On December 13, 2024, the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Virginia and the District of Massachusetts, along with the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Consumer Protection Branch (collectively, “the United States”) filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia with a global consulting firm (“Consulting Firm”) to settle charges that it conspired with a pharmaceutical company (“Pharmaceutical Company”) to aid and abet the misbranding of prescription drugs and knowingly destroyed and concealed records and documents to impede and obstruct the investigation.  United States v. McKinsey & Co., Inc. United States, No. 1:24-cr-00046, Doc. 2 at 6 (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2024).  A corresponding civil case, United States v. McKinsey & Co., Inc. United States, No. 1:24-cv-00063, Doc. 2 (W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2024), was settled the same day.  The Consulting Firm agreed to pay $650 million to resolve the criminal and civil investigation.  A former Consulting Firm senior partner also separately pled guilty to a charge of knowingly destroying and concealing records and documents to impede and obstruct the investigation.

On June 30, 2021, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) ordered Robinhood Financial LLC (“Robinhood”) to pay a $57 million fine, the highest financial penalty ever ordered in FINRA history, for supervisory failures.  Robinhood will also pay an additional $12.6 million of restitution to users.  In announcing the severe penalty, FINRA attributed it to the “widespread and significant harm suffered by … millions of customers” as a result of Robinhood’s various “systemic supervisory failures.”  Without admitting to the allegations, Robinhood consented to FINRA’s findings and stated that it has “invested heavily in improving platform stability, enhancing our educational resources, and building out our customer support and legal and compliance teams.”

​On April 22, 2021, the Supreme Court held in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) is not authorized to seek monetary relief, such as restitution or disgorgement, in enforcement actions brought directly in federal court without first initiating an administrative proceeding.  The Court’s significant decision overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling below and resolved a circuit split in favor of the minority position adopted by the Third and Seventh Circuits.  While the FTC retains the ability to seek such monetary penalties through other avenues, the Court’s decision deprives the FTC of an enforcement tool on which it has heavily relied.  

On October 25, 2016, New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) Eric Schneiderman announced settlements with daily fantasy sports providers DraftKings, Inc. (“DraftKings”) and FanDuel Inc. (“FanDuel”) that resolved claims that the companies had violated New York’s deceptive advertising laws by, among other things, failing to disclose the significant technological advantages enjoyed by more sophisticated players and overstating the likelihood of winning large cash prizes.  Settlement Agreement, In the Matter of DraftKings, Inc. (Oct. 25, 2016); Settlement Agreement, In the Matter of FanDuel Inc. (Oct. 25, 2016).  Under the terms of the settlements, DraftKings and FanDuel each agreed to pay $6 million in penalties and costs and reform their marketing efforts to align with a series of highly specific demands for disclosure by the NYAG.  

Read more