Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
FCC Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Issues Public Notice: Region 54 700 MHz, 800 MHz Regional Planning Committees to Hold Meetings
WASHINGTON, March 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 23-237 and WT Docket 02-378) on March 18, 2026:
* * *
The Region 54 (Southern Lake Michigan)/1 700 MHz and 800 MHz Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) will hold two consecutive planning meetings on Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 9:00am (CT). The meetings will be held at the Walworth County Sheriff's Office, 1770 County Road NN, Elkhorn, WI 53121. There will also be a Microsoft Teams link available for remote attendance. The deadline for new applications
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 19 -- The Federal Communications Commission Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issued the following public notice (PS Docket No. 23-237 and WT Docket 02-378) on March 18, 2026:
* * *
The Region 54 (Southern Lake Michigan)/1 700 MHz and 800 MHz Regional Planning Committees (RPCs) will hold two consecutive planning meetings on Wednesday, April 22, 2026 at 9:00am (CT). The meetings will be held at the Walworth County Sheriff's Office, 1770 County Road NN, Elkhorn, WI 53121. There will also be a Microsoft Teams link available for remote attendance. The deadline for new applicationsto be filed for the Spring meeting is March 22, 2026. Applications can be submitted at any time prior to that date at www.capradap.org.
The agenda for the 800 MHz RPC meeting includes:
* Old Business
o Applications
- Elgin, City of
- Naperville, City of
- Melrose Park, Village of
- Northwest Central Dispatch System (NWCDS)
o For the good of the order
* New Business
o Applications
- Naperville, City of
o For the good of the order
The 700 MHz RPC meeting will convene immediately following the 800 MHz RPC meeting.
The agenda for the 700 MHz meeting includes: - Old Business
o Applications
- Newton, County of
- DeKalb, County of
o For the good of the order
* New Business
o Applications
- Northwest Central Dispatch System (NWCDS)
o For the good of the order
The Region 54 Regional Planning Committee meetings are open to the public. All eligible public safety providers whose sole or principal purpose is to protect the safety of life, health, or property in the Southern Lake Michigan area may utilize these frequencies. It is essential that not only public safety, but all government, Tribal Nations, and non-governmental organizations eligible under Section 90.523 of the Commission's Rules be represented to ensure that each agency's future spectrum needs are considered in the allocation process. Administrators who are not conversant with telecommunications technology should ensure that their respective agencies are represented by suitably conversant staff.
All interested parties wishing to participate in the planning for the use of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands within Region 54 are encouraged to attend. For further information and Microsoft Teams invitation, please contact Ned W. Jacklin via email at nedr54@sbcglobal.net.
Carl Guse
Chairperson, Region 54
Phone: 920-210-4455
crguse@gmail.com
Ned W. Jacklin
Secretary, Region 54
Phone: 815-252-2564
nedr54@sbcglobal.net
* * *
Footnote:
1/ The Region 54 (Southern Lake Michigan) 700 MHz RPC encompasses counties in three states bordering Lake Michigan: Winnebago, McHenry, Cook, Kane, Kendall, Grundy, Boone, Lake, DuPage, DeKalb, Will, and Kankakee Counties, Illinois; Lake, LaPorte, Jasper, Starke, St. Joseph, Porter, Newton, Pulaski, Marshall, and Elkhart Counties, Indiana; and Kenosha, Milwaukee, Washington, Dodge, Walworth, Jefferson, Racine, Rock, Walworth, Washington, and Waukesha Counties, Wisconsin. The Region 54 (Southern Lake Michigan) 800 MHz NPSPAC RPC includes the Michigan counties of Kent, Van Buren, Kalamazoo, Barry, Muskegon, Allegan, Berrien, Cass, and St. Joseph, in addition to all of the above-mentioned Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin counties.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-256A1.pdf
SEC Obtains Final Judgment as to Virginia Resident in Alleged Ponzi Scheme That Targeted Chinese Americans
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 23-cv-23704-JEM; S.D. Fla. filed on Sept. 28, 2023):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bin Hao and Qidian, LLC, No. 23 cv 23704 JEM (S.D. Fla. filed on Sept. 28, 2023)
On March 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a final judgment as to defendant Bin Hao in the SEC's civil enforcement action against Hao and his company, Qidian LLC.
According to the SEC's complaint, from at least January 2017 to as late as 2021, Hao and Qidian sold promissory
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 23-cv-23704-JEM; S.D. Fla. filed on Sept. 28, 2023):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bin Hao and Qidian, LLC, No. 23 cv 23704 JEM (S.D. Fla. filed on Sept. 28, 2023)
On March 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered a final judgment as to defendant Bin Hao in the SEC's civil enforcement action against Hao and his company, Qidian LLC.
According to the SEC's complaint, from at least January 2017 to as late as 2021, Hao and Qidian sold promissorynotes and membership interests in various special purpose vehicles to investors with high annual return rates of 8-25% to facilitate providing loans to a Miami-based real estate company. The complaint alleged that starting in January 2019, the Miami real estate company ceased paying nearly all interest on loans it received from Qidian. Nevertheless, Qidian and Hao allegedly continued to solicit investors after January 2019, and raised at least $10.3 million while misrepresenting that Qidian was using investor proceeds to invest in real estate ventures to generate "guaranteed" annual investment returns. The complaint further alleged that Qidian and Hao used more than $2.3 million of new investor money to pay prior investors' interest in a Ponzi-like fashion, and Hao misappropriated at least $793,267 to pay personal expenses.
Without admitting or denying the allegations made in the complaint, Hao and Qidian consented to bifurcated judgments, entered by the Court on March 6, 2025, in which they agreed to be permanently enjoined from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and to pay disgorgement with prejudgment interest and/or a civil payment in amounts determined by the Court upon motion by the Commission. In addition, Hao agreed to an officer-and-director bar. The final judgment as to Hao, which concludes the SEC's litigation on this matter, ordered Hao to pay disgorgement of $1,526,484, prejudgment interest of $475,201, and a civil penalty of $236,451, for a total of $2,238,136.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Paul Hopker and supervised by Jason R. Berkowitz of the SEC's Miami Regional Office. The litigation was led by Alice Sum with assistance from Michael J. Gonzalez, under the supervision of Russell Koonin and Stephanie N. Moot.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment - Bin Hao (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26500-hao.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26500
SEC Obtains Final Consent Judgment as to Alleged Ex-Executive of Cannabis Company Charged in Fraudulent Offering
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:23-cv-05379; C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2023) involving ex-executive of a cannabis company charged in fraudulent offering:
* * *
On March 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment by consent as to J. Bernard Rice, an alleged former executive of American Patriot Brands, Inc., a cannabis company, in connection with previously-filed fraud charges.
The judgment permanently enjoins Rice from further violations of the antifraud provisions
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:23-cv-05379; C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 16, 2023) involving ex-executive of a cannabis company charged in fraudulent offering:
* * *
On March 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California entered a final judgment by consent as to J. Bernard Rice, an alleged former executive of American Patriot Brands, Inc., a cannabis company, in connection with previously-filed fraud charges.
The judgment permanently enjoins Rice from further violations of the antifraud provisionsof Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; permanently enjoins Rice from participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of securities, except for purchases or sales for his personal accounts; prohibits Rice for a period of five years from acting as an officer or director of a public company; orders Rice to pay disgorgement in the amount of $581,000 plus prejudgment interest thereon in the amount of $271,877; and orders Rice to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $236,451. The judgment follows the Court's June 16, 2025 order granting the SEC's motion for partial summary judgment.
The SEC's ongoing litigation is led by Eugene Hansen and Samantha Williams, substantially assisted by Senior Accountant Jamie Wohlert, and supervised by James Carlson.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26502.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26502
SEC IG: Fiscal Year 2025 Independent Evaluation of the SEC's Implementation of the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014
WASHINGTON, March 18 (TNSLrpt) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General issued the following report (No. 589) entitled "Fiscal Year 2025 Independent Evaluation of the SEC's Implementation of the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014."
Here are excerpts:
* * *
INTRODUCTION
To protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, Commission, or agency) relies on more than 100 information systems. Under the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA),1
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 (TNSLrpt) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission Inspector General issued the following report (No. 589) entitled "Fiscal Year 2025 Independent Evaluation of the SEC's Implementation of the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014."
Here are excerpts:
* * *
INTRODUCTION
To protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC, Commission, or agency) relies on more than 100 information systems. Under the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA),1the SEC must undergo an annual independent evaluation of its information security program and practices, to be performed by the SEC's Office of Inspector General (OIG) or by an independent external auditor, as determined by the Inspector General (IG). The OIG contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm Sikich CPA LLC (Sikich) to conduct the SEC's FISMA evaluation for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. This report presents the results of Sikich's independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the SEC's information security program and practices.
See Appendix B for detailed information regarding the objective, scope, and methodology for this evaluation.
KEY CHANGES TO THE IG FISMA METRICS
Several stakeholders, including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), and agency Chief Information Security Officer council, coordinated to develop a set of "IG metrics" for OIGs to use in evaluating the effectiveness of agency information security programs and practices. The stakeholders updated the IG metrics for FY 2025 as follows:
* The stakeholders created a new FISMA function (Govern) that includes a new domain (Cybersecurity Governance), as well as three new supplemental metrics to highlight the role that governance plays in managing cybersecurity risks and incorporating cybersecurity into the broader enterprise risk management strategy. Additionally, the stakeholders moved the Supply Chain Risk Management domain to the Govern function and renamed it Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management. Furthermore, the stakeholders added a new Risk and Asset Management domain to the existing Identify function to group metrics related to system, hardware, and software inventories, along with data management.2
* The stakeholders created two new supplemental metrics related to Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) implementation that assess the maturity of an organization's (1) data management capabilities and (2) ability to monitor and measure the integrity and security posture of assets.
* The stakeholders revised the core metric regarding information system-level risk management to focus on the implementation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Risk Management Framework.
The IG metrics align with the six function areas included in the NIST Cybersecurity Framework Version 2.0 (CSF 2.0): Govern, Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. CSF 2.0 provides (1) agencies with a common structure for managing and reducing cybersecurity risks, and (2) IGs with guidance for assessing the maturity of controls to address those risks. The IG metrics state that OIGs should also consider data points, such as the results of penetration testing, to support their risk-based determinations of maturity and effectiveness.
In FY 2025, OMB selected a group of 20 core information technology security metrics, based on administration priorities, high-impact security processes, and essential functions, by which to assess the effectiveness of agencies' information security programs. In addition to the 20 core metrics, each IG is also required to evaluate the 5 new supplemental metrics to conclude on the agency's overall cybersecurity posture in FY 2025. In rating each component of information security, the evaluator averages the results of the core metrics and the supplemental metrics for each of the six function areas covered in CSF 2.0 which are further divided into ten domains.
IGs assess each domain and its security function on a maturity model spectrum, in which the foundational levels ensure that agencies develop sound policies and procedures and the advanced levels capture the extent to which agencies institutionalize those policies and procedures. The five maturity model levels are Level 1: Ad Hoc, Level 2: Defined, Level 3: Consistently Implemented, Level 4: Managed and Measurable, and Level 5: Optimized. To be considered effective, an agency's information security program must achieve an overall rating of Level 4: Managed and Measurable or above.
* * *
View full report at https://www.sec.gov/files/sec-oig-aud-report-589.pdf
SEC Chairman Issues Regulation Crypto Assets: Token Safe Harbor
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on March 17, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the Digital Chamber Blockchain Summit:
* * *
Regulation Crypto Assets: A Token Safe Harbor
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, Chairman Selig, for your insightful remarks.
It is a pleasure to join you today to discuss a subject that sits at the center of American innovation, capital formation, and the enduring principles of our securities laws. Before I go any further, let me offer the customary disclaimer that the views I express here
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on March 17, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the Digital Chamber Blockchain Summit:
* * *
Regulation Crypto Assets: A Token Safe Harbor
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you, Chairman Selig, for your insightful remarks.
It is a pleasure to join you today to discuss a subject that sits at the center of American innovation, capital formation, and the enduring principles of our securities laws. Before I go any further, let me offer the customary disclaimer that the views I express hereare my own as Chairman and not necessarily those of the SEC as an institution or of the other Commissioners.
For over a decade, market participants have operated without clear guidance on a fundamental question: when does a crypto asset implicate the federal securities laws?
Today, I am pleased to announce that the SEC's persistent failure to provide clarity on this question is over. As we speak, the Commission is implementing a token taxonomy and investment contract interpretation.
Our interpretation--grounded in existing law and informed by extensive public input--establishes four asset categories that are not deemed securities: digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, and payment stablecoins under the GENIUS Act.
With these categories in place, the interpretation then clarifies that only one crypto asset class remains subject to the securities laws: digital securities, namely traditional securities that are tokenized. This distinction returns the Commission to its core mission--and statutory authority--of protecting investors involved in securities transactions.
Of course, even a crypto asset that is not a security may become subject to the Federal securities laws if it is offered and sold as part of an investment contract. Which is why, more importantly, our interpretation addresses how the investment contract ends, freeing the subject crypto asset from the SEC's statutes. A key tenet of our interpretation is that the project team clearly discloses the representations or promises that they make, so investors understand the bundle of rights they are purchasing.
We clarify that the representations or promises that generate reliance under Howey must be explicit and unambiguous as to the essential managerial efforts that the project team intends to undertake.
While this interpretation provides long-needed clarity, I should like to assure this audience that today's announcement amounts to a beginning, not an end. In just a few moments, I look forward to discussing how the SEC and CFTC plan to work together to implement this interpretation.
But first, allow me to take some time to preview the broader framework that we are building. Of course, I would also like to recognize someone whose fingerprints are all over what I will describe today--my colleague, Commissioner Hester Peirce.
For years, Commissioner Peirce has been a principled, and sometimes solitary, voice calling for clarity in the crypto asset markets. In fact, the proposal that I will discuss today, my vision for Regulation Crypto Assets, traces its lineage directly to the framework that she first introduced in February 2020 as the Token Safe Harbor.[1]
So, to Commissioner Peirce, thank you for your inspired leadership on these issues. We would not be here today but for your efforts, and I am confident that the Commission will continue to make strides toward your vision in the coming years.
Future-Proofing Against Rogue Regulation
Before proceeding further, let me also emphasize one important point. Only Congress can ensure that regulation in this area is future-proofed through comprehensive market structure legislation.
I strongly support the ongoing bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill to establish a durable framework for these markets. Regulation Crypto Assets is a framework that would draw heavily from Congressional work over recent years, particularly the CLARITY Act. Any exemptive rulemaking that the Commission considers, as described below, would give us a head start implementing historic bipartisan market structure legislation that will soon reach President Trump's desk.
A Compliant Path Forward: Regulation Crypto Assets
Now, I suspect that many in this audience are tired of hearing about the perils of uncertainty. Quite frankly, so am I. It is past time for us to stop diagnosing the problem and start delivering the solution.
On that note, I would like to walk you through my thoughts for what a safe harbor proposal could consist of. Such a safe harbor would provide crypto innovators bespoke pathways to raise capital in the U.S., while providing appropriate investor protections.
Startup Exemption
First, I believe that the Commission should consider a fit-for-purpose "startup exemption," which would be a time-limited registration exemption for offerings of investment contracts involving certain crypto assets.
Such an exemption could last (say up to four years) and provide developers with a regulatory runway during which they could work to reach maturity. Importantly, this exemption could be non-exclusive, meaning that all other exemptions to raise capital under the Federal securities laws could remain available.
The exemption could also allow entrepreneurs to raise up to a defined amount (say $5 million) during the four-year period, with notices to the Commission when relying on the exemption and when exiting.
To avail themselves of this exemption, entrepreneurs could provide certain principles-based disclosures about the investment contract and the underlying crypto asset, similar to what we see in white papers today, which could be made available on a public website.
Fundraising Exemption
Second, what I have in mind is that the Commission could consider a "fundraising exemption," which could be a new offering exemption for investment contracts involving certain crypto assets. Entrepreneurs could raise up to a defined amount (say $75 million) during any 12-month period while retaining the ability to rely on other exemptions from registration under the Federal securities laws.
Issuers relying on the exemption could file a disclosure document with the Commission that could include (1) the same principles-based disclosure, as in the "startup exemption"; (2) a discussion of the issuer's financial condition; and (3) the issuer's financial statements.
Investment Contract Safe Harbor
Third, I would like for the Commission to consider an "investment contract safe harbor" from the definition of "security" for certain crypto assets. This safe harbor could apply once the issuer has completed or otherwise permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that the issuer represented or promised that it would engage in under the investment contract.
What I have in mind here is a safe harbor that could provide a rule-based standard to give issuers and other market participants greater certainty about when a crypto asset is not subject to the Federal securities laws.
The safe harbor could align with the principles articulated in the Commission's interpretative release. Of course, the proposal would not require issuers to rely on this framework.
A New Chapter for American Innovation
In the coming weeks, I expect the Commission to consider releasing such a proposed rule for public comment.
I look forward to hearing from investors, developers, academics, and market participants across the ecosystem.
As we look toward the next chapter of our nation's economic history, it behooves us to remember what has always made America exceptional. It is not merely the size of our markets or the sophistication of our financial institutions, but our willingness to trust individuals with the freedom to innovate. To take risks. To build new systems that expand opportunities for others.
Our securities laws were designed to amplify that energy, not to suppress it. As regulators, we must ensure that our rules remain faithful to the principles that inspired them.
If we succeed, then the next generation of entrepreneurs will not need to ask whether innovation is possible in America.
They will know that it is possible. And they will build the future here.
Thank you very much. I look forward to the work ahead--and to discussing these ideas further in the discussion to follow. Thank you.
* * *
[1] http://sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-remarks-blockress-2020-02-06
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-regulation-crypto-assets-031726
FTC Secures Settlement Against Xponential Fitness for Franchise Rule Violations
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Secures Settlement Against Xponential Fitness for Franchise Rule Violations
*
The Federal Trade Commission has secured a settlement against Xponential Fitness for Franchise Rule violations and related deceptive practices, including $17 million that will be returned to franchisees, which is the largest amount ever to go back to consumers in a franchise case.
The FTC alleges that Xponential Fitness, which sells franchises for popular fitness studios brands such as Club Pilates, Pure Barre, YogaSix,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Secures Settlement Against Xponential Fitness for Franchise Rule Violations
*
The Federal Trade Commission has secured a settlement against Xponential Fitness for Franchise Rule violations and related deceptive practices, including $17 million that will be returned to franchisees, which is the largest amount ever to go back to consumers in a franchise case.
The FTC alleges that Xponential Fitness, which sells franchises for popular fitness studios brands such as Club Pilates, Pure Barre, YogaSix,StretchLab, and BFT, misrepresented key information about the costs, risks, time to open and operate studios, and essential details about the company's operations, leaving many franchisees and prospective franchisees in the dark about their investment.
"Americans invest their life savings into franchises with high hopes of launching a financially prosperous business," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Xponential's failure to provide prospective franchisees with legally mandated information denied American workers and potential employers the ability to evaluate the costs and risks involved. The Trump-Vance FTC will continue to bring actions to stop deceptive practices that harm American workers."
In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Xponential:
* Misrepresented the time to open franchises: Xponential falsely claimed that franchisees typically get their franchise studios up and running, with buildout complete, within six months of signing the franchise agreement. In reality, franchisees have typically taken more than a year after the signing of the franchise agreement to open their studios, if they opened at all, a fact Xponential knew well. As a result, Xponential franchisees have paid substantial franchise license fees, and incurred unexpected and substantial costs, due to the delayed opening of studios.
* Failed to disclose key details about executives including material litigations, legal actions, and bankruptcy: Xponential failed to disclose to prospective franchisees that former CEO Anthony Geisler was involved in the sale or operation of franchises-and that he was involved in litigation that Xponential was legally required to disclose under the Franchise Rule. Specifically, the company failed to disclose that Geisler has been repeatedly sued for fraud. The fitness brand also neglected to tell franchisees about the bankruptcy of the former President of Franchise Development, which is required by the Franchise Rule.
* Misreported the names and contact information of franchisees whose studios ceased operation in the past year: Xponential omitted the names of franchisees who had a studio that ceased to do business or was terminated, cancelled, or not renewed during the previous year, as required by the Franchise Rule. Where the fitness brand disclosed the names of those franchisees, in several instances, they disclosed outdated contact information. As a result, prospective franchisees were unable to fully assess studio turnover rates and obtain information from prior purchasers; and
* Failed to provide accurate, complete, and timely Franchise Disclosure Documents (FDDs) to franchisees: Xponential failed to provide timely FDDs to prospective franchisees at least 14 days before they signed franchise agreements, as required by the Franchise Rule. Failure to provide accurate and timely FDDs left franchisees without a full opportunity to meaningfully review crucial information about Xponential's offerings and the risks involved before paying the substantial initial franchisee fee, averaging $45,000 per studio, and entering into a 10-year franchise agreement.
The proposed order against Xponential :
* Imposes a monetary judgment of $17 million, the most consumer redress in the agency's history for an alleged Franchise Rule violation, which will be used to provide redress to franchisees;
* Prohibits Xponential from making misrepresentations to prospective franchisees in the promotion, sale, or offering for sale of any franchise, including the alleged misrepresentations and deceptive omissions referenced in the complaint; and
* Requires Xponential to comply with the Franchise Rule, including by providing complete, accurate, and timely franchise disclosure documents to prospective franchisees.
Today's action aligns with the FTC's Joint Labor Task Force launched by Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson in February 2025. The Commission created the cross-agency Labor Task Force to root out and prosecute deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor-market practices that harm American workers. Noting that the FTC's dual consumer-protection and competition mandate makes the agency uniquely well-suited to address these worker harms, Chairman Ferguson's Labor Task Force harnesses expertise from the agency's Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Economics, and Office of Policy Planning. Today's settlement is another product of those efforts.
The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 2-0. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a separate statement. The FTC filed the complaint and final order in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
FTC's lead attorneys on this matter are Anne LeJeune, Tammy Chung, Jason Moon in the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/03/ftc-secures-settlement-against-xponential-fitness-franchise-rule-violations
CFTC Chairman Selig Rejects Past Enforcement Tactics in Favor of Transparent Market Based Systems
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following remarks on March 17, 2026, by Chairman Michael S. Selig at the 9th Annual DC Blockchain Summit:
* * *
The Trust Revolution
Good afternoon.
Before I begin, I must note that the views I share today are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission.
It is an honor to be here and to speak with the builders, developers, and entrepreneurs who are helping to shape the next frontier of finance.
Today, I want to talk about the profound shift we all see underway in our world, one that I
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, March 18 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following remarks on March 17, 2026, by Chairman Michael S. Selig at the 9th Annual DC Blockchain Summit:
* * *
The Trust Revolution
Good afternoon.
Before I begin, I must note that the views I share today are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commission.
It is an honor to be here and to speak with the builders, developers, and entrepreneurs who are helping to shape the next frontier of finance.
Today, I want to talk about the profound shift we all see underway in our world, one that Ihope can rebuild the trust that has been lost in recent years in two foundational pillars of American society: our financial systems and our information systems.
Trust in Decentralization
Let me begin with the idea of trust in decentralization.
For centuries, financial markets have required agreed-upon methods or rules to establish confidence and trust among market participants.
A farmer selling wheat futures must trust that the contract will settle, and a trader entering a derivatives position must trust that the counterparty will perform.
Historically, these assurances were provided by requirements set by regulatory agencies and centralized "trusted" institutions like exchanges and clearinghouses.[1]
While those institutions remain essential, in recent years, an increasing number of people have started to question many of the practices and assurances made by those gatekeepers.
Indeed, in recent years, much has been revealed.
We have seen a combination of new technology, poor foresight, and an undemocratic need for control undermine the stewardship placed in the establishment's care for decades.
We have seen regulatory agencies weaponized against innovative sectors like crypto, regulating through enforcement and driving American builders overseas.
And we have seen major financial institutions debank companies and individuals who did nothing more than operate within a politically disfavored industry.[2]
The formerly trusted guardians of financial prudence have lost face and lost the confidence of a broad swath of the American population.
And they know it.
Clearly, something needs to be done to rebuild our faith in the system and in our future as a nation.
In response to this crisis, we must not be afraid to look forward to new technologies, and new thinking, because new technologies, when combined with the power of open markets and systems, have often been the catalysts that push institutions and regulators to modernize systems built for an earlier era.
Breakthroughs in emerging technologies are enabling entirely new methods by which people can own and transfer assets and discover truth.
Distributed ledgers allow transactions to be recorded on a transparent, shared infrastructure. Smart contracts allow obligations to be executed programmatically according to predefined rules. Open-source code allows market participants to inspect the architecture that governs how these transactions occur.
It is an American value to own your own property, and protocols developed for decentralized finance, or DeFi, are a prime example of a way Americans can own property and access the financial system without a middleman.
Anyone with an internet connection can access lending, borrowing, or trading protocols that are transparent, auditable, and resistant to single points of failure.
This isn't just efficiency; it's democratization of finance, where trust emerges from verifiable code and consensus, rather than opaque institutions.
This shift is profound.
And, if history is any guide, it is consistent with the long evolution of American commodity markets.
Our markets have always evolved with technology--from open pit trading to electronic platforms, to algorithmic execution.[3]
Today, permissionless blockchain networks represent the next chapter in this story.
Trust in Markets
In parallel, we see a similar revolution for trust within information systems.
Prediction markets allow market participants to trade on the probability of future events.
These markets aggregate information from many participants and harness collective intelligence to forecast outcomes, from elections to economic trends.
Accuracy is rewarded, and misinformation is penalized through economic incentives.
Markets serve as powerful tools for information discovery, as participants reveal their beliefs through the action of economic risk-taking.
As new information enters the system, prices adjust. And, over time, the market aggregates dispersed knowledge into a tangible signal of probability, usually in the form of a number or a percentage.
In an efficient market, asset prices react and reflect publicly available information about the asset.[4]
And in the same way that we understand the value of market price signals, prediction markets can make clear the critical information influencing what later will be deemed to be true or false.
In this sense, predication markets function as a forum for decentralized truth.
Prices, not political biases, signal the likelihood of a future outcome, and establish trust in the wisdom of the market.
At the same time, social media platforms are fostering a form of decentralized trust via user-driven content, where real-time verification by millions of participants uproots the dominance of traditional news outlets.
No longer do we wait for news corporations and their army of editors, anointed in the dark and pushing slanted viewpoints, to dictate the narrative. Instead, truth bubbles up from diverse, decentralized voices, often faster and more reliably than legacy reporting.
Yet, this progress in decentralized truth hasn't come without challenges, particularly from politicians and even us regulators.
For example, we saw the prior administration attempt to ban political prediction markets ahead of the 2024 elections.[5] With President Trump's landslide victory, it is no surprise that they tried to do so.
We have also seen government regimes suppress particular viewpoints across news outlets and push what we now know as disinformation or "fake news".
Protecting the freedom to transact in prediction markets should not be a controversial or partisan issue, it is essential.
Americans should have the freedom to transact in lawful derivatives markets and should trust in the reliability of their signals.
Instead of establishing rules to protect consumers and prevent manipulation, the prior administration tried to outlaw these markets and went so far as to raid the home of a founder in the weeks leading up to the 2024 election.[6]
This only served to further stifle the technology's potential and undermine the dependability of the information that we consume each day.
And after the courts rejected the prior administration's attempts to ban these markets,[7] it was caught flat-footed, without rules in place for the broad range of new contracts that were trading across the country.
Thankfully, we live in a new reality where much more is possible.
Last week, the CFTC and the SEC announced a Memorandum of Understanding that solidifies our agencies' efforts to harmonize our regulatory initiatives and help unlock the full promise of these innovations.[8]
Jurisdictional clarity is essential if innovators are going to build compliant products in the United States.
For crypto, that means practical steps like a commonsense taxonomy to classify crypto assets sensibly and put the prior administration's "ecosystem" theory of security status to bed, once and for all.
This means directing staff to engage with market participants, including developers of onchain software systems, such as digital wallets and DeFi protocols, to better understand how existing regulatory requirements apply, if at all, to the emerging technologies they build.
As financial markets move onchain, I believe the United States should serve as the base layer where builders choose to deploy the systems powering this new frontier of finance.
We must also recognize that these systems are designed along a spectrum of decentralization. At one end of the spectrum, we see onchain systems that are centrally controlled and administered by a central actor or group of actors.
At the other end, we see onchain systems that are not controlled or administered by a central actor or group of actors acting in concert.
It is long overdue for the Commission to clarify which onchain software systems are subject to registration and which are not.
Restoring Trust
Let me close by returning to where I began.
The United States has long been the global leader in financial innovation.
Our derivatives markets are among the most sophisticated and liquid in the world.
They serve farmers managing crop risk, energy companies hedging price swings, manufacturers managing supply chains, and investors allocating capital.
That leadership did not happen by accident; it emerged from a regulatory philosophy that allowed markets to innovate while maintaining strong protections.
Fortunately, the United States--under President Trump's leadership--has an opportunity to lead this transformation as the new frontier of finance rises towards us from below the horizon.
In financial markets, permissionless public blockchains and DeFi protocols are introducing new ways to generate trust through transparent, open-source infrastructure.
In information systems, prediction markets are serving as a new tool for discovering truth, using price signals and economic incentives to aggregate dispersed knowledge.
These developments reflect a broader shift towards trust in decentralized and market-based systems.
Leadership matters, and our role as regulators is not to resist that shift or try to reorient activity to achieve some predetermined outcome--it is to provide a balanced framework for this shift to flourish.
If we get the balance right, decentralized and market-based systems will prosper, and we, as a nation, can then embrace this new re-establishment of trust in our financial and information systems.
And with that, let me hand it over to my friend, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins.
* * *
[1] See, e.g., 7 U.S.C. Sec. 7 (Contract Markets) and 7 U.S.C. Sec. 7a-1(Derivatives Clearing Organizations).
[2] See, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/21/jpmorgan-concedes-it-closed-trumps-accounts-after-jan-6-attack.html.
[3] See, https://commoditieshub.ch/en/fundamentals/the-history-of-commodity-trading/.
[4] See, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/efficient-market-hypothesis-emh.
[5] See, e.g., CFTC Release No. 8780-23, CFTC Disapproves KalshiEX LLC's Congressional Control Contracts (Sept. 22, 2023), available at https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8780-23.
[6] See, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/fbi-raids-polymarket-ceo-shayne-coplans-apartment-seizes-phone-source-rcna180180.
[7] See, e.g., KalshiEx LLC v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, No. 1:23-cv-03257, 2024 WL 4164694 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24-5205, 2025 WL 1349979 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 2025)
[8] See, https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9192-26.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opaselig3
