State Net

Approval for Bank-to-Bank Stablecoin Use in ND & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:38:00 GMT

ND Regulators Approve Bank-to-Bank Stablecoin Use

North Dakota’s Industrial Commission approved the use of the state bank’s planned stablecoin, the Roughrider Coin, for bank-to-bank transactions. Ten banks have expressed interest in participating in the North Dakota Banks’ pilot program for the stablecoin, which will be tied to the value of the U.S. dollar. (NORTH DAKOTA MONITOR)

Protection from Crypto Insurance May be More Limited than Customers Realize

With cryptocurrency theft on the rise—up 22% to over $2.7 billion last year, according to researcher Chainalysis—a growing number of companies have started selling supplementary criminal insurance. But customers may not be as well protected as they think.

Signing up and paying the $4.99 to $299.99 monthly fee for one of the most popular offerings, from Coinbase Global Inc.—which the company says nearly 1 million people have done—doesn’t automatically confer protection. According to the service’s legal agreement, subscribers must also submit photo identification and register for an approved method of two-factor authentication. And some forms of theft aren’t covered, such as transactions subscribers authorize as a result of being duped by a third party or “fraudulent activities.” (INSURANCE JOURNAL)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Visit our webpage to connect with a LexisNexis® State Net® representative and learn how the State Net legislative and regulatory tracking service can help you identify, track, analyze and report on relevant legislative and regulatory developments.

NY Chatbot Bill Drawing Tech Resistance

Alyzza Austriaco — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:35:00 GMT

Tech Group Pushing Back on NY Chatbot Bill

A tech industry group is opposing a New York bill (SB 7263) aimed at preventing chatbots from impersonating a variety of licensed professionals, including veterinarians. The Consumer Technology Association, representing over 1,200 tech companies, argues the measure would hinder chatbots from providing basic information and expose operators to frivolous lawsuits. (PLURIBUS NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Passage of KS Bill Imposing Dispensing Fee on PBMs & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 18:32:00 GMT

KS Lawmakers Pass PBM Bill

A bill aimed at tightening regulations on PBMs (SB 360), but which appeared unlikely to move forward this session, was inserted into another bill (SB 20) during a conference committee hearing and passed by the House and Senate. Opponents of the measure attempted to send it back to conference committee over a $10.50 dispensing fee the bill would require PBMs to pay pharmacies on all prescriptions they fill, which those critics said would raise insurance fees, ultimately costing consumers more. (KANSAS REFLECTOR, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

IA Lawmakers Pass Bill to Block Foreign Adversaries of US from Operating Hospitals

Iowa’s Legislature passed a bill that would bar China, North Korea and Russia from obtaining a license to “establish, conduct or maintain a hospital or health care facility” in the state. The bill now goes to Gov. Kim Reynolds (R). (KCCI)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

States Battle Feds over Prediction Markets

Mary Anne Peck — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 12:00:00 GMT

Who could have predicted this? Prediction markets have emerged as one of the biggest stories of 2026.

The online platforms and apps, which allow users to bet on anything from who will win the Oscar for best actor to the temperature in Los Angeles tomorrow, have grown from an obsession of the gambling industry press to an obsession of the mainstream media in short order, with countless stories about the disruptive business model coming from major outlets.

One notable example is the story that New York Times journalist Evan Gorelick wrote in late February about a post of his on X that became the subject of a wager on Tweem.

Things could get rockier as legislators and regulators battle over who has authority over this emerging form of wagering that some critics say is just a stalking horse for inserting sports betting into markets where it’s not already legal.

Critics Say Prediction Markets Are Sports Betting by Another Name

Tweem is one of a growing list of prediction markets, the most well-known being Kalshi and Polymarket. They call themselves financial exchanges where customers buy and sell event contracts—predictions on future events.

Some prediction markets are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a once-obscure federal body that has been suddenly thrust into the limelight thanks to the meteoric rise of prediction markets.

Prediction markets, as disruptors often do, have created conflicts on a variety of fronts, raising ethical questions about the appropriateness of betting on wars and fears about insider trading, in which people with direct knowledge about a future event—like what a YouTube star will say on his next video—can leverage that non-public information into easy money.

But the biggest controversy over prediction markets is their contracts for sporting events, which critics argue are indistinguishable from sports betting.

Sports betting is regulated at the state level. Regulation of some prediction markets at the federal level, however, has raised the possibility that they could offer sports-related contracts in lucrative states where sports betting hasn’t been legalized, like California and Florida.

That prospect has roiled the gambling industry, spurring major national sportsbooks like DraftKings and FanDuel to expand into prediction markets while continuing their traditional operations.

State-level gaming regulators have stepped into the fray, with the Nevada Gaming Control Board suing Kalshi to try to prevent it from operating within the Silver State and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement attempting to enforce a cease-and-desist order against the platform. The latter dispute was featured in a June 2025 ESPN story that declared the legal fight “could shape the future of American sports betting.”

These battles are now spilling over to a statehouse near you.

Dozen States Considering Bills Dealing with Prediction Markets

Lawmakers in at least 13 states have considered bills this year referring specifically to “prediction markets,” according to the LexisNexis State Net legislative tracking system. Indiana has enacted such a measure (HB 1052).

State Lawmakers Attempt to Regulate Prediction Markets

Utah may be the state taking the most aggressive legislative stance towards prediction markets. Its Republican governor, Spencer Cox, just signed HB 243 by Rep. Joseph Elison (R), which expands the state’s already tough laws against gambling.

While the measure does not mention “prediction markets” specifically, it bans proposition or prop bets—where gamblers wager on an individual athlete’s performance in a game—by classifying such bets as gambling in terms broad enough to cover many event-based contracts.

And Cox made it very clear where he stands on the issue of prediction markets, saying in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, that they “are gambling—pure and simple.”

“They are destroying the lives of families and countless Americans, especially young men,” he wrote. “They have no place in Utah.”

Indiana enacted a bill (HB 1052) targeting prediction markets more directly. The measure, signed into law by Gov. Mike Braun (R) this month, prohibits judges from engaging in prediction market wagers related to judicial proceedings.

As of March 27, there were about 30 other bills referring specifically to prediction markets pending in 12 other states, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. They include:

Hawaii’s HB 2198 by Rep. Scot Matayoshi (D) and others, which would include prediction markets in the state’s definition of gambling;

Illinois’ HB 5059 by Rep. Edgar González, Jr. (D), which would also ban people under 21 from using prediction markets, and SB 4168 by Sen. Michael Hastings (D), which would require prediction markets operating in the Prairie State to be licensed;

Kentucky’s HB 904 by Reps. Michael Meredith (R) and Matthew Koch (R), which would prohibit horseracing tracks from contracting with prediction markets;

New Jersey’s SB 3692 by Sen. Shirley Turner (D), which would require prediction markets operating within the Garden State to obtain a sports betting license;

New York’s AB 9251, by Assemblymember Clyde Vanel (D), which would ban prediction markets from taking event contracts on sporting events, and AB 9635 by Assemblymember Phil Steck (D), which would restrict state employees from using information they acquired in their jobs to wager on prediction markets;

Virginia’s HB 271 by Del. Paul Krizek (D) and SB 609 by Sen. Louise Lucas (D), both of which would establish the Virginia Gaming Commission that, among other things, would evaluate the public-policy implications of prediction markets; and

Vermont’s HB 913 by Rep. Thomas Stevens (D), which would bar prediction markets from offering contracts on sporting events.

Federal Regulators and Industry Push Back against State Efforts

Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Mike Selig asserted in a video posted to X that despite an “onslaught of state-led litigation,” his commission had “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets.

“The CFTC has regulated these markets for over two decades,” Selig said. “They provide useful functions for society by allowing everyday Americans to hedge commercial risks, like increases in temperature and energy price spikes. They also serve as an important check on our news media and our information streams.”

He concluded his remarks with the warning: “To those who seek to challenge our authority in this space, let me be clear. We will see you in court.”

Kalshi CEO and co-founder Tarek Mansour has similarly argued that the company’s event contracts are federally regulated financial instruments.

“The CFTC is our regulator,” he said in a recent interview. “If the CFTC tells us to stop, we will absolutely stop. If they don’t, then we won’t.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures, meanwhile, has urged Congress to address unregulated sports betting through prediction markets, saying it wanted “language reaffirming existing law and ensuring that unregulated sports betting and casino‑style gambling cannot operate under the guise of ‘event contracts.’”

And Mississippi Sen. David Blount (D), chairman of the Senate Gaming Committee, said on a recent NCSL webinar that prediction market contracts on athletic events are “clearly a violation of state law.”

This fight is likely to continue for some time and could grow more contentious.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Trump Administration’s Proposed State-Preempting National AI Policy Framework & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:49:00 GMT

New White House Policy Framework Calls for Blocking State AI Laws

The Trump administration released a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence that, among other things, urges Congress to “preempt state AI laws that impose undue burdens to ensure a minimally burdensome national standard,” instead of “fifty discordant ones.”

“States should not be permitted to regulate AI development, because it is an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications,” the policy framework stated.

The proposed national AI standard would not preempt states’ power “to enforce laws of general applicability against AI developers and users,” including those intended to prevent fraud and protect children and consumers. It also would not block state zoning laws, including those dealing with the placement of AI infrastructure.

Republican leaders of the U.S. House, including Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana, said the chamber would support the proposed framework. (NEW YORK TIMES, WHITE HOUSE)

States Focus on Privacy of Wearable Recording Devices

First-of-its-kind legislation has been introduced in California (SB 1130) and Louisiana (HB 410) addressing privacy concerns about wearable devices that record audio and video, such as smart glasses. The California measure would update the state’s existing privacy laws to make using wearable technology to record someone without their consent a crime. The Louisiana measure would prohibit anyone from using a wearable device to record an in-person conversation where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy without notifying all parties involved. (PLURIBUS NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

AI in Healthcare Privacy Bill in VT & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 15:46:00 GMT

VT Bill Addresses Privacy of AI in Healthcare

The Vermont House passed a bill (HB 814) to bolster privacy protections around the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare. The bill would establish “neurological rights” to protect individuals’ data from being used without their consent. The bill now goes to the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare. (VTDIGGER, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

States Aim to Block PBMs from Owning Pharmacies

Legislation advancing in Tennessee (SB 2040/HB 1959) would prohibit pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies in the state. Arkansas became the first to pass such a bill (HB 1150 [2025]) last year. Similar proposals failed this year in Indiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Texas, but others are still pending in Arizona, New York and Vermont. (PLURIBUS NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

Legislators Continue to Focus on Forever Chemicals

Mary Anne Peck — Wed, 25 Mar 2026 09:04:00 GMT

Nearly two years after the Environmental Protection Agency set drinking water limits for so-called forever chemicals, the synthetic compounds remain a focus for state legislators.

Formally known as per- and polyfluorinated substances or PFAS, the chemicals are used to make coatings and products that resist heat, stains, oil, grease and water, such as Teflon.

A growing body of research also indicates they may be dangerous to humans, potentially causing decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, and increased risk of certain cancers.

In 2023, at least 23 states enacted 50 bills concerning PFAS, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The following year, when the EPA under the Biden administration established the nation’s first-ever drinking water standard for the chemicals, state lawmakers in 36 states considered more than 200 bills mentioning PFAS, enacting more than 40 of them, according to NCSL.

Last year, when the EPA under President Trump announced that it intended to roll back parts of the brand-new PFAS standard, more than 300 bills related to PFAS were considered across 39 states, with 32 enacted, NCSL reported.

The wave continues this year. As of March 20, over 200 bills referring to PFAS had been introduced in 32 states, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system.

Six of those bills have already been enacted, one each in Indiana, Maine and Utah, and three in New Jersey. Several more are awaiting gubernatorial action in Virginia.

The activity underscores the findings of a recent NCSL report addressing state and federal action on PFAS.

“State legislative activity around PFAS has significantly increased with lawmakers considering everything from establishing maximum contaminant levels of PFAS to banning the sale of ski waxes containing PFAS,” it stated.

NCSL also explored state legislators’ concerns about PFAS in an interview with a bipartisan pair of lawmakers: Colorado Sen. Lisa Cutter (D)—assistant majority leader and member of the Health and Human Services Committee—and Kentucky Sen. Brandon Smith (R), chair of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

PFAS contamination “affects our land, our soil, our water, and therefore our human health,” Cutter said. “All of those reasons are compelling enough that we need to do something about it.”

Smith’s take was similar.

“Once you kind of look under the tent, you can see how big of a disaster this thing could be if it’s not handled correctly,” he said.

But he also suggested many state lawmakers may not really be aware of the problem.

“It’s not been on a lot of the radar for most members of the General Assembly,” he said. “And I’d say we’re not that different than most states, because we’re dealing with so many other things. But now that it’s shown up, I’m surprised there’s not more of a panic to it, about us trying to get something in place.”

Research Continues to Find Problems with PFAS but Questions Remain

Over the course of just 15 days in late February and early March, two new PFAS studies were released. One showed that babies are exposed to more PFAS before birth than previously known. The other tested vegetables grown on eight Long Island farms for PFAS.

Although the Long Island farm study found PFAS in the produce, the authors noted: “Significant gaps still remain as we begin to understand the widespread detection of PFAS contamination and the impacts to public health. Unlike Europe, the United States has not yet established any maximum level of PFAS exposure in food, leaving the public without clear safety thresholds for dietary exposure.”

Cutter, the Colorado senator, said she believed states should fund research into the health effects of PFAS “because there has not been satisfactory action at the federal level. And any time that we can prove the impacts of something through research and data, that’s going to be able to help us move forward.”

Smith, the Kentucky senator, on the other hand, acknowledged there are “so many things unknown.”

“While I feel like we know quite a bit at this moment,” he said, “tomorrow that could all change because there is so much about it that is contradictory.”

PFAS Legislation Under Consideration in Over Half of States

At least 32 states have considered bills dealing with per- and polyfluorinated substances, or PFAS, this year, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Four states have enacted such measures.

Lawmakers Urge State Action

The two lawmakers seemed to agree that action at the federal level was the best way forward on the issue.

“I think that the federal government has the structure and the funding and the research and the personnel that states would be limited with,” said Smith.

Cutter said that “ideally” PFAS “should be regulated and monitored by the EPA and all the things that we know would be effective. But in the meantime, I think it’s really important for states to take action.”

She also said state action could lead to change through a domino effect.

“Whenever states do something, then another state might do something,” she said. “We get model legislation from NCSL, for example. Or we talk to colleagues at conferences. So once one state starts to do something and other states start to follow along, it’s incumbent on those companies to begin changing the way they do business, if not for moral, ethical reasons, even for economic reasons.”

Smith advocated for a measured approach. He said the idea of going in and looking for PFAS scares industry because, as he sees it, “a lot of industry has been abused before with overregulation, so they’re going to be hesitant about us trying to do something good.”

He said: “We need to come up with something that’s reasonable and that you actually can respond to and do it in a way that actually gets the job done, actually cleans up the scale of what we want to. Set the bar where we can meet it, and don’t give industry something that makes us feel good, and we tell you we’re protecting our families and all that, but it’s a law that we know nobody can comply with.”

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

CA’s Spreading Homeowners Insurance Crisis

Alyzza Austriaco — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 13:39:00 GMT

CA’s Wildfire-Driven Insurance Crisis Spreads to Lower-Risk Homes

Insurers have stopped covering homes in some California neighborhoods at lower risk of wildfire damage, forcing thousands of homeowners to turn to the state’s insurer of last resort, known as the FAIR Plan. That coverage was intended to be a backstop for those unable to obtain insurance on the private market because they live in areas at high risk for wildfires.

Enrollment in FAIR surged 43% between September 2024 and December 2025, as insurers pulled out of the state following a string of devastating wildfires. But according to an analysis by Bloomberg News, 14% of current FAIR policies cover properties residing largely in urban areas with low fire risk.

“What we’re seeing is that the infection of the market that existed in the high-fire-risk areas has spread into the normal parts of the market,” said Michael Wara, director of Stanford University’s Climate and Energy Policy Program. (INSURANCE JOURNAL)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

WA’s New Ban on Employee Microchipping

Alyzza Austriaco — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 13:36:00 GMT

WA Enacts Ban on Microchipping Workers

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed a bill (HB 2303) prohibiting companies from requiring their workers to get microchip implants. The new law allows workers to bring civil lawsuits against employers who require them to do so.

There haven’t been any reports of the practice in Washington, but a company in Wisconsin offered implants to its employees in 2017. And as of last year, over 50,000 people around the world had been “chipped,” according to the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs.

Laws similar to Washington’s have been enacted in at least a dozen other states. Nevada’s prohibits workers from even voluntarily being microchipped, while Alabama’s makes violations a felony. (WASHINGTON STANDARD)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

NJ Gov’s Plan to Offset Medicaid Costs & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 13:34:00 GMT

NJ Gov Wants Big Employers to Help Cover Cost of Medicaid

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) unveiled a state budget plan that proposes generating $145 million in funding for Medicaid by requiring large employers to pay up to $725 a year for each employee covered by the public health insurance program. Massachusetts has a similar program, and the idea has also been considered elsewhere. (NEW JERSEY MONITOR)

MS Lawmakers Pass Bill to Help Rural Hospitals

The Mississippi Legislature approved a bill (HB 1622) that would establish a pilot program to help the state’s rural hospitals by loosening certificate of need requirements for expansions or improvements. If signed by Gov. Tate Reeves (R), hospitals in small communities would be allowed to open one new facility within five miles of their main campus or make improvements that exceed the existing thresholds of $20 million for nonclinical improvements and $10 million for clinical improvements. (MISSISSIPPI TODAY, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

State Officials’ Focus on Affordability Includes Prescription Drugs

Mary Anne Peck — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:07:00 GMT

When Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) spoke about the need for affordable healthcare and housing last month, she joined a chorus of governors of both major parties who have made affordability a focus of their annual state of the state addresses.

“Affordability is our highest priority,” said Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R).

“Affordability has become one of the most talked-about issues in national politics today, and it’s refreshing to hear previous skeptics acknowledge it matters,” said Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R).

“Affordability isn’t a joke or some hoax,” said Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D), apparently referring to comments reportedly made by President Donald Trump dismissing affordability as a “hoax” created by Democrats. “It’s a real and consequential challenge that families across Arizona must grapple with every day,” Hobbs said.

The focus on affordability in state capitols isn’t just talk. State lawmakers have been introducing legislation aimed at lowering the cost of everything from diapers (Maine HB 721) to utility bills. One common area of focus is healthcare and prescription drugs, in particular.

Legislators have actually been working to address the cost of prescription drugs for years, with a few themes figuring prominently, including drug pricing transparency, pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) regulation and, more recently, prescription drug affordability boards (PDABs).

Continuing Focus on PDABs and PBMs in 2026

As of March 2, 28 states had introduced 104 bills concerning prescription drug pricing and payment, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ prescription drug database.

At least eight states have considered over a dozen bills dealing with PDABs, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Bills in four of those states, Hawaii (SB 2933), Louisiana (SB 401), Virginia (HB 483/SB 271) and West Virginia (HB 5149), would establish PDABs.

A bill introduced last year in Maine, and enacted in January (SB 314), meanwhile, makes changes to the Maine PDAB's structure and duties, including shifting its focus from establishing prescription drug spending targets for public payers to assessing strategies to reduce prescription drug costs for both public and private payers. Those strategies include reference-based pricing, transparency requirements for supply chain entities, and upper payment limits.

Legislation concerning PBMs is also ongoing, with NCSL’s database identifying 24 states that have introduced over 100 such measures this year. About 50 measures in 18 states deal substantively with PBMs, based on their bill summaries.

Challenges to Affordability Efforts

The continuing wave of legislation underscores the considerable attention state lawmakers are placing on healthcare affordability. But efforts to rein in costs are open to challenges—and criticism.

In September, researchers at the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University Law Center warned that the pharmaceutical industry is fighting back against the prescription drug affordability proposals by employing a novel legal strategy involving the U.S. Constitution’s implicit restriction on states’ authority to pass laws that impinge on interstate commerce.

“Under this so-called Dormant Commerce Clause, a state cannot discriminatorily favor in-state commerce while burdening out-of-state commerce,” the researchers wrote. “Even when a state law does not engage in this kind of economic protectionism, it may still violate the Dormant Commerce Clause if the law’s in-state benefits are far outweighed by the burdens it imposes on interstate commerce.”

While the report says the Supreme Court has historically only recognized these two categories of Dormant Commerce Clause violations, some lower courts have recognized a third category of state laws that seek to regulate transactions occurring beyond a state’s borders. Drug companies have “repeatedly” used this argument to invalidate state prescription drug laws affecting out-of-state companies, the report said.

Meanwhile, some states that have implemented PDABs have since scrapped them. Only a handful of states’ PDABs have statutory authority to set drug price upper payment limits (UPLs). And so far, Colorado’s is the only one that has actually approved such a limit, on the rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune disease drug Enbrel.

“This groundbreaking upper payment limit on Enbrel has the potential to save $32 million from drug spending,” Sophia Hennessy, lead policy research coordinator for the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, said in a statement at the time. “We’re thrilled with the board’s decision today that helps ensure more patients can afford their vital medications.”

But Michael Hodin, CEO of the Global Coalition on Aging, and Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest—groups with ties to the pharmaceutical industry—wrote last year: “PDABs have wasted millions in taxpayer dollars and threatened access to crucial treatments and the stability of the supply chain—all while delivering zero savings to patients, disincentivizing biomedical innovation, and potentially harming healthy aging.”

Research by the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, which also has connections with pharmaceutical companies and associations, found that PDABs and their price limits “will likely increase patient costs and hinder access to prescribed medicines.”

Still, consumers’ worries about the high cost of healthcare are likely to trump such criticisms in the minds of state lawmakers, particularly this year.

“Heading into this midterm election year,” said the health policy research firm KFF when it released polling in late January, “the cost of health care tops the public’s economic anxieties and more than 4 in 10 voters say the issue will have a major impact on their vote.”

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH

Handful of States Considering PDAB Bills

Proposed Stock Buyback Ban for Tax Break Recipients in MI

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:50:00 GMT

MI to Weigh Ban on Stock Buybacks for Companies Receiving Tax Breaks

Michigan Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D) introduced a bill (SB 783) that would prohibit publicly traded companies receiving economic incentives through the Michigan Strategic Fund from repurchasing their own stock. Violators would have to repay any incentives they received and pay a 10% penalty. (YAHOO! FINANCE, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

VA’s Paid Sick Leave Bill

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:49:00 GMT

VA House Passes Paid Sick Leave Bill

Virginia’s House of Delegates approved a bill (HB 5) that would expand the state’s current paid sick leave law, which applies only to a small segment of workers, to include all public and private sector employees. If enacted, workers could earn an hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours they work. (VIRGINIA MERCURY, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

VA Prescription Drug Affordability Board Measure & More

Alyzza Austriaco — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:47:00 GMT

VA Lawmakers Okay Prescription Drug Affordability Board

Virginia lawmakers have passed legislation (SB 271/HB 483) that would create a prescription drug affordability board to review drug prices and set limits on how much state-regulated health plans can pay for drugs. The legislation is similar to that enacted in other states, but Virginia’s would be the first linking the board’s activity to drug price negotiations between manufacturers and Medicare mandated by the federal Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. (PLURIBUS NEWS, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET)

Federal Government Targeting Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising

After decades of debating whether to restrict direct-to-consumer drug advertising, the Trump administration and federal lawmakers appear to be moving in that direction.

Last February, U.S. Sen. Angus King (I-ME) introduced a bill (SB 483) prohibiting drugs from being advertised directly to consumers for three years after they receive FDA approval. The measure is still pending.

In September President Trump issued a presidential memorandum calling for the reversal of a 1997 policy change that allowed drug advertising on television. On the same day, the FDA announced that it was “sending thousands of letters warning pharmaceutical companies to remove misleading ads and issuing approximately 100 cease-and-desist letters to companies with deceptive ads.” (NEW YORK TIMES)

—Compiled by SNCJ Managing Editor KOREY CLARK

New Privacy Concern for State Lawmakers: Geolocation Data Privacy

Mary Anne Peck — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 13:07:00 GMT

Geolocation data has become a new frontier in privacy protection.

This year, Virginia could join Maryland and Oregon as the first states to prohibit the sale of information that provides the precise geographic location of a device, object or user through GPS, IP address tracking, Wi-Fi triangulation or cellular network signals, among other means.

Maryland’s and Oregon’s bans were only recently enacted in the past four months (SB 541 [2025] and HB 2008 [2025], respectively). Virginia’s SB 338, by Sens. Russet Perry (D) and David Suetterlein (R), would ban geolocation data sales in the Old Dominion starting in July.

Consumer Reports, the nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization that publishes an investigative journalism magazine with the same name, has announced its support for the Virginia bill.

“Location data is among the most sensitive information companies can collect, potentially revealing visits to reproductive or mental health clinics, political rallies, places of worship, and other potentially sensitive locations,” said Matt Schwartz, policy analyst at Consumer Reports. “At a time when location tracking is increasingly being weaponized against consumers, stopping the commercial sale of consumers’ location data is one of the most effective steps lawmakers can take to safeguard consumer privacy.”

In a January letter to the chair of the Virginia Senate General Laws and Technology Committee, Consumer Reports joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Public Interest Research Group and Tech Equity Action in urging passage of SB 338.

“The location data market is a multi-billion-dollar industry centered on collecting and selling people’s everyday comings and goings, often collected from people’s mobile devices and often without their knowledge or explicit consent,” they wrote. “Location data is an extremely sensitive form of personal data. Researchers have shown that 95 percent of individuals can be uniquely identified from just four spatio-temporal points; most companies that collect this information have orders of magnitude more data than that.”

SB 338 was unanimously passed by both the committee and the Senate as a whole, and it has now moved on to the House of Representatives where a similar bill also supported by Consumer Reports floundered last year.

The organization, which has developed model legislation for stopping the sale of geolocation data, said it expects other states to at least consider bans in 2026, including California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington.

Other Bans Under Consideration

According to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system, over 80 bills referring to “geolocation data” and “privacy” have been introduced in 26 states this year.

Only five of those measures, however, including Virginia SB 338, focus directly on geolocation data privacy, according to their bill summaries.

Hawaii Sen. Chris Lee (D) introduced two bills to ban the sale of both geolocation data and internet browser data. SB 3017 and SB 1163 both bar selling geolocation information without explicit, opt-in consent, while the latter bill adds exemptions for law enforcement investigations, Customer Proprietary Network Information and telecommunications carriers operating according to federal CPNI rules.

Maryland SB 569 by Sen. Arthur Ellis (D) seeks to strengthen the state’s online data privacy laws by establishing stricter limits on geolocation information and other personal and sensitive data. The bill targets the sensitive data of consumers under the age of 18.

New Jersey AB 441, by Assemblyman Michael Venezia (D) would bar businesses that track or sell precise geolocation data from disclosing any information about someone at or near a reproductive health care facility. Two years ago, U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) reported that an anti-abortion group used mobile phone location data to send misinformation to people who visited 600 reproductive health clinics in 48 states.

Industry Opposition to Bans

In a letter to Oregon lawmakers considering HB 2008 last year, a coalition of advertisers provided a “non-exhaustive list of concerns” they had with the bill.

Noting first that the state’s privacy law already required companies to obtain consumers’ consent before processing or selling their location data, the officials from the Association of National Advertisers, American Association of Advertising Agencies, Interactive Advertising Bureau, American Advertising Federation and Digital Advertising Alliance said HB 2008 would deprive Oregon residents of “access to critical services and benefits that depend on location data.”

One of those benefits was receiving “relevant content and ads.”

“Without the ability to disclose location data for advertising purposes, subject to consumers’ opt-in consent, businesses will have a more difficult time, and face higher costs, reaching individuals with relevant marketing, and Oregonians will not be alerted to products and services they desire that are near to them,” they wrote.

The groups also argued that the measure could impede emergency notifications.

“Oregonians may lose access to emergency alerts for floods, wildfires, and other community emergencies, as these important, real-time alerts rely on disclosure of location data to function,” they stated.

In addition, they argued the bill could hinder “effective fraud prevention.”

“The responsible disclosure of location data allows anti-fraud and identity protection services to flag suspicious behavior and protect vulnerable communities,” they wrote. “For example, companies can more easily detect credit card theft or fraud if they or their service providers have access to location data showing that a consumer is not in the location where a purchase is being made. If passed, HB 2008 would impede entities’ ability to responsibly use and disclose location data to prevent fraudulent activity and reach out to consumers to confirm their purchases.”

Bills Dealing with Geolocation Data Privacy Introduced in Half of States

Bills referring to “location data” and “privacy” have been introduced in at least 26 states this year, according to the LexisNexis State Net legislative tracking system. Bills in five of those states focus directly on geolocation data privacy, according to their bill summaries.

Start of Trend?

The advertisers’ objections didn’t stop Oregon lawmakers from passing HB 2008. And in mid-February, Bloomberg Law’s privacy reporter Tonya Riley wrote that at least a half dozen unidentified states “without comprehensive privacy laws” are considering bills to ban the sale of geolocation data, highlighting “an evolution in lawmakers’ understanding of consumer privacy since California passed its first-in-the-nation law nearly a decade ago.”

Riley noted that attorneys general in both California and Texas have also raised concerns over geolocation data.

This certainly appears to be an emerging legislative trend. It wasn’t on our radar when we published our forecast of the top issues for 2026—but it is now.

—By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH