The Chapter 93A Hurdle: Mass. Court Rejects ‘Artificial Price Inflation’ Claims in Energy Marketing Lawsuit
In Ortiz v. Eversource Energy, a putative class action, plaintiffs brought suit against Eversource Energy alleging that Eversource knowingly marketed natural gas and related services as clean and safe for residential consumers and the environment despite knowing this was not true. Allegedly, Eversource knowingly issued communications that were purposefully misleading and inconsistent with scientific studies. Plaintiffs further allege that had they known the truth about the health and environmental risks associated with the natural gas, they would not have purchased the gas.
Plaintiffs sought (1) a declaration that defendant’s promotional and advertising of its natural gas contained unlawfully false, misleading, and/or deceptive statements; (2) an order enjoining defendant from promoting and marketing its natural gas using such unlawfully false, misleading, and/or deceptive statements; and (3) an order that defendant be required to make reasonable and regular corrective disclosures to plaintiffs and the putative class members that accurately describe the potential health and safety risks. Plaintiffs also sought monetary damages under Chapter 93A.
Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Paying for a product whose price was artificially inflated by deceptive advertising is a recognized economic injury cognizable under Chapter 93A; however, a plaintiff may not base the claim on speculative harm or risk of economic damages. Here, plaintiff did not allege that the natural gas they purchased from Eversource was functionally deficient or that they suffered any adverse health effects from the natural gas they purchased. To the contrary, plaintiffs claimed they were harmed when they had been misled regarding the environmental and health risks of the gas. In other words, plaintiffs paid too much for the gas they received. However, the Massachusetts Superior Court noted that pursuant to the current regulatory regime in Massachusetts, the Department of Public Utilities has the exclusive power to regulate operations, service, and rates. Thus, as the rates Eversource charged were not entirely within its control, the connection between the purported false statements and the costs plaintiff incurred was too attenuated to serve as a cognizable injury. Plaintiff was unable to establish that they would have paid a lower price for natural gas had it been honestly advertised.
High Court Upholds Use of Omnibus Claims in Mass Motor Finance Litigation
A recent High Court decision in claims brought by thousands of claimants against motor finance providers has reaffirmed the validity of using omnibus claim forms in large-scale consumer litigation. The ruling has implications both for the many motor-finance mis-selling claims pending before the courts and also for mass claims in a variety of other contexts.
Background
The case involved eight omnibus claim forms issued on behalf of over 5,800 claimants against eight defendants. While the claims were at an early stage procedurally, the core allegations were that the defendants had paid undisclosed, variable commissions to motor finance brokers (car dealers), creating conflicts of interest which the claimants argued rendered the ensuing credit agreements unfair under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).
Shortly after the claims were issued, and before filing any defence, the defendants objected to the use of omnibus claim forms and invited the court to sever the claims, such that the claimants’ solicitors would need to issue a separate claim form (and pay a court fee) for each claim.
Initially, a County Court judge ruled that the claims should be severed into individual cases, following Abbott v Ministry of Defence [2023] 1 WLR 4002. This would have required a separate claim form to be issued (and court fee paid) for each case. The claimants appealed, arguing that the claims could and should more appropriately be commenced under omnibus claim forms, as contemplated by CPR 7.3 and CPR 19.1.
Key Legal Considerations
CPR 7.3 allows a single claim form to be used for multiple claims if they can be “conveniently disposed of” in the same proceedings. CPR 19.1 provides that any number of claimants may be joined as parties to a claim.
In Morris v Williams & Co Solicitors [2024] EWCA Civ 376 the Court of Appeal clarified that no gloss should be put on the words of CPR 7.3 and 19.1, which should be given their ordinary meaning. The exclusionary “real progress,” “real significance,” and “must bind” tests proposed in Abbott were factors to consider but should not be viewed as exclusionary tests – the omnibus claim form jurisdiction was not as restrictive as the Group Litigation Order regime in CPR 19.21-28, and should not be treated as “GLO-light”. Abbott was overruled.
Factors Supporting Omnibus Claims
The High Court carried out a detailed analysis of the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether the claims could conveniently be disposed of together per CPR 7.3. Key points cited in favour of allowing omnibus claims to proceed included:
The large number of claimants and small number of defendants.
The claims arose from the same or similar transactions, with broadly common allegations and the same legal causes of action, raising a number of common legal and factual issues.
The likelihood that case managing the cases together by way of lead or test cases would likely facilitate the disposal of many or all of the following cases. Whereas if separate claims were issued it would be random chance which claims were heard first and whether they were appropriate test cases.
Managing the claims together would be more efficient and just, in line with the CPR 1.1 overriding objective. Costs would likely be saved overall, and court time would likely be reduced. The imbalance of financial power between individual claimants and defendants would be mitigated. There were advantages to omnibus claims management in terms of the timing and usefulness of disclosure, and the availability of expert evidence.
Practical Implications
For Defendants facing mass claims this ruling will be a concerning precedent for the use of omnibus claim forms by claimants as a strategy, with obvious advantages for claimant law firms in terms of cost, use of case management applications to gain early disclosure, and selection of common issues and test cases.
For Claimants and their advisers the decision will encourage the use of omnibus claims over the impracticality of litigating individual cases, and the relative restrictiveness of the GLO regime.
For the Courts omnibus claim forms could see large volumes of individual claims taken out of the County Courts and case managed collectively and in a less haphazard fashion than has so far been the case, with potential for many following cases to be settled out of court once lead claims have been determined. This may help with significant delays and backlogs often experienced in the County Courts.
Wider Significance
The significance of this decision in the context of motor finance claims may to some extent be rendered moot by the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal in Johnson v FirstRand and the FCA’s decision on a whether and to what extent to impose a consumer redress scheme. But in reaffirming the broad scope and flexibility of CPR 7.3 and 19.1, the ruling may pave the way for more mass claims in financial services and other contexts.
New U.S. Import Tariffs on Certain Automobiles and Parts
On March 26, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing new 25% tariffs on certain automobiles and automobile parts imported into the U.S. from all countries on or after April 3, 2025. This executive order comes as businesses await the outcome of the broader reciprocal trade plan also expected to be released on April 2.
The executive order builds on an investigation undertaken during President Trump’s first term focused on U.S. imports of passenger vehicles (sedans, sport utility vehicles, crossover utility vehicles, minivans and cargo vans), light trucks (collectively, automobiles) and certain automobile parts (engines and engine parts, transmissions and powertrain parts and electrical components — collectively, automobile parts) and their effect on the national security of the U.S. under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862) (Section 232). When the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) issued findings and recommendations to the President in February 2019, the President did not take any tariff action in response to the DOC’s determination that those imports threatened to impair the national security of the United States. Now, however, President Trump has determined that changes in import trends since the initial investigation and 2019 report have exacerbated risks to U.S. manufacturing, noting that “[t]oday, only about half of the vehicles sold in the United States are manufactured domestically[.]”
These new 25% tariffs, building on the prior investigation, will largely be effective for certain automobiles (to be identified in a subsequent notice in the Federal Register) on or after 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 3, 2025. The effective date for parts could be deferred; the executive order specifies an effective date to be published in the Federal Register “but no later than May 3, 2025.
Automobiles and parts eligible for the U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement (USMCA) preferential treatment will be treated differently than all other imports. Where automobiles qualify for preferential tariff treatment under USMCA, importers of those automobiles may be permitted to submit documentation identifying or substantiating the amount of U.S. content in each model imported into the United States and pay duties only on the remainder. Where automobile parts qualify for preferential treatment under USMCA, those parts will be exempted from duties until such time that the DOC, in consultation with Customs, establishes a process to apply the tariff exclusively to the value of the non-U.S. content of such automobile parts and publishes notice in the Federal Register. “U.S. content” refers to the value of the automobile attributable to parts wholly obtained, produced entirely or substantially transformed in the United States.
The duties imposed by this order will be supplemental to duties on imports already imposed pursuant to other legal tools, including IEEPA (e.g. Canada, China and Mexico), Section 232 of the Trade Expansion of 1962 (e.g. steel and aluminum), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (e.g. China) and any other authority.
These duties will be imposed concurrent with other action taken under the President’s Reciprocal Trade Plan, which is expected to announce new tariffs on April 2, 2025, and with any new tariffs imposed under the President’s March 25, 2025 executive order granting the State Department discretion to impose 25% import duties on U.S. imports from countries that themselves import Venezuelan oil on or after April 2, 2025.
Pennsylvania’s Proposed Ban on Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants: What It Means for the Commonwealth
Pennsylvania is once again at the center of a heated political debate—this time over a proposed constitutional amendment that could ban undocumented immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses. The proposal, which has sparked polarized responses, is expected to stir discussions in the state legislature and beyond. In this post, we’ll explore the background of the amendment, the political arguments on both sides, and the potential economic, legal, and societal impacts if the amendment is enacted.
Background: Understanding the Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment seeks to change Pennsylvania’s constitution to prohibit undocumented immigrants from obtaining driver’s licenses. This amendment would mark a shift in state policy, as some states currently allow undocumented residents to obtain licenses as part of efforts to enhance road safety and improve identification records. The push for the amendment has largely been driven by Republican lawmakers who argue that the change is necessary to uphold immigration laws and protect public resources. By elevating the issue to the level of a constitutional amendment, proponents aim to make it more difficult for future legislatures to reverse the policy.
The Political Debate: Pros and Cons
As with many immigration-related issues, the debate over driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants has divided opinions along political lines.
Arguments in Favor of the Amendment
Upholding Immigration Laws: Supporters argue that granting licenses to undocumented immigrants undermines federal immigration laws and could incentivize illegal immigration.
Preventing Voter Fraud: Some proponents claim that driver’s licenses could be used to improperly access voting systems, despite existing safeguards.
Resource Allocation: Advocates contend that public resources should prioritize legal residents and citizens.
Arguments Against the Amendment
Enhancing Road Safety: Opponents point out that allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses can improve road safety by ensuring that all drivers are tested, insured, and educated about traffic laws.
Economic Impact: Undocumented immigrants play a vital role in Pennsylvania’s economy, particularly in industries like agriculture and construction. Restricting access to driver’s licenses could limit their ability to work and contribute to local economies.
Humanitarian Concerns: Critics argue that the amendment could create unnecessary hardships for immigrant families who rely on driving to access essential services, including healthcare, education, and employment.
Potential Economic and Societal Impacts
The implications of the proposed amendment could be far-reaching, affecting various aspects of life in Pennsylvania.
Workforce Participation: Limiting access to driver’s licenses could reduce the mobility of undocumented workers, making it harder for employers to fill essential jobs. This, in turn, could impact productivity and economic growth.
Public Safety: Studies from other states have shown that providing driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants can lead to fewer hit-and-run accidents and lower overall crash rates. Without access to licenses, some immigrants may drive without proper training or insurance, potentially increasing safety risks.
Social Integration: Driver’s licenses are often a key tool for social integration, allowing individuals to participate more fully in their communities. The amendment could deepen divides and contribute to a sense of marginalization among immigrant populations.
Legal Implications: The Road Ahead
For the proposed amendment to become law, it must go through a multi-step process. First, it needs to be approved in two consecutive sessions of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. Then, it must be presented to voters in a statewide referendum. This process could take several years, providing ample opportunity for public debate and advocacy on both sides.
If the amendment is ultimately approved, Pennsylvania would join a growing number of states that have implemented restrictions on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants. However, legal challenges could arise, particularly if the amendment is seen as conflicting with federal policies or constitutional protections.
So…What’s at Stake for Pennsylvania?
The debate over driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants touches on complex issues of law, economics, and social justice. As the legislative process unfolds, Pennsylvanians will need to weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of the proposed amendment and consider its broader implications for the state’s future.
Regardless of the outcome, one thing is clear: this issue is not just about driver’s licenses—it’s about who we are as a society and how we choose to balance the principles of law enforcement, economic prosperity, and human dignity.
Ninth Circuit Clarifies Amount in Controversy Requirement in Declaratory Judgment Actions Between Insurers and Their Insureds
Plaintiff’s counsel often employ a range of strategic tactics to defeat diversity jurisdiction because they view federal court as an unfavorable forum. One such tactic is to challenge the amount in controversy—a key requirement for diversity jurisdiction. However, the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Farmers Direct Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Perez, — F.4th —, 2025 WL 716337 (9th Cir. March 6, 2025), makes it difficult to challenge the amount in controversy in declaratory judgment actions filed in federal court involving an insurer’s duty to defend and/or indemnify. In Perez, the Ninth Circuit held that in determining the amount in controversy, district courts may consider (i) the insurer’s potential excess liability and (ii) defense fees and costs that the insurer might incur in the underlying action.
Perez arose out of a January 2017 auto accident between Montez and Perez, who was insured by Farmers Direct. Montez, made a policy limit demand, conditioned on an affidavit from Perez that he did not have any other insurance. Farmers Direct offered to pay its $25,000 policy limit but explained that it was unable to reach Perez to obtain an affidavit.
Montez did not accept the policy limit and filed a personal injury lawsuit against Perez in state court. Farmers Direct provided a defense, but Perez would not communicate with defense counsel and was uncooperative in his own defense. Eventually, judgment was entered against Perez for more than $11 million.
Before the state court judgment was entered, Farmers Direct filed a declaratory judgment action against Perez in federal court, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend and indemnify Perez because he had breached the policy’s cooperation clause. When Perez did not respond to the complaint, the district court entered a default judgment against him and found that Farmers Direct had no continuing duty to defend and no duty to indemnify Perez.
Montez intervened in the federal action to set aside the default judgment, arguing that given the face amount of the policy, the amount in controversy requirement was not satisfied. The district court agreed, found it did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and vacated the judgment.
Farmers Direct appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court concluded that the amount in controversy was not limited to the policy’s $25,000 limit. Rather, in determining the amount in controversy, the district court was required to take into account (i) Montez’s contention that Farmers Direct should be liable for the excess amount of the underlying personal injury judgment and (ii) Farmers Direct’s ongoing defense costs in the underlying tort action. Because there was a legal possibility that Farmers Direct could be liable for these amounts, each of which exceeded $75,000, the panel held that the district court erred in vacating the default judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings.
Foley Automotive Update 19 March 2025
Foley is here to help you through all aspects of rethinking your long-term business strategies, investments, partnerships, and technology. Contact the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or our Automotive Team to discuss and learn more.
Special Update — Trump Administration and Tariff Policies
Foley & Lardner partner Kathleen Wegrzyn addressed a number of FAQs regarding force majeure and price increases amid the current turbulent tariff landscape.
Key tariff announcements include:
President Trump on March 17 told reporters that “in certain cases, both” 25% sector-specific tariffs as well as unspecified “reciprocal tariffs” could apply on U.S. imports beginning April 2. U.S. imports that have been traded duty-free under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) are exempt — until April 2 — from the 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada that were announced on March 4.
Following the implementation of 25% tariffs on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum, Canada on March 13 imposed levies on C$29.8 billion in U.S. imported goods. This follows 25% tariffs on C$30 billion of products Canada announced on March 4.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum thus far has not moved forward with a plans to apply retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports.
The European Union intends to reinstate 2018 and 2020 countermeasures on April 1 against a range of U.S. goods, with a more extensive retaliatory tariff package planned for later next month.
China imposed tariffs on U.S. goods including large-engine vehicles, as well as export and investment controls on over two dozen U.S. firms after the Trump administration applied 20% duties on Chinese imports.
Automotive Key Developments
Analysis from S&P Global Mobility indicates the disruptive effects of 25% tariffs on all vehicle imports could potentially reduce North American production “by up to 20,000 units per day within a week.” S&P predicted a 50% probability for a tariff-related “extended disruption scenario” this year, during which certain high-profile vehicles “will slow or cease production.”
MichAuto and AlixPartners described volatile tariff policies as “crippling” and “debilitating” for the automotive industry and noted the ongoing uncertainty has already damaged OEMs’ and suppliers’ ability to make investment and product decisions.
Statements from MEMA and the American Automotive Policy Council emphasized the potential for significant cost increases for automakers, suppliers, and consumers resulting from the 25% tariffs on U.S. imports of steel and aluminum. In addition, a recent survey by the vehicle suppliers association found 97% of respondents had concerns regarding increased financial distress among sub-tier suppliers due to the announced tariffs, and over 80% of surveyed suppliers are exposed to steel and aluminum derivative tariffs.
Tariffs on steel and aluminum could raise costs up to$400 to $500 per vehicle on average, with the potential for greater impact on larger, aluminum-intensive vehicles such as the Ford F-150 pickup.
Relocating an assembly line between existing facilities can take up to eight months, and an automaker would likely need up to three years or longer to fully staff and significantly build out new U.S. manufacturing capacity.
Ford is reported to be amassing inventories of USMCA-compliant parts to mitigate the effects of tariffs, and the automaker has told its suppliers to keep shipping under existing terms, according to an update from Crain’s Detroit.
Automotive News assessed the exposure of certain EV brands to the impact of U.S. import tariffs.
University of Michigan economists projected U.S. new light-vehicle sales will reach 16.3 million units in 2025, while noting the projections have “substantial uncertainty” due to trade policy volatility. The economists also expect steel and aluminum tariffs to “raise production costs in the automotive supply chain,” and the levies could reduce Michigan’s employment by approximately 2,300 jobs by 2026.
Preliminary discussions concerning the renewal of the USMCA suggested a revised pact could result in higher tariffs for non-compliance, according to unidentified sources in The Wall Street Journal.
The Environmental Protection Agency on March 12 announced 31 deregulatory actions that include the reconsideration of the Biden administration’s emissions standards for light-duty, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles.
OEMs/Suppliers
While tariffs in the U.S., Canada, and the EU may continue to impede sales by Chinese automakers in the near term, market share is rising in emerging markets for Chinese brands that include BYD, Great Wall Motor, Chery Automobile, and SAIC Motor Corp.
Volkswagen intends to reduce production and headcount at its Chattanooga, Tennessee plant to support cost-cutting initiatives and in response to lower EV demand. Planned layoffs across VW Group have reached nearly 48,000 globally, including a 30% headcount reduction at its Cariad software unit by the end of this year.
Ford will invest €4.4 billion ($4.8 billion) in its German operations, in an effort to boost sluggish sales in Europe.
Nissan named Ivan Espinosa, currently serving as Chief Planning Officer, to succeed CEO Makoto Uchida, effective April 1.
Market Trends and Regulatory
U.S. new light-vehicle inventory reached 3 million units at the beginning of March, representing an 89-day supply industrywide, according to analysis from Cox Automotive.
The percentage of subprime auto borrowers at least 60 days past due on their loans reached 6.56% in January, representing the highest level in over 30 years, according to data from Fitch Ratings. The share of auto loans in serious delinquency across all borrower types was 2.96% in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to 2.66% in Q4 2023 and 2.22% in Q4 2022.
Kelley Blue Book estimates that new-vehicle sales incentives were up 18.6% year-over-year in February 2025. The average incentive package last month reached 7.1% of average transaction price, or $3,392, compared to 6% of ATP in February 2024.
U.S. Senate Republicans introduced the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act (S. 2090) to “prevent the elimination of the sale of motor vehicles with internal combustion engines” by limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s issuance of certain Clean Air Act waivers.
GM has again applied with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to establish an industrial bank, and this would enable the automaker to hold deposits and expand their financial offerings to consumers, dealerships, and employees. Stellantis and Ford have also recently submitted applications for banking licenses.
U.S. House lawmakers included language in an amendment to the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act that effectively “removes the ability for any House members to use an expedited process” to compel a vote for the remainder of this calendar year on whether to terminate the national emergency declaration utilized as the basis to pursue tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. The “continuing resolution” (CR) to fund the federal government through the rest of the fiscal year 2025 was signed by the president on March 15, 2025.
Autonomous Technologies and Vehicle Software
Industry organizations, including the Alliance For Automotive Innovation, urged the Department of Transportation to establish a national framework to support the deployment of autonomous vehicles.
NVIDIA will collaborate with GM and Magna to advance next-generation vehicle technologies. NVIDIA has described artificial intelligence technologies in the auto industry as a “trillion-dollar opportunity.”
GM named Barak Turovsky, formerly of Cisco and Google, as its first Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer.
Ford announced tech veteran Mike Aragon will join the company as President, Integrated Services. The position is expected to support the automaker’s goals to boost revenue from software-enabled subscriptions and features.
Autonomous trucking startup Bot Auto plans to begin its first driver-out commercial freight pilot program in Texas this year, on routes between Houston and San Antonio. Houston-based Bot Auto was founded in 2023 by former TuSimple CEO Xiaodi Hou.
Electric Vehicles and Low-Emissions Technology
Over 50% of new EV purchases in the fourth quarter of 2024 were leases, and EVs accounted for nearly 20% of all new vehicle leases during the quarter, according to data from Experian released this month.
BYD plans to launch new charging technology on certain models in China next month that will enable 400 kilometers (249 miles) of range with five minutes of charge time, or roughly the same duration required to refuel comparable gas-powered models.
Cadillac intends to begin production of the electric 2026 Cadillac Escalade IQL in mid-2025 at GM’s Factory Zero electric vehicle assembly plant in Detroit.
Volkswagen recently debuted its ID Every1 electric minicar concept, and the low-cost EV will be the brand’s first model to use software from the automaker’s joint venture with Rivian.
Isuzu will invest $280 millionto establish a commercial EV plant in Piedmont, South Carolina.
UAW members ratified their first labor agreement at the Ultium Cells joint venture battery plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee.
SK On will supply Nissan with nearly 100 gigawatt-hours of batteries from 2028 to 2033, to support future EV models produced at the automaker’s Canton, Mississippi plant.
Stellantis will invest €38 million ($41 million) to produce EV engine parts at its Verrone transmissions plant in Italy.
Analysis by Julie Dautermann, Competitive Intelligence Analyst
Distracted Driving Laws and Penalties: What You Need to Know
As Distracted Driving Awareness Month approaches in April, we are reminded to adhere to distracted driving laws, aimed at making our roads safer for everyone year-round. With an increase in smartphone use and other distractions, it’s essential to be aware of the laws and penalties surrounding distracted driving. In this post, we’ll break down distracted driving laws and the consequences.
What is Distracted Driving?
Distracted driving is any activity that diverts attention from driving including texting, talking on the phone, eating, changing the radio, or even chatting with passengers. According to the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, distracted driving is a factor in thousands of crashes each year.
The Laws
While distracted driving laws can vary by state, there are some common elements that many states share:
1. Texting While Driving
Most states have strict laws against texting while driving. The most dangerous form of distracted driving is texting, since it requires visual, manual, and cognitive attention.
Michigan has a primary enforcement law for texting, which means law enforcement can stop and ticket a driver solely for texting, even if no other traffic violation has occurred.
2. Use of Hands-Free Devices
While some states allow the use of hands-free devices, others have restrictions. It’s important to familiarize yourself with local laws regarding Bluetooth or other hands-free technologies to avoid fines.
3. Other Distractions
Driving while distracted by activities such as eating, grooming, or interacting with passengers can also be penalized, especially if these actions lead to dangerous driving behavior.
Penalties for Distracted Driving
The penalties for distracted driving can vary significantly depending on the specific violation. Common consequences include:
1. Fines
Many states impose fines for distracted driving offenses. These can range from $50 to several hundred dollars, depending on the severity of the violation.
2. Points on Your License
Distracted driving can lead to points being added to your driving record. Accumulating too many points can result in higher insurance rates and even license suspension.
3. Increased Insurance Premiums
Insurance companies often raise premiums for drivers with distracted driving citations. Over time, this can lead to a significant financial burden.
4. Potential Criminal Charges
In severe cases, especially if distracted driving leads to an accident with injuries or fatalities, the driver may face criminal charges. This can result in hefty fines, community service, or even jail time.
Stay Focused
Here are some tips to help minimize distractions and stay vigilant behind the wheel:
Put your phone away: Consider using “Do Not Disturb” mode while driving.
Plan ahead: Set your GPS and music before you start driving.
Avoid multitasking: Eat before you drive, and save interactions with passengers for when you’re parked.
Conclusion
Understanding distracted driving laws and their penalties is vital for all drivers. By staying informed and committed to safe driving practices, you contribute to safer roads for everyone
Arkansas Attorney General Sues GM and OnStar Over Alleged Privacy Violations
On February 26, 2025, the Attorney General of Arkansas filed a lawsuit against General Motors Co. (“GM”) and its subsidiary, OnStar LLC (“OnStar”), alleging deceptive trade practices related to the collection and sale of drivers’ data. The complaint alleges that GM and OnStar gathered detailed driving data (including precise geolocation data, GM app usage data, and information about consumers’ driving behavior (e.g., start time, end time, vehicle speed, high-speed driving percentage, late-night driving percentage, acceleration data, braking data, and distance driven)) from over 100,000 Arkansas residents without their consent and sold it to third-party data brokers. The data brokers then allegedly sold the data to insurance companies, which used the data to deny coverage or increase insurance rates for consumers. The complaint asserts that GM and OnStar collected and sold the consumer data to generate additional revenue for the companies. The Arkansas Attorney General is seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and expenses.
This lawsuit follows actions by the FTC and the Texas Attorney General over similar data-sharing allegations, and is part of a larger trend of state regulators examining the privacy practices of connected vehicle manufacturers.
What Honda’s CCPA Penalty Means for Your Privacy Compliance
The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) has reached a settlement with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Honda), as outlined in this Order of Decision. The Order is the CPPA’s first public enforcement action involving a significant monetary penalty of $632,500, arising from its investigation into the privacy practices of connected vehicle manufacturers that began in July 2023.
The CPPA asserted that Honda violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by requiring consumers to undergo an extensive identity verification process, including for requests where verification is not permitted under the CCPA. Honda’s process for accepting data subject requests through authorized agents also included unnecessary and non-permitted steps.
Additionally, the CPPA asserted that Honda’s cookie management platform violated the CCPA, as it required a two-step process for opting out of advertising cookies and tracking technologies while consenting (or reconsenting) to cookies required just a single click, making it more burdensome to opt out of, rather than consent to such data processing. Honda was also unable to produce any of its contracts with third party advertising vendors to show that they were implementing the required contractual provisions under the CCPA.
To resolve the CPPA’s allegations, Honda has agreed to pay $632,500 in monetary penalties and revise its privacy practices, including implementing a simpler process for consumers to exercise their privacy rights, minimizing data collection for verification purposes and modifying its contract management and tracking processes.
The CPPA’s Order signals an intent to hold businesses accountable for their data subject request processes. Below are some steps you can take to ensure compliance and mitigate the risk of similar penalties:
Revisit your process for responding to data subject requests and ensure that your verification process is appropriately tailored.
Review (or implement) a process for receiving, verifying and responding to data subject requests.
Review your contracts with vendors to confirm they include the required provisions.
Assess (or implement) your cookie management platform to ensure opt-out processes are simple and symmetrical.
New U.S. Regulations on Vehicle Connectivity and Automated Driving Systems: Compliance Starts Now!
Starting today, March 17, 2025, new U.S. regulations impose sweeping restrictions on the importation and sale of connected vehicles (CV) and related components with ties to China and Russia. Issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Connected Vehicles Rule (CV Rule) aims to curb potential national security threats posed by foreign-made vehicle connectivity and automated driving systems. These restrictions, which will be phased in over the coming years, require businesses to conduct rigorous supply chain assessments and file compliance declarations. Importers and manufacturers must act now to ensure compliance and avoid steep penalties for violations.
Key components of the CV Rule are as follows:
Controls. The CV Rule focuses on two main categories: vehicle connectivity systems (VCS) and automated driving systems (ADS). VCS includes hardware and software that “directly enables” the transmission, reception, or processing of radio frequencies over 450 MHz. ADS encompasses hardware and software capable of performing the entire dynamic driving task for a connected vehicle.
Scope. Consistent with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in September 2024 (NPRM), the CV Rule prohibits the import or sale of CVs and VCS hardware or ADS with a defined nexus, significant connection, or association to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Russia. This means the CV, VCS, or ADS was either (i) manufactured in the PRC or Russia, (ii) developed by companies based in the PRC or Russia, or (iii) supplied by entities with substantial ties to the PRC or Russia.
Implementation. Starting with Model Year (MY) 2027 for covered software and MY 2030 for VCS hardware, the CV Rule will be gradually implemented over the next several years to minimize supply chain disruptions. Specifically, the CV Rule will not apply to legacy software and components designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied in or from the PRC or Russia prior to March 17, 2026.
Declarations. Importers should conduct a supply chain assessment to document the origin of all hardware and software used in a connected vehicle. This supply chain assessment will allow for the identification and mitigation of risks while forming the basis for the BIS Declarations of Conformity (Declarations). BIS will require Declarations from importers and CV manufactures to certify compliance annually prior to importing or selling CVs with VCS hardware or covered software in the US.
Declarations may be filed using forms to be made available on the BIS website and should include:
Confirmation that the VCS hardware or covered software is not designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of the PRC or Russia.
The importer has conducted due diligence to inform the Declaration and maintains supporting documents.
The importer has taken all possible measures to ensure all information is furnished to the BIS upon request.
The importer will submit material changes to Declarations within 60 days.
The importer will maintain records for 10-years.
Authorization. The BIS will issue general authorizations for parties to engage in otherwise prohibited transactions, provided the party meets certain conditions. The general authorizations and conditions will be published on the BIS website. Expected general authorizations include exemptions for (i) small businesses, (ii) CVs not used on public roads, (iv) CVs imported for display, testing, or research, and (iv) CVs imported for repair. Specific authorizations may also be provided by the BIS following an application and approval process. These specific authorizations may be granted for higher-risk transactions, where importers and manufacturers apply to the BIS for permission to engage in transactions that would otherwise be prohibited.
Advisory Opinions. Importers and manufacturers that remain unsure whether a transaction is subject to a prohibition or requirement under the CV Rule may request an Advisory Opinion from the BIS’s Office of Information and Communications Technology and Services.
Penalties. Persons who violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or knowingly cause a violation of the CV Rule may be subjected to civil and/or criminal penalties under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The maximum civil penalty is currently $368,136 per violation with the maximum criminal penalty of $1,000,000. If the BIS has reason to believe a violation has occurred, then BIS will inform the alleged violator with a written notice of the intent to impose a penalty. Alleged violators will then have 30 days to respond in writing and provide additional information to contest the penalty.
For importers of CVs, VCS, or ADS planning and supply chain due diligence will be critical in adapting to this new final rule.
EPA Announces Expansive Deregulatory Plan
On March 12, 2025, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a sweeping plan to “undertake 31 historic actions in the most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history.” The announcement states that the deregulatory plan is intended to “advance President Trump’s Day One executive orders and Power the Great American Comeback.” EPA states that these actions “will roll back trillions in regulatory costs and hidden ‘taxes’ on U.S. families,” making it “more affordable to purchase a car, heat homes, and operate a business.”
The ambitious plan identifies numerous past EPA regulations or actions that will be reconsidered or reviewed. The regulations identified in the deregulatory plan, which were promulgated under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, apply to a wide range of industrial sectors and regulated parties. Although described as “31 actions,” the EPA’s primary announcement lists 22 different items, with some mentioning more than one regulation or past action set to be reconsidered or otherwise addressed as part of the plan. EPA’s list is also separated by headings that appear to correspond to separate Day One executive actions by President Trump. For each of the planned deregulatory actions, EPA issued an accompanying press release providing additional information, including, in a few cases, anticipated timelines for completing the deregulatory actions and planned interim actions.
The Babst Calland team has summarized the identified deregulatory actions and information provided by EPA in the table below:
EPA’s Description
Key Points from EPA Press Release
EPA’s Target Timeline
Unleashing American Energy
EPA Announces Reconsideration of Clean Power Plan 2.0
Reconsidering the “Clean Power Plan 2.0” based on the Biden administration’s rule requiring “unlawful fuel-shifting” and “overreaching”
Citing U.S. Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan and subsequent decision overturning it in West Virginia v. EPA
No stated timeline
EPA Announces Reconsideration of OOOO b/c
Reconsidering regulations for the oil and gas industry under Clean Air Act (CAA) § 111 (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts OOOOb/c) and revisions to 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program as “ideologically driven regulations” that prevent U.S. “energy dominance”
Referring to “major recent Supreme Court precedent” related to federal agencies’ interpretation and implementation of governing statutes
No stated timeline
EPA Announces Reconsideration of Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS)
Reconsidering the MATS rule based on noted costs for compliance, past mercury emissions reductions, and significant regulatory uncertainty for coal plants in several states, including Pennsylvania and West Viriginia
Considering 2-year compliance exemption via CAA § 112(i)(4) for affected power plants during EPA’s rulemaking process
No stated timeline for completing reconsideration
EPA is considering 2-year compliance exemption
EPA Announces Reconsideration of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
Reconsidering the mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program based on noted costs of calculating and submitting annual emissions reports
Noting that mandatory GHGRP is “not directly related to” developing regulations and could be better used to drive improvements at reporting facilities
No stated timeline
EPA Announces it Will Reconsider 2024 Water Pollution Limits for Coal Power Plants (ELG: Steam Electric)
Revising 2024 wastewater regulations for coal burning power plants on flue gas desulfurization wastewater, bottom ash transport water, combustion residual leachate and legacy wastewater
Reconsidering technology-based ELGs and evaluating immediate relief from leachate requirements
Stating that EPA will consider how it might provide “immediate relief from some of the existing leachate requirements,” and “in a series of related actions,” EPA will provide clarifying updates on leachate requirements and reevaluate availability and cost of membrane technology
No stated timeline
EPA Will Revise Wastewater Regulations for Oil and Gas Extraction
Modernizing regulations on wastewater discharges for oil and gas extraction facilities to “provide regulatory flexibility” and support environmentally sustainable water reuse with “modern technologies and management strategies”
Reviewing and evaluating technologies and strategies for produced water to be treated for beneficial reuse, including for AI and data center cooling, rangeland irrigation, fire control, power generation, and ecological needs
Considering expanding the geographic scope of where treated wastewater can be used and discharged in the U.S.
No stated timeline
EPA Announces Reconsideration of the Risk Management Plan
Reconsidering 2024 Risk Management Plan (RMP) rule due to “significant concerns relating to national security and the value of the prescriptive requirements within the rule”
Stating that the 2024 RMP rule makes oil and natural gas refineries and chemical facilities less safe and less competitive
No stated timeline
Lowering The Cost of Living for American Families
EPA Announces Action to Implement POTUS’s Termination of Biden-Harris Electric Vehicle Mandate
Reconsidering Model Year 2027, Later Light-Duty, Medium-Duty, and Heavy-Duty Vehicle regulations based on noted regulatory and compliance costs and effort to bring back American auto jobs
Reevaluating Biden administration’s “Clean Trucks Plan” and “2022 Heavy-Duty Nitrous Oxide (NOx) rule”
No stated timeline
EPA Kicks Off Formal Reconsideration of 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding with Agency Partners
Reconsidering the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding in collaboration with Office of Management and Budget and other agencies based on costs of regulations that flow from the finding
Reconsidering all of EPA’s prior regulations and actions that rely on the 2009 Endangerment Finding
Stating that “EPA will follow the Administrative Procedure Act and Clean Air Act, as applicable, in a transparent way for the betterment of the American people and fulfillment of the rule of law”
Stating in a separate one-page document that “EPA does not prejudge the outcome” of the reconsideration
No stated timeline
EPA Announces Reconsideration of the Technology Transition Rule
Reconsidering the technology transition rule based on noted costs of refrigerant systems required under rule
Stating that the rule harms semiconductor manufacturing and raises the cost of food at grocery stores
No stated timeline
EPA Announces Path Forward on NAAQS for PM2.5 to Aid Manufacturing, Small Business
Reconsidering the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) based on “serious concerns” from states and the standards serving “as a major obstacle to permitting”
Releasing guidance “soon” to increase flexibility on NAAQS implementation, reforms to New Source Review, and direction on permitting obligations
No stated timeline for completing reconsideration
Guidance to be released “soon”
EPA Announces Reconsideration of Air Rules Regulating American Energy, Manufacturing, Chemical Sectors (NESHAPS)
Reconsidering initially the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) for integrated iron and steel manufacturing, rubber tire manufacturing, synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry, commercial sterilizers for medical devise and spices, lime manufacturing, coke ovens, copper smelting, and taconite ore processing
Considering a 2-year compliance exemption via CAA § 112(i)(4) for affected facilities during EPA’s rulemaking process
Evaluating other NESHAPs and New Source Performance Standards to determine whether they should be reconsidered
No stated timeline
Administrator Zeldin Begins Restructuring Regional Haze Program
Reconsidering implementation of program based on noted significant costs to power plants in the past
Reviewing Regional Haze Program regulations “to ensure that it fulfills Congressional intent, is based on current scientific information, and reflects recent improvements in air quality”
No stated timeline
EPA Announces Action to Address Costly Obama, Biden “Climate” Measurements (Social Cost of Carbon)
Revisiting Biden administration’s “social cost of carbon” based on “significant regulatory costs”
Executive Order requires guidance issued within 60 days of order
Administrator Zeldin Directs Enforcement Resources to Align with Executive Orders and EPA’s Core Mission
Immediately revising National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives “to ensure that enforcement does not discriminate based on race or socioeconomic status” or “shut down energy production”
Stating that enforcement discretion will provide predictability “as EPA considers changes to regulations” and “cost savings”
EPA states it “will immediately revise” initiatives
EPA Terminates Biden’s Environmental Justice, DEI Arms of Agency
Terminating DEI and Environmental Justice arms of EPA
No stated timeline
Advancing Cooperative Federalism
EPA Announces Plan to Work with States on SIPs and Reconsider “Good Neighbor Plan”
Tackling “troubled” “Good Neighbor Plan” to advance cooperative federalism and work with states on Statement Implementation Plans to improve air quality
No stated timeline
Administrator Zeldin Takes Action to Prioritize Cooperative Federalism, Improve Air Quality Faster
Announcing commitment to address backlog of State/Tribal Implementation Plans
Noting EPA will assist states to ensure air quality is protected while growing economy
Referencing states’ concerns “related to being punished for emissions” outside of their control and “air quality monitors not being located in most logical locations”
Specifically mentioning development of semiconductor manufacturing and artificial intelligence
EPA’s goal to clear backlog “as soon as possible”
Administrator Zeldin Takes Action to Decrease Risk of Future Catastrophic Wildfires
Prioritizing allowance of prescribed fires within State/Tribal Implementation Plans to decrease risk of future wildfires
No stated timeline
EPA to Accept Nominations for Science Boards
Reconstituting Science Advisory Board and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Stating changes are critical to EPA receiving scientific advice “consistent with its legal obligations to advance core mission of protecting human health and the environment”
Accepting nominations for 30 days following publication in Federal Register
EPA Announces Action on Coal Ash Program
Prioritizing a number of “timely” actions on coal ash, “including state permit program reviews and update to coal ash regulations”
Reviewing Legacy-Coal Combustion Residuals Management Units Rule (CCRMU Rule) and “evaluating whether to grant short- and long-term relief such as extending compliance deadlines”
EPA will propose determination on North Dakota program within 60 days
EPA aims to complete CCRMU Rule changes within “a year”
EPA Announces Use of Enforcement Discretion to Further North Carolina’s Recovery from Hurricane Helene
Granting an extension of the no action assurance that North Carolina requested to “use large air curtain incinerators to clear debris without Title V permits to allow more efficient burning of debris with lower emissions”
Immediate
Administrator Zeldin Announces EPA Will Revise Waters of the United States Rule[1]
Revising Clean Water Act (CWA) Waters of the United States definition to reduce red tape, cut permitting costs and lower costs of doing business
Undertaking rulemaking process guided by Sackett and providing guidance to states while rulemaking proceeds
EPA will “move quickly” on review and “expeditiously” obtain input from stakeholders
With limited exceptions, EPA provides few details on the timing and steps it will take for each of the identified actions. In multiple announcements, EPA states or implies that it will undertake notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Notably, EPA does not address steps it may take in pending litigation regarding several of the identified regulations. Nor does EPA mention whether the planned deregulatory actions satisfy directives under President Trump’s other Executive Orders, such as the “Ensuring Lawful Government and Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency Regulatory Initiative’” and “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” orders.
The deregulatory plan will require significant resources and time to implement at a time when EPA’s new political leadership is seeking to drastically cut costs and staff. Although several of the identified deregulatory actions may take years to complete, stakeholders subject to the identified deregulatory actions must evaluate and consider developing strategies for productively engaging with EPA during the expected rulemakings and related actions. Major environmental groups have denounced EPA’s deregulatory plan and are vowing to challenge the EPA.
CPPA Fines Honda $632,500 for CCPA Violations
On March 12, 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency (“CPPA”) announced that it reached a settlement with American Honda Motor Co. (“Honda”) in which Honda will pay a $632,500 fine to resolve claims that the company violated the CCPA. The enforcement action comes as part of the CPPA’s ongoing investigation into connected vehicle manufacturers, which began in 2023.
Specifically, the CPPA alleged that Honda violated the CCPA’s privacy rights provisions by:
requiring California consumers to provide excessive personal information to exercise their rights, including the opt-out of sale/sharing right (which is not a right that must be verified with consumers’ personal information);
using an online privacy rights management platform that did not offer consumers their privacy choices in a symmetrical or equal way (in violation of the requirement in Section 7004(a)(2) of the CCPA Regulations to provide symmetry in choice when offering consumers more privacy-protective options, and not create a more difficult path for consumers to exercise such options); and
not providing a user-friendly method for authorized agents to submit privacy rights requests on consumers’ behalf.
The CPPA also alleged that Honda failed to provide to the CPPA copies of its contracts with ad tech providers containing the required CCPA contract provisions.
As part of the settlement Honda agreed to (1) pay the $632,500 fine, (2) implement a new and simpler process for consumers to submit privacy rights requests, (3) consult a user experience (UX) designer to evaluate its methods for submitting privacy requests, (4) train employees on CCPA compliance, and (5) change its contracting process with recipients of consumer personal information to ensure compliance with the CCPA.