Attorney General
Attorney General
Here's a look at documents from state attorneys general
Featured Stories
N.J. A.G. Platkin Announces Division on Civil Rights Adopts Landmark Rules on Disparate Impact Discrimination Under New Jersey Law
TRENTON, New Jersey, Dec. 18 -- New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued the following news release on Dec. 17, 2025:* * *
AG Platkin Announces Division on Civil Rights Adopts Landmark Rules on Disparate Impact Discrimination Under New Jersey Law
New Rules Are Nation's Most Comprehensive Disparate Impact Liability Regulations
*
Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) announced today that DCR has adopted landmark new rules that codify the prohibition against disparate impact discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), ... Show Full Article TRENTON, New Jersey, Dec. 18 -- New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued the following news release on Dec. 17, 2025: * * * AG Platkin Announces Division on Civil Rights Adopts Landmark Rules on Disparate Impact Discrimination Under New Jersey Law New Rules Are Nation's Most Comprehensive Disparate Impact Liability Regulations * Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) announced today that DCR has adopted landmark new rules that codify the prohibition against disparate impact discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD),the oldest and strongest state civil rights law in the country.
The rules announced today, which address disparate impact discrimination in employment, housing, places of public accommodation, financial lending, and contracting, are the most comprehensive state-level disparate impact regulations in the country. The rules cement critical state-law civil rights protections just as the Trump Administration has moved to reverse key protections against disparate impact discrimination at the federal level.
The rules make clear the legal standard for disparate impact liability under the LAD, as well as the burdens of proof in disparate impact discrimination claims. Disparate impact discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral practice or policy of a covered entity unlawfully results in a disproportionately negative effect based on a protected characteristic, even where there is no intent to discriminate.
"The landmark rules we are adopting today further solidify our state's nation-leading civil rights protections. As the Trump Administration continues its unlawful attempts to dismantle disparate impact protections at the federal level, it's more important than ever that states take action to protect the civil rights of their residents - and that's exactly what we're doing," said Attorney General Platkin. "These landmark rules, which are the most comprehensive disparate impact rules in the country, make clear that the Law Against Discrimination prohibits discrimination in all of its forms, and they confirm New Jersey's commitment to upholding the LAD's protections and continuing our state's longstanding leadership on civil rights."
"The LAD safeguards against not only intentional acts of discrimination but also practices and policies that disproportionately affect members of protected groups," said Yolanda N. Melville, Director of the Division on Civil Rights. "The comprehensive rules announced today provides increased clarity on disparate impact liability and helps improve the way we enforce civil rights in New Jersey."
Disparate impact discrimination liability is a powerful tool to remedy practices and policies that harm members of historically marginalized communities. These rules will provide New Jerseyans with a better understanding of the LAD's protections and provide regulated entities - such as housing providers, employers, and places of public accommodation - with a better understanding of their legal obligations.
The rules adopted today confirm that New Jersey's civil rights laws continue to prohibit disparate impact discrimination - notwithstanding the Trump Administration's unprecedented attempts to dismantle disparate impact standards at the federal level. Not only are those federal attempts to roll back disparate impact liability standards inconsistent with existing federal law, but they cannot and do not change the standards applicable under state law--standards that today's landmark rules now codify in New Jersey.
The newly adopted rules codify existing case law and provide examples to clarify the types of practices and policies that could violate the LAD by having a disparate impact on members of a protected class. The LAD prohibits disparate impact discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, gender expression, disability, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics in employment, housing, places of public accommodation, financial lending, and contracting.
The rules provide that disparate impact discrimination is prohibited unless a regulated entity can show that the practice or policy is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and there is no less discriminatory alternative that would achieve the same interest.
For example, a less discriminatory alternative to a housing provider's automatic denial of applicants with a credit score below 600 is a policy to individually assess each applicant's ability to pay their rent, including by assessing the facts and circumstances of the applicant's consumer credit history beyond the score alone, along with other information relevant to the applicant's ability to reliably pay their rent like a current steady job or income. The rules make clear that a practice or policy that harms a protected group may violate the LAD if there is a less discriminatory alternative practice or policy that would achieve the same interest.
The rules adopted today cover how disparate impact liability may apply to many examples of practices and policies in employment, housing, places of public accommodation, financial lending, and contracting, including employer policies and practices regarding the consideration of a person's criminal history in hiring; language restrictions, citizenship requirements not based on Federal or State law, and dress or appearance requirements in the workplace; housing provider policies and practices regarding the consideration of a person's consumer credit history or criminal history; housing provider minimum income requirements, financial standards, or income standards; practices and policies maintained by places of public accommodation regarding religious garb or other articles of faith; disciplinary policies or practices of educational institutions; contractor bid selection and recruitment practices and policies; law enforcement patrolling practices and policies; and disciplinary practices and policies of correctional facilities.
The rules adopted today also explains how disparate impact liability applies to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and other automated decision-making tools in the employment context. The rules adopted today mark the latest action by DCR as part of its Civil Rights and Technology Initiative, which seeks to address the risks of discrimination stemming from the use of AI and other advanced technologies. The rules explain how employers' use of automated online application tools or facial analysis software in hiring employees may have a disparate impact based on protected characteristics under the LAD.
The adoption was published in the New Jersey Register on December 15, 2025. A copy can be found here, and a fact sheet on disparate impact discrimination claim analysis can be found here. The new rules can be found at N.J.A.C. 13:16. The adopted rules do not create additional liability under the LAD. Rather, the new rules clarify how DCR and the courts analyze disparate impact claims under the LAD.
***
The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights enforces the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the New Jersey Family Leave Act, and the Fair Chance in Housing Act, and works to prevent, eliminate, and remedy discrimination and bias-based harassment in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation throughout New Jersey.
To find out more information or to file a complaint, go to www.njcivilrights.gov.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.njoag.gov/ag-platkin-announces-division-on-civil-rights-adopts-landmark-rules-on-disparate-impact-discrimination-under-new-jersey-law/
N.H. A.G. Formella: Consumer Instructions on Accessing $700 Million Google Settlement
CONCORD, New Hampshire, Dec. 18 -- New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella issued the following news release:* * *
Consumer Instructions on Accessing $700 Million Google Settlement
Attorney General John M. Formella is directing consumers' attention to new information and instructions to receive funds from a $700 million settlement with Google secured by Attorney General Formella and a coalition of 52 other attorneys general. Preliminary approval has been granted, triggering the court's notice and approval process.
"Granite Staters deserve a fair and competitive digital marketplace," said ... Show Full Article CONCORD, New Hampshire, Dec. 18 -- New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella issued the following news release: * * * Consumer Instructions on Accessing $700 Million Google Settlement Attorney General John M. Formella is directing consumers' attention to new information and instructions to receive funds from a $700 million settlement with Google secured by Attorney General Formella and a coalition of 52 other attorneys general. Preliminary approval has been granted, triggering the court's notice and approval process. "Granite Staters deserve a fair and competitive digital marketplace," saidAttorney General Formella. "This settlement both compensates consumers who were harmed and requires Google to stop the anticompetitive conduct that caused those harms. We want to ensure that New Hampshire residents know what to expect and how to receive the payments they are entitled to. The settlement website linked below is the best place for consumers to receive information."
If the settlement is approved by the court at a hearing on April 30, 2026, the majority of the settlement funds will be distributed to consumers who (i) made purchases on the Google Play Store between August 2016 and September 2023 and (ii) were harmed by Google's anticompetitive conduct. Google will also make changes to stop its anticompetitive practices that harmed consumers and app developers.
Beginning December 2, 2025, consumers who made purchases on the Google Play Store between August 2016 and September 2023 and were harmed by Google's anticompetitive practices began receiving notices about the distribution process for the settlement funds. Most affected consumers do not need to take further action to receive a payment from the settlement fund. The settlement fund will make the majority of payments automatically, and no claim form is necessary in most cases.
Once the settlement has been approved by the court, consumers will receive an email from PayPal or a text from Venmo notifying them of their incoming payment at the email address or mobile phone number associated with their Google Play account. If that email address or phone number is also associated with a PayPal or Venmo account, then the payment will be made directly to that account. If that email address or phone number does not match an email address or phone number associated with a PayPal or Venmo account, then consumers have the option to create a new account or direct the payment to a PayPal or Venmo account at another email address or phone number.
There will be a supplemental claims process after the automatic payments process is complete for consumers who either:
* Do not have an existing PayPal or Venmo account and do not want to sign up for PayPal or Venmo;
* No longer have access to the email address or mobile phone number associated with their Google Play account; or
* Were expecting to receive a payment but did not.
If consumers would like to be notified by email when the supplemental claims process starts, they may submit their name, email address, and mobile phone number on the settlement website (http://www.googleplaystateagantitrustlitigation.com/).
Attorney General Formella encourages all affected consumers to keep track of important upcoming dates in the settlement approval process:
* Consumers who do not want to receive payment from the settlement fund and want to bring their own case against Google must submit a request to be excluded online or in writing by February 19, 2026.
* Consumers who want to object to the settlement can file a written objection by February 19, 2026.
* The court will hold a hearing on April 30, 2026, to consider whether to approve the settlement.
The New Hampshire Department of Justice Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau investigates unfair, deceptive or unreasonable practices involving New Hampshire consumers. To file a complaint with the New Hampshire Department of Justice, call the Consumer Protection Hotline at 1-888-468-4454 or file a complaint online at https://www.doj.nh.gov/consumer/complaints.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.doj.nh.gov/news-and-media/consumer-instructions-accessing-700-million-google-settlement
N.H. A.G. Formella Pushes Meta to Take Action on Misleading AI Weight Loss Ads
CONCORD, New Hampshire, Dec. 18 -- New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella issued the following news release:* * *
Attorney General Formella Pushes Meta to Take Action on Misleading AI Weight Loss Ads
Attorney General John M. Formella and a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general are calling on Meta to better enforce its own policies about pharmaceutical and wellness ads on Instagram and Facebook and take additional measures to prevent AI-generated weight loss content in ads. These ads are likely to see an uptick during the holiday season and the new year, when conversations around weight ... Show Full Article CONCORD, New Hampshire, Dec. 18 -- New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella issued the following news release: * * * Attorney General Formella Pushes Meta to Take Action on Misleading AI Weight Loss Ads Attorney General John M. Formella and a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general are calling on Meta to better enforce its own policies about pharmaceutical and wellness ads on Instagram and Facebook and take additional measures to prevent AI-generated weight loss content in ads. These ads are likely to see an uptick during the holiday season and the new year, when conversations around weightloss and appearance tend to increase.
"Consumers deserve honest information, especially when it comes to their health," said Attorney General Formella. "Meta already has deceptive pharmaceutical and wellness advertising prevention policies in place, but those rules are meaningless if they are not enforced. We are urging Meta to take commonsense steps to stop misleading and AI-generated weight loss ads that prey on people's insecurities, misrepresent medical risks, and undermine trust in online marketplaces."
GLP-1 weight loss drugs have exploded in popularity over the last few years, as have ads selling the drugs directly to consumers. Dozens of companies are using Meta's advertising tools to run thousands of ads promoting GLP-1 drugs, most of which are non-FDA approved or compounded.
Meta has existing policies on pharmaceutical and health and wellness ads - but it is not sufficiently enforcing them. Advertisers are supposed to share information about the medical effectiveness and affordability of drugs, only target adults, and not run ads that push a "perfect" body type or foster unhealthy body images.
But the ads on Meta's platforms capitalize on people's dissatisfaction with their bodies and promote weight loss as a tool for self-confidence, desirability, and social mobility - not health. Many ads use body close-ups and side-by-side comparisons and promote weight loss for milestones like the holiday season, weddings, birthdays, and vacations. These ads claim that the drugs will help with rapid weight loss without disclosing the risks and side effects of these medications.
Often, these ads use unlabeled AI-generated content including fake before and after images and nonexistent spokespeople. One ad shows an AI-generated model losing 208 pounds in three weeks. Others use fake AI-created law enforcement officers, nurses, and pharmacists to support their weight loss claims.
In addition to enforcing its existing policies, the attorneys general are asking Meta to:
* Restrict prescription drug ads in the United States to only those that are FDA-approved.
* Require content promoting weight loss products to clearly disclose the risks and potential side effects.
* Prohibit weight loss drug ads that use AI- generated content.
* Label AI-generated content more clearly and develop better tools to detect and remove content that isn't properly labeled.
* Redirect people to safety and educational resources for weight loss products when they search for those products.
The New Hampshire Department of Justice Consumer Protection and Antitrust Bureau investigates unfair, deceptive or unreasonable practices involving New Hampshire consumers. To file a complaint with the New Hampshire Department of Justice, call the Consumer Protection Hotline at 1-888-468-4454 or file a complaint online at https://www.doj.nh.gov/consumer/complaints.
Letter: ltr-to-meta-re-glp-w-ag-office-seals.pdf (https://www.doj.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt721/files/inline-documents/sonh/ltr-to-meta-re-glp-w-ag-office-seals.pdf)
* * *
SENT VIA EMAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
To: Meta Platforms, Inc., c/o Ms. Jennifer Newstead, Chief Legal Officer, 1 Meta Way, Menlo Park, California 94025
Re: Weight Loss Advertisements
Dear Ms. Newstead:
We write regarding the surge of misleading marketing for weight loss products on Meta's platforms. This advertising--much of which is AI-generated--seizes on consumers' insecurities and health concerns, often to boost unapproved and potentially dangerous drugs. Users on Facebook, Instagram, and other Meta platforms are being inundated with promotions that feature misleading claims, obscure risks and side effects, and deceive viewers with AI-generated content. A significant volume of these advertisements violate your own policies on pharmaceuticals, weight loss products, misleading health practices, and manipulated content. We urge Meta to enforce those policies more vigorously and to quickly take further steps to protect consumers from predatory AI-generated weight loss advertisements.
GLP-1s have exploded in popularity in the last several years. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a number of these drugs as treatments for type 2 diabetes, obesity and related conditions like cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease, including Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. GLP-1s can have life-changing benefits for patients managing these conditions when used as indicated and with proper medical supervision. But direct to consumer advertising of GLP-1 drugs has skyrocketed1 and your platforms are no exception:
Dozens of companies are using your advertising tools to run thousands of ads promoting GLP-1s./2 Relatively few are offering FDA-approved medications; most are selling unapproved compounded products.
Meta is supposed to place guardrails on pharmaceutical advertisements through company policies. Meta's Prescription Drugs Advertising Policy prohibits the promotion of prescription drugs without Meta's authorization./3 When authorized, advertisers are supposed to limit promotions to those that "share information around medical efficacy, accessibility and affordability of different types of treatments," avoid targeting minors, and comply with Meta's other policies./4 Meta's Health and Wellness Advertising Policy, meanwhile, prohibits ads for weight loss products "that imply or attempt to generate negative self-perception or declare there is a perfect body type or appearance one should aspire to."/5 It also bars promotions of weight loss products using side-by-side comparisons, body close ups, "[d]istateful messaging that could make people feel negatively about the way they look," and content fostering "negative or unhealthy body images."/6
Yet Instagram and Facebook are replete with ads that conflict with these policies. As a recent study found, GLP-1 ads on your platforms commonly "appeal to consumers' emotional motivations for weight loss and self-improvement," exploit societal beauty ideals that may contribute to body dissatisfaction, and "often position weight loss not solely as a health goal but as a means to achieve improved self-confidence, desirability, and social mobility."/7
This is evident in many ads that, despite your policies, employ side-by-side comparisons and body close-ups. Other ads take advantage of negative body image to promote cosmetic weight loss, even for young women who may not meet the medical criteria for GLP-1 treatment. This often takes the form of promoting weight loss for milestones like weddings, birthdays, holidays, or vacations. For example, a Willow ad proclaims, "Hey girly. It's time to drop 2 pant sizes before summer."/8 Feels and Medvi ads encourage viewers to "get snatched before Christmas with tirzepatide."/9 And a Direct Meds ad encourages viewers to "lose 43 pounds before New Years."/10
Many ads on your platforms also claim drastic weight loss without adequately disclosing potential risks and side effects. These target the large number of consumers "eager for rapid solutions,"/11 regardless of the risk to their health. In doing so, they run afoul of Meta's prohibition on content that "[p]romotes false or misleading health claims or guarantees in a weight loss context by employing click-bait tactics, such as the use of sensational language that make exaggerated or extreme claims."/12 To give a few examples: a Mochi ad touts an impressive average weight loss of 36-pounds./13 Another features a spokeswoman claiming her clothes are looser after just two weeks while boasting that she had not eaten all day because she was not hungry.14 One Medvi ad even guarantees "no side effects . . . just real results."/15 These kinds of ads play up the benefits and minimize the potential downsides, undermining consumers' ability to make fully informed choices about their health care.
AI-generated content is deepening these risks. Advertisers are misleadingly using AIgenerated fictitious spokespersons and falsified before-and-after sequences to boost GLP-1s./16 For instance, one TrimRx ad includes an AI-generated model dramatically losing 208 pounds as an upbeat voiceover boasts "Three weeks you guys, oh my gosh three weeks! This stuff works for real. You need to get on Trim Rx."/17 Other ads feature testimonials from trusted sources--such as law enforcement, nurses, pharmacists, and military personnel--to bolster their claims. The problem: none of these people are real./18
The risk is only increasing as AI video generation is rapidly becoming more sophisticated, and therefore harder to detect./19 The "before" clip in one Direct Meds ad touting the loss of 58 pounds is difficult to identify as AI generated without repeatedly playing the video and scrutinizing its fine details--which consumers are unlikely to do while casually scrolling social media./20 Meta has acknowledged the importance of informing users that content has been AI-generated and provides an AI-disclosure tool for advertisers,/21 yet many of these ads include no such disclosures.
Many ads on your platforms risk misleading consumers regarding compounded GLP-1s. Federal law permitted compounding pharmacies to produce GLP-1 medications in bulk outside of the ordinary drug approval process during a shortage of FDA-approved medications./22 However, that shortage ended months ago.23 Now, compounding is only permitted in important, but narrow, circumstances./24 Regulators, law enforcement, and health organizations alike have cautioned against widespread use of compounded GLP-1s./25 These drugs are not FDA reviewed for safety, efficacy, and quality./26 They can have significantly different formulations from approved medications--including active ingredients imported from uninspected foreign facilities, formulation differences, and impurities./27 These compounded drugs, many in unproven formulations such as liquid solutions, sublingual drops, pills, formulas with added vitamins, and so-called "microdoses," essentially amount to "a mass experiment on unsuspecting patients."/28 Dozens of ads blur these distinctions by suggesting that compounded medications are FDA approved, identical to approved drugs, or even safer and more effective than those drugs. As the FDA recently stated in warnings to numerous compounders and telehealth companies, these kinds of claims are false and misleading in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act./29
We appreciate that Meta has adopted certain policies regarding pharmaceutical and weight loss ads. But those policies are being circumvented and are inadequate to address the scope of these issues. We note that the problem is not confined to paid advertising, either: numerous influencers and affiliate marketers are boosting GLP-1 medications without the transparency required by federal regulations and your policies.30 Troublingly, emerging evidence indicates that social media marketing is shaping consumers' views about and interest in GLP-1s./31 We urge Meta--at a minimum--to enforce its existing policies more vigorously. We also ask Meta to take additional steps to protect the public, including:
* Restricting the advertisement of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States to those that are FDA approved;
* Requiring content promoting weight loss products to clearly and conspicuously disclose the risks and potential side effects;
* Prohibiting the promotion of weight loss drugs using AI-generated content such as spokespeople, testimonials, and before and after images;
* Employing more prominent AI-generated content labeling and developing better tools to detect and remove content not properly labeled;
* Implementing safeguards for users who search on your platforms for weight loss products and GLP-1s, such as redirecting users to authoritative safety and educational resources when they search for weight loss products or GLP-1s;
* Ensuring that recommendation algorithms used to serve content and advertisements on your platforms do not trap users in filter bubbles of weight loss promotions.
William Tong, Connecticut Attorney General
Jeff Jackson, North Carolina Attorney General
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General
Dave Sunday, Pennsylvania Attorney General
Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde, American Samoa Attorney General
Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General
Tim Griffin, Arkansas Attorney General
Rob Bonta, California Attorney General
Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General
Brian Schwalb, District of Columbia Attorney General
Anne E. Lopez, Hawaii Attorney General
Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General
Brenna Bird, Iowa Attorney General
Kris Kobach, Kansas Attorney General
Liz Murrill, Louisiana Attorney General
Aaron M. Frey, Maine Attorney General
Anthony G. Brown, Maryland Attorney General
Andrea Joy Campbell, Massachusetts Attorney General
Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General
Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General
Lynn Fitch, Mississippi Attorney General
Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General
John M. Formella, New Hampshire Attorney General
Matthew J. Platkin, New Jersey Attorney General
Raul Torrez, New Mexico Attorney General
Letitia James, New York Attorney General
Drew H. Wrigley, North Dakota Attorney General
Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma Attorney General
Dan Rayfield, Oregon Attorney General
Peter F. Neronha, Rhode Island Attorney General
Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General
Marty Jackley, South Dakota Attorney General
Derek Brown, Utah Attorney General
Charity Clark, Vermont Attorney General
Nick Brown, Washington Attorney General
*
1 LegitScript, LegitScript's Data Reveals 1200% Increase in Violative and Problematic Advertisements for GLP-1 Medications (Oct. 2024), https://www.legitscript.com/about/press/glp-1-data-findings/.
2 These include Ageless Rx, Amble, Ark, Cello Health, DirectMeds, Dollar Dad Club, Effecty, Elevate, Fella Health, Freya, Fridays, Gala, Hims, HealthOn, Hers, Henry, Heyfeels, Ivim Health, Kin Meds, MD Exam, Measured Health, Mochi, NativeMed, Noom, NuForm Health, Piper, Queen Rx, Remmy, Rx Pros, Sana Direct, SapphireRX, Shed, Trim Rx, Weight Care, Willow, Zealthy, and Yucca Health.
3 Meta, About Meta's Prescription Drugs Advertising Policy, https://www.facebook.com/business/help/263390265553560?id=434838534925385.
4 Id.
5 Meta, About Meta's Health and Wellness Advertising Policy, https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2489235377779939?id=434838534925385.
6 Id.
7 J. Rad and G.J. Melendez-Torres, Critical Discourse Analysis of Social Media Advertisements for GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Weight Loss Drugs: Implications for Public Perceptions and Health Communication, BMC Public Health (Sept. 1, 2025), https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-025-24197-8.
8 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=4000186760292582; https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=851188793704003; see Appendix 1.
9 https://instagram.com/p/DQXKpDpgHfD/; https://instagram.com/p/DQppIyyAHma/; see Appendix 2.
10 https://instagram.com/p/DQUbGyIDbKx/; see Appendix 2.
11 See Nikhil Sood and Rohini Garg, Global Rise of Compounded Weight Loss Medicines: A Worrisome Trend, J. Endocrine Society (June 7, 2025), https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/9/8/bvaf084/8158112.
12 Meta, Frauds, Scams, and Deceptive Practices https://transparency.meta.com/policies/communitystandards/fraud-and-scams/.
13 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1523320795538989
14 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1293446186133598
15 https://instagram.com/p/DQU0eWYDEkk/
16 See Appendix 3.
17 https://www.instagram.com/p/DLBYVsBAApR/, see Appendix 3.
18 See, e.g., https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=847658211179014 (elderly patient); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=801307826004119 (group of nurses); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=730809849286915 (pharmacist); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1872908603600820 (nurses at nurse station); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=843982294888184 (CVS pharmacist); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1595511314940567 (police officer); see Appendix 3.
19 Mike Isaac and Eli Tan, OpenAI's New Video App Is Jaw-Dropping (for Better and Worse), The New York Times (Oct. 2, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/technology/openai-sora-video-app.html.
20 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=2500158893689706; see Appendix 3.
21 Nick Clegg, Labeling AI-Generated Images on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, Feb. 6, 2024, https://about.fb.com/news/2024/02/labeling-ai-generated-images-on-facebook-instagram-and-threads/; Meta, Misinformation, https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/misinformation/ (accessed Nov. 6, 2025).
22 See generally 21 U.S.C. Sec. 353b.
23 See Food and Drug Administration, FDA clarifies policies for compounders as national GLP-1 supply begins to stabilize (Apr. 28, 2025), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-clarifies-policiescompounders-national-glp-1-supply-begins-stabilize.
24 See generally 21 U.S.C. Sec. 353a.
25 Food and Drug Administration, FDA's Concerns with Unapproved GLP-1 Drugs Used for Weight Loss (Sept. 25, 2025), https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/fdas-concernsunapproved-glp-1-drugs-used-weight-loss ["FDA Concerns"]; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Safety Concerns Related to Fraudulent Compounding Practices Associated with Weight Loss Drugs (Feb. 28, 2025), https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250228; Joshua J. Neumiller et al., Compounded GLP-1 and Dual GIP/GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Statement from the American Diabetes Association, 48 Diabetes Care 177-78 (2025), available at https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/48/2/177/157478/Compounded-GLP-1-and-Dual-GIP-GLP-1-Receptor ["ADA Guidance"].
26 FDA Concerns, supra note 25.
27 Marta E. Wosinska, The Wild East of Semaglutide, Brookings (Apr. 21, 2025), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-wild-east-of-semaglutide/; Sood and Garg, supra note 11; ADA Guidance, supra note 25, at 178; Morten Hach et al., Impact of Manufacturing Process and Compounding on Properties and Quality of Follow-On GLP-1 Polypeptide Drugs, 41 Pharmaceutical Research 1991 (2024).
28 Peter J. Pitts, FDA Regulatory Failures in Enforcing Limits on GLP-1 Compounding Puts Patients at Risk 7 (Center for Medicine in the Public Interest July 21, 2025), https://mr.cdn.ignitecdn.com/client_assets/cmpiorg/media/attachments/687e/a93b/8bf7/5526/a476/a1e5/687ea93b8b f75526a476a1e5.pdf?1753131323; see also Shiv Sudhakar, Ozempic 'Microdosing' is the New Weight-Loss Trend: Should You Try It?, Fox News (Jan. 5, 2025), https://www.foxnews.com/health/ozempic-microdosing-new-weightloss-trend-should-you-try-it?
29 Matthew Perrone, FDA Takes Aim at Telehealth Companies for Promoting Unofficial Weight Loss Drug Dupes, PBS (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-takes-aim-at-telehealth-companies-for-promotingunofficial-weight-loss-drug-dupes.
30 See 16 C.F.R. Sec. 255.5 ("Disclosure of material connections"); Federal Trade Commission, Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers (Nov. 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/1001ainfluencer-guide-508_1.pdf; Meta, Branded Content Policies (last accessed Nov. 6, 2025), https://www.facebook.com/business/help/221149188908254; Alex Kresovich et al., Research Letter: HighEngagement Social Media Posts Related to Prescription Drug Promotion for 3 Major Drug Classes, JAMA Online (Nov. 13, 2025), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2841349. 31 National Consumers League, The Influence of Disinformation on Attitudes and Beliefs About Compounded GLP-1 Drugs: A Dose of Reality (May 2025), https://nclnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Influence-ofDisinformation-on-Attitudes-and-Beliefs-About-Compounded-GLP-1-Drugs-Survey-Results.pdf.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.doj.nh.gov/news-and-media/attorney-general-formella-pushes-meta-take-action-misleading-ai-weight-loss-ads
Mo. A.G. Hanaway Launches Investigation Into Companies Using Bitcoin ATMs To Scam Missourians
JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri, Dec. 18 -- Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway issued the following news release on Dec. 17, 2205:* * *
Attorney General Hanaway Launches Investigation Into Companies Using Bitcoin ATMs To Scam Missourians
Today, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced that her Office has launched a statewide investigation into companies operating cryptocurrency kiosks, due to national concerns of deceptive fee structures and use by bad actors to defraud consumers.
"We have received reports of devastating new scams involving the use of Bitcoin ATMs to prey on ... Show Full Article JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri, Dec. 18 -- Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway issued the following news release on Dec. 17, 2205: * * * Attorney General Hanaway Launches Investigation Into Companies Using Bitcoin ATMs To Scam Missourians Today, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced that her Office has launched a statewide investigation into companies operating cryptocurrency kiosks, due to national concerns of deceptive fee structures and use by bad actors to defraud consumers. "We have received reports of devastating new scams involving the use of Bitcoin ATMs to prey onMissourians. Our Office is investigating concerning allegations regarding hidden fees and deceptive charges on these machines and will hold bad actors accountable," said Attorney General Hanaway. "Scammers might call claiming you are in legal trouble and must pay using Crypto ATMs immediately or face charges. If you've been a victim of fraud, call our Office at 800-392-8222 or visit ago.mo.gov."
The Attorney General's Office has issued five Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) to cryptocurrency kiosk companies operating across the state of Missouri that engage in practices that may be in violation of Missouri's consumer protection laws. The demands also require companies to disclose anti-fraud policies and procedures. The companies currently under investigation are:
1. GPD Holdings LLC d/b/a Coinflip
2. Rockitcoin, LLC
3. Bitcoin Depot Operating LLC
4. Athena Bitcoin, Inc.
5. Byte Federal, Inc.
The above businesses each own and operate numerous cryptocurrency kiosks located across the state of Missouri. These kiosks appear like a typical ATM, but allow consumers to transact in cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin, rather than U.S. dollars. However, unlike a typical ATM, transactions on a cryptocurrency kiosk are often accompanied by disproportionate and poorly disclosed fees. These transactions are nonrefundable and difficult to trace, making them a preferred method of payment for scammers to prey on vulnerable Missourians.
Missourians who believe they have been harmed by or through the use of any cryptocurrency kiosk are encouraged to file a complaint at ago.mo.gov.
The full civil investigative demand for GPD Holdings LLC d/b/a Coinflip can be read here (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&id=09ecef26dc&e=0473b9237d__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!DCCAtBWwqV-r5FAItEsosZJlYpTDOohA6DnlWA0-IyLk6iYJNxgcLYv6QUhLlg8GxEEc6peq4y3zwTco$).
The full civil investigative demand for Rockitcoin, LLC can be read here (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&id=26e24bae78&e=0473b9237d__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!DCCAtBWwqV-r5FAItEsosZJlYpTDOohA6DnlWA0-IyLk6iYJNxgcLYv6QUhLlg8GxEEc6peq4wTLQMVp$).
The full civil investigative demand for Bitcoin Depot Operating LLC can be read here (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&id=dc0812a664&e=0473b9237d__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!DCCAtBWwqV-r5FAItEsosZJlYpTDOohA6DnlWA0-IyLk6iYJNxgcLYv6QUhLlg8GxEEc6peq40rVVsDX$).
The full civil investigative demand for Athena Bitcoin, Inc. can be read here (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&id=2a1c06acce&e=0473b9237d__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!DCCAtBWwqV-r5FAItEsosZJlYpTDOohA6DnlWA0-IyLk6iYJNxgcLYv6QUhLlg8GxEEc6peq4x0pyjZp$).
The full civil investigative demand for Byte Federal, Inc. can be read here (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&id=a68d70fac4&e=0473b9237d__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!DCCAtBWwqV-r5FAItEsosZJlYpTDOohA6DnlWA0-IyLk6iYJNxgcLYv6QUhLlg8GxEEc6peq48-8XE2X$).
* * *
Original text here: https://ago.mo.gov/attorney-general-hanaway-launches-investigation-into-companies-using-bitcoin-atms-to-scam-missourians/
Md. A.G. Brown Pushes Meta to Act on Misleading AI Weight Loss Ads
BALTIMORE, Maryland, Dec. 18 -- Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown issued the following news release on Dec. 17, 2025:* * *
Attorney General Brown Pushes Meta to Act on Misleading AI Weight Loss Ads
Advertisers are Using the Holiday Season to Push Weight Loss Products on Instagram and Facebook
*
Today, Attorney General Anthony G. Brown and a coalition of 35 bipartisan attorneys general called on Meta to better enforce its own policies about pharmaceutical and wellness ads on Instagram and Facebook and take additional measures to prevent AI-generated weight loss content in ads. These ... Show Full Article BALTIMORE, Maryland, Dec. 18 -- Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown issued the following news release on Dec. 17, 2025: * * * Attorney General Brown Pushes Meta to Act on Misleading AI Weight Loss Ads Advertisers are Using the Holiday Season to Push Weight Loss Products on Instagram and Facebook * Today, Attorney General Anthony G. Brown and a coalition of 35 bipartisan attorneys general called on Meta to better enforce its own policies about pharmaceutical and wellness ads on Instagram and Facebook and take additional measures to prevent AI-generated weight loss content in ads. Theseads are likely to see an uptick during the holiday season and the new year, when conversations around weight loss and appearance tend to increase.
GLP-1 weight loss drugs have exploded in popularity over the last few years, as have ads selling the drugs directly to consumers. Dozens of companies are using Meta's advertising tools to run thousands of ads promoting GLP-1 drugs, most of which are non-FDA approved.
Meta has existing policies on pharmaceutical and health and wellness ads - but it's not sufficiently enforcing them. Advertisers are supposed to share information about the medical effectiveness and affordability of drugs, only target adults, and not run ads that push a "perfect" body type or foster unhealthy body images.
But the ads on Meta's platforms capitalize on people's dissatisfaction with their bodies and promote weight loss as a tool for self-confidence, desirability, and social mobility - not health. Many ads use body close-ups and side-by-side comparisons and promote weight loss for milestones like the holiday season, weddings, birthdays, and vacations. These ads claim that the drugs will help with rapid weight loss without disclosing the risks and side effects of these medications.
Often, these ads use unlabeled AI-generated content including fake before and after images and nonexistent spokespeople. One ad shows an AI-generated model losing 208 pounds in three weeks. Others use fake AI-created law enforcement officers, nurses, and pharmacists to support their weight loss claims.
In addition to enforcing its existing policies, the attorneys general are asking Meta to:
* Restrict prescription drug ads in the United States to only those that are FDA-approved.
* Require content promoting weight loss products to clearly disclose the risks and potential side effects.
* Prohibit weight loss drug ads that use AI- generated content.
* Redirect people to safety and educational resources for weight loss products when they search for those products.
Attorney General Brown is joined in sending this letter (https://oag.maryland.gov/News/Documents/pdfs/Ltr%20to%20Meta%20re%20GLP%20-%20w%20AG%20office%20seals.pdf) by the attorneys general of North Carolina, Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.
* * *
SENT VIA EMAIL AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL
To: Meta Platforms, Inc., c/o Ms. Jennifer Newstead, Chief Legal Officer, 1 Meta Way, Menlo Park, California 94025
Re: Weight Loss Advertisements
Dear Ms. Newstead:
We write regarding the surge of misleading marketing for weight loss products on Meta's platforms. This advertising--much of which is AI-generated--seizes on consumers' insecurities and health concerns, often to boost unapproved and potentially dangerous drugs. Users on Facebook, Instagram, and other Meta platforms are being inundated with promotions that feature misleading claims, obscure risks and side effects, and deceive viewers with AI-generated content. A significant volume of these advertisements violate your own policies on pharmaceuticals, weight loss products, misleading health practices, and manipulated content. We urge Meta to enforce those policies more vigorously and to quickly take further steps to protect consumers from predatory AI-generated weight loss advertisements.
GLP-1s have exploded in popularity in the last several years. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a number of these drugs as treatments for type 2 diabetes, obesity and related conditions like cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease, including Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. GLP-1s can have life-changing benefits for patients managing these conditions when used as indicated and with proper medical supervision. But direct to consumer advertising of GLP-1 drugs has skyrocketed1 and your platforms are no exception:
Dozens of companies are using your advertising tools to run thousands of ads promoting GLP-1s./2 Relatively few are offering FDA-approved medications; most are selling unapproved compounded products.
Meta is supposed to place guardrails on pharmaceutical advertisements through company policies. Meta's Prescription Drugs Advertising Policy prohibits the promotion of prescription drugs without Meta's authorization./3 When authorized, advertisers are supposed to limit promotions to those that "share information around medical efficacy, accessibility and affordability of different types of treatments," avoid targeting minors, and comply with Meta's other policies./4 Meta's Health and Wellness Advertising Policy, meanwhile, prohibits ads for weight loss products "that imply or attempt to generate negative self-perception or declare there is a perfect body type or appearance one should aspire to."/5 It also bars promotions of weight loss products using side-by-side comparisons, body close ups, "[d]istateful messaging that could make people feel negatively about the way they look," and content fostering "negative or unhealthy body images."/6
Yet Instagram and Facebook are replete with ads that conflict with these policies. As a recent study found, GLP-1 ads on your platforms commonly "appeal to consumers' emotional motivations for weight loss and self-improvement," exploit societal beauty ideals that may contribute to body dissatisfaction, and "often position weight loss not solely as a health goal but as a means to achieve improved self-confidence, desirability, and social mobility."/7
This is evident in many ads that, despite your policies, employ side-by-side comparisons and body close-ups. Other ads take advantage of negative body image to promote cosmetic weight loss, even for young women who may not meet the medical criteria for GLP-1 treatment. This often takes the form of promoting weight loss for milestones like weddings, birthdays, holidays, or vacations. For example, a Willow ad proclaims, "Hey girly. It's time to drop 2 pant sizes before summer."/8 Feels and Medvi ads encourage viewers to "get snatched before Christmas with tirzepatide."/9 And a Direct Meds ad encourages viewers to "lose 43 pounds before New Years."/10
Many ads on your platforms also claim drastic weight loss without adequately disclosing potential risks and side effects. These target the large number of consumers "eager for rapid solutions,"/11 regardless of the risk to their health. In doing so, they run afoul of Meta's prohibition on content that "[p]romotes false or misleading health claims or guarantees in a weight loss context by employing click-bait tactics, such as the use of sensational language that make exaggerated or extreme claims."/12 To give a few examples: a Mochi ad touts an impressive average weight loss of 36-pounds./13 Another features a spokeswoman claiming her clothes are looser after just two weeks while boasting that she had not eaten all day because she was not hungry.14 One Medvi ad even guarantees "no side effects . . . just real results."/15 These kinds of ads play up the benefits and minimize the potential downsides, undermining consumers' ability to make fully informed choices about their health care.
AI-generated content is deepening these risks. Advertisers are misleadingly using AIgenerated fictitious spokespersons and falsified before-and-after sequences to boost GLP-1s./16 For instance, one TrimRx ad includes an AI-generated model dramatically losing 208 pounds as an upbeat voiceover boasts "Three weeks you guys, oh my gosh three weeks! This stuff works for real. You need to get on Trim Rx."/17 Other ads feature testimonials from trusted sources--such as law enforcement, nurses, pharmacists, and military personnel--to bolster their claims. The problem: none of these people are real./18
The risk is only increasing as AI video generation is rapidly becoming more sophisticated, and therefore harder to detect./19 The "before" clip in one Direct Meds ad touting the loss of 58 pounds is difficult to identify as AI generated without repeatedly playing the video and scrutinizing its fine details--which consumers are unlikely to do while casually scrolling social media./20 Meta has acknowledged the importance of informing users that content has been AI-generated and provides an AI-disclosure tool for advertisers,/21 yet many of these ads include no such disclosures.
Many ads on your platforms risk misleading consumers regarding compounded GLP-1s. Federal law permitted compounding pharmacies to produce GLP-1 medications in bulk outside of the ordinary drug approval process during a shortage of FDA-approved medications./22 However, that shortage ended months ago.23 Now, compounding is only permitted in important, but narrow, circumstances./24 Regulators, law enforcement, and health organizations alike have cautioned against widespread use of compounded GLP-1s./25 These drugs are not FDA reviewed for safety, efficacy, and quality./26 They can have significantly different formulations from approved medications--including active ingredients imported from uninspected foreign facilities, formulation differences, and impurities./27 These compounded drugs, many in unproven formulations such as liquid solutions, sublingual drops, pills, formulas with added vitamins, and so-called "microdoses," essentially amount to "a mass experiment on unsuspecting patients."/28 Dozens of ads blur these distinctions by suggesting that compounded medications are FDA approved, identical to approved drugs, or even safer and more effective than those drugs. As the FDA recently stated in warnings to numerous compounders and telehealth companies, these kinds of claims are false and misleading in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act./29
We appreciate that Meta has adopted certain policies regarding pharmaceutical and weight loss ads. But those policies are being circumvented and are inadequate to address the scope of these issues. We note that the problem is not confined to paid advertising, either: numerous influencers and affiliate marketers are boosting GLP-1 medications without the transparency required by federal regulations and your policies.30 Troublingly, emerging evidence indicates that social media marketing is shaping consumers' views about and interest in GLP-1s./31 We urge Meta--at a minimum--to enforce its existing policies more vigorously. We also ask Meta to take additional steps to protect the public, including:
* Restricting the advertisement of prescription pharmaceuticals in the United States to those that are FDA approved;
* Requiring content promoting weight loss products to clearly and conspicuously disclose the risks and potential side effects;
* Prohibiting the promotion of weight loss drugs using AI-generated content such as spokespeople, testimonials, and before and after images;
* Employing more prominent AI-generated content labeling and developing better tools to detect and remove content not properly labeled;
* Implementing safeguards for users who search on your platforms for weight loss products and GLP-1s, such as redirecting users to authoritative safety and educational resources when they search for weight loss products or GLP-1s;
* Ensuring that recommendation algorithms used to serve content and advertisements on your platforms do not trap users in filter bubbles of weight loss promotions.
William Tong, Connecticut Attorney General
Jeff Jackson, North Carolina Attorney General
Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General
Dave Sunday, Pennsylvania Attorney General
Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde, American Samoa Attorney General
Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General
Tim Griffin, Arkansas Attorney General
Rob Bonta, California Attorney General
Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General
Brian Schwalb, District of Columbia Attorney General
Anne E. Lopez, Hawaii Attorney General
Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General
Brenna Bird, Iowa Attorney General
Kris Kobach, Kansas Attorney General
Liz Murrill, Louisiana Attorney General
Aaron M. Frey, Maine Attorney General
Anthony G. Brown, Maryland Attorney General
Andrea Joy Campbell, Massachusetts Attorney General
Dana Nessel, Michigan Attorney General
Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General
Lynn Fitch, Mississippi Attorney General
Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General
John M. Formella, New Hampshire Attorney General
Matthew J. Platkin, New Jersey Attorney General
Raul Torrez, New Mexico Attorney General
Letitia James, New York Attorney General
Drew H. Wrigley, North Dakota Attorney General
Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma Attorney General
Dan Rayfield, Oregon Attorney General
Peter F. Neronha, Rhode Island Attorney General
Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General
Marty Jackley, South Dakota Attorney General
Derek Brown, Utah Attorney General
Charity Clark, Vermont Attorney General
Nick Brown, Washington Attorney General
*
1 LegitScript, LegitScript's Data Reveals 1200% Increase in Violative and Problematic Advertisements for GLP-1 Medications (Oct. 2024), https://www.legitscript.com/about/press/glp-1-data-findings/.
2 These include Ageless Rx, Amble, Ark, Cello Health, DirectMeds, Dollar Dad Club, Effecty, Elevate, Fella Health, Freya, Fridays, Gala, Hims, HealthOn, Hers, Henry, Heyfeels, Ivim Health, Kin Meds, MD Exam, Measured Health, Mochi, NativeMed, Noom, NuForm Health, Piper, Queen Rx, Remmy, Rx Pros, Sana Direct, SapphireRX, Shed, Trim Rx, Weight Care, Willow, Zealthy, and Yucca Health.
3 Meta, About Meta's Prescription Drugs Advertising Policy, https://www.facebook.com/business/help/263390265553560?id=434838534925385.
4 Id.
5 Meta, About Meta's Health and Wellness Advertising Policy, https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2489235377779939?id=434838534925385.
6 Id.
7 J. Rad and G.J. Melendez-Torres, Critical Discourse Analysis of Social Media Advertisements for GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Weight Loss Drugs: Implications for Public Perceptions and Health Communication, BMC Public Health (Sept. 1, 2025), https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-025-24197-8.
8 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=4000186760292582; https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=851188793704003; see Appendix 1.
9 https://instagram.com/p/DQXKpDpgHfD/; https://instagram.com/p/DQppIyyAHma/; see Appendix 2.
10 https://instagram.com/p/DQUbGyIDbKx/; see Appendix 2.
11 See Nikhil Sood and Rohini Garg, Global Rise of Compounded Weight Loss Medicines: A Worrisome Trend, J. Endocrine Society (June 7, 2025), https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/9/8/bvaf084/8158112.
12 Meta, Frauds, Scams, and Deceptive Practices https://transparency.meta.com/policies/communitystandards/fraud-and-scams/.
13 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1523320795538989
14 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1293446186133598
15 https://instagram.com/p/DQU0eWYDEkk/
16 See Appendix 3.
17 https://www.instagram.com/p/DLBYVsBAApR/, see Appendix 3.
18 See, e.g., https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=847658211179014 (elderly patient); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=801307826004119 (group of nurses); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=730809849286915 (pharmacist); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1872908603600820 (nurses at nurse station); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=843982294888184 (CVS pharmacist); https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=1595511314940567 (police officer); see Appendix 3.
19 Mike Isaac and Eli Tan, OpenAI's New Video App Is Jaw-Dropping (for Better and Worse), The New York Times (Oct. 2, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/02/technology/openai-sora-video-app.html.
20 https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=2500158893689706; see Appendix 3.
21 Nick Clegg, Labeling AI-Generated Images on Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, Feb. 6, 2024, https://about.fb.com/news/2024/02/labeling-ai-generated-images-on-facebook-instagram-and-threads/; Meta, Misinformation, https://transparency.meta.com/policies/community-standards/misinformation/ (accessed Nov. 6, 2025).
22 See generally 21 U.S.C. Sec. 353b.
23 See Food and Drug Administration, FDA clarifies policies for compounders as national GLP-1 supply begins to stabilize (Apr. 28, 2025), available at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-clarifies-policiescompounders-national-glp-1-supply-begins-stabilize.
24 See generally 21 U.S.C. Sec. 353a.
25 Food and Drug Administration, FDA's Concerns with Unapproved GLP-1 Drugs Used for Weight Loss (Sept. 25, 2025), https://www.fda.gov/drugs/postmarket-drug-safety-information-patients-and-providers/fdas-concernsunapproved-glp-1-drugs-used-weight-loss ["FDA Concerns"]; Federal Bureau of Investigation, Safety Concerns Related to Fraudulent Compounding Practices Associated with Weight Loss Drugs (Feb. 28, 2025), https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250228; Joshua J. Neumiller et al., Compounded GLP-1 and Dual GIP/GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: A Statement from the American Diabetes Association, 48 Diabetes Care 177-78 (2025), available at https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/48/2/177/157478/Compounded-GLP-1-and-Dual-GIP-GLP-1-Receptor ["ADA Guidance"].
26 FDA Concerns, supra note 25.
27 Marta E. Wosinska, The Wild East of Semaglutide, Brookings (Apr. 21, 2025), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-wild-east-of-semaglutide/; Sood and Garg, supra note 11; ADA Guidance, supra note 25, at 178; Morten Hach et al., Impact of Manufacturing Process and Compounding on Properties and Quality of Follow-On GLP-1 Polypeptide Drugs, 41 Pharmaceutical Research 1991 (2024).
28 Peter J. Pitts, FDA Regulatory Failures in Enforcing Limits on GLP-1 Compounding Puts Patients at Risk 7 (Center for Medicine in the Public Interest July 21, 2025), https://mr.cdn.ignitecdn.com/client_assets/cmpiorg/media/attachments/687e/a93b/8bf7/5526/a476/a1e5/687ea93b8b f75526a476a1e5.pdf?1753131323; see also Shiv Sudhakar, Ozempic 'Microdosing' is the New Weight-Loss Trend: Should You Try It?, Fox News (Jan. 5, 2025), https://www.foxnews.com/health/ozempic-microdosing-new-weightloss-trend-should-you-try-it?
29 Matthew Perrone, FDA Takes Aim at Telehealth Companies for Promoting Unofficial Weight Loss Drug Dupes, PBS (Sept. 17, 2025), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/fda-takes-aim-at-telehealth-companies-for-promotingunofficial-weight-loss-drug-dupes.
30 See 16 C.F.R. Sec. 255.5 ("Disclosure of material connections"); Federal Trade Commission, Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers (Nov. 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/1001ainfluencer-guide-508_1.pdf; Meta, Branded Content Policies (last accessed Nov. 6, 2025), https://www.facebook.com/business/help/221149188908254; Alex Kresovich et al., Research Letter: HighEngagement Social Media Posts Related to Prescription Drug Promotion for 3 Major Drug Classes, JAMA Online (Nov. 13, 2025), https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2841349. 31 National Consumers League, The Influence of Disinformation on Attitudes and Beliefs About Compounded GLP-1 Drugs: A Dose of Reality (May 2025), https://nclnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Influence-ofDisinformation-on-Attitudes-and-Beliefs-About-Compounded-GLP-1-Drugs-Survey-Results.pdf.
* * *
Original text here: https://oag.maryland.gov/News/pages/Attorney-General-Brown-Pushes-Meta-to-Act-on-Misleading-AI-Weight-Loss-Ads-.aspx
Del. Deputy A.G. Cole Issues Opinion on Freedom of Information Act Petition Regarding Town of Blades
DOVER, Delaware, Dec. 18 -- Delaware Deputy Attorney General Dorey L. Cole issued the following opinion (No. 25-IB63) on Dec. 16, 2025:* * *
To: John Reiss, jlreiss@comcast.net
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Town of Blades
Dear Mr. Reiss:
We write in response to your correspondence dated November 24, 2025, alleging that the Town of Blades violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat this correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. ... Show Full Article DOVER, Delaware, Dec. 18 -- Delaware Deputy Attorney General Dorey L. Cole issued the following opinion (No. 25-IB63) on Dec. 16, 2025: * * * To: John Reiss, jlreiss@comcast.net RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the Town of Blades Dear Mr. Reiss: We write in response to your correspondence dated November 24, 2025, alleging that the Town of Blades violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat this correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur.As discussed more fully herein, we determine that the Town did not violate FOIA by failing to convey in its agenda that a first reading of Ordinance No. 439 regarding the real estate property tax rate was planned for the Town Council's November 10, 2025 meeting.
BACKGROUND
The Town Council held a meeting on November 10, 2025 with an agenda item named "Second Reading: Resolution 2025.10.27.0001 Real Estate Property Tax Rate."[1] At the December 2, 2025 Council meeting, the agenda included the item: "Second Reading of Ordinance 439: Real Estate Property Tax Rate Change Ordinance Adopting The Change Of Real Estate Property Tax Rate."[2] The Petition alleges that at the November meeting, the Mayor advised the Council had changed the resolution on the agenda to Ordinance No. 439. You allege that the Town violated FOIA, because the first reading of Ordinance No. 439 was not posted on the November meeting agenda.
DISCUSSION
FOIA is intended to ensure that public business is done in the open, "so that . . . citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy."[3] FOIA requires a meeting of a public body to be open to the public, except in limited circumstances.[4] In any action brought under Section 10005, the public body has the burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with FOIA.[5]
This Office's authority is limited to determining alleged violations of the FOIA statute.[6] The Petition claims that the Town Council violated FOIA by failing to provide notice that a first reading of Ordinance No. 439 regarding the real estate property tax would occur at the meeting. However, FOIA does not mandate a process for noticing first or second readings of proposed ordinances; this municipal practice falls outside the scope of this Opinion.
Instead, FOIA requires sufficient notice be provided in any meeting agenda for the items intended to be discussed. An agenda for a public meeting must include a "general statement of the major issues" which a public body expects to discuss[7] and must be worded in "plain and comprehensible language."[8] "In order that the purpose of the agenda requirement be served, [a meeting item] should, at least, 'alert members of the public with an intense interest in' the matter that the subject will be taken up by the [public body]."[9] While the public body must provide enough information to alert the public that a subject will be undertaken, the agenda's description need not provide for "every alternative that may take place with respect to a specific subject under consideration."[10] We determine that this item, "Second Reading: Resolution 2025.10.27.0001 Real Estate Property Tax Rate," on the November 10, 2025 meeting agenda provided adequate notice to a citizen with an intense interest in the real estate property tax rate change that the Council intended to address this subject at this meeting. Thus, we find no violation of FOIA in this regard.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Town did not violate FOIA by failing to convey in its agenda that a first reading of Ordinance No. 439 regarding a real estate property tax rate was planned for the Town Council's November 10, 2025 meeting.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General
Approved:
/s/ Patricia A. Davis, State Solicitor
cc: Michael R. Smith, Attorney for the Town of Blades
* * *
Footnotes:
[1] Petition.
[2] Id.
[3] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10001.
[4] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10004.
[5] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005(c).
[6] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005(e) ("Any citizen may petition the Attorney General to determine whether a violation of [FOIA] has occurred or is about to occur. "); see, e.g., Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 20-IB28, 2020 WL 7663557, at *2 (Nov. 9, 2020) ("These matters of municipal law, concerning the authority of the Council President or Mayor, are outside the scope of the FOIA statute, and thus, we make no determination regarding these issues.").
[7] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10002(a).
[8] Chem. Indus. CouncIl of Del. v. State Coastal Zone Indus. Control Bd., 1994 WL 274295, at *8 (Del. Ch. May 19, 1994).
[9] Lechliter v. Del. Dep't of Natural Res. & Envtl. Control, 2017 WL 2687690, at *2 (Del. Ch. Jun. 22, 2017) (quoting Ianni v. Dep't of Elections of New Castle Cnty., 1986 WL 9610, at *4 (Del. Ch. Aug. 29, 1986)).
[10] Lechliter v. Becker, 2017 WL 117596, at *2 (Del. Ch. Jan. 12, 2017) (finding that an agenda stating a lease amendment would be presented and considered was sufficient notice that a vote on this lease amendment might occur).
* * *
Original text here: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/12/16/25-ib63-12-16-2025-foia-opinion-letter-to-john-reiss-re-town-of-blades/
Del. Deputy A.G. Cole Issues Opinion on Freedom of Information Act Petition Regarding City of New Castle
DOVER, Delaware, Dec. 18 -- Delaware Deputy Attorney General Dorey L. Cole issued the following opinion (No. 25-IB64) on Dec. 16, 2025:* * *
To: Michael Platt, mplatt42@comcast.net
RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the City of New Castle
Dear Mr. Platt:
We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the City of New Castle violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat this correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As discussed ... Show Full Article DOVER, Delaware, Dec. 18 -- Delaware Deputy Attorney General Dorey L. Cole issued the following opinion (No. 25-IB64) on Dec. 16, 2025: * * * To: Michael Platt, mplatt42@comcast.net RE: FOIA Petition Regarding the City of New Castle Dear Mr. Platt: We write in response to your correspondence alleging that the City of New Castle violated Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. Sec.Sec. 10001-10008 ("FOIA"). We treat this correspondence as a Petition for a determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005 of whether a violation of FOIA has occurred or is about to occur. As discussedmore fully herein, we determine that the City did not violate FOIA in holding the November 9, 2025 meeting. The remaining claims are outside the scope of this Office's authority to decide through this petition process.
BACKGROUND
A private committee, completely separate and apart from City government, holds an annual "Spirit of Christmas" event, but this year, the committee announced the event was cancelled. One councilmember and the Mayor sought to revive this event and met on November 9, 2025. This Petition followed.
In the Petition, you argue that the City violated FOIA in several ways. You allege that the organizing councilmember used a private email account to selectively invite citizens to the November 9, 2025 meeting, which is an improper communication means to conduct public business. As a quorum of three councilmembers attended the November 9, 2025 meeting, you contend that this meeting constituted a public meeting under FOIA, but the City failed to post a proper notice or follow the other open meeting requirements under FOIA. You assert that the November 9, 2025 meeting resulted in a decision that the City Administrator would assume responsibility for running the Spirit of Christmas event; you believe that this decision is public business which must be conducted during a properly noticed public meeting. You included a news article calling the meeting an "ad hoc group for Spirit of Christmas" and citing the Mayor giving thanks at the meeting for the City Administrator's assistance in organizing the event.[1] You allege that the Mayor does not have authority to appoint the City Administrator for any duties, which you believe proves the decision was made at the November 9, 2025 meeting. Finally, you allege that statements made on the Mayor's official Facebook page - asserting that the Mayor and organizing councilmember were acting as private citizens for the event, and not in their public official roles - are inconsistent with how the meeting was conducted as a public meeting, and "posting announcements of government decisions derived from non-compliant meetings raises further questions regarding transparency and lawful execution of official authority."[2]
The City, through its legal counsel, replied to the Petition on December 1, 2025 ("Response") and enclosed affidavits from the Mayor, City Administrator, and the councilmember who organized the November 9, 2025 meeting. The City acknowledges in its Response that a quorum of Council is three councilmembers, and three councilmembers attended this meeting. However, the Mayor and organizing councilmember attest that one of the councilmembers sat in the back and did not engage with other members or speak during the meeting. The City asserts that the meeting did not discuss public business, other than the City's presumed role in logistics for the event. The City argues that this does not constitute a public meeting of the Town Council subject to FOIA. Moreover, any references to the City's role at this meeting have been rendered moot, because another entity has since assumed responsibility for coordinating this event.
The City further asserts that the councilmember's use of a private email account is not prohibited under FOIA, and there is no allegation that the City failed to produce any such emails in response to a request. The City maintains that the Petition's assertion that the City Administrator was tasked with responsibility for the event at the meeting is not accurate and submitted sworn statements from a present councilmember and Mayor who attested there were no deliberations or decisions during the meeting. Finally, the City argues that the Facebook statements are not prohibited by FOIA, nor were they offered to circumvent FOIA's requirements; they were based on the Mayor and councilmember's belief they were participating in a volunteer capacity.
DISCUSSION
Delaware's FOIA law "was enacted to ensure governmental accountability by providing Delaware's citizens access to open meetings and meeting records of governmental or public bodies, as well as access to the public records of those entities."[3] FOIA mandates that public bodies meet specific requirements when holding public meetings, including advance notice, posting notices and agendas, an opportunity for public comment, and maintaining meeting minutes.[4] A meeting of a public body must be open to the public, except in limited circumstances.[5]
A meeting under FOIA is defined as "the formal or informal gathering of a quorum of the members of any public body for the purpose of discussing or taking action on public business."[6] The City provided sworn statements that three members, constituting a quorum, attended the November 9, 2025 meeting. However, two affiants attested that one member "sat in the back of the room, did not engage the other councilmembers, and did not speak during the meeting."[7] Based on these representations under oath, we find that a quorum of members did not engage in discussions or taking action on public business, which means that this was not a "meeting" as defined by FOIA.[8] Thus, we determine that the City did not violate FOIA in failing to follow the open meeting requirements for the November 9, 2025 meeting.
The remaining claims do not constitute violations of FOIA. FOIA does not address officials' use of any communication means, the setting in which specific matters of public business must be decided, or requirements for government officials' statements made on social media. As such matters are not within the scope of the statute, this Office may not opine on these issues through this petition process initiated under Section 10005.[9]
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the City did not violate FOIA in holding the November 9, 2025 meeting without complying with FOIA's open meeting requirements. The remaining claims are outside the scope of this Office's authority to decide through this petition process.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Dorey L. Cole, Deputy Attorney General
Approved:
/s/ Patricia A. Davis, State Solicitor
cc: Michael J. Hoffman, Attorney for the City
* * *
Footnotes:
[1] Petition.
[2] Id.
[3] Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Univ. of Del., 267 A.3d 996, 1004 (Del. 2021).
[4] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10004.
[5] Id.
[6] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10002(j).
[7] Response, Affs. of Mayor Valerie Leary and Councilmember Andrew Zelt dated Nov. 26, 2025.
[8] Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 18-IB41, 2018 WL 4385004, at *2 (Aug. 28, 2018) (finding no violation of FOIA when a quorum attended a committee meeting but did not discuss, deliberate, or reach a vote or consensus regarding public business); Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 18-IB07, 2018 WL 1061277, at *2 (Feb. 9, 2018) (determining that a gathering of a quorum of councilmembers at a press conference did not constitute a "meeting" under FOIA because the Office had "no evidence of a discussion among the attending councilmembers during the press conference.") (emphasis added).
[9] 29 Del. C. Sec. 10005(e) ("Any citizen may petition the Attorney General to determine whether a violation of [FOIA] has occurred or is about to occur."); see, e.g., Del. Op. Att'y Gen. 20-IB28, 2020 WL 7663557, at *2 (Nov. 9, 2020) ("These matters of municipal law, concerning the authority of the Council President or Mayor, are outside the scope of the FOIA statute, and thus, we make no determination regarding these issues.").
* * *
Original text here: https://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/2025/12/16/25-ib64-12-16-2025-foia-opinion-letter-to-michael-platt-re-city-of-new-castle/