What Can We Learn From OFAC Enforcement Actions?

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has closed eight enforcement actions so far in 2023. These enforcement actions targeted companies, financial institutions, and individuals in the United States and abroad, and they resulted in more than $550 million in settlements.

What can other companies, financial institutions, and individuals learn from these enforcement actions? OFAC publishes Enforcement Releases on its website, and these releases provide some notable insights into OFAC’s sanctions enforcement tactics and priorities. By understanding these tactics and priorities, potential targets of OFAC enforcement actions can take strategic steps to bolster their sanctions compliance programs and efforts and reduce their risk of facing OFAC scrutiny.
Notably, all eight of OFAC’s enforcement actions so far in 2023 resulted in settlements with the target. As discussed further below, the majority of these enforcement actions also resulted from voluntary self-disclosures—so it makes sense that the companies and financial institutions involved were interested in settling. There are several other notable consistencies among OFAC’s 2023 enforcement actions as well.

OFAC Enforcement Actions in 2023

Here is a brief summary of each of OFAC’s enforcement actions so far in 2023:

1. Godfrey Phillips India Limited

Statutory Maximum Civil Monetary Penalty (CMP): $1.78 million

Base Penalty Amount: $475,000 (non-egregious violation, no voluntary self-
disclosure)
Settlement Amount: $332,500

Godfrey Phillips India Limited (GPI) faced an enforcement action related to its use of U.S. financial institutions to process transactions for exporting tobacco to North Korea. According to OFAC, GPI “relied on several third-country intermediary parties to receive payment, which obscured the nexus to the DPRK and caused U.S. financial institutions to process these transactions.”

In agreeing to a $332,500 settlement with GPI, OFAC considered the following
aggravating factors under its Economic Sanctions Enforcement Guidelines:

  •  GPI acted “recklessly” and exercised a “minimal degree of caution or care for U.S. sanctions laws and regulations.”
  • Several company managers had actual knowledge that the conduct at issue “concerned the exportation of tobacco to [North Korea].”
  •  The company’s actions harmed U.S. foreign policy objectives “by providing a sought-after, revenue-generating good to the North Korean regime.”

    Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • GPI had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years.
  •  GPI took remedial measures upon learning of the apparent violations, including implementing new know-your customer measures and recordkeeping requirements.
  •   GPI cooperated with OFAC during its investigation.

2. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $1.066 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $533,369,211 (egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $30 million

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. faced an enforcement action related to its predecessor Wachovia Bank’s decision to provide software to a foreign bank that used the software to process trade-finance transactions with sanctioned nations and entities. While noting multiple failures by the bank (including its failure to identify the issue for seven years “despite concerns raised internally within Wells Fargo on multiple occasions”), OFAC agreed to settle Wells Fargo’s potential half-billion-dollar liability for $30 million. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  Reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions requirements and failure to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care.
  • The fact that senior management “should reasonably have known” that the software was being used for transactions with sanctioned jurisdictions and entities.
  • Wells Fargo undermined the policy of OFAC’s sanctions programs for Iran, Sudan, and Syria by providing the software platform.

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • Wells Fargo had a strong sanctions compliance program at the time of the apparent violations.
  • The “true magnitude of the sanctions harm underlying the conduct” is less than the total value of the transactions conducted using the software platform.
  • Wells Fargo had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years and remediated the compliance issue immediately.

3. Uphold HQ Inc.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $44,468,494

Base Penalty Amount: $90,288 (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $72,230

Uphold HQ Inc., a California-based money services business, faced an enforcement action related to its processing of transactions for customers who self-identified as being located in Iran or Cuba or as employees of the Government of Venezuela. The 152 transactions at issue involved a total value of $180,575. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  Failure to exercise due caution or care when conducting due diligence on customers who provided information indicating sanctions risks.
  • Uphold had reason to know that it was processing payments for customers in Iran and Cuba and who were employees of the Venezuelan government.

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  •  Uphold had not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the previous five years.
  • Uphold cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
  •  Uphold undertook “numerous” remedial measures in response to OFAC’s investigation.

4. Microsoft Corporation

 
Statutory Maximum CMP: $404.6 million

Base Penalty Amount: $5.96 million (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $2.98 million

Microsoft Corporation faced an enforcement action related to its exportation of “services or software” to Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs) and blocked persons in violation of OFAC’s Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Ukraine/Russia-related sanctions programs. According to OFAC’s Enforcement Release, “[t]he majority of the apparent violations . . . occurred as a result of [Microsoft’s] failure to identify and prevent the use of its products by prohibited parties.” Aggravating factors in this case included:

  • Microsoft demonstrated a reckless disregard for U.S. sanctions over a seven-year period.
  •  The apparent violations harmed U.S. foreign policy objectives by providing software and services to more than 100 SDNs or blocked persons, “including major Russian enterprises.”
  •  Microsoft is a “world-leading technology company operating globally with substantial experience and expertise in software and related services sales and transactions.”

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • There was no evidence that anyone in Microsoft’s U.S. management was aware of the apparent violations at any time.
  • Microsoft cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.
  • Microsoft undertook “significant remedial measures and enhanced its sanctions compliance program through substantial investment” after learning of the apparent violations.

5. British American Tobacco P.L.C.

Statutory Maximum CMP: $508.61 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $508.61 billion (egregious violation, no voluntary self-
disclosure)
Settlement Amount: $508.61 billion

British American Tobacco P.L.C. entered into a settlement for the full statutory maximum CMP resulting from apparent violations of OFAC’s sanctions against North Korea. According to OFAC, the company engaged in a conspiracy “to export tobacco and related products to North Korea and receive payment for those exports through the U.S. financial system” by obscuring the source of the funds involved. Aggravating factors in this case included:

  •  The company “willfully conspired” to unlawfully transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from North Korea through U.S. banks.
  •  The company concealed its business in North Korea through “a complex remittance structure that relied on an opaque series of front companies and intermediaries.”
  • The company’s management had actual knowledge of the apparent conspiracy “from its inception through its termination.”
  •  The transactions at issue “helped North Korea establish and operate a cigarette manufacturing business . . . that has reportedly netted over $1 billion per year.”
  •  British American Tobacco is “a large and sophisticated international company operating in approximately 180 markets around the world.”

Mitigating factors in this case included:

  • British American Tobacco has not received a Penalty Notice or Finding of Violation in the past five years.
  •  British American Tobacco cooperated with OFAC’s investigation.

6. Poloniex, LLC

Statutory Maximum CMP: 19.69 billion

Base Penalty Amount: $99.23 million (non-egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $7.59 million

Poloniex, LLC, which operates an online trading platform in the United States, agreed to settle after it was discovered that the company committed 65,942 apparent violations of various sanctions programs by processing transactions with a combined value of over $15 million. In settling for a small fraction of the base penalty amount, OFAC noted that Poloniex was a “small start-up” when most of the apparent violations were committed and that its acquiring company had already adopted a more-robust OFAC compliance program.

7. Murad, LLC

Statutory Maximum CMP: $22.22 million

Base Penalty Amount: $11.11 million (egregious violation, voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $3.33 million

Murad, LLC, a California-based cosmetics company, faced an OFAC enforcement action after it self-disclosed that it had exported products worth $11 million to Iran. While OFAC found that the company acted willingly in violating its sanctions on Iran, as mitigating factors OFAC noted the company’s remedial response and the “benign
consumer nature” of the products involved.

8. Swedbank Latvia AS

Statutory Maximum CMP: $112.32 million

Base Penalty Amount: $6.24 million (non-egregious violation, no voluntary self-disclosure)

Settlement Amount: $3.43 million

Swedbank Latvia AS faced an enforcement action related to the use of its e-banking platform by a customer with a Crimean IP address to send payments to persons in Crimea through U.S. correspondent banks. While OFAC noted that Swedbank Latvia is “a sophisticated financial institution with over one million customers” and failed to exercise due caution or care, it also noted that the bank took “significant remedial action” in response to the apparent violations and “substantially cooperated” with its investigation.

Insights from OFAC’s 2023 Enforcement Actions To Date

As these recent enforcement actions show, OFAC appears to be willing to give substantial weight to companies’ and financial institutions’ good-faith compliance efforts as well as their remedial efforts after discovering apparent sanctions violations. Cooperation was a key factor in several of OFAC’s 2023 enforcement actions as well. When facing OFAC scrutiny or the need to make a voluntary self-disclosure, companies and financial institutions must work with their counsel to make informed decisions, and they must move forward with a strategic plan in place focused on achieving a favorable outcome in light of the facts at hand.

Oberheiden P.C. © 2023
By Dr. Nick Oberheiden of Oberheiden P.C.
For more news on OFAC Enforcement Actions, visit the NLR Corporate & Business Organizations section.

PFAS State AG Lawsuits Update: Delaware Enters the Fray

2023 has proven to be an extremely busy year for PFAS state AG lawsuits seeking environmental pollution remediation costs from PFAS manufacturers and AFFF manufacturers. We previously wrote that Illinois (February), Maine (April), Kentucky (April),  Rhode Island, Arizona, Maryland, Oregon, and Washington (all in May), South Carolina (July), and Tennessee and Washington DC (August)  were the latest states seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in PFAS remediation costs. Now, Delaware has joined the fray, bringing the number of state PFAS lawsuits to close to 25 cases, with more expected to be filed. While the lawsuits target a narrowly tailored set of companies, lawsuits in other states have already demonstrated that downstream commerce corporations are at risk of being involved in lawsuits seeking hundreds of millions of dollars.

PFAS State AG Lawsuits

The Delaware Attorney General lawsuit seeks PFAS remediation costs from 3M and various AFFF manufacturers. The lawsuit specifically details the extent to which several types of PFAS are found in groundwater, surface water, drinking water, waste treatment byproducts, and various other environmental impact avenues. There is one unique aspect of the Delaware lawsuit as compared to other state lawsuits in that the Delaware case only specifically mentions PFAS contamination at New Castle County Airport and at the Dover Air Force Base. Other state AG lawsuits have more broadly claimed that PFAS contamination is widespread throughout the states. Delaware is seeking costs “in excess of $1,000,000” related to investigating, cleaning up, restoring, treating, and monitoring the state’s contaminated groundwater, surface water, soil and other natural resources.

Implications For Downstream Manufacturers

While the latest state PFAS lawsuit targets PFAS manufacturers and AFFF manufacturers, companies should not dismiss the lawsuits as events unlikely to impact them in any way. On the contrary, in other states, including California, companies have been directly named as defendants in lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in PFAS remediation costs. Corporations should not ignore the pollution and environmental contamination issues that PFAS pose, as states, federal and state regulatory agencies, and even private citizens are actively seeking damages from companies that they believe placed PFAS into the environment. All companies of all types would be well advised to conduct a complete compliance audit to best understand areas of concern for PFAS liability issues, and ways to mitigate PFAS concerns.

©2023 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
By John Gardella of CMBG3 Law
For more news on PFAS state AG lawsuits, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

The FCC Approves an NOI to Dive Deeper into AI and its Effects on Robocalls and Robotexts

AI is on the tip of everyone’s tongue it seems these days. The Dame brought you a recap of President Biden’s orders addressing AI at the beginning of the month. This morning at the FCC’s open meeting they were presented with a request for a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to gather additional information about the benefits and harms of artificial intelligence and its use alongside “robocall and robotext”. The following five areas of interest are as follows:

  • First, the NOI seeks, on whether and if so how the commission should define AI technologies for purposes of the inquiry this includes particular uses of AI technologies that are relevant to the commission’s statutory response abilities under the TCPA, which protects consumers from nonemergency calls and texts using an autodialer or containing an artificial or prerecorded voice.
  • Second, the NOI seeks comment on how technologies may impact consumers who receive robocalls and robotexts including any potential benefits and risks that the emerging technologies may create. Specifically, the NOI seeks information on how these technologies may alter the functioning of the existing regulatory framework so that the commission may formulate policies that benefit consumers by ensuring they continue to receive privacy protections under the TCPA.
  • Third, the NOI seeks comment on whether it is necessary or possible to determine at this point whether future types of AI technologies may fall within the TCPA’s existing prohibitions on autodial calls or texts and artificial or prerecorded voice messages.
  • Fourth, NOI seeks comment on whether the commission should consider ways to verify the authenticity and legitimately generate AI voice or text content from trusted sources such as through the use of watermarks, certificates, labels, signatures, or other forms of labels when callers rely on AI technology to generate content. This may include, for example, emulating a human voice on a robocall or creating content in a text message.
  • Lastly, seeks comment on what next steps the commission should consider to further the inquiry.

While all the commissioners voted to approve the NOI they did share a few insightful comments. Commissioner Carr stated “ If AI can combat illegal robocalls, I’m all for it” but he also expressed that he does “…worry that the path we are heading down is going to be overly prescriptive” and suggests “…Let’s put some common-sense guardrails in place, but let’s not be so prescriptive and so heavy-handed on the front end that we end up benefiting large incumbents in the space because they can deal with the regulatory frameworks and stifling the smaller innovation to come.”

Commissioner Starks shared “I, for one, believe this intersectionality is clinical because the future of AI remains uncertain, one thing is clear — it has the potential to impact if not transform every aspect of American life, and because of that potential, each part of our government bears responsibility to better understand the risks, opportunities within its mandate, while being mindful of the limits of its expertise, experience, and authority. In this era of rapid technological change, we must collaborate, lean into our expertise across agencies to best serve our citizens and consumers.” Commissioner Starks seemed to be particularly focused on AI’s ability to facilitate bad actors in schemes like voice cloning and how the FCC can implement safeguards against this type of behavior.

“AI technologies can bring new challenges and opportunities. responsible and ethical implementation of AI technologies is crucial to strike a balance, ensuring that the benefits of AI are harnessed to protect consumers from harm rather than amplifying the risks in increasing the digital landscape” Commissioner Gomez shared.

Finally, the topic around the AI NOI wrapped up with Chairwoman Rosenworcel commenting “… I think we make a mistake if we only focus on the potential for harm. We needed to equally focus on how artificial intelligence can radically improve the tools we have today to block unwanted robocalls and robotexts. We are talking about technology that can see patterns in our network traffic, unlike anything we have today. They can lead to the development of analytic tools that are exponentially better at finding fraud before it reaches us at home. Used at scale, we cannot only stop this junk, we can use it to increase trust in our networks. We are asking how artificial intelligence is being used right now to recognize patterns in network traffic and how it can be used in the future. We know the risks this technology involves but we also want to harness the benefits.”

© 2023 Troutman Amin, LLP
For more news on AI and its Impact on Robocalls and Robotexts, visit the NLR Communications, Media & Internet section.

California Governor Signs a Handful of Tax-Related Bills into Law

This fall, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed several tax-related bills into law on a diverse array of topics ranging from the use tax to the gun tax.

Use tax: On October 7, 2023, Governor Newsom signed a bill into law changing the threshold for a California business to register to pay use tax. Prior to enactment of the new law, a qualified purchaser that had more than $100,000 in annual gross receipts was required to register with the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (“CDTFA”) to pay use tax on purchases from out-of-state sellers. Under the new law, a qualified purchaser must make more than $10,000 in purchases per year from an out-of-state seller on which use tax has not been paid and remitted by the remote seller in order to be required to register with CDTFA. The bill’s sponsor described the purpose of the bill as to update the “outdated and burdensome” old system which was in effect before the Supreme Court decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. generally allowed states to collect use tax from out-of-state sellers. As California adopted a law post-Wayfair that requires out-of-state sellers that sell more than $500,000 in property in California to register to collect and remit use tax, the legislature determined that the old use tax registration requirements should be updated and streamlined.

Gun tax: While the change to the use tax registration did not garner much attention from the press, one bill that did was one signed by Governor Newsom on September 26, 2023, that doubled the taxes on sales of guns and ammunition in California. While federal law already taxes gun and ammunition sales at either 10 or 11 percent depending on the type of gun, the new law adds an additional 11 percent California tax on top of that, making California the only state to impose its own tax on guns and ammunition. The Governor’s office described the legislation as a “first-in-the-nation effort to generate $160 million annually on the sale of bullets to improve school safety and fund a gun violence intervention program.”

Settlement authority of the CDTFA: On October 8, 2023, Governor Newsom signed into law a bill that makes changes to certain tax administration provisions, including a provision giving the CDTFA sole authority to approve settlement agreements reducing a taxpayer’s liability for tax or penalties by up to $11,500, with periodic adjustments to be made to that threshold for inflation. Prior to the enactment of the new law, settlements involving a reduction of tax or penalties of up to $5,000 required joint approval from the executive director of CDTFA and the chief counsel’s office.

Extension of disaster relief deduction: On September 30, 2023, Governor Newsom signed a bill extending the State’s disaster relief loss deduction through December 31, 2028, for both individual and corporate taxpayers. The disaster relief loss deduction allows a taxpayer to declare a loss related to a California disaster declared by the President of the United States or the Governor of California. Prior to the enactment of the new law, the disaster relief loss deduction was scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2023.

© 2023 Blank Rome LLP
For more news on California Tax Bills, visit the NLR Tax section.

IRS Process for Withdrawing Employee Retention Credit Claims

On October 19, 2023, the IRS announced a process which is intended to allow employers who were pressured or misled by marketers or promoters into filing ineligible claims for the Employee Retention Credit (ERC), but who have not yet received a refund, to withdraw their claim. This process permits employers whose ERC claims are still being processed to withdraw their refund claims and avoid the potential that the IRS would deny the claim after the credit is received, thus avoiding the need to repay any refunded amounts, and avoiding potential interest and penalties.

When properly claimed, the ERC is a refundable tax credit designed for employers that were fully shut down or partially suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic or that had a significant decline in gross receipts during the eligibility periods.

The move to permit the withdrawal of claims comes after the IRS placed abusive ERC promotions on its Dirty Dozen, an annual list aimed at helping raise awareness to protect honest taxpayers from aggressive promoters and con artists. After placing abusive ERC promotions on the Dirty Dozen, on September 14, 2023, the Commissioner of the IRS ordered that processing of any new ERC claims be stopped until December 31, 2023. However, the IRS stated that it would continue to process and pay out previously filed eligible ERC claims, as well as audit ERC claims and pursue criminal investigations of promoters and businesses filing dubious claims.

Who Can Withdraw an ERC Claim
To be eligible to withdraw an ERC claim, an employer must meet all of the following criteria:

  1. The ERC must have been claimed using an adjusted employment return, i.e. Forms 941-X, 943-X, 944-X, or CT-1X
  2. The ERC must be the only adjustment claimed on the return
  3. The employer must withdraw the entire amount of the ERC claim (this refers to each calendar quarter, rather than all calendar quarters, for which an ERC claim was made)
  4. The ERC claim cannot have been paid by the IRS or, if it has been paid, the employer has not yet cashed or deposited the refund check

How to Withdraw an ERC Claim

The notice provides a step-by-step menu for withdrawing a claim.  If the employer filed adjusted returns to claim ERCs for more than one calendar quarter and wishes to withdraw all ERC claims, it must follow the steps below for each calendar quarter for which it is requesting a withdrawal.  The IRS also has a dedicated page with sample form, which can be found here.

Employers that have not received a refund and have not been notified their claim is under audit may request a withdrawal by following these steps:

  1. Make a copy of the adjusted return with the claim you wish to withdraw
  2. In the left margin of the first page, write “Withdrawn”
  3. In the right margin of the first page:
    • Have an authorized person sign and date it
    • Write their name and title next to their signature
  4. Fax the signed copy of your return using your computer or mobile device to the IRS’s ERC claim withdrawal fax line at 855-738-7609.  The employer should keep a copy with its tax records.  The notice even provides a template for a simple claim withdrawal request.

Employers that have not received a refund and have been notified of an audit can still withdraw ERC claims using the above procedure, but must check with their examiner about how to fax or mail the withdrawal request directly to the examiner or, if an examiner has not yet been assigned, should respond to the audit notice with the withdrawal request, using the instructions in the notice for responding.

Special instructions are also included in the notice for employers that have received a refund check but have not cashed or deposited it.

Once a withdrawal is submitted, the employer should expect to receive a letter from the IRS about whether their withdrawal request was accepted or rejected.  A withdrawal is not effective until accepted by the IRS.  If the IRS accepts the withdrawal, the employer may need to amend its income tax return (if it previously amended that return to reflect ERCs that had been claimed).

ERC Refunds Already Received

Employers that are not able use the above withdrawal process may still be able to file another adjusted return if they need to:

  • Reduce the amount of their ERC claim
  • Make other changes to their adjusted return

However, it should be noted that the IRS is also working on separate guidance for ineligible employers that were misled into making ERC claims and have already received the payment.

Continued Risk for Fraudulent Claims

Withdrawn ERC claims will be treated as if they were never filed and the IRS will not impose penalties or interest.  However, ineligible employers should note that withdrawing an ERC claim will not remove the possibility that they or their advisor could be subject to potential criminal investigation or prosecution for filing a fraudulent ERC claim.

Copyright ©2023 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
For more news on Employee Retention Claims, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Study: Vehicles with Higher Front Ends Pose Greater Risk to Pedestrians

According to a recently published study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), vehicles with higher, more blunt front ends are more dangerous to pedestrians. IIHS says that vehicles with a hood height higher than 40 inches are 45% more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian accidents than vehicles with a hood height of 30 inches or less.

Pedestrian accident deaths have risen 80% since their lowest point in 2009. In 2021, more than 20 people died per day after being hit by a vehicle.

Over the last 30 years, the average vehicle has gotten about 4 inches wider, 10 inches longer, 8 inches taller, and 1,000 pounds heavier in the US. Many vehicles are more than 40 inches tall at the leading edge of the hood.

The IIHS study examined 17,897 crashes involving a single passenger vehicle and a single pedestrian. Using Vehicle Identification Numbers to identify the vehicles, they calculated front-end measurements corresponding to 2,958 unique car, minivan, large van, SUV, and pickup models. Vehicles with pedestrian automatic emergency braking systems were excluded from the study, along with others that could affect the likelihood of a fatality, such as speed limit, and age of the struck pedestrian.

Front-End Height affects Fatalities

The study found that vehicles with hoods more than 40 inches off the ground at the leading edge and a grille sloped at an angle of 65 degrees or less, were 45% more likely to cause pedestrian fatalities than those with a similar slope and hood heights of 30 inches or less. Vehicles with hood heights of more than 40 inches and blunt front end angled at greater than 65 degrees were 44% more likely to cause fatalities.

Researchers looked at several other vehicle characteristics, including the angle of the windshield, the length of the hood, and the angle of the hood. Among these, the slope of the hood had the biggest effect. There was a 25% increase in the risk of fatality for vehicles with flat hoods (those with angles of 15 degrees or less) compared to vehicles with more sloping hoods.

Researchers found that vehicles taller than 35 inches were more dangerous to pedestrians because they tend to cause more severe head injuries. Of the vehicles taller than 35 inches, those with more blunt front ends were more dangerous than those with sloped front ends, because they cause more frequent and severe torso and hip injuries.

“Manufacturers can make vehicles less dangerous to pedestrians by lowering the front end of the hood and angling the grille and hood to create a sloped profile,” IIHS Senior Research Transportation Engineer Wen Hu, the lead author of the study, said in a statement on Tuesday. “There’s no functional benefit to these massive, blocky fronts.”

Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. 2023
For more news on Vehicular Safety, visit the NLR Insurance Reinsurance & Surety section.

European Citizens Sue States for Breach of Human Rights Resulting from Failure to Take Stronger Climate Action

On September 27, 2023, six “Portuguese young people” were heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in a lawsuit against 32 European governments, including all EU member states, alleging that their failure to act fast enough against climate change has violated the applicants’ human rights to life, physical and mental wellbeing. The applicants claim that the respondents are failing to fulfil their obligations under the Paris Agreement to limit global warming.

The original application cites a number of contributions to climate change made by the respondent states: (i) permitting the release of emissions within national territory and offshore areas over which they have jurisdiction; (ii) permitting the export of fossil fuels extracted on their territory; (iii) permitting the import of goods, the production of which involves the release of emissions into the atmosphere; and (iv) permitting organizations within their jurisdiction to contribute to the release of emissions overseas. Taken together, the applicants say, the respondents have contributed to climate change and, while mitigation measures have been adopted, contributions to adverse climate change continues. The applicants are seeking an order from ECtHR requiring the respondent governments to take more ambitious action.

Describing the impact on them, the applicants say that climate change has contributed to harm to human health. In an expert report commissioned to supplement their application, the applicants say that Portugal is already experiencing the impact of climate change, including an increase in mean and extreme high temperatures, with heatwaves becoming more frequent. As a result, the region is also prone to wildfires – 120 people died and 500,000 hectares of land were burned during wildfires preceded by heatwaves. Responding to the application, a lawyer on behalf of Greece claimed that climate change cannot be directly linked to an adverse impact on human health, stating “[the] effects of climate change, as recorded so far, do not seem to directly affect human life or human health.” Lawyers on behalf of Portugal stated that the applicants failed to provide evidence of the specific damages caused by climate change on their lives.

The case was originally filed in September 2020. The September 27 hearing was one of the largest before the ECtHR, with 22 judges and 86 government lawyers, and took place following one of the hottest summers on record in Europe. A decision is expected in 2024.

Taking the Temperature: The claims made in this case echo certain conclusions reached in the United Nations’ first global stocktake on parties’ achievements under the Paris Agreement. The UN acknowledged that although significant progress has been made, there is a crucial need for nations to significantly enhance their clean energy ambitions if they are to achieve their Paris-aligned objectives.

In July 2023, we discussed the Grantham Institute’s report on trends in climate litigation and the types of strategies being employed by claimants. One of these included so-called government framework actions in which plaintiffs focus on a government’s response to climate change and potentially, its failure to implement policies or legislation. The case brought by the six Portuguese young people falls squarely within this category.

In June 2023, we discussed the lawsuit filed by, among others, Greenpeace and 12 Italian citizens against ENI S.p.A. alleging that ENI knew of the detrimental effect of fossil fuel burning since around 1970 but through “lobbying and greenwashing” continued to encourage extraction, thereby contributing to climate change, and violating the citizens’ rights to life, health and private and family life. In March of this year, a group of Swiss citizens accused the Swiss government of infringing on the right to life and health of elderly women via its climate-related policies. The case is pending in the European Court of Human Rights.

Comparable cases have also been filed in the U.S. In Montana, 16 residents—ranging from ages 2 to 18—commenced litigation claiming that they “have been and will continue to be harmed by the dangerous impacts of fossil fuels and the climate crisis,” and that the defendants have violated the Montana Constitution by fostering and supporting fossil fuel-based energy policies in the state that led to these conditions. In September this year, the court struck down on state constitutional grounds certain provisions of the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which restricted Montana from incorporating the impact of greenhouse gas emissions or other forms of climate change in environmental reviews. Similar constitution-based climate-related suits against state governments are pending in other U.S. states.

© Copyright 2023 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
By Jason M. Halper , Sharon Takhar of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
For more news on Climate Change Human Rights Violations, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

NYC Council Passed Bill to Require Added Sugar Icons for Chain Restaurant Menu Items

  • On November 2, the New York City Council passed a bill that will require chain restaurants with 15 or more locations to post added sugar icons and factual warning statements on menus or menu boards next to menu items and on or near food items on display that exceed a specified level of added sugars. The icon must be displayed on food items that exceed 100% or more of the daily value for added sugars as determined by the FDA (i.e., 50g) or another amount as specified by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH).
  • This new legislation, Int 0687-2022, builds on the “Sweet Truth Act,” which was passed in 2021 and requires the same added sugar notifications on certain prepackaged food items at covered NYC establishments.
  • The bill has been sent to the Mayor for a hearing and signature, to be held on November 17. If signed, covered establishments will be required to display the added sugar icons no later than one year after the DOHMH issues its rules for the bill. Any covered restaurant that violates the provisions of the bill is liable for a civil penalty of $200.
© 2023 Keller and Heckman LLP
For more news on Added Sugar Notifications, visit the NLR Biotech, Food, Drug section.

Surge in Class Actions Under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act

This year has seen a substantial increase in the number of class action lawsuits filed against employers under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA). More than 20 suits have been filed this year, a stark contrast to zero filed in 2022 and only two in 2021.

Like its federal counterpart the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), GIPA prohibits employers, and agents acting on their behalf, from “directly or indirectly” soliciting, requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information from a person as a condition of employment or from using genetic information in a discriminatory manner against an employee or applicant. Genetic information is defined to include information from genetic tests or the manifestation of a disease or disorder of an individual or their family members.

Under the claims filed, plaintiffs allege that during the hiring process prospective employers collected family medical history and required pre-employment physicals or health interviews, which sought the protected information. These exams and interviews were often conducted by third-party occupational health services providers. The damages sought included “statutory damages” under the Act of $15,000 for each intentional and/or reckless violation and $2,500 for each negligent violation. In addition, GIPA has no statutory cap on punitive or compensatory damages and no statute of limitations, exposing employers to potentially massive damage awards.

Because these cases are in their infancy and currently only in Illinois, there is little guidance on the scope of GIPA and any exceptions that may exist. This means that we will need to wait and see how courts will interpret the Act and what impact the cases will have beyond Illinois.

In light of these developments, all employers should consider the following:

  • Disclaimer Use on Authorizations and Information Packets: Consider adding a written disclaimer to any authorization and pre-employment questionnaires that requests applicants not to provide any genetic information when responding to requests for medical information. The disclaimer should be provided to the applicant/employee for their information.
  • Review Third-party Provider Practices: Evaluate the practices of third-party medical providers, including documents provided to applicants/employees in their evaluation process, and request that family medical history not be obtained.
  • Assess Contracts/Indemnification Obligations: Review and assess the indemnification provisions of contracts with third-party medical providers. It is important that the hold harmless and indemnification obligations of the provider include reference to GIPA obligations in the scope of protection for the employer.
©2023 von Briesen & Roper, s.c
For more news on the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

WOTUS Whiplash 4.3: The Revision to the Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”

The third major development of 2023 for defining “Waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) has arrived.

First, in early 2023, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”)(together, the “Agencies”) revised the definition of “Waters of the United States” (the “2023 Rule”). This definition controls which water resources qualify for federal protection under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) (see WOTUS Whiplash 4.0 for a description of the 2023 Rule). Second, in May, the United States Supreme Court released its Sackett v. EPA decision. Third (and likely the final WOTUS milestone of the year), the Agencies recently issued yet another revised WOTUS definition in light of Sackett.  This article breaks down the Supreme Court’s impactful Sackett decision, the Agencies’ corresponding 2023 Rule revision, and the consequences of such changes for states like North Carolina – which is simultaneously undergoing state environmental statutory changes.

The Regulatory Landscape Pre-Sackett

Before Sackett, the Supreme Court’s Rapanos decision controlled whether wetlands separated from a recognized WOTUS by a natural or man-made barrier fell under CWA jurisdiction.  If they did, impacts to those wetlands required a permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA.  In Rapanos, the Court failed to reach a coherent majority decision.  Justice Scalia drafted the four-justice plurality opinion, holding that WOTUS included: (1) only those waters that are “relatively permanent, standing, or continuous[ly] flowing” such as streams, rivers, and lakes; and (2) only those wetlands that share a continuous surface connection with such waters.  But Justice Kennedy, who cast the deciding vote in Rapanos, created a different test. This test, which became the most commonly cited rule for WOTUS, assessed whether a wetland possessed a “significant nexus” to a recognized WOTUS.  This “significant nexus” test extended CWA protections to wetlands that “either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters . . . .”

In addition, pre-Sackett, the Agencies adopted WOTUS definitions in various rules, manuals and policies that, like Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test, considered “adjacent wetlands” to be jurisdictional—including those that are “separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like.”  When the Agencies issued the 2023 Rule, they basically combined Scalia’s Rapanos approach (putting relatively permanent tributaries and streams back under federal jurisdiction through continuous surface connections) with Kennedy’s Rapanos approach (applying the “significant nexus” test to non-navigable tributaries and adjacent wetlands).  The Agencies published the 2023 Rule knowing that the Supreme Court would soon thereafter issue an opinion in Sackett, which was argued in October 2022.

Sackett v. EPA

The Sacketts sued the EPA in 2008 over whether they had violated the CWA by backfilling a wetland on their property without a Section 404 permit from USACE.  The EPA argued that this wetland shared a significant nexus with Priest Lake, a WOTUS separated from the Sacketts’ property by a 30-foot road.  On May 25, 2023, a five-justice majority issued its opinion in Sackett, which greatly limited federal CWA jurisdiction over wetlands nationwide.  The Court found that the Agencies’ rules were inconsistent with the CWA’s text and structure and held that the CWA extends only to those “‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that they are ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters.”  Writing for the majority, Justice Alito concluded that “the CWA’s use of ‘waters’ encompasses ‘only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic[al] features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.'”

Under the 2023 Rule, which was not at issue in Sackett, wetlands without a continuous surface connection to a body of water could still be federally protected WOTUS if the wetland had a “significant nexus” to surface waters.  But Sackett  rejected the “significant nexus” test in favor of defining covered wetlands as those that are wet or “wet-lands.” Thus, any WOTUS definition using “adjacency” or “adjoining” to define CWA-protected waters is irrelevant. Instead, there must now be a continuous surface water connection between “wet lands” and the open, navigable-in-fact WOTUS for the federal government to claim jurisdiction.  Wetlands that qualify as WOTUS must be “indistinguishable” from WOTUS and “have a continuous surface connection to bodies that are” WOTUS.

The Regulatory Landscape Post-Sackett

The Agencies responded to Sackett by announcing they would develop new guidelines for determining federal jurisdiction by September 1, 2023.  And they met that unprecedented deadline, taking a scalpel to the 2023 Rule to conform it to Sackett (the “Sackett Rule”). The Agencies removed from the 2023 Rule references to the “significant nexus” test, including deleting from the WOTUS definition interstate wetlands and those tributaries, streams, and wetlands containing a significant nexus to other WOTUS.  They also redefined “adjacent” within the 2023 Rule to no longer include those wetlands separated from WOTUS by certain geographic features and limiting the meaning of “adjacent” to those waters “having a continuous surface connection” to another.

Despite these precise revisions, the Agencies did not define a “continuous surface connection” or a “relatively permanent” body of water under the Sackett Rule.  Thus, lawyers and consultants must make this initial interpretation by picking through the preamble to the 2023 Rule.  And they must wait to see how the Agencies, primarily the USACE, implement the Sackett Rule to wetlands in the field.

Challenges for State Law and Regulation

Although the Sackett Court removed federal protection from wetlands, it acknowledged that the states could provide that protection. Justice Alito pointedly noted that “[r]egulation of land and water use lies at the core of traditional state authority”; because the CWA anticipates a partnership between the states and the federal government, the states “can and will continue to exercise their primary authority to combat water pollution by regulating land and water use.”

And North Carolina exercised its authority to provide greater state protection for its wetlands until June 27, 2023.  On that date, the North Carolina General Assembly overrode a gubernatorial veto to pass Senate Bill 582, entitled “An Act to Make Various Changes to the Agricultural and Wastewater Laws of the State” (the “2023 NC Farm Act”). The 2023 NC Farm Act restricts the state definition of “wetlands” to those “that are waters of the United States as defined by 33 C.F.R. § 328.3 and 40 C.F.R. § 230.3,” i.e., only those WOTUS regulated by the Agencies. The General Assembly directed the Environmental Management Commission (“EMC”), the state rule-making authority, to implement this definition of “wetlands” until the EMC formally adopts a permanent rule to amend the existing definition of wetlands. Until then, wetlands in North Carolina are only those the federal government recognizes and protects as WOTUS, unless a state statute (for example, the Coastal Area Management Act) specifically provides otherwise.

The combination of the Sackett opinion, the 2023 NC Farm Act, and the Sackett Rule cast doubt as to whether the state’s isolated wetlands rules remained in effect, despite having a separate regulatory definition that was not by the 2023 Farm Act.  The EMC Chair requested the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NCDEQ”) to advise on the assimilation of federal and state definitions.  At the EMC’s meeting in September, the NCDEQ Division of Water Resources (“DWR”) provided an update to the regulated community. It also issued a public notice regarding the implementation of the revised definition of wetlands in the 2023 NC Farm Act, including the following:

  • Where the USACE and a 404 Permit applicant agree that all features on the property are potentially jurisdictional, DWR will process the related state certification required by Section 401 of the CWA.
  • Where there are questions regarding the jurisdictional status of the wetlands, the USACE will evaluate those wetlands under the Sackett Rule. DWR will move forward on these projects once it has a decision from USACE.
  • Isolated wetlands and non-jurisdictional wetland permits will not be necessary for properties that have received Approved Jurisdictional Determinations from the USACE confirming the wetlands are not under the Sackett Rule.

Questions remain as to the specifics of North Carolina’s regulatory jurisdiction of wetlands as State waters. The 2023 NC Farm Bill was introduced before the Sackett opinion was released.  And given the breadth of Sackett, the Bill’s proponents may not have intended the resulting consequences. The filling of unregulated wetlands may result in reduced floodwater mitigation and stormwater filtration, affecting surface water quality and other ecological functions. Counties bearing the brunt of storm impacts increasingly caused by climate change have made gains in resiliency planning.  But those gains may be reduced or eliminated if policymakers do not address the potential loss of wetlands in those counties.

Navigating Uncharted WOTUS

Despite the uncertainty cast over wetlands by Sackett, the 2023 NC Farm Act, and the Sackett Rule, it’s important to remember that the CWA has four other categories of protected waters. And several state laws continue to apply to activities impacting wetlands even if CWA Section 404 permit requirements do not. These include the Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act with respect to enforcement actions for land-disturbing activities and the Coastal Area Management Act for development activities in coastal counties. Since the 2023 Rule was not before the Sackett Court, the conforming Sackett Rule may be exposed to challenges.  Expect to see more guidance from the Agencies as the USACE makes jurisdictional determinations in the field.  Landowners will need to identify the water features on their property to understand what federal and state regulatory programs are at play beyond Section 404 of the CWA. Strategies to manage uncertainty include working with a professional team to consider: preliminary versus approved jurisdictional determinations; state and local requirements; avoidance opportunities; and development plans with built-in flexibility.

© 2023 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on Defining WOTUS, visit the NLR Environmental, Energy & Resources section.

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
Powered by