ANOTHER MASSIVE TCPA SETTLEMENT: Blue Cross Pays Over $1,000.00 Per Class Member as Court Approves $1.6MM TCPA Class Action Settlement
From Red Cross to Blue Cross, TCPA risk is massive these days.
And wrong number calling, in particular, can be incredibly costly.
Just ask Citibank.
Or John Deere.
Or, now, Blue Cross.
In Stark v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA and CHANGE HEALTHCARE RESOURCES, LLC, 1:23-CV-22, 2025 WL 524781 (M.D.N.C. Feb 18, 2025) the Court approved a $1.6MM settlement related to Blue Cross making illegal robocalls to a wrong number.
Per the order:
the case arose because Change Healthcare allegedly made calls on behalf of BCBSNC to identify BCBSNC customers and increase enrollment in certain programs, but Change Healthcare made calls to wrong numbers or to consumers who had opted out of receiving these calls. Ms. Stark alleged that despite being told that her number no longer belonged to a BCBSNC customer, Change Healthcare continued to make sales calls to her number.
The class had 1,573 people in it– which means Blue Cross paid over $1,000.00 per class member!!! (Whoa)
Oh and per the order Class Counsel Avi Kaufman has “recovered via settlement more than $100 million on behalf of TCPA class members.”
This case will net him another $500k in fees.
So there you have it Blue Cross paid a ton of money to settle this– one of the highest-per-class-member settlements I have seen yet. Not sure why they paid so much but it is a good reminder to all of you out there– use the reassigned numbers database to avoid this sort of thing folks!
President Trump Signs Executive Order Establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission
On February 13, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission. This initiative, chaired by the newly-confirmed U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., aims to tackle the root causes of chronic diseases that affect millions of Americans.
According to the order, six in ten Americans have at least one chronic disease, and four in ten have two or more. The commission aims to review the American diet, “absorption of toxic material,” and “food production techniques,” as part of its objectives.
The Commission has outlined four main policy directives to achieve its goals: (1) requiring federally funded research to be transparent; (2) prioritizing researching the root causes of illness; (3) working with farmers to ensure our food supply is healthy and abundant; and (4) increasing the flexibility of health insurance coverage to provide better support for disease prevention.
The composition of the Make America Healthy Again Commission will include the Secretary of Health and Human Services as Chair, and the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy as Executive Director, and top officials across several federal agencies related to health, the environment, food and drugs, and others.
The EO requires that within 100 days of the order, the commission will provide a preliminary assessment identifying the causes of childhood chronic disease in America.
Maryland DOL Seeks to Delay Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program
Enacted in 2022, the Maryland Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) program covers all employers with Maryland employees and will eventually provide most of those employees with up to twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave, with the possibility of an additional twelve weeks of paid parental leave.
Following several prior delays, employee contributions were scheduled to begin on July 1, 2025, with benefits commencing one year later on July 1, 2026. However, the Maryland Department of Labor (Maryland DOL) is now proposing a delay until January 1, 2027, for deductions and January 1, 2028, for benefits, based on the need to focus on supporting Maryland businesses and their employees in light of the significant uncertainty arising from President Donald Trump’s many employment-related executive orders.
Quick Hits
Due to concerns about readiness and cost, the Maryland DOL is proposing to delay the start of employee contributions to the Maryland FAMLI program to January 1, 2027, and the commencement of benefits to January 1, 2028.
The FAMLI program, enacted in 2022, aims to provide up to twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave for most Maryland employees, with the potential for an additional twelve weeks of paid parental leave.
A state senator has introduced a bill to delay the FAMLI program’s effective dates, highlighting the business community’s concerns over the lack of final regulations and the program’s significant economic impact.
Where Are the Regulations Now?
The Maryland DOL’s FAMLI Division was directed to issue regulations to implement the FAMLI program. As we previously noted in our multipart series on the FAMLI program, the Maryland DOL has engaged in an unusually extended and inclusive rulemaking process, likely impacted by amendments and delays to the program that were enacted in each of the 2023 and 2024 Maryland General Assembly sessions. At this point, the Maryland DOL has issued two sets of proposed regulations, which we covered in Part II (General Provisions, Contributions, and Equivalent Private Insurance Plans) and Part III (Claims and Dispute Resolution) of our series. But other sections of the proposed regulations, including Enforcement, have yet to be issued.
Concerns About Implementation and a Proposed Delay
There have been significant concerns about the Maryland DOL’s readiness to implement this complex program, as well as its overall cost (approximately $1.6 billion) in the current economic climate. In fact, Maryland state Senator Stephen Hershey has proposed a bill, Senate Bill (SB) 355, that seeks to delay the effective contribution and benefits dates by two years. In a hearing on this bill before the Senate Finance Committee on February 5, 2025, Fiona W. Ong (the author of this article) testified about the business community’s concern that final regulations—and even entire sections of the proposed regulations—have yet to be issued only months before the first deadlines. For example, employers are supposed to begin filing a declaration of intent (DOI) to have an equivalent private insurance plan (EPIP) starting on May 1, 2025. But at this point, employers do not have final rules about creating a self-insured plan, and insurance companies do not have final rules on creating commercial plans (which would also need to be compliant with insurance laws and regulations).
The Maryland DOL acknowledges that legislative action is required to authorize the delay and, in its press release, states that it is working closely with leadership in the General Assembly to extend the implementation dates. It is unclear whether the General Assembly will use Senator Hershey’s bill or issue a new bill. But given the Maryland DOL’s public statements, it is almost certain that the delay will take place.
This is obviously a significant development for employers with Maryland employees, many of whom are concerned about the cost and impact of this program in which the state, and not the employer, grants the paid leave benefit.
Health Agencies Face Terminations; Jim Jones Resigns from FDA’s Human Foods Program
Thousands of workers employed across the Department of Health and Human Services received notices that they would be terminated following four weeks of leave, including at least 89 members of FDA’s Human Foods Program staff, as part of the Trump administration’s overhaul of the federal workforce. The layoffs follow the confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as HHS secretary on February 13.
Terminated staff from FDA’s Human Foods Program include those working on nutrition, infant formula, and food safety response, as well as 10 staff members “who were charged with reviewing potentially unsafe chemicals in the nation’s food supply.”
Jim Jones, FDA’s deputy commissioner for human foods, resigned from the Agency on February 17, citing the “indiscriminate firing” of food program staff and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s rhetoric toward staff. In a letter, Jones wrote: “I was looking forward to working to pursue the Department’s agenda of improving the health of Americans by reducing diet-related chronic disease and risks from chemicals in food. It has been increasingly clear that with the Trump Administration’s disdain for the very people necessary to implement your agenda, however, it would have been fruitless for me to continue in this role.”
Jones, who was appointed as deputy commissioner for human foods in 2023, had committed to priority areas of preventing foodborne illness, decreasing diet-related chronic disease, and safeguarding the food supply, as we previously blogged.
New York Proposal to Protect Workers Displaced by Artificial Intelligence
On 14 January 2025, during her State of the State Address (the Address), New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced a new proposal aimed at supporting workers displaced by artificial intelligence (AI).1 This proposal would require employers to disclose whether AI tools played a role in mass layoffs or closings subject to New York’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (NY WARN Act). Governor Hochul announced that she is directing the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) to enact and enforce this requirement. The DOL does not have a timeline for implementing the new requirement, and Labor Commissioner Roberta Reardon acknowledged that “defining what counts as an AI-related layoff would be a challenge [to implementation].”2
In the Address, Governor Hochul acknowledged the benefits of AI, stating, “[innovations in AI] have the ability to change the way businesses operate, leading to greater efficiency, fewer business disruptions, and increased responsiveness to customer needs.” However, the implementation of AI tools in the workplace leads to increased automation, which may result in increased job loss, wage stagnation or loss, reduced hiring, lack of job satisfaction, and skill obsolescence—all of which are major concerns for US workers.3
The primary goals of imposing these employer disclosures are to: (i) aid transparency and gather data on the impact of AI technologies on employment and employees; and (ii) ensure the integration of AI tools into the workforce creates an environment where workers can thrive.
Implications for Employers
Disclosure Requirement
Employers in New York will need to disclose in their NY WARN Act notices whether layoffs are due to the implementation of AI tools replacing employees.
Scope
While specific details about the scope of the new disclosure requirement are not yet available, employers should prepare for this additional obligation as part of the existing complex notice requirements under the NY WARN Act.4
Compliance
Employers contemplating a NY WARN Act-triggering event should consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with these disclosure requirements and expanded NY WARN Act obligations.
NY WARN Act
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) is a federal law that requires covered employers to provide employees with 60-day advance notice before closing a plant or conducting a mass layoff.5 The purpose of the WARN Act is to give workers and their families time to adjust to potential layoffs and to seek or train for new jobs.6 New York is one of 18 states with its own “mini-WARN Act.” The NY WARN Act imposes stricter requirements than the federal WARN Act. For example, the NY WARN Act applies to employers with 50 or more employees while the federal WARN Act applies to employers with 100 or more employees. The NY WARN Act also requires a 90-day advance notice, compared to the 60-day notice required under federal law. The early warning notices of closures and layoffs are provided to affected employees, their representatives, and the Department of Labor and local officials. If Governor Hochul’s proposal is enforced, NY WARN Act notices will also need to include the required AI disclosure.
Takeaways for Employers
Employers should be well versed in how AI tools are being used and the impact they are having on workers, especially if such impacts may lead to mass layoffs. Specifically, legal and human resources leaders should understand how the business is automating certain processes through AI tools and the implications the tools have on headcount requirements, employee job satisfaction and morale.
Our Labor, Employment, and Workplace Safety lawyers regularly counsel clients on a wide variety of issues related to emerging issues in labor, employment, and workplace safety law, and are well-positioned to provide guidance and assistance to clients on AI developments.
Footnotes
1 https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-new-proposals-support-small-businesses-and-boost-economic-growth
2 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/exp/eyJpZCI6IjAwMDAwMTk0LTcxNTYtZDIzYy1hYmZjLTc1ZmU5NDhiMDAwMSIsImN0eHQiOiJETE5XIiwidXVpZCI6ImhqMGRvcTNKdGdrSkpKckZyL01QaUE9PU9seW0rTExPbVdiODlZZ1N6aWtDZHc9PSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNzM3Mzc0NjI2MDg5Iiwic2lnIjoiYTZXMnkwZnczcGZ3SnVpdlFrclV0S3FERFlnPSIsInYiOiIxIn0=?source=newsletter&item=body-link®ion=text-section&channel=daily-labor-report
3 https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2024/01/14/ai-will-transform-the-global-economy-lets-make-sure-it-benefits-humanity#:~:text=Roughly%20half%20the%20exposed%20jobs,of%20these%20jobs%20may%20disappear; https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/workers-responses-threat-automation.
4 12 NYCRR Part 92
5 https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/termination/plantclosings
6 Id.
Effective Dates of DEA Final Rules for Telemedicine Prescribing Delayed
On Friday, February 14, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced that the effective dates for two recently published final rules involving telemedicine prescribing of controlled substances – the final rule titled “Expansion of Buprenorphine Treatment via Telemedicine Encounter” and the final rule titled “Continuity of Care via Telemedicine for Veterans Affairs Patients” (collectively referred to herein as the “Buprenorphine and VA Telemedicine Prescribing Rules”) – are delayed from February 18, 2025, until at least March 21, 2025 (see our previous post on the Buprenorphine and VA Telemedicine Prescribing Rules).
The final rule delaying the effective dates of these final rules is scheduled for publication to the Federal Register on Wednesday, February 19, 2025.
The delays stem from the Presidential Memorandum titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” (the “Freeze Memo”) issued on January 20, 2025. The Freeze Memo orders all executive departments and agencies to “consider postponing” the effective dates of all rules published to the Federal Register that have not yet taken effect, such as the Buprenorphine and VA Telemedicine Prescribing Rules, until at least March 21, 2025 (sixty days from the issuance of the Freeze Memo), to allow review of any questions of fact, law, and/or policy raised by the rule, and to “consider opening” a comment period for stakeholders to comment on those questions. Accordingly, the DEA is also soliciting comments on: 1) the extension of the effective dates, 2) whether the effective dates should be further extended, and 3) questions of fact, law, and policy raised by these rules, for consideration by officials of the two agencies. Comments are due by February 28, 2025.
The Friday, February 14, 2025 announcement by HHS and DEA, delaying the effective dates, clarified that: “[t]hese new effective dates will not delay or limit the ability of the practitioners covered by these two rules to prescribe via telemedicine, because the ‘Temporary Extension of COVID-19 Telemedicine Flexibilities for Prescription of Controlled Medications,’ which has been in effect since May 10, 2023, permits practitioners to prescribe via telemedicine through December 31, 2025.”
The DEA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) titled “Special Registrations for Telemedicine and Limited State Telemedicine Registrations” on January 17, 2025, the same date that HHS and DEA published the Buprenorphine and VA Telemedicine Prescribing Rules. Because the NPRM is in the early stages of the administrative rulemaking process, the proposed rule appears largely unaffected by the Freeze Memo, and comments remain due March 18, 2025.
Takeaways
Practitioners can continue to prescribe via telemedicine without first having an in-person visit with the patient, subject to compliance with other federal and state prescribing requirements, because the Temporary Extension of COVID-19 Telemedicine Flexibilities for Prescription of Controlled Medications, permits practitioners to prescribe via telemedicine through December 31, 2025. The EBG team continues to monitor any changes to the Buprenorphine and VA Telemedicine Prescribing Rules, which are now scheduled to go into effect on March 21, 2025.
David Shillcutt contributed to this article.
Updated: The Future of Gender-Affirming Care – New Legal and Regulatory Considerations for Hospitals Providing These Services
As legal and policy developments continue to evolve, hospitals and health care professionals that provide gender-affirming care face new uncertainties regarding federal funding, compliance, and patient access. While these changes may not impact health care organizations that do not offer gender-affirming services, those that do must stay informed to navigate the rapidly changing legal landscape.
Gender-affirming care, which includes medical and psychological interventions for transgender and nonbinary individuals, is a service endorsed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society. New federal guidance and pending legal disputes raise questions about how hospitals and health care professionals that offer these services may continue to do so while maintaining compliance with evolving regulations.
A key concern for these institutions is the potential impact on federal funding for hospitals that provide gender-affirming care, particularly for minors. Recent executive actions and policy statements have signaled that certain federal funding streams—such as Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, medical education grants, and research funding—could be subject to additional scrutiny. While the full extent of enforcement remains unclear, agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are expected to issue further guidance that could affect reimbursement policies and institutional funding structures.
Late last week two federal courts granted temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) enjoining parts of President Trump’s Executive Order 14187, related to gender affirming care, and Executive Order 14168, related to recognition of gender identity.
On February 13, a federal court in Maryland granted a nationwide TRO prohibiting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Health Resources and Services Administration, National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and any subagencies of HHS from conditioning or withholding federal funding based on the fact that a healthcare entity or health professional provides gender affirming medical care to a patient under the age of nineteen. The TRO will be in effect for 14 days. The order also requires the federal agencies to file a status report by February 20 to inform the court about their compliance with the order. The TRO only enjoins the provisions of Executive Orders 14187 and 14168 related to federal funding and grant conditions. The other provisions of EO 14187, including those directing the Secretary of HHS to take appropriate regulatory and sub-regulatory actions in the Medicare and Medicaid programs and in health insurance coverage offered through Exchanges to end gender affirming care for children, remain in effect.
On February 14, a federal court in Washington granted a second TRO related to EO 14187, temporarily blocking enforcement and implementation of both the EO provision related to conditions on federal funding and the provision redefining the term “female genital mutilation” under a U.S. criminal statute. The TRO will also be in effect for 14 days and applies only within the states of Washington, Oregon and Minnesota.
The temporary restraining orders have paused some of the executive order’s effects, but they are only short-term measures. If they expire without further legal intervention, hospitals and health care professionals that provide gender-affirming care could once again face challenges related to federal funding, compliance risks, and regulatory enforcement. While the funding restrictions are currently blocked, the executive order also directs federal agencies to take broader action against gender-affirming care in federal programs, which could lead to further administrative and regulatory hurdles.
For hospitals and health care professionals that provide gender-affirming care and rely on Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, federal research grants, or medical education funding, this uncertainty makes it difficult to plan ahead. There is also the question of how federal agencies will interpret and apply these policies once the TROs expire, particularly in states with existing protections for gender-affirming care.
Hospitals and health care professionals that provide gender-affirming care need to assess their financial risk, legal position, and potential compliance strategies now rather than waiting for additional court rulings. Being proactive in understanding the risks and preparing for different scenarios will help institutions navigate what remains a highly fluid and unpredictable regulatory environment.
Given the shifting regulatory environment, hospitals and health care professionals that continue to offer gender-affirming care should take proactive steps to mitigate risks and ensure compliance. Conducting a thorough review of federal funding sources will be essential in assessing exposure to potential funding restrictions. Performing an inventory of the types of gender-affirming care being provided as well as gender-affirming mental health support and research is also advisable. Engaging with legal and policy experts to develop compliance strategies will help institutions navigate changing regulations while maintaining patient care commitments.
Additionally, in states where gender-affirming services remain protected, hospitals and health care professionals may still face federal scrutiny but could have stronger legal grounds to continue offering care. In states with restrictive policies, exploring out-of-state partnerships or telehealth models may provide alternative pathways for patient access.
As this issue continues to develop, healthcare institutions and professionals that provide gender affirming care must remain agile and prepared for further policy changes. The next several months are likely to bring additional legal challenges, agency directives, and potential legislative responses that could further shape the landscape. Hospitals and health care professionals providing gender-affirming care should actively assess their institutional risk, consult legal and policy experts, and remain engaged in broader policy discussions to ensure they can continue to deliver these services while staying compliant with applicable laws.
Healthcare Preview for the Week of: February 18, 2025 [Podcast]
President’s Day Shortened Week
After the President’s Day long weekend, the House is out of session this week. The Senate is in session, with a continued focus on nominations and potential floor action on the budget resolution that the Senate Budget Committee reported last week. This week the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee will hold a hearing for Dan Bishop, nominated to be deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Healthcare could certainly be a topic that is raised at the hearing.
What remains to be seen this week is whether there will be additional steps toward budget reconciliation. Last week, the Senate and House budget committees passed very different budget resolutions. The Senate version is the first of two reconciliation efforts and is focused only on energy, immigration, and defense policies, while the House wants to pass one big package with all priorities, including extending the Trump tax cuts. Either version will likely include healthcare policies in order to offset spending priorities, although the magnitude of healthcare cuts, in particular for Medicaid, is far greater in the House, whose budget resolution targets a minimum of $880 billion in savings from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. With the House out this week, the Senate could advance its budget resolution to floor consideration and send it on to the House. Of course, the House is not required to then act on that bill. It is very possible that the House could move forward with its own approach. But, before either body can turn to the substantive work of developing a reconciliation package, a unified budget resolution must pass both bodies.
Last Thursday, Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Jr. was confirmed and sworn in as secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). His Senate confirmation vote was 52 – 48, with Sen. McConnell (R-KY) the sole Republican to vote no. As predicted, immediately after RFK Jr.’s swearing in, President Trump took several healthcare actions. He signed an executive order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission, whose initial mission is to advise the president on how to address childhood chronic diseases. The order directs the commission to study contributing causes, advise the president on public education, and provide government-wide recommendations to address contributing causes. Additional executive orders on healthcare could be forthcoming.
As forecast, the Trump administration laid off thousands of HHS employees on Friday and over the weekend, including at the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the National Institutes of Health. The Trump administration contends that the layoffs did not include essential workers. Individuals laid off primarily include those in a probationary period, but the impact of these changes is still being understood and is likely to impact the operation of Medicare, Medicaid, federal grant programs, and other HHS functions.
Today’s Podcast
In this week’s Healthcare Preview podcast, Debbie Curtis and Rodney Whitlock join Julia Grabo to recap the mass HHS layoffs over the long weekend and discuss next steps in the budget reconciliation process.
January 2025 Bounty Hunter Plaintiff Claims
California’s Proposition 65 (“Prop. 65”), the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, requires, among other things, sellers of products to provide a “clear and reasonable warning” if use of the product results in a knowing and intentional exposure to one of more than 900 different chemicals “known to the State of California” to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, which are included on The Proposition 65 List. For additional background information, see the Special Focus article, California’s Proposition 65: A Regulatory Conundrum.
Because Prop. 65 permits enforcement of the law by private individuals (the so-called bounty hunter provision), this section of the statute has long been a source of significant claims and litigation in California. It has also gone a long way in helping to create a plaintiff’s bar that specializes in such lawsuits. This is because the statute allows recovery of attorney’s fees, in addition to the imposition of civil penalties as high as $2,500 per day per violation. Thus, the costs of litigation and settlement can be substantial.
The purpose of Keller and Heckman’s latest publication, Prop 65 Pulse, is to provide our readers with an idea of the ongoing trends in bounty hunter activity.
In January of 2025, product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers were the targets of 337 new Notices of Violation (“Notices”) and amended Notices, alleging a violation of Prop. 65 for failure to provide a warning for their products. This was based on the alleged presence of the following chemicals in these products. Noteworthy trends and categories from Notices sent in January 2025 are excerpted and discussed below. A complete list of Notices sent in January 2025 can be found on the California Attorney General’s website, located here: 60-Day Notice Search.
Food and Drug
Product Category
Notice(s)
Alleged Chemicals
Dietary Supplements: Notices include protein powder, prenatal vitamins, and spirulina
22 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds
Assorted Prepared Food and Snacks: Notices include chips, soup mix, plant-based patties, and protein bars
21 Notices
Cadmium and Lead and Lead Compounds
Seafood: Notices include sardines, mussels, cod liver, tuna, and clams
19 Notices
Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds and Lead and Lead Compounds
Cannabinoid Products: Notices include tinctures, gummies, CBD oil, and seltzer
14 Notices
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
Fruits and Vegetables: Notices include olives, chopped spinach, dried tomatoes, and artichoke hearts
13 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds and Cadmium and Cadmium Compounds
Spices and Sauces: Notices include chat masala, dried ginger, and chili
6 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds
Noodles, Pasta, and Rice: Notices include vegetable lasagna, cheese tortellini, and angel hair pasta
4 Notices
Lead and Lead Compounds and Cadmium
Mint Products: Notices include mint candy and mint caffeine pouches
2 Notices
Pulegone
Seafood: Notices include whole clams and sardines
2 Notices
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and its salts, Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
Dietary Supplements
1 Notice
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
Fruits and Vegetables: Notices include dried mandarin oranges
1 Notice
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
Cosmetics and Personal Care
Product Category
Notice(s)
Alleged Chemicals
Personal Care Products: Notices include shaving cream, moisturizers, shampoo, sunscreen, and hair dye
52 Notices
Diethanolamine
Personal Care Products: Notices include shaving cream, cleansing foam, and hair mousse
5 Notices
Nitrous oxide
Consumer Products
Product Category
Notice(s)
Alleged Chemicals
Plastic Pouches, Bags, and Accessories: Notices include pet carriers, water bottle sleeves, lunch bags, and eyewear cases
60 Notices
Bisphenol A (BPA), Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Diisononyl phthalate (DINP), and Di-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP)
Tools: Notices include screws, solder slugs, lead anchors, and brass hose nozzles
45 Notices
Bisphenol S (BPS), Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Di-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP), and Lead and Lead Compounds
Glassware and Ceramics: Notices include mugs, vases, ramekins, and bowls
38 Notices
Lead
Housewares: Notices include tablecloths, corkscrews, and vinyl seat cushions
11 Notices
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Diisononyl phthalate (DINP), Di-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP), and Lead
Sports Gear: Notices include roller skates, batting gloves, and dumbbells
8 Notices
Chromium (hexavalent compounds), Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), Diisononyl phthalate (DINP), and Lead
Moth Balls
6 Notices
Naphthalene and p-Dichlorobenzene
Clothing, Shoes, and Jewelry: Notices include hats, gloves, rain footwear, and sandals
5 Notices
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) and Chromium (hexavalent compounds)
Cookware: Notices include single-use oval burrito bowls and paper straws
2 Notices
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
There are numerous defenses to Prop. 65 claims, and proactive measures that industry can take prior to receiving a Prop. 65 Notice in the first place. Keller and Heckman attorneys have extensive experience in defense of Prop. 65 claims and in all aspects of Prop. 65 compliance and risk management. We provide tailored Proposition 65 services to a wide range of industries, including food and beverage, personal care, consumer products, chemical products, e-vapor and tobacco products, household products, plastics and rubber, and retail distribution.
DEA Delays Final Buprenorphine Rule
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have delayed the effective date of the final rule regarding telemedicine prescribing of buprenorphine (the final buprenorphine rule) to March 21, 2025, and have requested public comments on the rule. In its final rule delaying the effective date, the DEA reiterates that the delay in effective date will not delay or limit the ability of practitioners covered by the final buprenorphine rule to prescribe via telemedicine due to the current telemedicine prescribing flexibilities in place through December 31, 2025.
A Brief History
On January 17, 2025, in anticipation of the change of administration, the DEA and HHS finalized and published the final buprenorphine rule, which establishes a permanent pathway for the telemedicine prescribing of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD). The final buprenorphine rule was set to take effect February 18, 2025. (See our discussion on the requirements of the final buprenorphine rule here.) On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration issued the Regulatory Freeze Pending Review Presidential Memorandum authorizing HHS and the DEA to delay until March 21, 2025, the effective date of the final buprenorphine rule for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law, and policy the rule may raise and to open a comment period to gather input from interested parties.
Make Your Voice Heard
Stakeholders are encouraged to participate in the comment process and share their insights on the final buprenorphine rule. The DEA is soliciting comments on the extension of the effective date of the final buprenorphine rule and whether the effective date should be further extended to address issues of fact, law, and policy raised by the rule. Comments may be submitted until 11:59 p.m. ET February 28, 2025. Stakeholders may submit comments electronically here or via regular or express mail to the following address:
Drug Enforcement AdministrationAttn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152
All correspondence, including attachments, must include a reference to “Docket No. DEA-948”.
Additionally, those with concerns about the final buprenorphine rule can share their feedback by contacting their local Congressperson or the White House.
Opportunity for Clarity
Because so much time had passed since the proposed buprenorphine rule was introduced in March 2023, its finalization in January caught many stakeholders by surprise. This additional comment period is a welcome opportunity for the telemedicine industry to seek clarity on several key issues regarding the final buprenorphine rule.
One concern is whether practitioners may continue to rely on the existing telemedicine flexibilities through the end of year if the final buprenorphine rule takes effect before the flexibilities expire, or if they will need to comply with the additional requirements of the rule once it takes effect. Additionally, stakeholders have raised concerns about the DEA’s shift from the originally proposed 30-day supply to a six-month initial supply. Although a step in the right direction to increase the supply, six months seems like an arbitrary choice to OUD telehealth providers who foresee a potential disruption in patient care depending on the available pathways for telemedicine prescribing after the initial supply.
To help initiate discussions, ATA Action has submitted a letter to the DEA seeking further clarification on several aspects of the final buprenorphine rule. We will continue to monitor developments regarding the final buprenorphine rule, including any further extensions of its effective date.
Traumatic Injuries and Cardiovascular Health: Risks and Long-Term Effects
When we think about traumatic injuries, broken bones or cuts often come to mind. However, the impact of these injuries goes beyond the immediate physical damage. One area that can be surprisingly affected is cardiovascular health. We’ll discuss how traumatic injuries can influence heart health and what long-term effects might arise.
The Connection Between Trauma and Heart Health
Research shows that traumatic injuries can cause significant damage to the body and lead to changes in cardiovascular health. Below are ways that trauma is linked to heart health:
1. Stress Response
When you experience trauma, your body goes into a “fight or flight” mode. This releases stress hormones like adrenaline and cortisol. Even though this reaction is helpful in the short term, prolonged stress can lead to high blood pressure and increase the risk of heart disease over time.
2. Inflammation
Injuries trigger inflammation, a part of the body’s healing process. Chronic inflammation can be harmful, however. This can lead to the development of plaques in the arteries, narrowing them and increasing the risk of heart attack or stroke.
3. Physical Inactivity
After a traumatic injury, many people experience limited mobility, which ultimately leads to physical inactivity. Being less active can lead to weight gain and reduced heart efficiency, negatively impacting cardiovascular health.
4. Psychological Effects
Trauma can also lead to mental illnesses, such as anxiety and depression. These conditions can further affect heart health by increasing the likelihood of unhealthy behaviors, including poor diet, smoking, or lack of exercise.
Long-Term Effects on Cardiovascular Health
The long-term consequences of traumatic injuries on heart health can vary from person to person. Some potential effects include:
1. Increased Risk of Heart Disease
Individuals with a history of severe traumatic injuries may have a higher risk of developing cardiovascular diseases later in life. This can occur due to factors like obesity, smoking, and a sedentary lifestyle.
2. Hypertension
Chronic stress and inflammation can lead to high blood pressure, a large risk factor for heart disease. Managing blood pressure after a traumatic event is essential for long-term heart health.
3. Metabolic Changes
Trauma can influence metabolism, leading to conditions like insulin resistance or diabetes, which are known risk factors for heart issues.
Conclusion
Traumatic injuries can have wide-ranging effects, particularly on cardiovascular health. Understanding these risks allows us to take steps in managing our heart health after experiencing such events. By focusing on recovery, maintaining a healthy lifestyle, and seeking support, we can help protect our hearts for the long haul.
Michigan’s Earned Sick Time Act: What Employers Should Know
As of today, Michigan’s Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA) is slated to take effect this Friday, February 21, 2025. Guidance on the Act as written is available on the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity Wage and Hour Division’s website or in Varnum’s recent advisory on Common Questions from Employers regarding ESTA.
However, both the Michigan House of Representatives and the Michigan Senate have proposed amendments to ESTA that, if enacted, would significantly revise the Act. Both sets of proposed amendments differ substantially from each other. The provisions of these competing sets of legislative amendments have been summarized in a recent advisory. So far, the Michigan House has passed its proposed amendments and sent them to the Michigan Senate for consideration. The Michigan Senate has held hearings on its own set of proposed amendments but has not passed its amendments – or the House’s proposed amendments – as of yet.
Governor Gretchen Whitmer has urged both House and Senate leaders to reach a compromise on the proposed changes prior to ESTA’s effective date of February 21. She has also called for a delay in the Act’s implementation date until July 1, 2025, to give the legislature time to work out a compromise and Michigan businesses time to comply. Both House Speaker Matt Hall and Senate Democratic Majority Leader Winnie Brinks have expressed a commitment to reaching a compromise by the February 21 deadline, but a compromise on the ESTA amendments may not be possible by the end of this week due to the significant differences between the competing legislative proposals.
Given this present uncertainty, employers should be prepared to comply with the current form of ESTA on Friday, February 21, 2025, but should refrain from formally rolling out any changes to the policy prior to Friday in the event the Michigan legislature does act before that date.