This is the fifth in a series of blog posts discussing key features of Connecticut’s new release-based cleanup regulations (the “RBCRs”), R.C.S.A. § 22a-134tt-1 et seq. 

The last post in the RBCR series discussed reporting of new releases under Connecticut’s March 2022 spill regulations. This post discusses immediate response actions required for new releases (and

On October 17, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced enforcement actions against seven plastic bag manufacturers for allegedly violating state environmental and consumer protection laws through explicit and implicit claims that plastic bags sold in California were recyclable.  This comes at the conclusion of an investigation of these plastic bag manufacturers initiated by the

As we reported in the last edition of newsBITE, the Advertising (Less Healthy Food and Drink) (Brand Advertising Exemption) Regulations 2025 (Brand Advertising Exemption Regulations) were published in September 2025.

The Brand Advertising Exemption Regulations came into force on 31 October 2025. They provide that “brand” advertising that does not identify a specific, less healthy product, is outside the scope of highly anticipated restrictions, which will come into force in January 2026, under the Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024 (Advertising Regulations).

Pipelines: PA DEP Approves Permits for Pennsylvania Sections of Northeast Supply Enhancement Project
On November 1, 2025, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) published notice in Pennsylvania Bulletin, approving parts of the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project. The DEP approved compressor stations in Lancaster and Chester counties, and the Quarryville Pipeline loop. Once completed, the

This update covers information regarding the California Air Resources Board (CARB) rulemaking delay for California’s climate disclosure laws, SB 253 and SB 261, as well as additional new litigation challenging the constitutionality of these laws. The bottom line for companies is that despite the rulemaking delays and ongoing litigation, the laws remain valid and in

In Louisiana, even a name on the product may no longer help a plaintiff climb to the apparent manufacturer level according to Pellecer v. Werner.

The Louisiana Supreme Court’s October 24, 2025 decision under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”) redefines the doctrine of apparent manufacturer. Traditionally, when a product bears a company’s name

Updating our earlier post from March 2025, Maine has completed a regulatory process and has adopted updates to its PFAS in products rules to identify two approved Currently Unavoidable Use (CUU) exemptions from the state’s phased ban on in-state sales of products with intentionally added PFAS.  The first phase of the ban, which is

Tues. Oct. 28: AgWorks: Legal Authority to Work in the U.S. and Other Pre-Employment Screening Processes
Fri. Oct. 31: Understanding Immigration Compliance: I-9s, Audits and ICE Raids (FREE Attorney CLE!)
National Agricultural Policy: USDA Announces Plan to ‘Strengthen American Beef Industry’
On October 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a three-pronged plan

In a published opinion filed October 17, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Div. 1) reversed the trial court’s judgment and directed it to grant a writ of mandate invalidating the City of San Diego’s (“City”) Supplemental EIR (“SEIR”) prepared for its second City-sponsored ballot measure to exclude the Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning area (“MPH area”) from its Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone, which generally limits building heights to 30 feet.  The Court held the SEIR violated CEQA because it failed to analyze potential significant environmental impacts of this significant plan update other than views and neighborhood character, omitting what it deemed required analysis of noise, air quality, biological resources, geological conditions, and other impacts, and improperly deferring analysis to future site-specific projects.  Save Our Access v. City of San Diego (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 388.