https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/en-USTelligent Community 9https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/me-s-data-center-ban-moreWed, 22 Apr 2026 17:06:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:3a9fbdb1-6f38-42f4-a9f5-58d81e1a2aa5Alyzza AustriacoME Lawmakers Pass Data Center Ban The Maine Legislature passed a bill ( HB 207 ) that would make the state the first to temporarily ban the development of large data centers. The measure would impose an 18-month moratorium on new data centers that use more than 20 megawatts of power and create a council of government officials, experts and other stakeholders to come up with plans for future data center development. Gov. Janet Mills (D) said the measure would have to include an exemption for a proposed $550 million project in the town of Jay in order for her to support it. ( MAINE PUBLIC RADIO, LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) VA Gov Signs Data Center Bills Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) signed a pair of bills ( HB 153 and SB 94 ) that would require data center developers and those seeking to use 100 megawatts or more of electricity to conduct a site assessment of the noise impact of their project on nearby homes and schools. She also signed a pair of measures ( HB 496 and SB 553 ) requiring authorities that provide water to data centers to publicly disclose the facilities’ water usage. ( CARDINAL NEWS , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ibogaine-drawing-attention-from-state-lawmakers-and-trump-moreWed, 22 Apr 2026 17:03:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:f2d4746e-bfb1-48b7-8f1c-d887796f2f58Alyzza AustriacoState and Federal Funding Flowing for Ibogaine Research President Donald Trump signed an executive order providing up to $50 million in federal funding for states to conduct research on ibogaine, a psychedelic drug that hasn’t received FDA approval for any medical use but has shown promise for treating opioid use disorder and PTSD. Several states, including Arizona, Mississippi and Texas have already approved funding for clinical trials on the drug, and ibogaine bills are also advancing in Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Tennessee. ( PLURIBUS NEWS ) State AGs Pushing for Federal Drug Pricing Transparency Rules A bipartisan group of attorneys general led by Oklahoma AG Gentner Drummond (R) is calling for new federal rules to increase prescription drug pricing transparency. The AGs want the U.S. Department of Labor to require pharmacy benefit managers to report revenue details twice a year. They also want to make sure the new rules don’t override existing state laws and that federal regulators coordinate their enforcement efforts with state attorneys general. ( MCCARVILLE REPORT ) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/privacy-concerns-about-smart-glasses-catch-legislators-eyesWed, 22 Apr 2026 13:15:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:bd056ddc-b91a-4ac8-afe9-f6c86018619bMary Anne PeckSmart glasses, like Ray-Ban Meta frames, allow wearers to take photos and videos, listen to music and make calls without ever picking up a phone. The technology, however, can also permit users to record others without them noticing and that has begun to worry some state legislators. This year lawmakers in California and Louisiana have introduced legislation addressing burgeoning privacy concerns over smart glasses and other wearable devices. California’s SB 1130 , the Wearable Device Privacy Protection Act by Sen. Eloise Gómez Reyes (D), would update the Golden State’s privacy laws by creating a brand-new crime: using a wearable device to capture audio or video of another person at a place of business where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy without explicit consent. The current version of the bill would also ban anyone from disabling any light or other indicator on a wearable recording device that shows it is capturing audio or video, as well as prohibit the manufacture, sale, acquisition, and use of technology that allows the disabling of such an indicator. “Californians have a constitutional right to privacy, and our laws must evolve as quickly as technology, to prevent harm,” Reyes said in a press release. “Secretly recording someone under the guise of prescription-style glasses—especially when many people don’t even know this technology exists—has real consequences. We have an obligation as lawmakers to put a stop to it.” A spokesperson for Meta told WIRED magazine , “Our terms of service clearly state that users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and for using Ray-Ban Meta glasses in a safe, respectful manner.” He added that “as with any recording device, people shouldn’t use them for engaging in harmful activities like harassment, infringing on privacy rights, or capturing sensitive information.” He also pointed out that the company’s glasses have an LED recording light that makes it “unequivocally clear that content is being captured.” But WIRED noted that “the internet abounds with simple guides on how to keep recording while the light is covered.” Louisiana’s HB 410 by Reps. Laurie Schlegel (R) and Kathy Edmonston (R) takes a different approach than California’s measure, prohibiting an in-person participant in a conversation where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy from using a portable device to record the conversation without notifying all parties involved. The measure, which has already been passed by the House, includes a number of exceptions. For example, it would not apply to public or semi-public meetings; law enforcement or first-responder activities; recordings made to preserve evidence for civil, administrative, or criminal proceedings; recordings of public officials performing official duties in public places; and lawful recordings of police by private people who are not interfering; as well as recordings of conversations made by nonparticipants or by participants located at their own residences. But violators of the measure’s provisions would be liable for damages, including court costs and attorneys’ fees. An article last month in the Greater Baton Rouge Business Report said HB 410 “faces opposition from the Louisiana Press Association, which warns it could hinder journalism and newsgathering, setting up a broader debate over privacy, free speech and the limits of emerging tech.” The proposal was reportedly introduced in response to the rise of social media posts showing women recorded without their consent. So-called “ manfluencers ” or content creators preaching misogynistic views secretly record their interactions with women using smart glasses , then post the videos online for others in the “ manosphere ” to mock. Lawmakers’ Concerns about Smart Glasses Focus Mainly on Schools At least 10 states considered bills this year referring to “AI glasses” or “smart glasses,” according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. Most of the measures, including one enacted in Utah ( HB 42 ), are aimed at prohibiting the use of such glasses in schools. But Louisiana’s smart glasses bill ( HB 410) and a measure in California ( SB 1130 ) that refers to “wearable recording devices” rather than “AI glasses” or “smart glasses,” address broader privacy concerns about the devices. Wearable Devices Pose Host of Privacy and Workplace Concerns In addition to facilitating harassment, smart glasses and other wearable devices pose new compliance challenges for businesses. In a December 2025 National Law Review commentary on compliance risks associated with AI smart glasses, attorney Joseph J. Lazzarotti of the firm Jackson Lewis PC wrote that facial recognition, voiceprint capture and eye tracking capabilities of some AI glasses could potentially violate biometric-privacy laws. The commentary pointed to a 2022 class-action lawsuit in which the plaintiffs alleged that beauty brand Charlotte Tilbury violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act by using virtual try-on tools that captured facial geometry without proper disclosures or consent. The case was later settled , with Charlotte Tilbury denying wrongdoing. But Lazzarotti argued that similar legal theories could apply to AI glasses that process visual or audio data constituting biometric information. There are also worries that smart glasses could be used to illegally surveil employees in the workplace, aid in corporate espionage or run afoul of workplace safety regulations. “While these devices offer numerous benefits, they also present unique legal challenges, particularly in California, where privacy and workplace safety are paramount,” wrote employment attorney Sahara Pynes for the Fox Rothschild law firm blog. “Employers must navigate these issues carefully to ensure compliance with applicable laws and maintain a safe and respectful work environment.” Privacy concerns don’t end there, either. Meta is facing a federal class-action lawsuit alleging that the company’s advertising of its AI Ray-Ban glasses, using messages like “ designed for privacy, controlled by you ,” contradicts Meta policy providing for human review of customers’ footage when they share it with Meta AI, which the plaintiffs also claim the company failed to adequately disclose. Given that the smart glasses market only began taking off in the last few years , driven by strong demand for Ray-Ban Meta frames, it’s not surprising these issues are just beginning to surface. And as we’ve seen with the adoption of new technology in the past, legislators typically step in as soon as an innovation starts to become popular. Smart glasses may be about to do just that. Google has announced that AI glasses from its Android XR partners could be available in 2026. Samsung has also said publicly that AI glasses are part of its roadmap. And Apple is widely reported to be working on its own smart glasses, although the company hasn’t officially announced that. —By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH 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.Capitol JournalTechnologySpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/junk-fee-ban-advancing-in-ilWed, 15 Apr 2026 21:05:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:754743c0-71ae-4da6-b7e9-876e2d8ddae0Alyzza AustriacoIL House Passes ‘Junk Fee’ Bill The Illinois House passed a bill ( HB 228 ) that would amend the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act to prohibit businesses from advertising, displaying or offering a price for goods or services that doesn’t include all mandatory fees and surcharges. The “junk fee” ban is similar to one the chamber passed two years ago, but vague language has been tightened up to make it easier for businesses to comply with it and easier for the attorney general’s office to enforce it. Gov. J.B. Pritzker called for lawmakers to pass the legislation in his State of the State address this year. ( CAPITOL NEWS ILLINOIS ) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/anthropic-s-new-ai-model-too-powerful-for-public-use-moreWed, 15 Apr 2026 21:01:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:8f9909fd-7386-4ed1-b74a-a3480ca5fa93Alyzza AustriacoAnthropic Not Releasing New AI Model to Public The artificial intelligence company Anthropic—recently in the headlines for demanding that the Pentagon agree to certain limitations on the use of its technology—announced last week that it would not be releasing its new AI model to the public because it is too powerful. Company executives said the new model, called Claude Mythos Preview, is capable of autonomously scanning for and exploiting vulnerabilities in software programs, including all of the major operating systems and browsers. The company said it would allow a group of about 40 technology companies, including Apple and Amazon, to use the new model to find and patch security vulnerabilities in critical software. ( NEW YORK TIMES ) Ballot Measures Aimed at Limiting Data Center Development Voters in the city of Port Washington, Wisconsin, became the first in the country to approve a ballot measure to limit the construction of data centers. Similar proposals are already on the ballot in at least three other cities, and a proposed initiative is also circulating in Ohio. ( PLURIBUS NEWS ) MN Lawmakers Aim to Prohibit Data Center NDAs Fast-moving legislation in Minnesota ( HF 4077 / SF 4379 ) would prohibit local government officials from signing nondisclosure agreements for projects involving public funding. Local governments have signed contracts with major tech companies like Meta, agreeing not to share information about proposed data centers with the public. ( MINNESOTA REFORMER ) ME Data Privacy Bill Remains Alive The Maine Senate approved legislation ( HB 1220 a ) that would allow companies to collect and store only the data that’s necessary to provide a good or service; prohibit them from collecting biometric information unless necessary; and ban them from advertising directly to children or selling children’s data. The measure failed in the House the week before, but the Senate’s vote sends it back to the House for reconsideration. ( PORTLAND PRESS HERALD , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ct-bill-focusing-on-ai-in-employmentWed, 15 Apr 2026 20:59:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:54cca8a4-06ad-4d1d-ba42-354975993f36Alyzza AustriacoCT Lawmakers Target AI in Employment A bill (SB 435) before Connecticut’s legislature would require employers to disclose to job applicants when they are communicating with artificial intelligence, when their resumes will be scanned by AI, or when AI will be involved in the hiring process at all. The measure would also require employers to inform unions before deploying AI and prohibit the use of AI that undermines an existing labor agreement. ( CT INSIDER , LEXISNEXIS STATE NET) —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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesLabor & Employmenthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/washington-joins-states-limiting-employer-mandated-worker-microchippingWed, 15 Apr 2026 14:38:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:c5ca4e59-ff38-433b-802a-c08be6ee56a7Mary Anne PeckOn March 11, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D) signed HB 2303 . The law, which takes effect June 11, bars employers from requesting, requiring or coercing workers or job applicants to accept a subcutaneous microchip implant, while exempting devices used for diagnosis, monitoring, treatment or prevention of a health condition. The law also provides a private right of action, allowing employees harmed by employers that violate the law to seek injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The legislation is part of a broader state trend toward preemptive limits on employer-driven microchip implants. At least 11 other states already had laws prohibiting the mandatory microchipping of employees in place before Washington enacted HB 2303, according to LexisNexis® data. The laws in Alabama ( Code of Ala. § 25-1-4 ) and Nevada ( Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.870 ) make forced microchipping a felony. “Microchips may seem like science fiction, but the technology is here,” said Washington Rep. Brianna Thomas (D), the author of HB 2303, in a press release . “The concept is pretty simple. Don’t chip me, bro!” In all seriousness, she added, forced microchipping “creates an opportunity for employers to track employees during work hours and at home. That is scary. We recognize that the power dynamic between an employer and an employee makes true freedom of choice nearly impossible. This is a big step to help protect our employees from being microchipped by their employer.” Legislators Remain Concerned about Employer Surveillance In the House Bill Report for HB 2303, legislative staff wrote that the practice of implanting microchips into workers “has not yet occurred in Washington.” But lawyer Scott Prange of the national law firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP wrote that while this forced employee microchipping isn’t happening “in any widespread way—at least not yet,” the technology not only exists but is “increasingly normalized in certain contexts.” The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the VeriChip system for medical use in 2004, allowing an implanted ID number to be used to retrieve patient identity and authorized health information from a secure database. “Outside healthcare, these implants—typically about the size of a grain of rice—can function as ID badges or enable contactless payments,” Prange wrote. “In practical terms, an RFID chip could replace access badges, unlock doors, access computer networks, enable cashless purchases, and streamline everyday workplace tasks. From an employer perspective, proponents point to potential benefits like reduced administrative costs, improved efficiency, and even the ability to track certain aspects of employee activity.” Prange said legislators are concerned about microchipping because of “the broader implications to worker surveillance and individual autonomy.” “Because these devices are embedded and not easily turned off (or removed), it becomes far less clear where an employee’s privacy rights begin and end—particularly for workers expected to remain connected or responsive outside traditional working hours,” he wrote. “HB 2303 reflects the legislature’s efforts to ‘hardwire’ boundaries before that monitoring crosses from devices employees carry to the bodies they inhabit.” Worker Microchipping Laws Enacted in Dozen States At least 11 states have laws in effect prohibiting employers from requiring employees to be implanted with a microchip or other permanent identification marker as a condition of employment, according to LexisNexis data. Washington enacted a worker microchipping ban ( HB 2303 ) this year that takes effect on June 11. Three other states considered bills this year dealing with worker microchipping. Human Microchipping Remains Rare The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs reported in 2024 that more than 50,000 people had received microchip implants that can act as credit cards, swipe keys or allow them to instantly share social media information. In 2017, a Wisconsin company called Three Square Market held a “ chip party ” where 41 of its 85 employees volunteered to be microchipped in what company leaders said was the first U.S. use of technology already used in Europe. Microchipping has also drawn a fair amount of interest in Sweden; NPR reported in 2018 that more than 4,000 Swedes elected to implant the devices, with the company Biohax International dominating the market. In the United States, microchipping is much more common for pets and other animals. And legislative efforts are currently focused there. As of April 10, over 40 bills mentioning some form of the word “microchip” had been introduced by state lawmakers, according to the LexisNexis® State Net® legislative tracking system. But only four of those measures concern human implantation: Washington’s new law, HB 2303; Minnesota SF 4881 , which, like the Washington bill, would prohibit employers from requesting, requiring or coercing employees or job applicants to be microchipped and create a private right of action for violations; Oklahoma SB 1656 , a much broader bodily-autonomy bill that would establish a “right to refuse any vaccine, medication, microchip, external tracker, or other manufactured product” and prohibit public and private entities from requiring such things in order to receive “public services, admittance to an educational institution, employment, consumer goods or services, access to a place of public accommodation, or any other privilege or right;” and Tennessee HB 1877 , which would have barred government entities from requiring a microchip or other permanent ID marker in order to receive benefits or services, and barred employers from requiring microchipping as a condition of employment, with violators subject to civil penalties up to $10,000, as well as private lawsuits for actual and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The measure would also have made it a Class E felony for individuals, including certain insurance licensees and professional bondsmen, to require someone to be microchipped. But after being referred to subcommittee on February 2, the measure was withdrawn. The other 30-plus measures deal with the microchipping of animals. Although human microchipping remains uncommon, Washington HB 2303 fits a wider state trend of setting privacy and autonomy limits before implantable technology becomes an issue in the workplace and elsewhere. —By SNCJ Correspondent BRIAN JOSEPH 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.Capitol JournalSpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/approval-for-bank-to-bank-stablecoin-use-in-nd-moreTue, 31 Mar 2026 18:38:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:1aa08e0c-269b-4e7a-a6ef-fe9c2bdfeb9bAlyzza AustriacoND 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ny-chatbot-bill-drawing-tech-resistanceTue, 31 Mar 2026 18:35:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:de297590-a243-4aad-86ae-ab1b11ec4419Alyzza AustriacoTech 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/passage-of-ks-bill-imposing-dispensing-fee-on-pbms-moreTue, 31 Mar 2026 18:32:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:8ea73fa3-cd24-4199-8241-28079135e217Alyzza AustriacoKS 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/states-battle-feds-over-prediction-marketsTue, 31 Mar 2026 12:00:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:46eaf8d2-83ab-4a23-a6d3-186807928209Mary Anne PeckWho 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 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.Capitol JournalSpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/trump-administration-s-proposed-state-preempting-national-ai-policy-framework-moreWed, 25 Mar 2026 15:49:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:0eafbe8c-faff-4010-9a9a-1477c671d177Alyzza AustriacoNew 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesTechnologyhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ai-in-healthcare-privacy-bill-in-vt-moreWed, 25 Mar 2026 15:46:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:1bf6b7b2-3001-4350-a338-34188e85ec2bAlyzza AustriacoVT 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/legislators-continue-to-focus-on-forever-chemicalsWed, 25 Mar 2026 09:04:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:0fcc2b4e-0d46-47fe-bf96-a370dbb46cc7Mary Anne PeckNearly 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 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.Capitol JournalEnvironmental LawSpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/ca-s-spreading-homeowners-insurance-crisisThu, 19 Mar 2026 13:39:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:09d27f47-52c6-4d69-b900-e843644a0a54Alyzza AustriacoCA’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 CLARKCapitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurance WeekInsurance/Finance Weekhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/wa-s-new-ban-on-employee-microchippingThu, 19 Mar 2026 13:36:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:68d48003-765a-484d-acd5-2239b7cb4eefAlyzza AustriacoWA 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 CLARKCapitol JournalThis Week in the StatesLabor WeekLaborhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/nj-gov-s-plan-to-offset-medicaid-costs-moreThu, 19 Mar 2026 13:34:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:9ccc5fd0-9308-4bcf-8466-831f0c381365Alyzza AustriacoNJ 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 CLARKCapitol JournalThis Week in the StatesHealthcareHealthcare Lawhttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/state-officials-focus-on-affordability-includes-prescription-drugs-495440276Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:07:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:ec318db3-aedc-405b-931a-41017a52b778Mary Anne PeckWhen 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 So far this year, at least eight states have taken up legislation concerning prescription drug affordability boards. Measures in four of those states would establish PDABs, while a measure enacted in Maine ( SB 314 ) makes changes to the structure and duties of the state’s existing PDAB.Capitol JournalSpotlighthttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/proposed-stock-buyback-ban-for-tax-break-recipients-in-miWed, 18 Feb 2026 16:50:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:d6e68291-be15-4103-b9bd-a999d74e5ecbAlyzza AustriacoMI 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesInsurancehttps://www.lexisnexis.com/community/insights/legal/capitol-journal/b/state-net/posts/va-s-paid-sick-leave-billWed, 18 Feb 2026 16:49:00 GMT39668f7f-eeae-45ef-a75f-231f85198c72:f6796cba-4fba-41d2-9d05-6ac549eb9bbeAlyzza AustriacoVA 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 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.Capitol JournalThis Week in the StatesLabor & Employment