited to lower THC products, whereas specialty hemp stores would be able to sell different products with higher THC levels.
Worried about labeling and packaging? Put extensive rules in place that ensure packages are child resistant and labels clearly explain (with QR codes to COAs) what is in the product and how it was tested to ensure that the package contains what it says it does.
Or – and I suspect this is the motivation for many – are you worried that regulated marijuana operators are at a disadvantage as compared to hemp operators facing far less regulation? Then put them on a more level playing field. Impose similar taxes and regulations so that responsible marijuana operators are not punished for following the rules while hemp companies operate without government oversight. Marijuana operators shouldn’t be able to bully hemp operators out of business simply because of greed, but hemp operators shouldn’t get a free pass either.
Conclusion
Maybe God only knows why the government of California is making the decision to ban its robust hemp industry rather than seeking ways to reform it so that it addresses the stated (albeit likely not entirely complete) concerns of the hemp program’s critics. But this isn’t a Beach Boys album; this is real life and real governing with real implications to operators and consumers. The government has a chance to dig into this issue and make hard choices that can make California a better market for the cannabis plant generally and all of those people who have come to rely on it through the years. I won’t pretend that this process will be easy, and certainly not as easy as simply banning an entire class of products. That’s the easy way out. Maybe I’m just California Dreamin’, but Wouldn’t It Be Nice if the people of California were treated better by their government?
Listen to this post
Growing List of States Attempting to Regulate Kids’ Social Media Accounts: Nebraska Husks Up
Nebraska’s governor signed a bill into law that, among other things, creates the Parental Rights in Social Media Act. The provisions of the law will go into effect July 1, 2026, unless challenged. The law is similar to several other states, most of which have been challenged (including Arkansas, California, and Utah) and some struck down.
If the law goes unchallenged, unlike other states it creates a private right of action. Anyone who violates the act may be subject to a lawsuit brought by an injured party. They may be ordered to pay damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief. In addition, the Nebraska Attorney General can enforce the law and seek penalties of up to $2,500 per violation.
Obligations placed on social media companies under the law include:
Age verification: Social media companies (or their vendors) will need to verify the ages of all people that attempt to create an account. It would restrict anyone under 18 from creating an account. And, the law specifically requires that social media companies delete identifying information they get when checking user ages.
Parental consent: The law requires parental consent before minors can create social media accounts. They must also give parents mechanisms to revoke their consent. If a parent revokes their consent, the social media company must remove the account of that parent’s child and must stop a child from creating a new account unless the parent provides consent.
Parental supervision: Parents will need to be given a way to supervise their children’s social media use. This includes access to their children’s posts and messages, and controls over their privacy and account settings. In addition, parents must be able to monitor and limit the amount of time the minor spends using the social media site.
Putting it Into Practice: Nebraska joins a growing number of states attempting to regulate children’s use of social media. We will continue to monitor the status of this new Nebraska law before mid-2026, but anticipate seeing other similar legislation from other states.
Listen to this post
James O’Reilly also contributed to this article.
FCA Consults on Proposals for Stablecoin Issuance and Cryptoasset Custody
The UK Financial Conduct Authority (the FCA) recently published two consultations: CP25/14 on stablecoin issuance and cryptoasset custody (CP25/14), and CP25/15 on prudential requirements for cryptoasset firms (CP25/15, and together with CP25/14, the Consultations).
The Consultations are the latest milestone in the FCA’s roadmap for cryptoasset regulation. They build on HM Treasury’s draft legislation published in April 2025, which will bring certain cryptoasset-related activities within the UK regulatory perimeter. Further details on the draft legislation can be found in our previous update (available here).
Scope of the Consultations
The Consultations focus on “qualifying” stablecoins (i.e., cryptoassets that aim to maintain a stable value by referencing at least 1 fiat currency) and related activities. Issuing such stablecoins and custody of qualifying cryptoassets will become regulated activities requiring FCA authorisation when conducted by way of business in the UK.
CP 25/14
In CP 25/14, the FCA seeks views on its proposed rules and guidance for the activities of issuing a qualifying stablecoin and safeguarding qualifying cryptoassets. The proposals aim to ensure regulated stablecoins maintain their value and require customers to be provided with clear information on how the assets backing an issuance of qualifying stablecoins are managed.
Among other things, CP25/14 covers the following proposals:
Authorisation. Firms carrying out the new regulated activities must be authorised under Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;
Full Reserve Backing. Stablecoin issuers must fully back their tokens with high-quality, low risk, liquid assets equal in value to all outstanding stablecoins. These backing assets must be held in a statutory trust and managed by a separate, independent custodian. Reserves are limited to low-risk instruments with only limited use of longer-term public debt or certain money-market funds;
Redemption rights and transparency obligation. Stablecoin holders must have the legal right to redeem qualifying stablecoins at par value on demand directly. The payment order of redeemed funds must be placed by the end of the business day following receipt of a valid redemption request; and
No interest to holders. Firms cannot pass through to stablecoin holders any interest earned on the reserve assets.
CP 25/15
In CP 25/15, the FCA seeks views on its proposed prudential rules and guidance for firms issuing qualifying stablecoins and safeguarding qualifying cryptoassets, including financial resource requirements.
Parts of the proposed prudential regime will be placed in a new proposed integrated prudential sourcebook (COREPRU), while sector-specific prudential requirements for firms undertaking regulated cryptoassets activities will be set out in a new CRYPTOPRU sourcebook.
Notably, the key proposals in CP 25/15 cover the following areas:
Capital requirements. The FCA proposes a minimum own-funds requirement for so-called “CRYPTOPRU Firms” that will require them to hold as own funds the higher of:
a permanent minimum requirement (i.e., £350,000 for issuing qualifying stablecoins or £150,000 for safeguarding of qualifying cryptoassets);
a fixed overhead requirement based on annual expenditure; or
a variable activity-based “K-factor” requirement.
Liquidity requirements. Firms must hold a minimum amount of liquid assets. There will be a basic liquid assets requirement for all CRYPTOPRU firms, and an issuer liquid asset requirement for those that issue qualifying stablecoins.
Concentration risk. Firms will be required to monitor and control for concentration risk, to ensure that they are not overly exposed to one or more counterparties or asset types.
Next Steps
The Consultations close on 31 July 2025. The FCA will consider any feedback before publishing its final rules, which are expected in 2026.
CP 25/14 and CP25/15 are available here and here, respectively.
Leander Rodricks, trainee in the Financial Markets and Funds practice, contributed to this article.
McDermott+ Check-Up: June 13, 2025
THIS WEEK’S DOSE
Reconciliation Moves Forward. Senate committees continue to release their reconciliation provisions.
NIH Director Testifies on FY 2026 Budget. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Bhattacharya discussed the agency’s fiscal year (FY) 2026 budget request in front of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, and Related Agencies.
House Approves Rescissions Package. The $9.4 billion rescissions package now moves to the Senate.
House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Healthcare Supply Chain. Members examined current challenges and incentives to establish a reliable, safe, resilient, and efficient healthcare supply chain.
HHS Secretary Reconstitutes ACIP. Secretary Kennedy terminated all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and appointed eight new members.
HHS Releases FY 2026 Congressional Justification for Administration for a Healthy America. The justification provides more detail on the budget request for the proposed new division of HHS.
White House Issues Memo Limiting Medicaid State Directed Payments. The memo seeks to ensure the payments are not more than Medicare payments.
Judge Partially Blocks Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion EOs. The preliminary injunction only addresses parts of the EOs and applies to the parties who brought the suit.
CONGRESS
Reconciliation Moves Forward. H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, was officially sent to the Senate after the House had to make some last-minute, mostly technical changes to the legislation to comply with the Senate’s reconciliation procedure. The changes required the House to vote again on the bill – which it did as part of a procedural rule vote on the rescissions package. The bill is also going through the Byrd rule procedures in the Senate, which could result in some provisions being dropped or modified. Republican senators also are considering modifications that they deem necessary to secure enough votes to advance the party-line bill through this chamber, where the bill can only lose three Republican votes (visit our Reconciliation Roadmap resource center for additional background on the Byrd rule and a comprehensive summary of the health provisions in H.R. 1).
Senate committees are not expected to hold markups and are instead releasing bill language within each committee’s jurisdiction on a rolling basis. This week, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee released its language. Provisions that impact healthcare include the elimination of grad PLUS loans in the future and implementation of aggregate loan limits for graduate students in the unsubsidized graduate loan program. The Senate differs from the House here, as its draft caps the loans at $200,000 while the House caps them at $150,000. The HELP language also includes a provision to reinstate funding for cost-sharing reductions for Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plans that is almost identical to the House-passed language. Notably, the committee print does not include the House-passed provision codifying the ACA program integrity rule, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored as saving $105 billion over 10 years. The Senate is not expected to actually leave those provisions out of the full bill; the text released by committees can change before a final bill is released. We still await the Senate Finance Committee provisions, which are expected as soon as today. In addition to tax policy, the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the Medicaid and Medicare programs and much of the ACA.
This week, it briefly appeared that senators were considering adding changes in Medicare payment policies to the reconciliation package. In particular, there was discussion surrounding Sen. Cassidy’s (R-LA) No UPCODE Act, including at a meeting between the Finance Committee and President Trump at the White House. However, as the week progressed, senators indicated unwillingness to make changes to the House-passed bill in the Medicare arena.
CBO also released new publications analyzing the distributional effects of H.R. 1. At the request of House Budget Committee Ranking Member Boyle (D-PA) and House Minority Leader Jeffries (D-NY), CBO released a letter with an updated distributional analysis, finding that H.R. 1 would cause a 3.9% decrease in household resources for the lowest 10% of the income distribution and a 2.3% increase in household resources for the highest 10% of the income distribution. CBO also released an interactive tool that allows users to see the distributional impact of various types of provisions on households with different income levels.
President Trump continues to request that the bill reach his desk for signature by July 4, 2025. Majority Leader Thune (R-SD) is working toward Senate consideration the week of June 23, which would leave time for the Senate to complete action, and the House to vote again on the Senate’s version of the bill, in days leading up to the holiday. However, that is a self-imposed deadline. If it is missed, debate would continue into July.
NIH Director Testifies on FY 2026 Budget. During the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education, and Related Agencies hearing, Republicans emphasized the importance of spending NIH money on research rather than indirect costs to universities, and advocated for more research on chronic diseases and greater geographic representation in grantees. Democrats expressed concerns about delays and terminations of FY 2025 NIH funding and the proposed FY 2026 cuts impacting research on cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. They asked for more information about agency restructuring and the number of employees who have left NIH. Bhattacharya emphasized his commitment to working with Congress to improve the budget proposal and attempted to reassure senators that vital research was still being conducted.
House Approves Rescissions Package. In a 214 – 212 vote, the House approved a $9.4 billion rescissions package, agreeing to rescind funding previously appropriated for foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The package includes rescissions of funding from health programs within the US Department of State and US Agency for International Development (USAID), including $500 million in global health USAID funding and $400 million in President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) funding. The Senate needs a simple majority to approve the package and has until July 12, 2025, to act.
House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Healthcare Supply Chain. Republicans emphasized the importance of addressing the United States’ reliance on adversarial countries for essential medications and healthcare products, highlighting the risks to national security and patient safety. Democrats pointed to the vulnerabilities in the medical supply chain exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, stressing the need for a system that fosters a resilient and reliable supply chain. Witnesses emphasized the critical need to strengthen and secure the US pharmaceutical and medical supply chains by reducing reliance on foreign manufacturers, addressing regulatory and financial challenges, and investing in domestic production.
ADMINISTRATION
HHS Secretary Reconstitutes ACIP. In an op-ed, Secretary Kennedy announced the removal of all 17 members of ACIP and their pending replacement with individuals he deems free from conflicts of interest. ACIP is an independent advisory committee responsible for vaccine recommendations, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention adopts as official policy. The HHS secretary normally chooses ACIP members following an application and nomination process, and members serve four-year terms. Shortly after the op-ed published, Kennedy announced eight new ACIP members in an X post:
Joseph Hibbeln, MD
Martin Kulldorff, MD, PhD
Retsef Levi, PhD
Robert Malone, MD
Cody Meissner, MD
James Pagano, MD
Vicky Pebsworth, PhD, RN
Michael Ross, MD
HHS Releases FY 2026 Congressional Justification for Administration for a Healthy America. The justification includes more detail about the structure and funding levels for the proposed new HHS division called the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA). HHS requests $14.1 billion in discretionary funding for AHA and $6.5 billion from other sources, for a total of $20.6 billion. Highlights include:
$7.2 billion for primary care programs, which assumes the elimination of 23 programs (including the National Diabetes Prevention Program) and represents a cut of $675 million from current levels
$1.7 billion for environmental health, which assumes the elimination of nine programs and represents a $718 million cut from current levels
$2.7 billion for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment, which assumes the elimination of five programs and represents a $927 million cut from current levels
$1.7 billion for maternal and child health, which assumes the elimination of five programs and represents a $661 million cut from current levels
$5.8 billion for mental and behavioral health, which assumes the elimination of 40 programs and represents a $1.4 billion cut from current levels
$948 million for the health workforce, which assumes the elimination of 14 programs (including the Children’s Hospital Graduate Medical Education program) and represents an $878 million cut from current levels
$568 million for policy, research, and oversight, which assumes the elimination of four programs and represents an increase of $147 million from current levels
These budget documents represent a request only, and Congress may revise the proposed funding levels and programmatic and structural changes during the FY 2026 appropriations process.
White House Issues Memo Limiting Medicaid State Directed Payments. The memo calls Medicaid state directed payments (SDPs) a “gimmick” and directs the HHS secretary to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse by ensuring that Medicaid SDPs are not higher than Medicare rates. Currently, the Biden-era managed care rule allows SDPs to reach the average commercial rate, which is substantially higher than the Medicare rate.
The future of SDPs is currently being debated by Congress in the reconciliation process. H.R. 1 would cap new SDPs in expansion states at the Medicare rate and would cap new SDPs in non-expansion states at 110% of the Medicare rate; approval for existing SDPs would be grandfathered. That policy differs from what is in the Administration’s memo. The forthcoming Senate Finance Committee reconciliation language could make changes to the House bill language as well.
COURTS
Judge Partially Blocks Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion EOs. The US District Court for the Northern District of California issued a partial injunction to prevent the Trump administration from enforcing three provisions of EOs 14168, 14151, and 14173 against the parties who brought the suit:
The equity termination provision, which directs agencies to terminate federal funding for all equity-related grants or contracts
The gender termination and gender promotion provisions, which direct agencies to terminate funding for any programs that promote gender ideology
The court did not grant an injunction against the certification provision, which requires entities to certify that they do “not operate any programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”
BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION SPOTLIGHT
Reps. Matsui (D-CA) and Balderson (R-OH) and Sens. Smith (D-MN) and Cassidy (R-LA) reintroduced the Telemental Health Care Access Act, which would permanently remove the statutory requirement that Medicare beneficiaries be seen in person within six months of being treated for mental and behavioral health services through telehealth. This requirement is currently delayed until September 30, 2025. Read the press release here.
QUICK HITS
MEDPAC and MACPAC Release June 2025 Reports. The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) report includes chapters on transitions from pediatric to adult care for Medicaid-covered children and youth with special healthcare needs, residential behavioral health treatment services for children, access to medications for opioid use disorder in Medicaid, the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, and Medicaid home- and community-based services. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report includes chapters on physician fee schedule payment reform, supplemental benefits and home healthcare use in Medicare Advantage, Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes, Medicare rural provider quality measurements, and cost sharing for outpatient services at critical access hospitals.
FDA Discusses Medical Product Review Test Program. FDA Commissioner Makary and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Prasad wrote a JAMA article about the FDA’s priorities that mentioned a new review pathway.
Senators Release Bipartisan Report on Organ Procurement Organizations. The bipartisan report, published by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Grassley (R-IA), shares findings of their investigation into organ procurement organizations and discusses policy recommendations. Read the press release here.
FTC, DOJ Announce Listening Sessions on Pharmaceutical Market Competition. The listening sessions hosted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and US Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division will discuss anticompetitive practices by pharmaceutical manufactures, formulary and benefit practices impacting drug prices, and further regulatory actions.
FTC Announces Workshop on Gender-Affirming Care Practices. The invite-only workshop will take place on July 9, 2025, and will investigate whether consumers have been exposed to false or unsupported claims about gender-affirming care.
NEXT WEEK’S DIAGNOSIS
Next week is the Juneteenth federal holiday, and the House will be in recess. The Senate is scheduled to be in session Monday through Wednesday.
The Lobby Shop- Inside Biden’s White House: A Conversation with NYT Bestselling Author Alex Thompson [Podcast]
In this episode of The Lobby Shop, the team welcomes back Axios national political correspondent Alex Thompson, co-author (with CNN’s Jake Tapper) of the explosive New York Times bestseller Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again. Thompson shares the inside story of how he and Tapper uncovered internal divisions, strategic missteps, and high-stakes decision-making inside the Biden White House. Hear why Thompson believes this story goes beyond just one election—and why the questions it raises still demand attention. Whether you’re deep in the weeds of politics or just trying to understand how we got here, this is an episode you won’t want to miss.
FTC and DOJ Announce Listening Sessions on Lowering American’s Drug Prices
On April 15, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order No. 14273, “Lowering Drug Prices by Once Again Putting Americans First, ” which outlines a series of targeted actions to lower prescription drug costs and improve access for Americans by optimizing federal health care programs, intellectual property protections, and safety regulations. Key directives include enhancing transparency and effectiveness in the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, stabilizing and reducing Medicare Part D premiums, and accelerating approval of generics and biosimilars. Additional measures include streamlining drug importation, discouraging costly shifts in drug administration, increasing transparency in pharmacy benefit manager fees, and combating anti-competitive practices among drug manufacturers.
On June 11, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department’s Antitrust Division announced that they will jointly host a series of listening sessions to discuss the implementation of Executive Order No. 14273. The sessions will focus on improving the affordability of prescription drugs by increasing generic and biosimilar availability and reducing anti-competitive practices and regulatory barriers. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson and Assistant Attorney General Gail Slate will direct the sessions, which will feature remarks by both practitioners and scholars. Ultimately, these sessions will inform the joint report contemplated by Executive Order No. 14273.
The listening sessions are scheduled for the following dates:
Monday, June 30 at 2 pm ET – Anticompetitive Conduct by Pharmaceutical Companies Impeding Generic or Biosimilar Competition
Thursday, July 24 at 2 pm ET – Formulary and Benefit Practices and Regulatory Abuse Impacting Drug Competition
Monday, August 4 at 2 pm ET – Turning Insights into Action to Reduce Drug Prices
Louisiana Legislators Approve Bill Increasing Funding for Student-Athletes at Certain Louisiana Public Universities
House Bill 639 is now awaiting the signature of Governor Jeff Landry after receiving approval from both the Louisiana House and Senate. If signed into law, the bill would raise the state tax rate on sports gambling in Louisiana from 15% to 21.5%. A quarter of the resulting revenue would be allocated to the newly established Supporting Programs, Opportunities, Resources, and Teams (SPORT) Fund, which is intended to benefit student-athletes at Louisiana public universities competing at the NCAA Division I level. However, these funds may be used only for new scholarships, insurance, medical coverage, facility enhancements, litigation settlement fees, and Alston awards.
Interestingly, the bill specifies that the SPORT Fund may not be used to displace, replace, or supplant any existing scholarships or awards, implying that universities may not use these funds to make direct name, image, and likeness (NIL) payments to student-athletes. While other states, such as Illinois, have increased the tax rate on in-state sports gambling, Louisiana appears to be the first state to dedicate a portion of the revenues to student-athletes.
This bill exemplifies a practical way for states to generate additional revenue to support college athletes while avoiding the complex and uncertain state and local tax implications associated with NIL payments to college athletes.
Louisiana legislators have approved a plan to give most college athletic programs in Louisiana nearly $2 million in state tax revenue annually.
lailluminator.com/…
2025 Midyear State and Local Minimum Wage Increases
Several state and local minimum wage rates will soon increase, beginning on July 1, 2025. This article provides the state and major locality minimum wage increases for mid-2025 only, along with related changes in the minimum cash wage for tipped employees where applicable. The new rates are listed in bold text below
Quick Hits
On July 1, 2025, the minimum wage will increase in two states (Alaska and Oregon), the District of Columbia, and major localities in California, Illinois, Maryland, and Minnesota.
Minimum wage-related changes will go into effect later in 2025 in Florida and Oklahoma.
PLEASE NOTE:
Jurisdictions that will not have—or have not announced—upcoming midyear increases in their minimum wage rates are not included below.
This list includes several major localities with minimum wage rates that will increase in mid-2025. It is not exhaustive of all localities nationwide that may have a midyear minimum wage rate change.
If a jurisdiction’s minimum cash wage for tipped workers is changing in mid-2025, it is included in the list below.
MID-2025 MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES (State and Major Locality)
*All changes shown below will be effective on JULY 1, 2025, unless noted otherwise.
ALASKA
$11.91 to $13.00
CALIFORNIA
Berkeley
$18.67 to $19.18
Emeryville
$19.36 to $19.90
Los Angeles (City)
$17.28 to $17.87
Hotel Workers: $20.32 to $22.50
Los Angeles County (unincorporated areas)
$17.27 to $17.81
Pasadena
$17.50 to $18.04
San Francisco
$18.67 to $19.18
Santa Monica
$17.27 to $17.81
Hotels/businesses on hotel property: $20.32 to $22.50
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
$17.50to $17.95
$10.00 to $12.00 – TIPPED WORKERS
FLORIDA
$13.00 to $14.00 (effective September 30, 2025)
$9.98 to $10.98 (effective September 30, 2025) –TIPPED WORKERS
ILLINOIS
Chicago
$16.20 to $16.60
$11.02 to $12.62 –TIPPED WORKERS
MARYLAND
Montgomery County
Employers with 51 or more employees: $17.15 to $17.65
Employers with 11–50 employees: $15.50 to $16.00
Employers with 10 or fewer employees: $15.00 to $15.50
MINNESOTA
Saint Paul
Large / Macro Businesses: $15.97 – no change July 1, 2025
Small Businesses (6–100 employees): $14.00 to $15.00
Micro Businesses (5 or fewer employees): $12.25 to $13.25
OKLAHOMA
No change to standard minimum wage ($7.25)
$3.63 to $2.13 (effective November 1, 2025) – TIPPED WORKERS
OREGON
Standard Statewide Rate:$14.70 to $15.05
Portland Metro Employers (i.e., employers located within the “urban growth boundary of a metropolitan service district”): $15.95 to $16.30
Employers in Nonurban Counties (as defined by the law): $13.70 to $14.05
Updated FCPA Guidance
Shortly after taking office President Trump signed an executive order titled, “Pausing Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Enforcement to Further American Economic and National Security.” Among other things, President Trump instructed that the FCPA should not be “stretched beyond proper bounds and abused in a manner that harms the interests of the United States” or enforced in a way that compromises “American economic competitiveness and . . . national security.” He further directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue updated FCPA guidance. Earlier this week, the DOJ released that guidance in a memo, titled “Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” (Guidelines).
In the Guidelines, the DOJ announced that the guidance was structured to limit “undue burdens on American” companies operating worldwide and to target “enforcement actions against conduct that directly” compromises the interests of the United States. The Guidelines also instructed prosecutors to (1) “focus on cases in which individuals have engaged in criminal misconduct and not attribute nonspecific malfeasance to corporate structures,” (2) ensure their investigations are conducted expeditiously, and (3) “consider collateral consequences, such as the potential disruption to lawful business and the impact on a company’s employees, throughout an investigation, not only at the resolution phase.”
Additionally, the Guidelines set forth the below non-exhaustive factors prosecutors should consider when assessing whether to proceed with FCPA investigations or enforcement actions.
Cartels/Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs): Prosecutors should consider “whether the alleged misconduct (1) is associated with the criminal operations of a Cartel or TCO; (2) utilizes money launderers or shell companies that engage in money laundering for Cartels or TCOs; or (3) is linked to employees of state-owned entities or other foreign officials who have received bribes from Cartels or TCOs.” This factor stems from President Trump’s executive order titled, “Designating Cartels And Other Organizations As Foreign Terrorist Organizations And Specially Designated Global Terrorists.” In that order, President Trump noted that cartels and TCOs are a danger to the Western Hemisphere.
Safeguarding Fair Opportunities for Companies in the United States: Prosecutors should assess “whether specific and identifiable U.S. entities or individuals have been harmed by foreign officials’ demands for bribes.” The Guidelines highlight that bribing foreign officials can place “law-abiding” companies “at a serious economic disadvantage,” which can compromise “U.S. national security and economic prosperity.”
Promoting National Security: FCPA enforcement will “focus on the most urgent threats to U.S. national security resulting from” bribery “involving key infrastructure or assets.” The Guidelines emphasize that national security can be compromised when corruption happens “in sectors like defense, intelligence, or critical infrastructure.”
Serious Misconduct: Rather than investigating “alleged misconduct involving routine business practices” or corporate misconduct involving “de minimis or low-dollar” business practices that are generally accepted, prosecutors will focus “on alleged misconduct that bears strong indicia of corrupt intent tied to particular individuals.” As an example, prosecutors will focus on “substantial bribe payments, proven and sophisticated efforts to conceal bribe payments, fraudulent conduct” furthering bribery, and conduct that obstructs justice. Prosecutors are also instructed to assess whether foreign enforcement authorities can (and will) investigate the alleged misconduct.
The Guidelines emphasized that the factors set forth above are not the only factors prosecutors should consider. For example, prosecutors will “follow other applicable policies and relevant factors.” In addition, prosecutors must consider “the nature and seriousness of the offenses and the deterrent effect of prosecution.”
The Guidelines confirm what many commentators have stated since President Trump’s executive order pausing FCPA enforcement—companies should continue to ensure they maintain robust compliance programs. Although the Guidelines reflect that the DOJ has tweaked its approach to FCPA enforcement, it is clear that prosecutors will continue to investigate FCPA-related misconduct and bring enforcement actions when appropriate.
Council of the EU and EP Agree on “One Substance, One Assessment” Legislative Package
The Council of the European Union (EU) announced on June 12, 2025, that it reached a provisional agreement with the European Parliament (EP) on the “one substance, one assessment” (OSOA) legislative package, “which aims to streamline assessments of chemicals across relevant EU legislation, strengthen the knowledge base on chemicals, and ensure early detection and action on emerging chemical risks.” The package contains three proposals: a directive concerning the re-attribution of scientific and technical tasks; a regulation aimed at enhancing cooperation among EU agencies in the area of chemicals; and a regulation establishing a common data platform on chemicals. According to the Council, the co-legislators maintain the objectives of the European Commission’s (EC) legislative package but expanded the information available in the common platform to include scientific data submitted voluntarily, clarified the treatment of medical data, and ensured that the content of the platform will be publicly available. The provisional agreement will now be considered by the Council of the EU and the EP for formal adoption.
According to the press release, the OSOA package would create a common platform to integrate existing databases and provide a “one-stop shop” for chemical data from EU agencies and the EC. The platform would allow one legislative area to share knowledge with another and would mandate the systematic collection of human biomonitoring data to inform policymakers about chemical exposure levels. The press release notes that a monitoring and outlook framework “will detect chemical risks early, support fast regulatory responses, and track impacts through an early warning system and indicators.” It would also empower the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to generate data when needed and ensure transparency of scientific studies.
Under the agreement, the platform, hosted by ECHA, would provide access to all chemical data generated or submitted as part of the implementation of “about” 70 pieces of EU legislation. The agreement requires ECHA to create and manage a database, inside the common data platform, that lists alternatives to substances of concern. The database should include alternative technologies and materials that do not require such substances of concern. The agreement specifically supports the voluntary submission of scientific data to be included in the platform.
The press release states that the agreement considers that certain categories of newly generated data relating to chemical substances present in medicinal products from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) must also be addressed. According to the press release, the EC will assess whether to add further categories of chemical data related to medicinal products (for instance, other elements than active substances, substances that are now considered non-relevant, or data held by national agencies) in the future. The press release notes that the co-legislators agreed that legacy data from EMA (i.e., data generated and submitted before the entry into force of the regulation) would be gradually integrated into the platform, starting six years after the regulation enters into force.
Under the agreement, the platform would provide access to data that are already public, in line with the rules of the originating legal acts. The press release notes that the OSOA package will help ECHA, and other agencies, to generate studies for multiple purposes. The agreement proposes that four years after the regulation on the common data platform enters into force, ECHA should commission an EU-wide human biomonitoring study to understand better the population’s exposure to chemicals. Human biomonitoring data from the EU and national research programs will also be included in the platform.
Commentary
OSOA is part of the 2020 Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (the CSS), a key building block of the European Green Deal. As a core element of the European Green Deal’s zero pollution ambition, the CSS aims to strengthen protection for people and the environment while driving innovation toward safer and more sustainable chemicals. One of the goals of the CSS is to simplify and consolidate the EU regulatory framework on chemicals, and OSOA is intended to establish a simpler process for assessing chemical risks and hazards.