Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of 12 attorneys general to announce they will file a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Treasury and DOGE for unlawfully granting Elon Musk and DOGE staff access to sensitive personal information and payment systems. The AGs argue this unauthorized access threatens privacy rights and essential payments for millions of Americans. The lawsuit seeks to revoke access and prevent further interference.
The attorneys general seek a court order to immediately revoke DOGE's access to Treasury payment systems and personal data, and to enjoin any future unauthorized access or interference with federal payments.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor, customer, and data processing agreements where the company handles federal payment data or sensitive personal information on behalf of the U.S. government. Specifically scrutinize clauses governing data access controls, third-party (including government entity) data sharing, payment system integration, audit rights, and breach notification procedures. Given the allegations of unauthorized access by DOGE staff, contracts must ensure any government data access is strictly limited to authorized personnel under documented legal authority, with robust logging, monitoring, and consent requirements. Amendments may be needed to mandate written authorization for any government data requests, implement tiered access protocols, and require immediate notification of any unauthorized access attempts involving federal systems.
Entity
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Also known as: Treasury
Industry
Other"the U.S. Department of the Treasury"
"DOGE has no authority to access this information"
New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 19 state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration and U.S. Department of the Treasury over unauthorized access to Americans’ sensitive personal data. The lawsuit alleges the Treasury Department illegally granted Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) access to its central payment system containing bank account details, Social Security numbers, and other private information, violating federal law and the U.S. Constitution. The coalition seeks an injunction to halt the policy and a declaration that the access expansion is unlawful and unconstitutional.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong filed a lawsuit against President Trump and the U.S. Treasury Department to stop DOGE's unauthorized access to the Treasury's central payment system, which contains sensitive personal information like bank details and Social Security numbers. The lawsuit seeks an injunction and a declaration that the new policy granting access to Elon Musk and DOGE members is unlawful and jeopardizes data security.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of states and local governments in filing suit against NHTSA over its rule weakening fuel economy standards for new passenger cars and light trucks. The lawsuit alleges the rule violates the agency’s statutory mandate and the Administrative Procedure Act; no penalty or final remedy is reported.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a multistate coalition suing the EPA over its repeal of greenhouse gas pollution limits for power plants and separately filed a notice of intent to sue over regulation of existing gas plants. The coalition asks the court to overturn the repeal and restore the protections; the release reports no monetary penalty or final order.
$400.0M
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong announced a $400 million settlement with Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. resolving allegations that the generic drug manufacturers conspired to inflate prices, limit competition, and restrain trade. The settlement includes consumer restitution and injunctive reforms; court approval was being sought.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing a DHS rule that allows certain affirmative asylum applications to be referred to removal proceedings without an asylum officer interview. The coalition argues the rule violates federal law and harms asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children; this was a policy opposition letter, not a privacy enforcement action.