Virginia joined a multistate lawsuit challenging a FinCEN rule that exempts nearly all businesses from beneficial-ownership reporting and the agency’s plan to delete ownership information already collected. The states allege violations of the Corporate Transparency Act and Administrative Procedure Act and seek to have the rule set aside and the ownership database maintained; no court outcome or monetary penalty is reported.
The states seek a court order setting aside FinCEN’s rule and requiring the agency to continue collecting and maintaining the ownership database. These are requested remedies, not remedies already imposed.
This lawsuit does not impose new contractual duties, but in-house teams should review vendor and customer agreements involving entity onboarding, beneficial-ownership information, and regulatory reporting. Check data-processing and records-retention clauses for clear requirements on collecting, maintaining, updating, and deleting ownership records, and confirm that confidentiality terms permit disclosures required by law or lawful government requests. Where relevant, ensure vendor due-diligence and audit clauses require accurate ownership information and cooperation with compliance reviews.
Entity
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
Industry
Other"the United States Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN"
"Published on: October 27, 2026"
"Violations of the Corporate Transparency Act and Administrative Procedure Act"
"Then FinCEN went further, announcing it would delete the ownership information already in the database, records that likely include evidence of unsolved crimes."
"If the states win, the court would throw out FinCEN’s rule and require the agency to keep collecting and maintaining the ownership database for law enforcement."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison joined a multistate coalition suing to block a FinCEN rule that exempted nearly all businesses from Corporate Transparency Act reporting and announced that it would delete existing ownership information. The coalition alleges violations of federal law and asks the court to invalidate the rule and require FinCEN to continue collecting and maintaining the database; no penalty or court order is reported.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones joined a coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus brief challenging DHS’s practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without determining whether individuals are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The release reports that a district court had previously granted a preliminary injunction in the underlying case; it does not report a penalty or a new remedy imposed on DHS by this brief.
Virginia joined a multistate coalition filing a notice in Character Technologies, Inc.’s bankruptcy proceedings, raising concerns about the company’s privacy and safety practices and the sensitive chatbot conversations it holds. The filing seeks protections for children and consumers in any sale or transfer of the business or assets; the release does not report a fine or final finding of violations.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones joined a multistate coalition submitting a comment letter opposing HHS’s proposed changes to Head Start standards. The release describes concerns about proposed reductions to requirements for child safety, staffing, health services, and other program protections; it reports no privacy enforcement action or penalty.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in opposing a DHS rule that allows certain affirmative asylum applications to be referred to immigration court without an asylum officer interview. The coalition argues the rule violates federal law, harms asylum applicants, and bypasses notice-and-comment requirements; the release describes a comment letter, not a privacy enforcement action or monetary penalty.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones joined 22 attorneys general in a comment letter opposing a proposed USCIS rule that would impose a $103,265 tax on certain H-1B petitions. The coalition urged USCIS to withdraw the proposal, arguing it exceeds the agency’s authority, harms state staffing, and violates rulemaking requirements.