CTA 2.0 – FinCEN Limits CTA’s Reporting Requirements to Certain Non-U.S. Entities and Non-U.S. Individuals
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an interim final rule on March 21, 2025, that eliminates the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) reporting requirements for U.S. entities and U.S. individuals. The rule is effective upon its publication in the federal register; however, the interim final rule may be updated following a sixty-day comment period.
FinCEN’s press release provided the following summary of the impact of the interim final rule:
“Thus, through this interim final rule, all entities created in the United States — including those previously known as “domestic reporting companies” — and their beneficial owners will be exempt from the requirement to report BOI to FinCEN. Foreign entities that meet the new definition of a “reporting company” and do not qualify for an exemption from the reporting requirements must report their BOI to FinCEN under new deadlines, detailed below. These foreign entities, however, will not be required to report any U.S. persons as beneficial owners and U.S. persons will not be required to report BOI with respect to any such entity for which they are a beneficial owner.”
Non-U.S. entities that meet the definition of “reporting company” are generally (1) formed in a non-U.S. jurisdiction and (2) registered with a U.S. jurisdiction to do business in such jurisdiction. These non-U.S. entities will have thirty days from the later of (i) the date of publication of the interim final rule in the federal register and (ii) the date of becoming registered to do business in a U.S. jurisdiction.
Removing the reporting obligations of U.S. entities and U.S. individuals substantially limits the number of required filings. By FinCEN’s own estimate in the interim final rule, it anticipates roughly 12,000 filings annually (over each of the first three years). In the final reporting rule in effect prior to the interim final rule, FinCEN estimated roughly 10,510,000 filings annually (over each of the first five years).
EU CSDDD Under US Pressure: Some Insights on the PROTECT USA Act
The European Commission’s (EC) recent announcement of the Omnibus Simplification Proposals signals that it has heard the challenges and objections raised by companies affected by the new requirements of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). But in the US, Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has introduced legislation that could impose substantial challenges to CSDDD compliance for US companies.
As a reminder, the EC proposed amendments for the implementation and transposition deadlines of the CSRD and CSDDD, as well as amending the scope and requirements of the CSRD and CSDDD. But the Prevent Regulatory Overreach from Turning Essential Companies into Targets Act of 2025 (PROTECT USA Act)[1] proposed by Senator Hagerty targets “foreign sustainability due diligence regulation” such as the CSDDD, and would prohibit US companies from being forced to comply with the CSDDD. If enacted as currently drafted, US companies will be faced with a significant conflict in complying with the PROTECT USA Act and the CSDDD.
Further, the PROTECT USA Act intends to protect US companies from any enforcement action by the EU or its member states for non-compliance with the CSDDD. Section 5(a) of the PROTECT USA Act states: “No person may take any adverse action towards an entity integral to the national interests of the United States for action or inaction related to a foreign sustainability due diligence regulation.”[2] And § 5(b) prevents U.S. federal or state courts from enforcing any judgment by a foreign court relating to any foreign sustainability due diligence regulation “unless otherwise provided by an Act of Congress.”[3]
The PROTECT USA Act could apply to a significant number of US companies, defining “an entity integral to the national interest of the United States” as “any partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity that does business with any part of the Federal Government, including Federal contract awards or leases.”[4] It also includes entities:
[O]rganized under the laws of any State or territory within the United States, or of the District of Columbia, or under any Act of Congress or a foreign subsidiary of any such entity that—
(i) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the extraction or production of raw materials from the earth, including—
(I) cultivating biomass (whether or not for human consumption);
(II) exploring or producing fossil fuels;
(III) mining; and
(IV) processing any material de-rived from an activity described in subclause (I), (II), or (III) for human use or benefit;
(ii) has a primary North American Industry Classification System code or foreign equivalent associated with the manufacturing sector; or
(iii) derives not less than 25 percent of its revenue from activities related to the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products;
(iv) is engaged in—
(I) the production of arms or other products integral to the national defense of the United States; or
(II) the production, mining, or processing of any critical mineral.[4]
And the PROTECT USA Act has a catch-all that will apply to any entity “the President otherwise identifies as integral to the national interests of the United States.”[5]
The PROTECT USA Act builds on opposition to the CSDDD raised during the Biden Administration and, given the Republican majorities in both the US House and Senate, advances the argument that the CSDDD challenges US sovereignty. In a February 26, 2025 bicameral letter to Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the US Department of the Treasury and Kevin Hassett, the Director of the White House National Economic Council, legislators described the CSDDD as “a serious and unwarranted regulatory overreach, imposing significant economic and legal burdens on U.S. companies.”[6] Thus, the PROTECT USA Act may serve as an incentive to further limit the scope of the CSDDD.
We recently reviewed how companies should address CSRD requirements while the EC works through the Omnibus Simplification Proposals.[7] The PROTECT USA Act adds an additional layer of complexity for US companies in navigating the uncertainty of the EC’s legislative process along with the significant limits the PROTECT USA Act might present. SPB’s policy experts in the US and EU can support companies in making prudent business decisions in a rapidly changing legislative environment.
[1] https://www.hagerty.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/HLA25119.pdf
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/csddd_letter_to_treasury-nec_draft_22525_zg.pdf.pdf
[7] https://natlawreview.com/article/what-should-companies-do-csrd-while-they-wait-eu-make-its-mind
EEOC Enforcement Activities Take Shape Under Second Trump Administration
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been a regular topic of the flurry of executive orders issued by President Trump since his inauguration. Even before his return to the Oval Office, there was speculation about how the EEOC’s enforcement activities and priorities might change during a second Trump administration, as well as how the composition of the EEOC’s leadership would likely transform. In the weeks following the inauguration, the EEOC’s goals began to take shape, with its leadership seeing significant rearrangement. Manufacturers should stay current on these modifications as they signal substantial changes in the agency’s policies and anticipated future enforcement priorities and initiatives.
On January 24, 2025, President Trump dismissed two of the EEOC’s Democratic Commissioners and appointed Andrea Lucas as Acting Chair, leaving one Democratic Commissioner and one vacancy. The EEOC’s current leadership composition means it lacks a quorum and cannot issue regulations or guidance, or rescind or replace regulations or guidance issued by the previous administration. Importantly, these changes do not affect the EEOC’s ability to engage in enforcement activities.
Prior to President Trump’s second term, it was anticipated that the EEOC was preparing to scale back protections for LGBTQ+ workers. This shift came to fruition beginning in February, when the EEOC moved to voluntarily dismiss six lawsuits that it had filed during the Biden administration on behalf of aggrieved plaintiffs, alleging discrimination based on transgender status in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In withdrawing from its representation, the EEOC noted in filings that continued litigation is untenable “in light of recent [a]dministration policy changes.” The EEOC’s voluntary dismissal of the lawsuits represents a major departure from its prior interpretation of the protections afforded under Title VII and its guidance issued during the Biden administration, in which the EEOC took the position that the intentional misuse of an employee’s preferred pronouns constituted discrimination and harassment.
Although the EEOC has chosen to step back from its representation of the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, the same federal law that authorizes the EEOC to sue on their behalf also provides the plaintiffs with a right to intervene in and pursue the litigation on their own behalf.
In light of these developments, manufacturers should remain aware of the following when making decisions related to the recruitment, hiring, and termination, as well as other terms and conditions of employment:
Although the EEOC may change its enforcement priorities, an executive order cannot override federal laws and constitutional rights. This includes the federal law authorizing individuals to intervene in litigation brought by the EEOC and pursue litigation on their own behalf as well as the Supreme Court’s holding in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes “sex discrimination” in violation of Title VII.
The federal government’s labor and employment law enforcement activities and policies are separate from those of state and local governments, which may continue or even increase their efforts in reaction to changes at the federal level.
It is possible that the EEOC’s enforcement activities will continue to change, so it is crucial for manufacturers to stay current on executive orders, guidance, and enforcement initiatives at the federal level.
Manufacturers should consult competent employment counsel for assistance with regard to the EEOC’s enforcement initiatives, guidance, and other communications.
Trump Executive Order Affects Federal Contractor Minimum Wage
On March 14, 2025, the President issued a new executive order (EO) entitled, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions.” This new executive order revokes EO 14026, issued by President Biden, which raised the minimum wage to $17.75 (effective January 1, 2025) for government contracts entered into after January 30, 2022 (including all renewals, extensions, and options). Some older contracts still operate under an Obama-issued executive order, EO 13658, which implemented a federal minimum wage that adjusts annually (currently it is $13.30, effective January 1, 2025).
In light of the revocation of EO 14026, we expect the Department of Labor (DOL) to issue a rule formally revoking EO 14026. The DOL also is not likely to enforce the higher federal minimum wage requirements of EO 14026. Practically, the revocation of EO 13658 means that EO 13838 (issued by President Trump during his first term) now becomes effective again. This means that the minimum wage requirements of EO 13658 are reinstated, and federal contractors with contracts entered into before January 30, 2022, and contracts entered into after January 30, 2022, will now be required to pay $13.30 as a federal minimum wage.
Contractors with contracts that include the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause imposing EO 14026 presumably are contractually obligated to pay at least $17.75 per hour, but this higher minimum wage will likely not be enforced by DOL, now that EO 14026 has been revoked. Also, state minimum wage laws could still apply.
New Trump EO Aims to Eliminate Department of Education
On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO), “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” directing the secretary of education “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education ….”
The EO’s stated primary goal is to return the “authority” over education to the states. The EO does not provide a plan for “closure.” It reiterates that the use of Department of Education funds for any program or activity aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion or “promoting gender ideology” will be terminated.
The White House also issued a fact sheet providing more insight into the administration’s motivation and goals with respect to K-12 education. The fact sheet emphasizes the administration’s advocacy for school choice programs, also known as vouchers, that allow families to use public funds to send their children to faith-based and other private schools.
Notably, the Department and many of its functions were created by statute and cannot be eliminated without an act of Congress. Termination of half the Department’s staff in recent weeks has raised questions about its capacity to continue mandated functions.
It is not immediately clear what additional steps the administration intends to take or how that will impact individual educational institutions.
The Year Ahead 2025: California PAGA Amendments + Other Legislative Highlights
The Golden State had lost some of its luster among California employers due to its Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), with some calling it “one of the least just and fair laws that employers are dealing with today in California.” Yet two recent PAGA amendments may help restore the state’s business shine in 2025 and beyond.
Takeaways
PAGA amendments have some positive aspects for employers.
2025 will hopefully bring more clarity on how the trial courts will handle the revisions to PAGA.
California employers should review policies, be aware of requirements for posting if undertaking a voluntary audit and be cautious with mandatory meetings given recent legislative changes.
PAGA Amendments
Senate Bill 92
Effective immediately except for certain cure provisions that took effect 11.01.24.
Applies to civil actions filed on or after 06.19.24.
Expands the right to cure Labor Code violations for businesses with fewer than one hundred employees and offers businesses with more than one hundred employees the ability to seek an early resolution of Labor Code claims pending in court.
Assembly Bill 2288
Effective immediately.
Applies to civil actions brought on or after 06.19.24.
Focuses on revisions to penalties, including penalty caps for good faith compliance; reduced penalties for wage statement violations, derivative violations, cured violations and isolated violations; relief for employers with weekly pay periods; limited aggravated penalties; increased employee share of penalties; and injunctive relief.
Revised Definition of “Aggrieved Employee”
Plaintiffs must have personally suffered each of the violations and suffered the violations during the period prescribed by the statute of limitations.
The revised definition provides exceptions for individuals represented by a nonprofit legal aid organization that has acted as PAGA counsel for at least five years prior to 01.01.25.
PAGA in Practice
Trial court judges are still figuring out how new amendments work.
The results have varied.
Plaintiff’s bar not slowing down: 3,827 PAGA notices filed after the amendments took effect.
Other California Legislative Highlights
AB 2499
Amends the provisions for time off related to jury duty, court appearances and victim-related activities.
SB 399
Enacts the California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act to curtail employers’ ability to require employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings that convey the employer’s opinions on religious or political matters.
SB 1137
Clarifies that the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Unruh Civil Rights Act and the provisions of the Education Code prohibit discrimination not just on the basis of individual protected traits, but also on the basis of the intersectionality of two or more protected traits.
AB 3234
Requires employers to make certain disclosures if they voluntarily audit their operations for the involvement of child labor.
California Legislature Introduces Several Employment Law Bills for 2025
California lawmakers introduced numerous bills early in the 2025 legislative session that could affect California employment law in significant ways. Although it is too soon to predict which bills, if any, will advance, the proposed bills could substantially affect California employers.
Quick Hits
California legislators have proposed bills in the 2025 legislative session that address pay transparency, automated decision systems, workplace surveillance, paid family leave, and employee training.
The legislative session in California will end on September 12, 2025.
The governor will have until October 12, 2025, to sign or veto bills passed by the state legislature.
California legislators have introduced the following employment law-related bills this session:
SB 642 would require pay scales provided in job ads to be no more than 10 percent above or below the mean pay rate within the salary or hourly wage range. The bill revises language to make clear that employers cannot pay an employee less than they pay employees of “another” sex, rather than “the opposite” sex, for substantially similar work.
AB 1018 would regulate the development and deployment of automated decision systems to make employment-related decisions, including hiring, promotion, performance evaluation, discipline, termination, and setting pay and benefits. The bill applies to machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics, and artificial intelligence. It would require that employers allow workers to opt out of the automated decision system.
AB 1331 would place limits on workplace surveillance, including devices used for video or audio recording, electronic work pace tracking, location monitoring, electromagnetic tracking, and photoelectronic tracking. The bill would prohibit employers from using surveillance tools during off-duty hours or in private, off-duty areas, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, breakrooms, and lactation spaces. The bill also would prohibit employers from monitoring a worker’s residence or personal vehicle.
SB 590 would expand eligibility for benefits under the state’s paid family leave program to include individuals who take time off work to care for a seriously ill designated person, meaning any individual whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. State law already permits paid leave to care for a seriously ill child, stepchild, foster child, spouse, parent, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild.
AB 1371 would permit employees to refuse to perform a task assigned by an employer if the assigned task would violate safety standards, or if the employee has a reasonable fear that the assigned task would result in injury or illness to the employee or others. The bill would prohibit employers from disciplining or retaliating against an employee for refusing to perform the assigned task.
AB 1234 would revise the process for the state labor commissioner to investigate and hear wage theft complaints. The bill would require the labor commissioner to set a hearing date and establish procedures for the hearing within ninety days after issuing a formal complaint. It would require the labor commissioner to issue an order, decision, or award within fifteen days of the hearing, known as a Berman hearing.
AB 1015 would authorize employers to satisfy the state’s workplace discrimination and harassment training requirements by demonstrating that the employee possesses a certificate of completion within the past two years.
SB 261 would establish a civil penalty for employers that fail to pay a court judgment awarded for nonpayment of work performed.
Next Steps
Most of these bills are in the committee review stages and have not yet passed either the California Senate or Assembly. To advance, the bills must pass both legislative bodies. The last day for the legislature to pass bills is September 12, 2025. The governor will have until October 12, 2025, to sign or veto bills passed by the legislature.
California employers may wish to stay abreast of legislative action on state bills related to pay transparency, workplace surveillance, paid family leave, automated decision systems, employee training, and other employment law topics.
President Trump Ends $15-Per-Hour Contractor Minimum Wage Rate After Filing a Brief Defending Power to Set the Minimum Wage
On March 14, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 14236—“Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions”—revoking eighteen executive orders and actions issued by former president Joe Biden.
In particular, this new EO has revoked EO 14026 of April 27, 2021, which had established a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for workers on certain federal contracts. The revocation followed the U.S. Department of Labor’s filing of a brief on March 13, 2025, stating that EO 14026 was a valid exercise of presidential authority.
Quick Hits
On March 14, 2025, President Trump issued EO 14236, “Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” revoking EO 14026, which had set a $15-per-hour minimum wage rate for federal contractors.
The EO 13658 minimum wage rate (currently $13.30 per hour) is still in effect for certain covered contracts.
EO 14026 and its implementing regulations are still subject to ongoing litigation.
Federal contractors and subcontractors must continue to follow other federally mandated compensation requirements, including minimum wage rates and applicable wage determinations.
The $15-Per-Hour Minimum Wage Rate for Federal Contractors
EO 14026 generally required minimum wages for workers performing work on or in connection with contracts covered under the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act; contracts covered under the Davis-Bacon Act; contracts in connection with federal property or lands and related to offering services for federal employees, their dependents, or the general public; and concession contracts. Because of yearly adjustments, in 2025, the applicable wage rate under EO 14026 was $17.75 per hour.
Since its issuance on April 27, 2021, EO 14026 has been under legal attack, primarily concerning whether its promulgation was within presidential authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (also known as the Procurement Act). The Fifth Circuit (within presidential authority), Ninth Circuit (not within presidential authority), and Tenth Circuit (within presidential authority) have split over whether the order was within President Biden’s procurement authority.
In January 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to address the split. In February 2025, in the Fifth Circuit case, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas called on the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the three-judge panel’s unanimous decision. On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) opposed rehearing on the basis that EO 14026 fell, as the panel of judges held, “directly within the President’s purview.” On March 17, 2025, the Texas Office of the Attorney General notified the Fifth Circuit of the revocation of EO 14026 and asked the Fifth Circuit to withhold issuance of the panel’s mandate and vacate the panel’s opinion.
EO 14236 of March 14, 2025, does not purport to address the existing regulatory or procurement basis for EO 14026. Specifically, to implement EO 14026, the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) published regulations on November 24, 2021, entitled, “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors.” In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) amended Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.222-55, a provision that remains in many federal contracts.
Consequently, we expect further action from the WHD, procuring agencies, and/or the FAR Council to address this existing regulatory framework. We also expect that, even if EO 14236 ends the Fifth Circuit appeal, litigation over the scope of a president’s authority to issue executive orders related to procurement will continue unabated.
Other Minimum Wage and Compensation Obligations for Federal Contractors
Importantly, EO 14026 was not the first EO specifying a general minimum wage for federal contractors. Former president Barack Obama issued EO 13658 on February 12, 2014 (“Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors”). EO 14026 superseded EO 13658 as of January 30, 2022, to the extent inconsistent with EO 14026. Thus, the EO 13658 minimum wage ($13.30 per hour as of January 1, 2025) has remained applicable only to covered contracts that were entered into on or between January 1, 2015, and January 29, 2022, and which were not renewed or extended on or after January 30, 2022.
In addition, the Davis-Bacon Act and the McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act, for example, continue to require prevailing wages by certain federal contractors and subcontractors that perform services or construction work. However, 2023 changes—which, in particular, expanded the scope of Davis-Bacon coverage and changed the development of wage rates and their incorporation into contracts—to the Davis-Bacon regulations are also subject to pending legal challenges.
Key Takeaways
Federal contractors and grant recipients may want to consider taking the following steps:
Identifying any contracts subject to federally specified minimum wages and watching for notices from the FAR Council or the contracting agency implementing the revocation of EO 14026
Monitoring Davis-Bacon-related litigation if performing under Davis-Bacon-covered contracts
Monitoring executive order challenges to presidential authority under the Procurement Act
West Virginia Set to Ban Certain Food Additives and Colors
On March 19, 2025, the West Virginia Senate and House sent HB 2354 to the governor for final approval, which proposes banning various food additives and synthetic dyes.
The bill would prohibit the sale of any food product in the state that contains butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), propylparaben, Red No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, or Green No. 3. If enacted, the legislation would apply to food products in school nutrition programs beginning August 1, 2025, then extend to all food products in the state on January 1, 2028.
While there was some push back arguing that the state should wait for changes to come top down from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the ban will cause food prices to go up or limit the competitiveness of the state, the voting pattern shows that the opposition was minimal. This article by West Virginia Watch stated that Senator Barrett, who spearheaded the effort, feels confident that the Governor will sign HB 2354.
The West Virginia bill is the latest state legislative effort to regulate food dyes, following California, Utah, Florida, and Virginia.
New York Attorney General Proposes Bill to Expand Consumer Protection Law
On March 13, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the introduction of the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices Act (FAIR Business Practices Act). The proposed legislation seeks to extend the state’s existing ban on deceptive business practices to also prohibit unfair and abusive practices, aligning New York with 42 other states.
The bill, introduced in both state Senate and Assembly, would enhance enforcement capabilities for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and private consumers, including the ability to seek civil penalties and restitution for UDAAP violations. According to Attorney General James, the legislation is needed to tackle a host of consumer harms, including:
Subscription cancellations. Preventing companies from making it unreasonably difficult for consumers to cancel recurring payments.
Debt collection abuses. Prohibiting debt collectors from improperly seizing Social Security benefits or nursing homes from suing relatives of deceased residents for unpaid bills.
Auto dealer practices. Prohibiting car dealerships from withholding a customer’s photo identification until a sale is finalized.
Student loan servicing misconduct. Restricting student loan servicers from steering borrowers into costlier repayment plans.
Exploitation of limited English proficiency consumers. Addressing deceptive practices targeting non-English-speaking consumers.
Junk fees and hidden costs. Reducing unnecessary and deceptive charges in various industries, including healthcare and lending.
Artificial intelligence (AI) scams and online fraud. Strengthening enforcement against AI-driven scams, phishing schemes, and deceptive digital marketing practices.
The proposal has garnered support from former CFPB director Rohit Chopra and former FTC Chair Lina Khan, both of whom have emphasized the need for stronger state-level enforcement against deceptive and abusive business practices.
Putting It Into Practice: New York’s proposed legislation is the latest example of a growing trend among states taking a more active role in consumer protection enforcement (previously discussed here and here). This also highlights how some states are proactively responding to the CFPB’s state-level consumer protection recommendations from January, which encourage the adoption of the “abusive” standard (previously discussed here). With ongoing uncertainty surrounding the future of the CFPB, more states are likely to step in to fill the regulatory void by expanding their own consumer protection laws.
Listen to this post
Alright, Alright, A Write-Off: Matthew Mcconaughey’s Push for Texas Film Tax Incentives
Texas has long been a hub for film and television production, offering diverse landscapes, a rich cultural backdrop, and some real characters. Back in 2007 the state implemented the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program, which is administered by the Texas Film Commission under the Economic Development and Tourism Division of the Office of the Governor.[1] Allocations have continued to grow ever since.[2] Starting with $20 million in the first year,[3] it is now the largest in state history at $200 million with a 22.5% tax rebate.[4]
However, this funding is still below competitive states like Georgia and New Mexico.[5] If Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which was filed on January 22, 2025, is approved, then $498 million would be allocated “to revamp the Texas Film Incentive, making Texas the movie capital of the world.”[6] The incentive would consist of two parts: “$48 million in grants for small films and TV commercials, and up to $450 million in new tax credits, including Texas residency requirements for workers,” which Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick provides would give Texas $4 back for every $1 invested.[7]
In early 2025, a coalition of prominent actors—including Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Renée Zellweger, Billy Bob Thornton, and Dennis Quaid—launched the “True to Texas” campaign.[8] This initiative features a commercial directed by True Detective creator Nic Pizzolatto, where the actors emphasize the economic benefits, such as job creation and local business growth, that could result from increased investment in the Texas film industry.[9]
This push is no surprise given the new film studios opening in the state, including a 546- acre studio in Bastrop.[10] Also, over the past few years, more hit productions, such as Taylor Sheridan’s Yellowstone, 1923, and Landman, have filmed in Texas.[11]
As of February 13, 2025, SB1 has been scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Finance Committee.[12] Given that our firm has represented clients in some of the industry’s largest and most complex transactions in the entertainment industry and has worked on numerous deals utilizing tax incentives around the world, we continue to monitor the status of SB1 and standby ready to advise clients as needed.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program | Fort Bend Economic Development Council
[2] Film Subsidies – Texas Public Policy Foundation
[3] Film Subsidies – Texas Public Policy Foundation
[4] McConaughey, Harrelson channel ‘True Detective’ in Texas films ad
[5] McConaughey, Harrelson channel ‘True Detective’ in Texas films ad
[6] Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: Statement on the State Budget Filed in the Texas Senate – Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick
[7] Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: Statement on the State Budget Filed in the Texas Senate – Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick
[8] Dennis Quaid says Texas wants to be ‘New Hollywood’ in ad: photos
[9] Dennis Quaid says Texas wants to be ‘New Hollywood’ in ad: photos
[10] Bastrop film studio could produce $1.9B over 10 years and Bastrop reels in massive film studio and entertainment complex from California company
[11] McConaughey, Harrelson channel ‘True Detective’ in Texas films ad
[12] TX SB1 | 2025-2026 | 89th Legislature | LegiScan
California Assemblymember Sharp-Collins Introduces Workplace Safety Bill Authorizing Refusals to Work and Requiring Wages
On February 21, 2025, California Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D), representing San Diego, introduced Assembly Bill (AB) No. 1371 (“Right to Refuse Unsafe Work With Pay”) in the California State Assembly. The measure, which is now pending before the Assembly’s Committee on Labor and Employment, would revise and expand employee protections and establish continuing wage payment obligations if an employer fails to abate a work hazard to an employee’s satisfaction.
Existing law prohibits California employers from laying off or discharging an employee for refusing to perform work that would violate prescribed safety standards where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or other employees.
Quick Hits
California AB 1371 would revise and expand employee protections and establish continuing wage payment obligations if an employer fails to abate a work hazard—including heat illness—to an employee’s satisfaction.
The bill specifically provides a “right of action” for the recovery of unpaid wages for the employer’s failure to pay “full wages” as described.
The bill provides for payment of “full wages” if the employee complies with the bill’s enumerated conditions and the employer doesn’t assign a different task to the employee that would not expose the employee to the health and safety risks complained of.
Under the legislation, an employee would be authorized to refuse to perform work if three conditions are met:
The employee believes, in good faith, that the work creates a “real and apparent hazard to the employee or their fellow employees” or “has a reasonable apprehension” that the performance of the work “would result in injury or illness to the employee or other employees.”
The employee or another employee has communicated or attempted to notify the employer of the health and safety risk.
The employer has not provided a response that is reasonably calculated to allay the safety and health concerns regarding the specific work.
The bill specifically provides a “right of action” for the recovery of unpaid wages for the employer’s failure to pay “full wages” as described. The bill does not specify, however, whether this right of action is limited to a claim before the labor commissioner or in court.
Additionally, California employers could be exposed to risks of derivative claims that arise from the nonpayment of wages. Such derivative claims include statutory and waiting time penalties for the failure to timely pay wages during and at the termination of employment which can easily add thousands of dollars to any claim.
AB 1371 will proceed to committee hearings over the next few months with likely opposition from California trade associations and employer groups.