Starting this year, there are a swath of new state and federal consumer protection laws that have already or will soon go into effect, impacting a broad range of businesses across industry types. Whether you are an established multi-million-dollar company or a small mom-and-pop shop, these new laws are far-reaching, and businesses must review their contracts, policies, and practices to ensure compliance.

Minnesota’s New Junk Fee Law

Question: What is Minnesota’s new “Junk Fee” Law?

Answer: Minnesota’s Junk Fee Law makes it a deceptive trade practice to advertise a price for a good or service that does not include all “mandatory fees.” Mandatory fees generally mean any fee that the customer cannot reasonably avoid. The law is far-reaching and affects a variety of industries where these fees are commonplace. Most notably, the law targets the hospitality industry, including hotels, restaurants, and app-based food delivery services, where things like resort fees, service charges, and health and wellness charges were often listed on customer receipts alongside state and local taxes, but were not included in the advertised price for goods or services. These industries have pushed back on the designation of these fees as “junk fees,” arguing that the fees are a direct response to increasing burdens on employers, such as rising costs to provide healthcare for employees. Trade associations for many of these industries have indicated that they will be seeking clarification from lawmakers during the 2025 legislative session. This new language will be incorporated into Minnesota’s existing Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44.

Question: When must businesses become compliant with the new Junk Fee Law?

Answer: The law went into effect on January 1, 2025, so most businesses are expected to already be in compliance with the law’s requirements (unless in an industry regulated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which becomes effective June 1, 2025).

Question: What about taxes? Does the price advertised for goods and services need to be the post-tax amount?

Answer: No. “Mandatory Fees” does not include any governmental taxes on the sale, use, purchase, receipt, or delivery of such goods and services.

Question: What if the price of a good or service is dependent on the consumer’s selection and preferences?

Answer: In those circumstances, if the business wants to advertise a price, then the business should disclose: (i) the factors that determine the total price, (ii) any mandatory fees associated with the transaction, and (iii) that the total costs of the services may vary.

2. Minnesota’s “Taylor Swift Bill”

Question: What is Minnesota’s so-called “Taylor Swift Bill”?

Answer: As Taylor Swift fans battled for their tickets to the popular Eras Tour in Minneapolis (and around the world), the checkout process sparked an outcry: the online ticket platforms had advertised one price for the tickets, only to surprise fans with upwards of hundreds of dollars of various fees at checkout. This consumer frustration was echoed coast-to-coast, prompting many states, including Minnesota, to introduce prohibitions on advertising ticket prices that were not reflected in the ticket’s total actual cost. Minnesota’s law requires online ticket retailers (including resellers) to disclose “at all times during the ticket listing and purchase process” the total cost of the ticket, including fees and surcharges, and a breakdown of the service charge and any other fees or surcharges. The law also contains several provisions regulating general business practices, such as prohibitions on selling more than one copy of the same ticket, and additional required disclosures for ticket resellers. The legislature delegated the Minnesota Department of Commerce with the authority to administer and enforce the new law.

Question: When must ticket retailers become compliant with the new Law?

Answer: This law went into effect on January 1, 2025, and applies to tickets sold on or after that date.

Bonus Question: Isn’t the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) proposing a similar rule?

Answer: Yes. On December 17, 2024, the FTC finalized its own Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, which targets the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries. The rule serves a dual purpose of: (i) preventing bait-and-switch pricing that hides the total price of live-event tickets and short-term lodging by omitting mandatory fees and charges from advertised prices, including through drip pricing, and (ii) prohibiting the misrepresentation of the nature, purpose, amount, and refundability of fees or charges. This law goes into effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, as with many FTC rules, it would not be a surprise to see legal challenges attempting to delay or halt its implementation.

3. The Federal Negative Option Rule

Question: What is the Federal Negative Option Rule?

Answer: In response to the widespread surge of businesses moving to subscription-based auto-renewal contracts (e.g., Netflix, Spotify, etc.), whereby the businesses treat a consumer’s silence or failure to take affirmative action as an acceptance of an offer to purchase (or continue to purchase) goods or services (defined as a “Negative Option Feature”), the FTC enacted the Negative Option Rule. At a high level, the Negative Option Rule: (i) prohibits any material misrepresentations of material facts in connection with the offering of contract with a Negative Option Feature, (ii) requires certain disclosures to be made in connection with the offering of a contract with a Negative Option Feature, (iii) requires businesses to obtain the customer’s unambiguously informed consent to the Negative Option Feature, and (iv) requires there to be a simple mechanism for the customer to cancel the Negative Option Feature and stop incurring any associated, recurring fees.

Question: When must businesses become compliant with the new Federal Negative Option Rule?

Answer: The prohibition against material misrepresentation of material facts in connection with the offering of a contract with a Negative Option Feature became effective January 14, 2025, while the remaining requirements of the Negative Option Rule become effective on May 14, 2025.

Question: What are the disclosure requirements of the Negative Option Rule?

Answer: Prior to obtaining the billing information of a customer, all material terms relating to the sale of the good or service must be disclosed. Any misrepresentation (whether expressly or by implication) of the material terms is prohibited. At a minimum, businesses must disclose: (i) that consumers will be charged for the good or service, or that the fees will increase after a trial period ends, and if applicable, that the fees will be charged on a recurring basis, unless the consumer takes timely steps to prevent or stop such charges, (2) each deadline by which the consumer must act to prevent or stop the fees, (3) the amount the consumer will be charged, and, if applicable, the frequency of the fees the consumer will incur unless timely steps are taken, and (4) the information necessary for the consumer to easily cancel the feature.

Question: What are the informed consent requirements of the Negative Option Rule?

Answer: Before charging a customer in connection with a contract that has a Negative Option Feature, businesses must obtain the customer’s unambiguous affirmative consent to the feature separately from any other portion of the transaction, and businesses generally must keep a record of such consent for a period of three years (unless able to show that processes used ensure no customer can technologically compete the transaction without giving such consent).

Question: What are the simple cancellation requirements of the Negative Option Rule?

Answer: At a high level, businesses must provide a simple mechanism for a consumer to: (1) cancel the Negative Option Feature, (2) avoid being charged (or being charged a higher amount), and (3) immediately stop any recurring fees. Such mechanism must be at least as easy as the mechanism the consumer used to consent to the Negative Option Feature (e.g., simple check box, signature).

This Q & A answers what is anticipated to be the most common questions involving these new laws. This Q & A is not meant to be exhaustive or complete, but a starting point intended to give an introduction on the applicability and requirements of these laws. If you have specific questions about these new laws or their potential impact on your business, please feel free to reach out to the attorneys listed below.

Courts Alter Political Landscape

Just before close of business last Friday (January 16), two separate courts handed down opinions that will impact the 2025 legislative session. One decision, by a District Court in Becker County, granted the request of Senator Nicole Mitchell to postpone her trial for felony burglary charges until after the legislative session. It had been scheduled to begin next week. The second decision, by the Minnesota Supreme Court, determined that a special election to fill a House seat vacated by a newly-elected candidate had been scheduled prematurely. The winner of the general election (DFL – Curtis Johnson) was disqualified by a judge over residency concerns. While there will be a special election on January 28 for the open Senate seat, following Senator Dziedzic’s passing, the previously scheduled House special election has been cancelled and is expected to take place in early March.

The Republican members of the House of Representatives continued to meet in floor session and attend committee hearings this week, while the DFL members called the actions a “sham.” Boycotting the start of the legislative session with the intention of preventing a quorum, DFL members continue to insist that the House is not duly organized. On Thursday, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case brought against the Republicans by the DFL members. While it is unknown how long the Court will take to consider and decide the case, many are hoping that they will weigh in yet today (Friday).

Permanent House Rules?

While we wait for the Minnesota Supreme Court decision on the legitimacy of the House’s official actions, House Republicans continue to apply pressure for their DFL colleagues to return to the Capitol. On Monday of next week (January 27), the House is expected to pass permanent Rules of the House, which among other things, would deny per diem payments to members who are absent from session. The full, proposed Rules of the House, along with additional amendments that were also included in the final version, can be found here.

Campaign Finance Board Releases Lobbyist Report

Following significant changes passed in 2023 to laws regarding what constitutes lobbying and who is considered a lobbyist, the 2024 Legislature delayed implementation of many of the changes. At the same time, the legislature requested a report from the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, seeking recommendations from the Board. Last week, the Board published their final report, though in some instances declined to make recommendations on the most controversial issues. Instead they laid out the differing opinions they found while studying the issues. The full report is linked to on their homepage.

Governor Releases Capital Investment Recommendations

On Thursday, Governor Tim Walz released recommendations for state investment in capital projects. The projected plan is just shy of $900 million, and includes $790 million in general obligations bonds and $97 million in trunk highway cash. Along with a list of specific projects, the plan identifies $40 million for local projects to be determined by the legislature. The full recommendations can be found on the Minnesota Management and Budget website.

Key Upcoming Dates Relating to the 2025 Legislative Session

• Unknown, but possibly as early as today: Minnesota Supreme Court to rule on issue of quorum and whether House is duly organized
• January 28: Special Election for SD60
• February 3: Anticipated swearing in of winner of SD60 Special Election, at which point Senate power sharing agreement may end
• February 28: MMB February Budget Forecast released
• March TBD: Special Election for HD40B
• March or April TBD: Legislative Deadlines
• April TBD: Traditional Legislative Break
• May 19: Last day of the legislative session
• July 1: Government shutdown begins if new budget isn’t passed

What’s a Quorum?

When Secretary of State Steve Simon convened the Minnesota House of Representatives at Noon on Tuesday, January 14, 67 Republicans were in attendance but the 66 DFLers were notably absent. DFLers boycotted the first day over concerns that Republicans would not abide by a previously agreed upon power sharing agreement and that they would reject the election certificate of DFLer Brad Tabke (see below). Secretary Simon ruled that a quorum of 68 members was not present and adjourned the House. Republicans, overruling Secretary Simon, declared that 67 members constituted a quorum, elected Lisa Demuth as Speaker of the House, and proceeded to organize the House for 2025-2026. House DFLers, arguing that these actions were improper, promptly filed suit in the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the next few weeks.

House DFLers Sworn in Before Session Start Date

In a first ever move, House DFL members gathered behind closed doors at the Minnesota History Center on Sunday, January 12, and held their own swearing in ceremony.  Republicans are questioning the legality of this ceremony and claim that the DFLers had to be present on the opening of session to be sworn in. Conversely, DFLers argue that the swearing in ceremony was legal. The Supreme Court will be called in to sort this issue out as well.

Judge Rules in Contested House Seat

Just a few hours before the start of the session on Tuesday, a district court judge ruled on the contested election in House District 54B, finding in favor of DFL candidate Brad Tabke, who won the election by 14 votes. While the GOP suit acknowledged the 14-vote margin, it noted that 20 absentee ballots had been lost before they were counted, thereby requiring a new election (and requesting the judge to order the same). Republicans have yet to appeal this ruling; we anticipate they will do so, arguing that the House of Representatives is the final arbiter of membership in the body.

Senate First Day was Uneventful

With the recent passing of Senator Kari Dziedzic (DFL-Minneapolis), the Senate is tied at 33-33. Prior to the first day of session, Senate DFLers and Republicans came to a power-sharing agreement. Under this agreement, there will be two co-presidents of the Senate, and each committee will have co-chairs. Governor Walz has also called a special election on January 28 for the open Senate seat. The DFL is expected to win this northeast Minneapolis seat and return the Senate to a 34-33 majority.

Governor Unveils 2026-2027 Budget

Governor Tim Walz unveiled his Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Biennial Budget on Thursday. The actual budget is comprised of thousands of pages of text and spreadsheets and is the first step in the budget adoption process. The Governor proposed a $66.9 billion budget which grows to $71.1 billion in Fiscal Years 2028-2029, which reflects a reduction from the current 2024-2025 Biennial Budget. The Minnesota Management Budget website has more details here.

On Monday, January 6, 2025, Governor Walz issued the first Executive Order of 2025, EO 25-01, which creates a centralized state fraud investigations unit administered and overseen by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (“BCA”). The BCA’s new Financial Crimes and Fraud Section (“Fraud Section”) will focus on financial crimes, insurance fraud, and state government program fraud.

Governor Walz’s administration has faced intense criticism over the past few years for not doing enough to combat the rampant fraud that has taken place in Minnesota state government programs, especially with respect to the matter that has received national attention – the Feeding Our Future scandal, which has dogged the administration for almost his entire time as Governor.

Even Biden appointee, U.S. Attorney Andy Luger, has declared that “Minnesota has a fraud problem.” In an interview last month, Luger stated that “a lot more needs to be done, and people need to have serious conversations and getting to the root of this and stopping it before it happens.”  Luger went on to say that “no other state had a Feeding Our Future….[And] no other states have had the kinds of problems we’ve had with government fraud….” Not surprisingly, Governor Walz’s administration has been under attack by House and Senate Republicans for many years over what they believe has been lackluster investigation and enforcement of obvious financial fraud taking place throughout Minnesota government programs.

Under EO 25-01, the Minnesota Department of Commerce Fraud Bureau, which conducts investigations into insurance fraud and financial crimes, will enter into an interagency agreement with the BCA until a formal reorganization order is issued next month by the Minnesota Department of Administration. Under the reorganization order, Commerce Fraud Bureau personnel, funding, and responsibilities will move to the BCA.

In addition to the other directives contained in the EO, all state agencies and departments are required to ensure that all government employees will understand their obligations to prevent fraud and know how to report suspected fraud, including reporting to the BCA Fraud Section, and cooperating with any investigation it undertakes. Astonishingly, these duties and responsibilities did not already exist as part of every State employee’s onboarding and annual training.

The Governor also intends to introduce a legislative package to strengthen state program fraud investigation and enforcement, including adding nine staff members to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit; giving agencies expanded authority to stop payments from going to people and entities suspected, charged, or convicted of fraud or financial crimes, including using artificial intelligence (“AI”) to detect suspected fraud; and adding staff across a number of agencies, including Department of Human Services to expand its fraud unit, among other changes.

Minnesota Republicans are sure to have their own strong anti-fraud legislative package, which Governor Walz stated, he welcomed.

Although much remains to be seen about the future workings of the Fraud Section, there is no question that Minnesota providers who receive payment from Minnesota government programs will be subject to significantly greater investigation and enforcement efforts by the State.

Please stay tuned for further regulatory and legislative updates from our group.

As discussed in our recent Employment Law Update Webinar, the Minnesota Legislature passed and amended several statutes significantly impacting employment laws in Minnesota during the 2024 session.

Many of these changes have already gone into effect, but one specific change to the Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST) law becomes effective January 1, 2025.  Employers should understand this change as they evaluate their earned sick and safe time and paid time off policies for 2025.

What changed in the Earned Sick and Safe Time law?

Among other changes to details such as earnings statements, increments of time used, payment rates, and other details, the Legislature amended the ESST law as it applies to paid time off (PTO).  If an employer provides employees with PTO or other paid leave beyond the amount required by the ESST law and such PTO time can be used for personal illness or injury, the additional PTO must meet the same requirements as the ESST hours (other than the ESST accrual requirements), when the time is used for an ESST-qualifying purpose.

Will this affect my PTO / attendance policy?

Perhaps.  If an employer’s PTO or attendance policy has different requirements regarding notice, documentation, anti-retaliation, replacement workers or other requirements for an employee’s PTO use beyond the amount of required ESST time, the employer may need to change their policy to comply with the ESST law with respect to such terms. Some employers may consider separating out ESST from other paid time off.

Do these provisions apply to all use of PTO?

No, the provisions only apply to an employee’s use of PTO for ESST-qualifying purposes (including for illness or injury).  If an employee uses PTO for a non-ESST reason, including vacation time, an employer can apply its own policies regarding notice and use.

When is this change effective?

The effective date of this provision is January 1, 2025.

For more information about how the legislative changes affect your company’s paid time off policy, please feel free to reach out to any member of our Employment team.

Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) issued the November Budget and Economic Forecast this morning and has projected that the State of Minnesota will have a $616 million surplus for the upcoming FY 2026-2027 biennium. This estimate represents a $1.1 billion reduction from previous estimates. MMB cites projected reductions in income and sales tax revenue along with higher long-term care and special education spending as reasons for the reduction in the surplus.

For more details on the forecast announcement, Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) interviewed Winthrop shareholder, Tom Hanson, former MMB Commissioner, and you can find a link to the story here.  Also, Tom will be joining Nina Moini on MPR’s Minnesota Now program during the 12:00 pm to 12:15 pm segment today to discuss the forecast.

Many banks and credit unions are well-aware that they are the targets of an industry of plaintiff’s law firms. For over a decade, plaintiff’s class action law firms have been targeting financial institutions that impose multiple non-sufficient funds (“NSF”) charges on a single “item” and/or that assess overdraft (“OD”) fees on certain debit card transactions. These cases were first filed against some of the nation’s largest banks and financial institutions.  However, as time has passed, and the big banks had all been hit, vulture plaintiff’s firms have turned their attention to small to mid-size banks and community institutions. For smaller institutions, the adage of “flying under the radar” does not appear to count for much.

In order to solicit representative class plaintiffs, some law firms have turned to social media to target individual banks. For example, some social media advertisements that we have seen include a picture of the bank and say:

• Are you a customer of [Named Bank]? You may be owed money, find out if you qualify.
• Did [Named Bank] charge you overdraft fees? Find out if you are owed money.

So What Can You Do?

• Reach out to legal counsel before one of these law firms target your bank; your attorney can review your deposit agreements and notice provisions to ensure they are compliant going forward. Remember, form agreements provided by vendors often aren’t litigation proof.
• Monitor social media accounts to ensure you are not the victim of one of these targeted attacks.
• If you learn of postings on social media targeting your bank, don’t be afraid to contact the social media provider and demand the ads be taken down.  There may be a number of grounds to make such a demand, including improper use of the bank’s trademarks. Legal counsel can help provide guidance on your chosen course of action.
• Finally, if your bank is already being targeted by these ads, connect with legal counsel who can help you prepare for a lawsuit that may be on its way.

Winthrop & Weinstine continues to actively monitor developments relating to NSF and OD litigation. If you have questions or concerns regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact a member of our Banking & Finance team.

On November 15, 2024, a federal court judge in the Eastern District of Texas vacated and set aside the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) 2024 rule that raised the salary minimums for overtime-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) (the “2024 Overtime Rule”), effectively halting the salary threshold increase scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025. The State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Labor decision also nullified the salary threshold increase that had taken effect on July 1, 2024, as part of the same rule.

Below are answers to common questions from employers regarding the 2024 Overtime Rule, the State of Texas decision, and how this ruling will affect employers moving forward.

1. What did the 2024 Overtime Rule change?

As outlined in our previous client alert, the 2024 Overtime Rule introduced three primary staged increases to the salary minimums required for employees to be eligible for exemption from the FLSA’s overtime and minimum wage requirements. These changes were scheduled as follows:

• On July 1, 2024, the salary threshold for employees classified under the white-collar exemptions (executive, administrative, and/or professional) increased from $684 per week ($35,568 annually) to $844 per week ($43,888 annually). The salary threshold for employees qualifying as highly compensated employees also increased from $107,432 annually to $132,964 annually.
• On January 1, 2025, the salary threshold for white collar exempt employees was set to increase to $1,128 per week ($58,565 annually), while the salary threshold for highly compensated employees was scheduled to rise to $151,164 annually.
• Starting July 1, 2027, and every three years thereafter, the salary thresholds for exempt employees were to be recalculated based on a new methodology tied to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings in the lowest-wage region in the U.S., using the most current wage data available.

The DOL stated that these increases aimed to expand overtime protections by making more workers eligible for overtime pay. Notably, the 2024 Overtime Rule did not change the job duties test, which is considered alongside the salary threshold in determining whether an individual is exempt from receiving overtime.

2. What was the Texas federal court’s ruling regarding the 2024 Overtime Rule?

The Texas federal court vacated and set aside the 2024 Overtime Rule, effectively invalidating the salary threshold increases outlined in the Rule. The court’s decision was based on its finding that the DOL overstepped its statutory authority under the FLSA regarding overtime exemption criteria when it issued the 2024 Overtime Rule.

In its ruling, the court acknowledged that the DOL has the statutory authority to “define and delimit” the FLSA’s overtime exemptions, including setting minimum salary thresholds. However, the court found that the DOL exceeded this authority by raising the salary thresholds so high that salary alone became the sole factor determining an employee’s exempt status, without considering the employee’s job duties. The court emphasized that Congress intended for both the salary threshold and the duties test to be used in tandem to determine exemption status under the FLSA. By raising the salary threshold without regard to job duties, the 2024 Overtime Rule was found to be inconsistent with Congress’ original intent for the FLSA.

3. What does the court ruling mean for employers?

By vacating and setting aside the 2024 Overtime Rule, the court not only prevented the January 1, 2025 salary increases from taking effect, but it also invalidated the salary increases that took effect on July 1, 2024. This means that the exempt salary thresholds return to the pre-2024 Overtime Rule levels of $684 per week ($35,568 annually) for white collar employees and $107,432 for highly compensated employees, unless the ruling is overturned on appeal or new regulations are issued.

4. Will the DOL appeal the State of Texas ruling?

As of now, it is unclear whether the DOL will appeal the Texas federal court’s decision in State of Texas. If the DOL chooses to appeal, the case would be reviewed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which could either uphold or reverse the ruling. If the Fifth Circuit upholds the decision, the 2024 Overtime Rule will remain invalid. However, if the Fifth Circuit overturns the district court’s ruling, the 2024 Overtime Rule could be reinstated. In the absence of an appeal or a higher court’s decision, the district court ruling stands, and employers should continue to follow the previous salary thresholds, as outlined in Question 3. The DOL has 60 days from the date of entry of judgment to appeal the State of Texas decision, so we may know more in the coming months.

5. How does this ruling affect the broader overtime exemption rules?

While this ruling specifically addresses the salary thresholds for overtime exemptions, it does not change the overall framework for overtime exemptions under the FLSA. The decision simply means that the salary component cannot be raised as much as the DOL had hoped, but the duties test for exemption still remains in place. Employees who meet the duties criteria for exempt positions (e.g., executive, administrative, or professional roles) may still qualify for exemption from overtime pay, provided they meet the pre-2024 Overtime Rule salary threshold and are paid on a salary basis. However, this ruling emphasizes that salary should not be the sole factor in determining exempt status.

6. What should employers do now? What if an employer already increased the salaries of employees based on the July 1, 2024 increase?

Following the court’s decision to vacate the 2024 Overtime Rule, employers should return to using the previous salary threshold of $684 per week ($35,568 annually) to determine which employees qualify for exemption from overtime pay. If an employer has already raised salaries or reclassified employees based on the now-invalidated 2024 Overtime Rule (either due to the July 1, 2024 salary threshold increase or in anticipation of the January 1, 2025 increase), they may consider reverting those salary increases or reclassifications in light of the vacated rule. When making these adjustments, employers should carefully consider factors such as employee morale, potential dissatisfaction, and the need for clear communication to explain the changes. Additionally, employers should evaluate the financial implications and ensure that any decisions are in compliance with both federal and state regulations.

7. Can the DOL propose a new overtime rule? Is that likely in the upcoming Trump administration?

Yes, the DOL has the authority to propose a new rule regarding the overtime salary threshold. However, any new rule would need to go through a formal rulemaking process, which includes public notice and an opportunity for public comment. This process could take months or even years before a new rule is finalized. Additionally, the DOL would need to ensure that any new rule addresses the court’s concerns regarding salary thresholds and the job duties test, as outlined in the State of Texas decision.

Under the previous Trump administration, the DOL proposed a similar rule to the 2024 Overtime Rule in 2019, which sought to increase salary thresholds for overtime exemptions. Given this history, it’s possible that the DOL could propose another increase to the salary thresholds for exempt employees as part of future regulatory changes. While the specifics and timing remain uncertain, employers should prepare for potential adjustments that could impact employee classifications and overtime eligibility. Our Employment team will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the situation unfolds.

8. How does this ruling impact state specific overtime laws?

The ruling only impacts federal overtime rules under the FLSA and does not affect state-specific overtime laws. Some states have their own overtime laws with higher salary thresholds or different exemption criteria, and those laws remain in effect. Employers must ensure compliance with both federal and state overtime regulations, as applicable. In some cases, state law may require a higher salary threshold or stricter duties tests than the federal FLSA. Employers in those states must adhere to the stricter requirements. If you have any questions regarding state-specific overtime exemption requirements, please reach out to any member of our Employment team for guidance.

9. What should I do if I have questions about how this ruling affects my business?

Employers are encouraged to contact a member of our Employment team with any questions regarding how the State of Texas ruling may impact their business, especially if they have already begun implementing changes based on the 2024 Overtime Rule. As always, employers should also regularly review their practices to ensure compliance with current FLSA regulations, including the salary threshold and duties test.

Minnesota votes

This Presidential election, Minnesota saw an expected decrease in early voting from a Covid-19 peak, with 1.272 million ballots accepted compared to 1.910 million in 2020. Both figures represented a huge increase over 2016, when early votes totaled just 677,000. A change in elections law that went into effect this year—which allowed mailed ballots to be returned by 8 pm rather than 5 pm—caused widespread delays in tallying overnight. Several counties didn’t report their votes until the wee hours of Wednesday morning.

Our next President

It’ll be another four years of President Donald Trump, say the voters, with most news outlets calling the race for our 45th President. Minnesota remained blue at the Presidential level, hovering just under 51% for Vice President Kamala Harris, and failing to deliver a big, blue “Walz effect.” Early analysis shows that Republican counties had higher turnout than last presidential election, while DFL counties had lower turnout.

Minnesota House of Representatives – Tied

Not to be outdone by the top of the ticket, the state House saw three DFL seats flip to GOP control, resulting in a tie of 67-67. However, two races that are currently DFL wins are so close (13 and 28 vote margins) that they will undergo publicly funded recounts in the coming weeks. The GOP’s chance at a majority hangs in the balance of flipping one of the two recounts in Rep. Brad Tabke’s Shakopee-area district and Rep. Dan Wolgamott’s St. Cloud district. If the House remains tied, DFL and Republican leadership will have to negotiate how to organize the body. This has only happened one prior time in Minnesota’s history (in 1979), and it was messy. Session Daily, a publication by the Minnesota House of Representatives, wrote a story about it a few years ago. It’s worth reading if you are interested: https://www.house.mn.gov/sessiondaily/Story/15307

Minnesota Senate maintains DFL control

When DFL Senator Kelly Morrison stepped down to pursue a bid for Congress to replace Dean Phillips (she won the race with just over 59% of the vote last night), a special election was triggered to fill her southwest metro Senate seat. Former DFL Senator Ann Johnson Stewart, who was redistricted out of her seat in 2020, faced off against Republican Kathleen Fowke. Johnson Stewart eked out a win with 52.43% of the vote.

What’s next?

Not having won the Vice Presidential contest, Governor Tim Walz is expected to return to Minnesota to finish out the remainder of his term. The two recounts that will determine the fate of the state House and the tenor of the legislature will take up much of the media attention over the next few weeks to months.

Follow the money!

Publicly-reported independent expenditure funding through September 17 was released this week for #MNLeg races. Read on to find out who’s spending big money in Minnesota to influence targeted House districts, and what this means for the balance of power in the next biennium.

• Independent expenditures were made in 41 House districts[1]
• A total of $2,832,000 has been spent by political parties’ House campaign arms and independent groups, of which 86% ($2,426,000) was spent in 12 top battleground races
• In battleground districts, 1.5x as much was spent to benefit DFL candidates ($1,465,000) as compared to GOP candidates ($961,000). All but three battleground districts have a DFL spending advantage.
• Biggest spenders:
  • Overall, DFL House Caucus ($838,000) and DFL-aligned group, Alliance for a Better Minnesota ($864,000)
  • On the GOP side, the House Republican Campaign Committee ($139,000) and GOP-aligned groups, Renew Minnesota ($579,000) and Pro Jobs Majority ($378,000)

Funding comes from powerful state and national interests

Legislative campaign arms routinely raise and spend millions each cycle for independent expenditures as well as direct candidate support. Allied groups, which may share ideological goals, may raise from a separate pool of donors. In Minnesota, independent expenditure committees may raise money from corporations, while campaigns and PACs cannot. A few of note:

• Alliance for a Better Minnesota: funded by prominent Democratic-aligned individual donors, labor unions, national SuperPACs
• Renew Minnesota: funded by Republican-aligned individual donors, Minnesota Private Business Council, national Republican campaign committees
• Pro Jobs Majority: funded by Minnesota Chamber of Commerce

Spending will only increase in the next month

If you live in one of these districts, prepare for an onslaught of online ads and glossy mailers — spending in competitive races will dramatically ratchet up in the weeks and days to come, as campaign professionals aim to target voters at the precise moment when they are making up their minds. Top-spending groups have considerable war chests and continue to raise. Transfers between top groups further obscure the path of money in these races.

Money isn’t everything

If predictions become reality, many of these races will come down to a small contingent of swing voters who ultimately select and vote for a candidate (and whether to vote at all) based on national trends. Having Minnesota’s very own Tim Walz on the Democratic ticket is sure to fire up enthusiasm from the local DFL base, while longtime Donald Trump loyalists are eager to see the former President return to the White House.

Battleground House Districts

[1] *Independent expenditures made to influence primary elections or other actions were removed from this analysis, to the best extent possible.