DOCSLIB.ORG

USDC IN/ND Case 3:18-Cv-00969-RLM-MGG Document 57 Filed 05/23/19 Page 1 of 83

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00969-RLM-MGG document 57 filed 05/23/19 page 1 of 83 1 Douglas S. Swetnam (IN State Bar #15860-49) Section Chief – Data Privacy & ID Theft Unit 2 Office of Attorney General Curtis Hill Jr. 3 302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 4 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (317) 232-6294 5 6 Michael A. Eades (IN State Bar #31015-49) Deputy Attorney General 7 Office of Attorney General Curtis Hill, Jr. 302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor 8 Indianapolis, IN 46204 9 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (317) 234-6681 10 John C. Gray (Pro Hac Vice) 11 Assistant Attorney General 12 Office of Attorney General Mark Brnovich 2005 N. Central Ave. 13 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Email: [email protected] 14 Telephone: (602) 542-7753 15 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Arizona 16 Peggy Johnson (Pro Hac Vice) Assistant Attorney General 17 Office of Attorney General Leslie Rutledge 18 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 19 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (501) 682-8062 20 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Arkansas 21 Michele Lucan (Pro Hac Vice) 22 Assistant Attorney General Office of Attorney General William Tong 23 110 Sherman Street 24 Hartford, CT 06105 Email: [email protected] 25 Telephone: (860) 808-5440 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Connecticut 26 27 28 Indiana et. al. v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. et al. Complaint page 1 of 83 USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00969-RLM-MGG document 57 filed 05/23/19 page 2 of 83 1 Patrice Malloy (Pro Hac Vice) Bureau Chief, Multistate and Privacy Bureau 2 Florida Office of the Attorney General 3 110 SE 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 4 (954) 712-4669 [email protected] 5 6 Diane Oates (Pro Hac Vice) Assistant Attorney General 7 Florida Office of the Attorney General 110 Southeast 6th Street 8 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 9 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (954) 712-4603 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Florida 11 William Pearson (Pro Hac Vice) 12 Assistant Attorney General Office of Attorney General Tom Miller 13 1305 E. Walnut, 2nd Floor Des Moines, IA 50319 14 Email: [email protected] 15 Telephone: (515) 281-3731 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Iowa 16 Sarah Dietz (Pro Hac Vice) 17 Assistant Attorney General 18 Office of Attorney General Derek Schmidt 120 S.W. 10th Ave., 2nd Floor 19 Topeka, KS 66612 Email: [email protected] 20 Telephone: (785) 368-6204 21 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Kansas 22 Kevin R. Winstead (Pro Hac Vice) Assistant Attorney General 23 Office of Attorney General Andy Beshear 24 1024 Capital Center Drive Frankfort, KY 40601 25 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (502) 696-5389 26 Attorney for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Kentucky 27 28 Indiana et. al. v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. et al. Complaint page 2 of 83 USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00969-RLM-MGG document 57 filed 05/23/19 page 3 of 83 1 Alberto A. De Puy (Pro Hac Vice) Assistant Attorney General 2 Office of Attorney General Jeff Landry 3 1885 N. Third St. Baton Rouge, LA 70802 4 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (225) 326-6471 5 6 L. Christopher Styron (Pro Hac Vice) Assistant Attorney General 7 Office of Attorney General Jeff Landry 1885 N. Third St. 8 Baton Rouge, LA 70802 9 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (225) 326-6400 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Louisiana 11 Kathy Fitzgerald (Pro Hac Vice) 12 Assistant Attorney General Department of Attorney General Dana Nessel 13 Corporate Oversight Division 525 W. Ottawa St., 5th Floor 14 Lansing, MI 48933 15 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (517) 335-7632 16 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Michigan 17 Jason T. Pleggenkuhle (Pro Hac Vice) 18 Assistant Attorney General Office of Attorney General Keith Ellison 19 Bremer Tower, Suite 1200 445 Minnesota St. 20 St. Paul, MN 55101-2130 21 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (651) 757-1147 22 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Minnesota 23 Daniel J. Birdsall (Pro Hac Vice) 24 Assistant Attorneys General Office of Attorney General Doug Peterson 25 2115 State Capitol PO Box 98920 26 Lincoln, NE 68509 27 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (402) 471-1279 28 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Nebraska Indiana et. al. v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. et al. Complaint page 3 of 83 USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00969-RLM-MGG document 57 filed 05/23/19 page 4 of 83 1 Kimberley A. D’Arruda (Pro Hac Vice) Special Deputy Attorney General 2 North Carolina Department of Justice 3 Office of Attorney General Joshua H. Stein P.O. Box 629 4 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Email: [email protected] 5 Telephone: (919) 716-6013 6 Attorney for Plaintiff State of North Carolina 7 Carolyn U. Smith (Pro Hac Vice) Senior Assistant Attorney General 8 Office of the Attorney General and Reporter Herbert H. Slatery III 9 P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202-0207 10 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (615) 532-2578 11 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Tennessee 12 Tanya L. Godfrey (Pro Hac Vice) 13 Assistant Attorney General Office of the West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey 14 269 Aikens Center 15 Martinsburg, WV 25404 Email: [email protected] 16 Telephone: (304) 267-0239 Attorney for Plaintiff State of West Virginia 17 18 R. Duane Harlow (Pro Hac Vice) Assistant Attorney General 19 Director, Consumer Protection and Antitrust Unit Wisconsin Department of Justice 20 Office of Attorney General Josh Kaul 21 17 W. Main St., P.O. Box 7857 Madison, WI 53707-7857 22 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (608) 266-2950 23 Attorney for Plaintiff State of Wisconsin 24 25 26 27 28 Indiana et. al. v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. et al. Complaint page 4 of 83 USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00969-RLM-MGG document 57 filed 05/23/19 page 5 of 83 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 2 SOUTH BEND DIVISION 3 The States of Arizona; Arkansas; Connecticut; Case No.:3:18-cv-969-RLM-MGG 4 Florida; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; Michigan; Minnesota; Nebraska; 5 North Carolina; Tennessee; West Virginia; and 6 Wisconsin, 7 Plaintiffs; 8 v. 9 Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. d/b/a 10 Enterprise Health, LLC and K& L Holdings, and NoMoreClipboard, LLC , 11 Defendants. 12 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 Plaintiffs, the states of Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 15 Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee, West 16 17 Virginia, and Wisconsin (collectively “Plaintiff States”), for their complaint against Defendants 18 Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., (“MIE”) operating as Enterprise Health, LLC and K&L 19 Holdings, and NoMoreClipboard, LLC, (“NMC” together with MIE “Defendants”), allege: 20 SUMMARY OF THE CASE 21 22 1. Intermittently between May 7, 2015 and May 26, 2015, unauthorized persons 23 (“hackers”) infiltrated and accessed the inadequately protected computer systems of Defendants. 24 During this time, the hackers were able to access and exfiltrate the electronic Protected Health 25 26 Information (“ePHI”), as defined by 45 C.F.R. § 160.103, of 3.9 million individuals, whose PHI 27 was contained in an electronic medical record stored in Defendants’ computer systems. Such 28 Indiana et. al. v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. et al. Complaint page 5 of 83 USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00969-RLM-MGG document 57 filed 05/23/19 page 6 of 83 1 personal information obtained by the hackers included names, telephone numbers, mailing 2 addresses, usernames, hashed passwords, security questions and answers, spousal information 3 (names and potentially dates of birth), email addresses, dates of birth, and Social Security 4 Numbers. The health information obtained by the hackers included lab results, health insurance 5 6 policy information, diagnosis, disability codes, doctors’ names, medical conditions, and 7 children’s name and birth statistics. 8 2. In fostering a security framework that allowed such an incident to occur, 9 Defendants failed to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their computer systems 10 were protected, failed to take reasonably available steps to prevent the breaches, failed to 11 12 disclose material facts regarding the inadequacy of their computer systems and security 13 procedures to properly safeguard patients’ personal health information, failed to honor their 14 promises and representations that patients’ personal health information would be protected, and 15 failed to provide timely and adequate notice of the incident, which caused significant harm to 16 consumers across the United States. 17 18 3. Defendants’ actions resulted in the violation of the state consumer protection, data 19 breach, personal information protection laws and federal HIPAA statutes, as more fully outlined 20 below. Plaintiffs seek to enforce said laws by bringing this action. 21 4. This action is brought, in their representative and individual capacities as 22 provided by state and federal law, by the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, 23 24 Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North 25 Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (collectively the “Attorneys General”). The 26 plaintiffs identified in the paragraph are also referred to collectively as the “Plaintiff States.” 27 28 Indiana et. al. v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. et al. Complaint page 6 of 83 USDC IN/ND case 3:18-cv-00969-RLM-MGG document 57 filed 05/23/19 page 7 of 83 1 5.
Recommended publications
  • In the Letter

    In the Letter

    Attorneys General of Louisiana, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia September 30, 2020 The Honorable A. Mitchell McConnell The Honorable Charles Schumer Majority Leader Minority Leader United States Senate United States Senate 317 Russell Senate Office Building 322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 [email protected] [email protected] The Honorable Lindsey Graham The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Chairman Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary Committee on the Judiciary 290 Russell Senate Office Building 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510 [email protected] [email protected] Re: Support for the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States Dear Senators: We, the undersigned Attorneys General of our States, write to urge the Senate to promptly hold a hearing on and confirm the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Barrett is a distinguished legal scholar and an exceptional appellate judge with a track record of interpreting the Constitution according to its text and original public meaning. As we are sure your review of her exemplary record will reveal, she has the qualifications, experience, and judicial philosophy to be an outstanding Associate Justice. We are aware that there are those who believe the Senate should not hold a hearing on the President’s nominee. In response, we quote excerpts from a 2016 letter sent to the Senate by the Attorneys General of California, New York, and 17 other states: “The Constitution clearly sets out the process for filling a Supreme Court vacancy.
  • Declaration of Cameron R. Azari, Esq. on Implementation of Settlement Notice Plan in the United States District Court for the C

    Declaration of Cameron R. Azari, Esq. on Implementation of Settlement Notice Plan in the United States District Court for the C

    Case 2:14-cv-01855-GW-GJS Document 123 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 47 Page ID #:6092 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONALD M. LUSNAK, on behalf of ) himself and all others similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: CV 14-1855-GW-GJSx ) v. ) DECLARATION OF CAMERON R. ) AZARI, ESQ. ON BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and DOES ) IMPLEMENTATION OF 1 through 10, inclusive, ) SETTLEMENT NOTICE PLAN ) Defendants. ) ) I, Cameron Azari, declare as follows : 1. My name is Cameron R. Azari, Esq. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein, and I believe them to be true and correct. 2. I am a nationally recognized expert in the field of legal notice, and I have served as an expert in dozens of federal and state cases involving class action notice plans. 3. I am the Director of Legal Notice for Hilsoft Notifications, a business unit of Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. (“Epiq”) that specializes in designing, developing, analyzing and implementing, large-scale legal notific atio n plans. 4. This declaration will describe the implementation of the Settlement Notice Plan (“Notice Plan” or “Plan”) and notices (the “Notice” or “Notices”) for the recent settlement in Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A. et al., Case No. 14-1855-GW-GJSx in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. I previously executed my Declaration of Cameron R. Azari, Esq, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. on December 27, 2019 (Dkt. 113), in DECLARATION OF CAMERON R.
  • Post-Election Attorneys General November 7, 2018 TBD** 2020

    Post-Election Attorneys General November 7, 2018 TBD** 2020

    November 7, 2018 State Attorneys General Post-Election Report 2018 The Top Line Results New Attorneys General 18 new attorneys general will take office in January as a result of this election cycle, including • 10 Democrats elected (Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) • 3 Republicans elected (Florida, Ohio, and South Dakota) • 4 attorneys general yet to be appointed (Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine) • 1 attorney general to be appointed to fill a vacancy (Missouri) Turnovers There were four states that turned over party control. All turnovers were Republican to Democrat: Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada. In all of these races, the governorship went to the Democratic candidate as well. Partisan Split Party control among attorneys general is expected to be split among 27 Democratic and 24 Republican attorneys general, assuming that the three governor-appointed attorneys general will follow the governor’s party (Alaska, Wyoming, and Hawaii) and that Maine will be Democratic based on the composition of the state legislature. Before the election, the partisan split was 28 Republicans, 22 Democrats, and one Independent. Incumbency All incumbents seeking reelection won another term, except for one. Republican Brad Schimel (WI) lost his bid for reelection. Attorneys General Running for Higher Office 9 incumbent attorneys general sought higher office, with only three (Maine, Missouri, and Ohio) succeeding in that effort. Cynthia Coffman (R-CO) lost her party’s nomination for governor; Janet Mills (D-ME) won the governorship; Lori Swanson (D-CO) lost her party’s nomination for governor; Josh Hawley (R-MO) won a seat in the US Senate; Adam Paul Laxalt (R-NV) lost his race for governor; Mike DeWine (R-OH) won his race for governor; Bill Schutte (R-MI) lost his race for governor; Marty Jackley (R-SD) lost his party’s nomination for governor; and Patrick Morrissey (R-WV) lost a race for a Senate seat and will thus remain as attorney general.
  • VAWA”) Has Shined a Bright Light on Domestic Violence, Bringing the Issue out of the Shadows and Into the Forefront of Our Efforts to Protect Women and Families

    VAWA”) Has Shined a Bright Light on Domestic Violence, Bringing the Issue out of the Shadows and Into the Forefront of Our Efforts to Protect Women and Families

    January 11, 2012 Dear Members of Congress, Since its passage in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) has shined a bright light on domestic violence, bringing the issue out of the shadows and into the forefront of our efforts to protect women and families. VAWA transformed the response to domestic violence at the local, state and federal level. Its successes have been dramatic, with the annual incidence of domestic violence falling by more than 50 percent1. Even though the advancements made since in 1994 have been significant, a tremendous amount of work remains and we believe it is critical that the Congress reauthorize VAWA. Every day in this country, abusive husbands or partners kill three women, and for every victim killed, there are nine more who narrowly escape that fate2. We see this realized in our home states every day. Earlier this year in Delaware, three children – ages 12, 2 ½ and 1 ½ − watched their mother be beaten to death by her ex-boyfriend on a sidewalk. In Maine last summer, an abusive husband subject to a protective order murdered his wife and two young children before taking his own life. Reauthorizing VAWA will send a clear message that this country does not tolerate violence against women and show Congress’ commitment to reducing domestic violence, protecting women from sexual assault and securing justice for victims. VAWA reauthorization will continue critical support for victim services and target three key areas where data shows we must focus our efforts in order to have the greatest impact: • Domestic violence, dating violence, and sexual assault are most prevalent among young women aged 16-24, with studies showing that youth attitudes are still largely tolerant of violence, and that women abused in adolescence are more likely to be abused again as adults.
  • News Release

    News Release

    Attorney General Doug Peterson News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 5, 2019 Attorney General Peterson Urges Congress to Take Action Against Robocalls Lincoln – Today, Attorney General Peterson urged the U.S. Senate to enact the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence (TRACED) Act, legislation to curb illegal robocalls and spoofing. A coalition of 51 attorneys general, led by Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon J. MacDonald, and Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, sent a letter to the U. S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation supporting the TRACED Act. The legislation is sponsored by Sens. John Thune and Ed Markey. Attorney General Peterson said, “State attorneys general are on the front lines of helping consumers who are harassed and scammed by unwanted calls. For years, we have worked with both our federal counterparts and industry participants to encourage the adoption of technological solutions in the fight against these calls. I am proud to support this legislation.” In their letter, the attorneys general state that the TRACED Act enables states, federal regulators, and telecom providers to take steps to combat these illegal calls. The legislation will require voice service providers to participate in a call authentication framework to help block unwanted calls and creates an interagency working group to take additional actions to reduce robocalls and hold telemarketers and robocallers accountable. More than 48 billion robocalls were made in 2018, making them the number one source of consumer complaints to the FTC and the FCC and resulting in millions in consumer losses.
  • Dual Office Holding Guide Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill

    Dual Office Holding Guide Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill

    Dual Office Holding Guide Indiana Attorney General Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Table of Contents Overview ..............................................................................................................................3 Who should read this Guide? ...............................................................................................3 Why is an understanding of dual office holding important? ................................................3 How should I use this Guide? ..............................................................................................3 How do I determine whether a second public service position violates law? .....................3 Analysis................................................................................................................................4 I. Are both positions lucrative offices within the meaning of Indiana Constitution Article 2, Section 9? ..........................................................................................................4 What should be considered when determining whether a position is a “lucrative office?” What are examples of lucrative and non-lucrative offices? What is the correct procedure to determine the right to an office? If a person holds two lucrative offices in violation of Article 2, Section 9, what are the consequences? Under the four-part analysis, what if both public service positions are lucrative offices? II. Would holding both positions violate the constitutional doctrine of “separation of powers” under Indiana Constitution
  • 3.24.20 Defense Production Act Letter

    3.24.20 Defense Production Act Letter

    STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Josh Kaul Room 114 East, State Capitol Attorney General PO Box 7857 Madison WI 53707-7857 (608) 266-1221 TTY 1-800-947-3529 March 24, 2020 SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY [email protected] [email protected] The President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20500 Re: Shortage of critical supplies Dear Mr. President: We write regarding the immediate need across the country for vital support and to urge you to fully utilize the Defense Production Act to prioritize production of masks, respirators, and other critical items needed to fight the coronavirus pandemic. We are on the brink of catastrophic consequences resulting from the continued shortage of critical supplies. The federal government must act decisively now and use its sweeping authority to get as many needed supplies produced as soon as possible for distribution as quickly as possible. News reports from around the country have highlighted shortages in equipment and testing, with headlines like ‘At War with No Ammo’: Doctors Say Shortage of Protective Gear Is Dire1 and There Is a Shortage of Coronavirus Tests in Wisconsin, and Even Health Care Workers Are Having a Hard Time Getting One.2 Reports like these are consistent with our understanding of the supply shortages our jurisdictions and others across the country are facing or may soon face. 1 Andrew Jacobs et al., ‘At War with No Ammo’: Doctors Say Shortage of Protective Gear Is Dire, N.Y. Times (Mar. 19, 2020), http://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/health/coronavirus-masks-shortage.html.
  • Marquette Lawyer Summer 2021 from the Dean

    Marquette Lawyer Summer 2021 from the Dean

    SUMMER 2021 LOOKING AT JUDGING FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE Problem-Solving Courts and Other Newer Thinking ALSO INSIDE: The Politics, Law, and History of Political Redistricting • Sociological Legitimacy and the U.S. Supreme Court Out-of-State Investors and Home Ownership in Milwaukee • Law Students Take Pro Bono Virtual 1 MARQUETTE LAWYER SUMMER 2021 FROM THE DEAN What Does—and Should—a Judge Do Today? A few years ago, after one of our distinguished This issue’s cover story inquires whether the role lectures, which draw to Eckstein Hall so many of the state trial judge (if the term is still apt) has engaged members of the profession, one attendee, been changing and, if so, what one might make of not an alumnus, said to me, “Eckstein Hall is the any trends. Our focus is not traditional civil litigation, center of the legal profession in this region.” This where at least since Professor Judith Resnik’s famous was a high compliment, but I largely demurred. For 1982 article in the Harvard Law Review, “Managerial me, the nearest state courthouse will always be the Judges,” there has been considerable discussion of heart of the legal profession anywhere. It is the place the changing role of judges. Rather, in this instance that symbolizes justice, and to which, as a society, we we consider, in particular, “problem-solving courts” want our fellow citizens to resort, whether via the and the interest on the part of many Wisconsin trial criminal law or through civil litigation. judges in what they term “better outcomes.” And at the center of the courthouse, and of the Better outcomes would not, historically, have profession, are judges.
  • June 28, 2021 by OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Nancy Pelosi Speaker U.S. House of Representatives Hon. Kevin Mccarthy Minority Leader U.S

    June 28, 2021 by OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Nancy Pelosi Speaker U.S. House of Representatives Hon. Kevin Mccarthy Minority Leader U.S

    June 28, 2021 BY OVERNIGHT MAIL Hon. Nancy Pelosi Hon. Kevin McCarthy Speaker Minority Leader U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives Hon. Maria Cantwell Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr. Chair Chairman U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Science, & Transportation Commerce Hon. Roger Wicker Hon. Cathy McMorris Rogers Ranking Member Ranking Member U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Science, & Transportation Commerce Re: Consumer Protection and Recovery Act (H.R. 2668) Dear Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McCarthy, Chair Cantwell, Chairman Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member Wicker, and Ranking Member McMorris Rogers: As the leading antitrust and consumer protection officers in our respective States, we write to express our strong support for the Consumer Protection and Recovery Act, H.R. 2668 (“Act”), which will ensure the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to obtain equitable monetary relief and redress harms to consumers impacted by fraud or anticompetitive conduct. We applaud the Act’s goal of redressing harms suffered by victims of anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive trade practices, and its application to FTC cases that are currently in litigation. The Act is essential to prevent the severe harm to consumers that will result from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission,1 which held that the FTC lacks the authority to obtain equitable monetary relief through its Section 13(b) enforcement actions.2 The AMG decision upends four decades of FTC practice and seriously undermines the FTC’s efforts to combat fraud and other anticompetitive or unfair trade practices.
  • File a Complaint with Wisconsin Attorney General

    File a Complaint with Wisconsin Attorney General

    File A Complaint With Wisconsin Attorney General Rawley is low-key and frets midnight as stylolitic Hakim partialise preferentially and rose believingly. Multilinear Lucio never calks so mathematically or watch any deconstruction deplorably. Organometallic and ichnographic Cyrille always bulwarks lastingly and recirculates his molybdenite. Have your assigned counsellor for personal or file a with complaint Murphy's Law Why Republicans Won't End Election Complaints. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's complaint to the US Supreme Court filed in. Because the BBB archives information about businesses unanswered complaints are considered unflattering by consumers Therefore relief is advisable that companies deal with complaints to jog their business records clear space so profound it doesn't dissuade future potential customers. Complaint Process Student Resources. Repairs replacements and refunds Citizens Information. Consumer Complaint Form Georgia Consumer Protection. Watch Live Wisconsin Attorney General authorities Discuss Jacob. Filing a Complaint City of Milwaukee Milwaukeegov. For complaints not resolved at the institutional level a student may file an appeal. In your complaints help you have at the seller instead of the same or trademark compliance is. Credit reporting laws You nest find links to your state's Attorney stay On-line Complaint Forms here. Instead appears to file a complaint wisconsin general or addresses of. Fair Labor Division Office because the Attorney general One Ashburton Pl. Attorney ahead of Wisconsin Wikipedia. I also exclude that the Attorney which may decay to abolish my complaint to invoke more appropriate agency Submit. Contact Information for Student Complaint Processes. To complain about payment, law enforcement standards in the defendant or arbitration or file a with complaint attorney general wisconsin, though only numbers.
  • How to Contact State Attorneys General and Credit Regulators About Financial Privacy and Security

    How to Contact State Attorneys General and Credit Regulators About Financial Privacy and Security

    How to Contact State Attorneys General and Credit Regulators about Financial Privacy and Security ALABAMA Consumer Affairs Section Office of the Attorney General 500 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, Alabama 36130-0152 Consumer Protection Hotline: 1-800-392-5658 Fax: 334-242-2433 http://www.familyprotection.alabama.gov/identity.cfm http://www.ago.state.al.us/consumer_form.cfm Alabama Banking Department ATTN: Arlene Baldwin [email protected] P.O. Box 4600 Montgomery, AL 36103-4600 Phone: (334) 242-3452 http://www.bank.state.al.us/ConsumerResources.htm ALASKA Alaska Department of Law – Criminal Division 310 K Street, Suite 403 Anchorage, AK 99501-2064 Phone: 907-269-6379 State of Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations P.O. Box 110807 Juneau, AK 99811-0807 Phone: 907-465-2521 Fax: 907- 465-1231 Email:[email protected] http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/bsc/pub/Complaint_state_financial_institution.pdf ARIZONA Office of the Attorney General Consumer Information and Complaints 1275 W.Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2926 Identity Theft Helpline: 602-542-2145 (Phoenix) 520-628-6504 (Tucson) 800-352-8431 (Outside Maricopa and Pima Counties) Email: [email protected] http://www.azag.gov/cybercrime/ID_Theft.html Consumer Affairs Arizona Department of Financial Institutions 2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 310 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone: (602) 255-4421 Fax: (602) 381-1225 ARKANSAS Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone: 501-682-2007, 1-800-482-8982 http://www.arkansasag.gov/consumers_consumer_alerts_id_theft.html http://www.arkansasag.gov/contact_us_consumer_complaint_form.html Check cashers only: Arkansas Board of Collections Agencies 460 Louisiana, Suite 460 Little Rock, AR 72201 Primary Contact: Peggy Matson Executive Director Phone: 501-371-1438 Email: [email protected] CALIFORNIA Attorney General's Office California Department of Justice Attn: Public Inquiry Unit P.O.
  • February 19, 2021 Hon. Charles E. Schumer Majority Leader U.S

    February 19, 2021 Hon. Charles E. Schumer Majority Leader U.S

    COMMONWEALTH OF STATE OF NEW YORK MASSACHUSETTS MAURA HEALEY LETITIA JAMES ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL February 19, 2021 Hon. Charles E. Schumer Hon. Nancy Pelosi Majority Leader Speaker U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives 322 Hart Senate Office Building 1236 Longworth House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20515 Hon. Mitch McConnell Hon. Kevin McCarthy Minority Leader Minority Leader U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives 317 Russell Senate Office Building 2468 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20515 RE: Senate Resolution 46 and House Resolution 100 Calling on the President of the United States to take executive action to broadly cancel Federal student loan debt Dear Majority Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McConnell, and Minority Leader McCarthy: As the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, we write to express our strongest support for Senate Resolution 46 and House Resolution 100 calling on President Biden to use executive authority under the Higher Education Act to cancel up to $50,000 in Federal student loan debt for all Federal student loan borrowers. Because we are responsible for enforcing our consumer protection laws, we are keenly aware of the substantial burden Federal student loan debt places on the residents of our states. Our Offices routinely receive complaints from borrowers who are unable to navigate the abstruse and opaque repayment or forgiveness plans available under current law. When borrowers are unable to manage their Federal student loan repayment, the consequences can be catastrophic.