Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof
*
Inv. No(s). 337-TA-1464
Contact: Claire Huber, 202-205-1819
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain vaporizer devices, cartridges used therewith, and components thereof. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission's notice of investigation.
The investigation is based
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
USITC Institutes Section 337 Investigation of Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges Used Therewith, and Components Thereof
*
Inv. No(s). 337-TA-1464
Contact: Claire Huber, 202-205-1819
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) voted to institute an investigation of certain vaporizer devices, cartridges used therewith, and components thereof. The products at issue in the investigation are described in the Commission's notice of investigation.
The investigation is basedon a complaint filed by JUUL Labs, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, and VMR Products LLC, Washington, District of Columbia, on September 30, 2025. Supplements to the Complaint were filed on November 18 and 25, 2025, and on December 1 and 2, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of vaporizer devices, cartridges used therewith, and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The USITC has identified the following respondents in this investigation:
* Glas, Inc. of Los Angeles, California
* Glas, LLC of Los Angeles, California
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-1464), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission.
The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.
***
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2025/er1216_67843.htm
SEC Charges Florida & California Investment Advisers With Selling Securities in Unregistered Oil, Gas Offerings
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 6:25-civ-01754, 2:25-civ-08610, 8:25-civ-02057; M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2025, C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles D. Oliver, No. 6:25-civ-01754 (M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David P. Ortiz and DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc., No. 2:25-civ-08610 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kevin N. Richards, No. 8:25-civ-02057 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
On September
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 6:25-civ-01754, 2:25-civ-08610, 8:25-civ-02057; M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2025, C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles D. Oliver, No. 6:25-civ-01754 (M.D. Fla. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. David P. Ortiz and DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc., No. 2:25-civ-08610 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kevin N. Richards, No. 8:25-civ-02057 (C.D. Cal. filed Sept. 11, 2025)
On September11, 2025, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Florida-based Charles D. Oliver, California-based David P. Ortiz and his entity, DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc., and Kevin N. Richards, formerly of Laguna Niguel, California, with selling securities in unregistered offerings of oil and gas securities, acting as unregistered brokers, and failing to disclose financial conflicts of interest to clients.
The SEC's complaints alleged that from at least 2020 through 2021, defendants marketed and sold investments in risky oil and gas securities to clients, many of whom lost their money.
The SEC's complaint against Oliver alleged that Oliver, a Florida-based insurance agent, marketed and sold approximately $52 million of investments in oil and gas securities to approximately 50 retail investors. The complaint alleged that Oliver used his radio show, Hidden Wealth Radio, to solicit investors, and that he received over $4.3 million in transaction-based compensation for selling the unregistered securities.
The SEC's complaint against Ortiz and DaveGlo alleged that Ortiz, a California resident, marketed and sold approximately $18 million of investments in oil and gas securities to approximately 20 retail investors. The complaint alleged that Ortiz used mass marketing, including commercials on radio broadcasts, to solicit investors, and that he received over $800,000 in transaction-based compensation for selling the unregistered securities.
The SEC's complaint against Richards alleged that Richards, a former California-based insurance agent, marketed and sold approximately $12 million of investments in oil and gas securities to approximately 25 retail investors. The complaint alleged that Richards used mass marketing, including his own radio show, to solicit investors, and that he received over $600,000 in transaction-based compensation for selling the unregistered securities.
The SEC's complaint against Oliver was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The SEC's complaint against Ortiz and DaveGlo and its complaint against Richards were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The companies that sponsored the unregistered offerings of oil and gas securities, and their principals, were the subject of a prior SEC enforcement action, In the Matter of Resolute Capital Partners, LTD, LLC, et al., AP File No. 3 20597 (Sept. 24, 2021).
The complaints separately charged Oliver, Ortiz, DaveGlo, and Richards with violating Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Oliver, Ortiz, and Richards were also charged with violating Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Without admitting or denying the allegations in their respective complaints, Ortiz, DaveGlo, and Richards each consented to the entry of a judgment enjoining them from violating the charged provisions; as to Ortiz and Richards, enjoining them from offering or selling securities; and as to Richards, enjoining him from acting as or associating with a broker, dealer, or investment adviser for five years. The proposed settlements are subject to approval by the court, which will also determine, at a later date, the amount of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties that each defendant shall pay.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Brian Fitzsimons and David Frisof and supervised by Brian Quinn and Michael Brennan. The SEC's litigation will be led by Mr. Fitzsimons and supervised by James Carlson.
* * *
Resources
* SEC Complaint - David P. Ortiz (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26442-dortiz.pdf)
* SEC Complaint - Charles D. Oliver (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26442-coliver.pdf)
* SEC Complaint - Kevin N. Richards (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26442-richards.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26442
Federal Court Orders Vallarta Food Enterprises to Comply with EEOC Subpoenas
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Federal Court Orders Vallarta Food Enterprises to Comply with EEOC Subpoenas
*
Court requires grocer to provide its employment and hiring practice information
LOS ANGELES - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that a federal court ordered Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., and related companies, a supermarket chain with approximately 80 locations in Central and Southern California, to fully comply with subpoenas the agency issued in September 2024 relating
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
Federal Court Orders Vallarta Food Enterprises to Comply with EEOC Subpoenas
*
Court requires grocer to provide its employment and hiring practice information
LOS ANGELES - The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today that a federal court ordered Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., and related companies, a supermarket chain with approximately 80 locations in Central and Southern California, to fully comply with subpoenas the agency issued in September 2024 relatingto Commissioner-initiated charges.
Specifically, the charge alleged that Vallarta Supermarkets failed or refused to recruit, hire, or promote individuals based on their race (white, black, and/or Asian) and national origin (non-Hispanic).
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered Vallarta Supermarkets to produce all requested applicant and employee data to determine if Vallarta Supermarkets is engaging in unlawful hiring practices by excluding non-Hispanic individuals from employment. The Court also noted its deference in EEOC subpoena enforcement proceedings, saying "judicial review is quite narrow."
"The court recognized EEOC's broad authority to obtain subpoena compliance from employers when the agency seeks information to investigate discrimination and enforce Title VII's protections for workers," said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. "The records Vallarta Supermarkets has been ordered to provide are important in investigating whether the company unlawfully excluded non-Hispanic workers from employment."
EEOC filed the court action in July 2025 (EEOC v. Vallarta Food Enterprises, Inc., Gonzalez Food Enterprises, Inc., Daniel Food Enterprises, Inc., Jalos Food Enterprises, Inc., Joya Food Enterprises, Inc., Santa Isabel Enterprises, Inc., and Zixta Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:25-mc-00058) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California after first attempting to obtain voluntary compliance with its investigative requests.
The EEOC issued recent technical assistance on recognizing national origin discrimination against American workers, available here: https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-against-american-workers-against-law.
For more information on race and color discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/racecolor-discrimination. For more information on national origin discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/national-origin-discrimination.
Vallarta Supermarkets is a prominent supermarket chain with approximately 80 locations in Central and Southern California, and a corporate office located in Sylmar, California. The related companies in this case are Gonzalez Food Enterprises, Inc., Daniel Food Enterprises, Inc., Jalos Food Enterprises, Inc., Joya Food Enterprises, Inc., Santa Isabel Enterprises, Inc., and Zixta Enterprises, Inc.
The Los Angeles District Office has jurisdiction over parts of California and Nevada; the Hawaiian Islands; American Samoa; Guam; the Northern Mariana Islands; and Wake Island with offices in Los Angeles, Fresno, Las Vegas, San Diego, and Honolulu.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division; the EEOC is responsible for investigating charges against state and local government employers before referring them to DOJ for potential litigation. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/federal-court-orders-vallarta-food-enterprises-comply-eeoc-subpoenas
FTC Will Require Illusory Systems to Return Money Stolen by Hackers and Implement an Information Security Program
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Will Require Illusory Systems to Return Money Stolen by Hackers and Implement an Information Security Program
*
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Illusory Systems Inc. for failing to implement adequate data security measures, leading to a major security breach in which hackers stole $186 million from consumers.
Under a proposed order settling the FTC's allegations, Utah-based Illusory, which does business as Nomad, will be required to implement an information security program
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Will Require Illusory Systems to Return Money Stolen by Hackers and Implement an Information Security Program
*
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Illusory Systems Inc. for failing to implement adequate data security measures, leading to a major security breach in which hackers stole $186 million from consumers.
Under a proposed order settling the FTC's allegations, Utah-based Illusory, which does business as Nomad, will be required to implement an information security programto address numerous alleged security failures and to return recovered money to affected consumers.
"The FTC Act requires companies to take reasonable security measures," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "It's important that companies live up to their security promises to consumers."
In its complaint, the FTC alleged that Nomad prominently touted its security in its advertising, claiming that it offered "security-first" services. The FTC, however, alleged that the company failed to live up to these promises by failing to: use secure coding practices; implement processes for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports and responding to security incidents; and utilize widely known technologies that might have helped mitigate consumer losses.
According to the complaint, in June 2022, Nomad introduced inadequately tested code that included a significant vulnerability. Just over a month later, hackers began exploiting the vulnerability. The FTC alleged that Nomad failed to respond to the attack in time because of its inadequate security and incident response measures, which led to the loss of $186 million. The company was able to recover some money, but consumers lost approximately $100 million.
Nomad was warned about the dangers of inadequate testing as well as the need to ensure it had adequate staff and security in place. The company, however, failed to implement basic safety measures that would mitigate consumer losses, the FTC alleged.
Under the proposed order, Nomad will be prohibited from making misrepresentations about its security practices. In addition, the company will also be required to:
* Implement a comprehensive information security program that is designed to protect consumers from theft or other unauthorized access and address the security issues outlined in the FTC's complaint;
* Obtain biennial assessments of its information security program by an independent third party and cooperate with the third-party assessor; and
* Return to consumers money recovered following the security breach that was not already returned to customers.
The Commission voted 2-0 to accept the proposed complaint and order for public comment.
The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $51,744.
The lead staff attorneys on this matter are M. Hasan Aijaz and Julia Horwitz with the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-will-require-illusory-systems-return-money-stolen-hackers-implement-information-security-program
FTC Announces New Date for Workshop on Noncompete Agreements
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Announces New Date for Workshop on Noncompete Agreements
*
The Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop, titled " Moving Forward: Protecting Workers from Anticompetitive Noncompete Agreements." The event is open to the public, and will be held on January 27, 2026 from 1:00pm to 5:00pm, at the FTC's Headquarters. Registration is required to attend in person. Registration is not required to view the livestream.
A noncompete agreement is a contractual term between an employer and a worker that
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Announces New Date for Workshop on Noncompete Agreements
*
The Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop, titled " Moving Forward: Protecting Workers from Anticompetitive Noncompete Agreements." The event is open to the public, and will be held on January 27, 2026 from 1:00pm to 5:00pm, at the FTC's Headquarters. Registration is required to attend in person. Registration is not required to view the livestream.
A noncompete agreement is a contractual term between an employer and a worker thattypically blocks the worker from working for a competing employer or starting a competing business after the end of the worker's employment. In practice, noncompete agreements are often subject to abuse.
The workshop is part of the Trump-Vance FTC's efforts to highlight the negative impact of noncompete agreements on American workers and put business on notice of its current enforcement priorities.
The workshop will be hosted by the FTC's Joint Labor Task Force, which was created by Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson to prioritize rooting out and prosecuting deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor-market practices that harm American workers. It follows a recent FTC enforcement action eliminating restrictive and anticompetitive noncompete agreements; a series of letters sent to healthcare companies warning them to review and eliminate any anticompetitive noncompete agreements they may have; and a broad request for information seeking tips to lead to further enforcement actions.
The workshop will include public statements from FTC Commissioners, victims of unfair and anticompetitive noncompete agreements, and leading experts in the field. A full agenda and list of speakers will be available prior to the event. A livestream link will be posted to FTC.gov on the morning of the event.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-announces-new-date-workshop-noncompete-agreements
FDIC Board of Directors Approves Final Rule on Establishment and Relocation of Branches and Offices
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
FDIC Board of Directors Approves Final Rule on Establishment and Relocation of Branches and Offices
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Board of Directors today approved a final rule to streamline the processes for the establishment and relocation of domestic branches and main offices. The final rule is intended to improve the speed and certainty of, and reduce the regulatory burden associated with, branch and main office filings. The final rule is substantially similar to the
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
FDIC Board of Directors Approves Final Rule on Establishment and Relocation of Branches and Offices
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Board of Directors today approved a final rule to streamline the processes for the establishment and relocation of domestic branches and main offices. The final rule is intended to improve the speed and certainty of, and reduce the regulatory burden associated with, branch and main office filings. The final rule is substantially similar to theproposal issued in July 2025, with small modifications.
Like the proposal, the final rule applies to insured state non-member banks applying to establish a branch or relocate a main office or branch, and to insured branches of a foreign bank applying to move from one location to another. Key elements of the final rule include:
* Providing that most filings qualifying for expedited processing will be deemed approved three business days after submission;
* Eliminating the FDIC's discretion to remove filings from expedited processing;
* Eliminating the filing requirements for de minimis branch facility changes;
* Streamlining filing content requirements;
* Eliminating public notice and public comment requirements; and
* Extending the expiration period for an approved filing.
The final rule will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
* * *
Attachment(s)
Final Rule: Establishment and Relocation of Branches and Offices (https://www.fdic.gov/board/federal-register-notice-branch-final-rule.pdf)
* * *
Contact(s)
MediaRequests@fdic.gov
***
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2025/fdic-board-directors-approves-final-rule-establishment-and-relocation
FDIC Approves the Deposit Insurance Application for Erebor Bank, N.A., Columbus, Ohio
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
FDIC Approves the Deposit Insurance Application for Erebor Bank, N.A., Columbus, Ohio
The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today approved a deposit insurance application to establish Erebor Bank, N.A. (Erebor Bank), a newly chartered national bank to be headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. The organizers of Erebor Bank applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for a national bank charter and received preliminary conditional approval on October
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
FDIC Approves the Deposit Insurance Application for Erebor Bank, N.A., Columbus, Ohio
The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) today approved a deposit insurance application to establish Erebor Bank, N.A. (Erebor Bank), a newly chartered national bank to be headquartered in Columbus, Ohio. The organizers of Erebor Bank applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for a national bank charter and received preliminary conditional approval on October15, 2025. Erebor Bank's proposed business model will focus on providing deposit and lending products to businesses and individuals in the technology, payment systems, investment, and defense industries, including virtual currency market participants.
Applications for deposit insurance are evaluated under a statutory framework of seven factors that include: the financial history and condition of the institution; the adequacy of the institution's capital structure; the future earnings prospects of the institution; the general character and fitness of the management of the institution; the risk presented by the institution to the Deposit Insurance Fund; the convenience and needs of the community to be served by the institution; and whether the institution's corporate powers are consistent with the purposes of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
FDIC staff found that Erebor Bank satisfied the statutory factors for approval, subject to certain conditions. Among other conditions, Erebor Bank will be required to implement protocols to comply with the FDIC's regulations regarding processing of deposit accounts in the event of a bank failure, to maintain a minimum 12 percent tier 1 leverage ratio during its first three years of operation, and, in the event it ceases to be considered "well capitalized" or falls below the minimum capital levels required by its primary Federal regulator, to exercise its rights under its Capital Call Agreement to obtain at minimum the amount of capital necessary to be considered "well capitalized."
The FDIC Board's approval order expires if Erebor Bank is not established within 12 months, unless extended by the FDIC.
* * *
Attachment(s)
Deposit Insurance Approval Order (https://www.fdic.gov/deposit-insurance-approval-order.pdf)
* * *
Contact(s)
MediaRequests@fdic.gov
***
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2025/fdic-approves-deposit-insurance-application-erebor-bank-na-columbus-ohio
