# ERISA health plan litigation. The cases employers should know, and where they stand.

Source: https://ethosbenefits.com/insights/erisa-health-plan-litigation
Type: Insight
Topic: Fiduciary duty and advisor pay
Author: Donovan Ryckis, Founder and CEO
Reviewed by: Patrick Ansara, Partner and Director of Client Operations
Publisher: Ethos Benefits
Published: 2024-03-20
Last updated: 2026-11-12
Cite as: "ERISA health plan litigation," Ethos Benefits, https://ethosbenefits.com/insights/erisa-health-plan-litigation, updated 2026-11-12.

**Summary:** ERISA health plan lawsuits over drug prices, PBM contracts, tobacco surcharges and voluntary benefits. What each case alleges, where it stands, and what to do.

## Key takeaways

- Employees are suing employers under ERISA over what their health plans pay, including prescription drug prices, PBM contracts, tobacco surcharges and broker commissions on voluntary benefits.
- The two best-known PBM cases, Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson and Navarro v. Wells Fargo, were dismissed for lack of standing and are now on appeal in the Third and Eighth Circuits.
- Stern v. JPMorgan Chase went the other way on standing in March 2026, and a prohibited transaction claim over the PBM contract is still in the case.
- Tobacco surcharge suits have produced the clearest plaintiff wins so far, including a $4.7 million settlement and an October 2026 summary judgment ruling against the employer.
- The best defense in every category is the same, a documented fiduciary process with a committee, a reviewed PBM contract and a record of how decisions were made.

## The cases we are tracking

Status of each case as of its last verified event. Tracker updated November 12, 2026.

| Case | Court | What was alleged | Why it matters | Who | Status | Last move |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Mehlberg v. Compass Group USA, No. 2:24-cv-04179 | W.D. Mo. | A $1,248 a year tobacco surcharge was not refunded for the full year to employees who later completed a cessation program. | The first ruling on the merits for employees in the tobacco surcharge wave, two months after the agencies said they would not enforce full-year refunds. | Employees v. Compass Group USA | Raises your risk. Four classes certified in April 2026, and the Eighth Circuit declined to hear an early appeal of that in June. Summary judgment for the employees on all claims, reported October 19 to 20, 2026. Next steps not yet reported. [Source](https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/benefits/compass-group-loses-first-summary-judgment-in-tobacco-surcharge-wave-594204.aspx) | October 20, 2026 |
| Navarro v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 0:24-cv-03043; appeal No. 26-1620 | D. Minn.; 8th Cir. | The PBM contract used an inappropriate pricing benchmark, steered members to a PBM-owned pharmacy, priced some drugs above uninsured cash prices and carried excessive fees. | One of the first appellate tests of whether employees can sue over what their plan pays for drugs. | Employees v. Wells Fargo & Co. | Too early to tell. Dismissed for lack of standing in March 2025 and again in March 2026. On appeal: plaintiffs filed their reply brief October 8, 2026. No argument date set. [Source](https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/litigation/navarro-et-al-v-wells-fargo-company/) | October 8, 2026 |
| ERISA Industry Committee v. HHS, No. 1:25-cv-00136 | D.D.C. | An employer trade group challenges the 2024 mental health parity final rule. | The new 2024 requirements are not enforced federally for now, but state regulators are not bound by that pause, and a replacement rule is coming. | The ERISA Industry Committee v. HHS, Labor and Treasury | Too early to tell. Paused. The agencies will not defend the 2024 rule and plan to propose a new one by December 31, 2026, per the September 30, 2026 status report. [Source](https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ERISA-INDUSTRY-COMMITTEE-v.-DEPARTMENT-OF-HEALTH-AND-HUMAN-SERVICES-et-al_2026.09.30_JOINT-STATUS-REPORT.pdf) | September 30, 2026 |
| Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 3:24-cv-00671; appeal No. 26-1107 | D.N.J.; 3d Cir. | The plan paid inflated drug prices through an imprudent PBM arrangement, including mail order pricing above retail. | If the Third Circuit decides differently than the Eighth Circuit in Navarro, the question could reach the Supreme Court. | Participants v. Johnson & Johnson | Too early to tell. Dismissed for lack of standing in January and November 2025; final judgment entered January 12, 2026. On appeal: reply brief filed August 14, 2026, supplemental authority letters in September. No argument date set. [Source](https://www.wlf.org/case/lewandowski-v-johnson-johnson/) | September 14, 2026 |
| USI Insurance Services employee plan suit | S.D.N.Y. | USI ran its own employee benefit plan and also acted as the broker choosing its voluntary benefits, collecting commissions from the products. | A broker sued by its own employees shows how far the voluntary benefits theory now reaches. | Employees v. USI Insurance Services | Raises your risk. Proposed class action filed September 8, 2026. No ruling yet. [Source](https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/risk-compliance-legal/usi-insurance-employees-sue-over-voluntary-benefit-commission-selfdealing-589234.aspx) | September 8, 2026 |
| Tobacco surcharge dismissals: Target and Campbell Soup | D. Minn. and D.N.J. | The same surcharge theory as Compass, filed against other large employers. | Most courts have sided with employers on refunds, so the risk depends on the court and on how the program is written. | Employees v. Target and Campbell Soup | Eases your risk. Both dismissed July 22, 2026. Progressive also won dismissal of a similar challenge. [Source](https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/07/seeing-through-the-smoke-2-courts-find-erisa) | July 22, 2026 |
| FTC v. Caremark, Express Scripts and Optum Rx | FTC administrative case | The three largest PBMs allegedly steered members to high list-price insulin to collect larger rebates. | The settlements change rebate and out-of-pocket terms that flow into employer plans. | The Federal Trade Commission v. the PBMs owned by CVS Health, Cigna and UnitedHealth Group | Eases your risk. Express Scripts settled in February 2026 and Caremark on July 14, 2026. Optum Rx reached a proposed settlement on June 12, 2026; the FTC has not yet published its final terms. [Source](https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/ftc-secures-settlement-with-caremark-locks-in-up-to-8-5-billion-in-consumer-savings) | July 14, 2026 |
| Stern v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:25-cv-02097 | S.D.N.Y. | JPMorgan kept a traditional PBM pricing arrangement, including spread pricing, without considering pass-through pricing, specialty carve-outs or lower-cost pharmacies. | The first employer drug-cost case where a claim survived dismissal, on the prohibited transaction theory opened by Cunningham v. Cornell. | Employees v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. | Raises your risk. March 9, 2026: fiduciary breach claims dismissed, prohibited transaction claim allowed to proceed. JPMorgan moved for judgment on the pleadings June 3; plaintiffs opposed July 10. No ruling found. [Source](https://www.groom.com/resources/whats-next-in-health-plan-fee-litigation-stern-navarro-ii-and-lewandowski-ii/) | July 10, 2026 |
| State PBM laws v. ERISA | 8th Cir. and M.D. Tenn. | Whether state laws regulating PBMs reach self-funded plans, including Arkansas Act 624, which bars PBMs from owning pharmacies. | Decides whether state PBM reforms apply to a self-funded plan or stop at fully insured coverage. | States and pharmacists v. PBMs | Too early to tell. June 29, 2026: the Eighth Circuit held Arkansas network geography rules preempted by ERISA (Flowers v. Caremark). Act 624 remains blocked by a preliminary injunction while on appeal. Challenges to Tennessee's law are pending. [Source](https://www.nfp.com/insights/eighth-circuit-holds-erisa-preempts-arkansas-pbm-geographic-coverage-rules/) | June 29, 2026 |
| Abbott Laboratories plan design suit, No. 1:26-cv-8304 | N.D. Ill. | Abbott offered a traditional PPO that costs participants more than its HSA-eligible PPO at every level of use: $1,926 v. $300 a year in employee-only contributions. | A new theory that choosing which medical plans go on the menu is itself a fiduciary decision. | A former employee v. Abbott Laboratories | Raises your risk. Proposed class action filed June 10, 2026. No ruling yet. [Source](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/employee-benefits/abbott-laboratories-hit-with-lawsuit-over-healthcare-plan-costs) | June 10, 2026 |
| Blue Cross Blue Shield antitrust settlement | N.D. Ala. | A $2.67 billion settlement over the Blue plans' agreements not to compete with one another. | Employers and members enrolled in a Blue plan from 2008 to 2020 who filed claims may receive payments. | Subscribers v. the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its member plans | Eases your risk. Payments to about 7.8 million claimants began in May 2026. [Source](https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/blue-cross-blue-shield-settlement-payouts-finally-begin-after-years-of-delays-042926.html) | May 11, 2026 |
| Voluntary benefits suits against CHS, Allied Universal and Labcorp, Nos. 1:25-cv-15578, 1:25-cv-10659, 1:26-cv-00455 | N.D. Ill., S.D.N.Y. and M.D.N.C. | Employers and their consultants allowed commissions on voluntary products averaging about 29% (Labcorp) to nearly 40% (Allied Universal) of premiums. | Employee-paid products can still be part of an ERISA plan, and the employer stays responsible for them. | Employees v. CHS/Community Health Systems, Allied Universal, Labcorp and their consultants | Raises your risk. Pending. The Labcorp case was transferred in May 2026. No ruling on a motion to dismiss reported as of September 28, 2026. [Source](https://www.dlapiper.com/en-am/insights/publications/2026/03/voluntary-benefit-plans-face-increased-erisa-fiduciary-scrutiny) | May 2026 |
| Estate of Lokken v. UnitedHealth Group | D. Minn. | An AI tool was allegedly used to deny post-acute care claims in bulk; a similar suit challenges Cigna's PxDx review system. | Shows courts looking closely at how claims are reviewed, which also applies to the carriers that administer self-funded plans. | Members v. UnitedHealth Group; members v. Cigna | Too early to tell. In discovery. UnitedHealth was ordered to produce documents on its AI review process by April 29, 2026. [Source](https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-court-orders-broad-discovery-7958780/) | April 29, 2026 |
| Bokma v. Performance Food Group, No. 3:24-cv-00686 | E.D. Va. | A $600 employee and $300 spouse tobacco surcharge was imposed without a compliant reasonable alternative standard. | The largest tobacco surcharge settlement so far, after the court refused to dismiss the case. | Employees v. Performance Food Group | Raises your risk. $4.7 million class settlement. Final approval and fee award reported April 22, 2026. Resolved. [Source](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/performance-food-will-pay-4-7-million-to-exit-smoker-fee-suit) | April 22, 2026 |
| Pimm v. United Airlines, No. 1:25-cv-15581 | N.D. Ill. | United and its consultant, Mercer, let voluntary benefits carry excessive broker commissions, and United had no process to select or monitor brokers. | Names the consultant as a defendant, testing whether a broker paid from premium is acting as a fiduciary. | Employees v. United Airlines and Mercer | Raises your risk. First amended complaint filed April 20, 2026. No ruling on a motion to dismiss reported as of September 28, 2026. [Source](https://www.nixonpeabody.com/insights/alerts/2026/02/10/new-erisa-class-actions-challenge-voluntary-accident-critical-illness-and-hospital-indemnity) | April 20, 2026 |
| No Surprises Act arbitration awards | U.S. Supreme Court; 2d and 5th Cir. | Whether providers can sue to collect independent dispute resolution awards, and whether plans and insurers can sue to overturn them. | Affects what your plan ends up paying for out-of-network emergency and facility claims. | Providers, insurers and arbitration filers such as HaloMD | Too early to tell. The Supreme Court declined review on January 12, 2026, leaving rulings that awards cannot be enforced through private lawsuits. Several insurer suits against HaloMD were dismissed in 2026. [Source](https://www.hfma.org/payment-reimbursement-and-managed-care/no-surprises-act-idr-enforcement-uncertain-after-supreme-court-declines-review/) | January 12, 2026 |
| Knudsen v. MetLife Group, No. 2:23-cv-00426; appeal No. 23-2420 | D.N.J.; 3d Cir. | About $65 million in drug rebates from 2016 to 2021 went to MetLife rather than the plan. | The first appellate ruling that rebate claims were too speculative for standing. The Lewandowski and Navarro appeals build on it. | Participants v. MetLife Group | Eases your risk. Dismissed for lack of standing in July 2023; the Third Circuit affirmed September 25, 2024. Closed. [Source](https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/232420p.pdf) | September 25, 2024 |

*This page is updated as cases move. The tracker above shows each case's status as of its last verified court event.*

## Why are employers being sued?

Employers are being sued because ERISA treats a health plan's money as plan assets, and the people who manage those assets are fiduciaries. ERISA section 404 requires them to act prudently and solely in the interest of participants, and section 406 bars certain transactions with service providers unless an exemption applies. None of that is new. What changed is that plaintiffs' firms that spent two decades suing over 401(k) fees have turned the same playbook on health plans.

The suits fall into four groups:

| Type of suit | What plaintiffs allege | Main legal theory |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Prescription drug prices and PBM contracts | The plan paid far more than market prices for drugs, often generics, because fiduciaries accepted a PBM contract without testing it | Breach of the duty of prudence; prohibited transactions with the PBM |
| PBM rebates | Drug rebates that should have benefited the plan went to the employer | Breach of the duty of loyalty; use of plan assets |
| Tobacco surcharges | Employees paid a surcharge under a wellness program that did not meet federal wellness rules, such as offering and explaining a reasonable alternative standard and giving the full reward | Wellness program rules under ERISA section 702; fiduciary breach for collecting the surcharge |
| Voluntary benefits | Employee-paid products such as accident, critical illness and hospital indemnity carried broker commissions near 40% of premium | Breach of prudence in selecting and monitoring products and brokers; brokers as functional fiduciaries |

The drug pricing cases share a pattern. Participants allege the plan steered prescriptions to a PBM-owned mail order or specialty pharmacy that charged more than retail, paid prices above what an uninsured person would pay in cash, did not push lower-cost generics, and paid PBM fees above comparable plans. The employer is the defendant because the employer, through its benefits committee, chose and monitored the PBM.

The voluntary benefits suits go a step further. They name the benefits consultants as defendants, arguing that a broker who shapes product and carrier selection, and is paid a percentage of the premium, is acting as a fiduciary and cannot be paid excessively out of plan money. The long-standing "we advise, we don't decide" position is being tested in court for the first time in health and welfare plans. The consultants named so far include Mercer, Willis Towers Watson, Gallagher and Lockton.

## The Johnson & Johnson case in detail.

*Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson* is the case that put health plan drug pricing on every employer's radar. The complaint alleged that J&J's plan, through its PBM arrangement, paid far more for many drugs, especially generics, than the same drugs cost at retail pharmacies, and that participants were steered to a mail order pharmacy that charged more than retail. It alleged J&J's fiduciaries did not prudently vet the PBM contract or negotiate lower prices.

The court never reached whether J&J acted prudently. In January 2025 it found that the lead plaintiff had not shown a redressable injury: higher premiums were speculative, and her out-of-pocket drug costs would not have changed because she reached the plan's out-of-pocket maximum through other medical expenses. A claim for failing to produce plan documents on time survived that round. The plaintiffs added a retiree and refiled, and in November 2025 the court dismissed again, finding the link between PBM pricing and what participants pay too speculative and noting that the plan gave J&J sole discretion to set contribution rates. The plaintiffs chose to appeal rather than amend.

Win or lose on appeal, the facts alleged in the complaint are the lesson. Employees can see drug prices, compare them with retail and cash prices, and ask for plan documents. A plan that cannot explain why it pays more than the pharmacy down the street has a problem whether or not a court ever hears the case.

## How have courts ruled on standing?

Standing has decided most health plan cases so far. To sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show a concrete injury caused by the defendant that a court can fix.

| Ruling | Date | What it held |
| --- | --- | --- |
| *Thole v. U.S. Bank*, U.S. Supreme Court | June 1, 2020 | Participants in a defined benefit pension plan who receive their full fixed benefits lack standing to sue over plan mismanagement |
| *Knudsen v. MetLife*, Third Circuit | September 25, 2024 | Claimed effects of diverted drug rebates on participants' costs were too speculative for standing |
| *Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson*, D.N.J. | January 24, 2025 and November 26, 2025 | Higher premiums and contributions were speculative, and out-of-pocket costs were not redressable on the facts pleaded |
| *Navarro v. Wells Fargo*, D. Minn. | March 24, 2025 and March 2026 | No one-to-one link between PBM pricing and participant contributions; participants received the benefits the plan promised |
| *Cunningham v. Cornell University*, U.S. Supreme Court | April 17, 2025 | A prohibited transaction claim under ERISA section 406(a)(1)(C) need not plead that no exemption applies; the defendant must raise exemptions |
| *Stern v. JPMorgan Chase*, S.D.N.Y. | March 9, 2026 | Premium theory failed, but specific out-of-pocket drug overpayments were a concrete injury; choosing how to structure the drug benefit is plan design, a settlor act |

Three points follow. First, the "higher premium" theory has failed in every PBM case so far. Second, specific out-of-pocket overpayments by a participant who did not hit the out-of-pocket maximum can be enough, as *Stern* shows. Third, after *Cunningham*, prohibited transaction claims over service provider contracts are easier to plead, which is why the PBM claim in *Stern* survived. The Third and Eighth Circuit appeals in the J&J and Wells Fargo cases will be the first appellate word on these PBM theories.

Tobacco surcharge cases have fared differently because the injury is direct: the employee paid the surcharge. On August 26, 2026, the Departments of Labor, HHS and the Treasury said in ACA FAQs Part 74 that they will not take enforcement action against a plan that gives the reward from the point an employee meets a reasonable alternative standard, rather than back to the start of the plan year. That is an enforcement position, not a court ruling, and the *Mehlberg* court ruled for employees on retroactive reimbursement in October 2026.

## What should employers do now?

The answer to all four kinds of suits is a documented process. Courts judge fiduciaries on how they made decisions, and the record is your evidence. The [fiduciary standard](https://ethosbenefits.com/fiduciary) explains the duties, and the [Fiduciary Framework™](https://ethosbenefits.com/fiduciary-framework) shows how to run a plan to them.

1. **Put a committee and charter in place.** Name who the plan fiduciaries are, what they decide and how often they meet. Train them on ERISA duties, and keep minutes that show what was considered, what was decided and why.
2. **Review your PBM contract.** Test pricing against market benchmarks, check how "rebate" is defined and where rebates go, confirm audit rights, and look at whether members are steered to PBM-owned pharmacies that charge more than retail. Compare what the plan pays for common generics with cash prices.
3. **Know how your advisors are paid.** Ask every broker and consultant for their direct and indirect compensation, including on voluntary products, and ask where their incentives point. Arrangements should hold up to a prudence review, not only a disclosure review. See [broker compensation disclosure](https://ethosbenefits.com/benefits-101/broker-compensation-disclosure).
4. **Check voluntary benefits.** Find out whether your voluntary products are part of an ERISA plan, what commission each carries, and what share of premium goes to claims. See [voluntary benefits fiduciary duty](https://ethosbenefits.com/benefits-101/voluntary-benefits-fiduciary-duty).
5. **Audit any tobacco surcharge.** Confirm the program offers a reasonable alternative standard, that every plan document mentioning the surcharge says so, and how and when the reward is given back.
6. **Answer document requests on time.** A late response to a participant's request for plan documents was the one claim that survived the first round in the J&J case.
7. **Review your coverage.** Check fiduciary liability insurance limits and exclusions, and negotiate indemnification terms with the PBM and other service providers.

Ethos Benefits consultants work to a fiduciary standard of care, and Ethos Benefits helps employers put this record in place through [fiduciary governance](https://ethosbenefits.com/services/fiduciary-governance), [pharmacy and PBM](https://ethosbenefits.com/services/pharmacy-pbm) and [fiduciary insurance](https://ethosbenefits.com/services/fiduciary-insurance) reviews.

Federal PBM reform will add reporting and pass-through rules for plan years beginning on or after August 3, 2028. See [PBM reform](https://ethosbenefits.com/insights/pbm-reform) for what the new law requires.

## From the Ethos Benefits team

> You can't run a fiduciary advising process for your clients while your own business model has inherent conflicts of interest built in.

Chelsea Ryckis, Founder and President, Ethos Benefits, on [The Business of Benefits, Episode 83](https://ethosbenefits.com/podcast/department-of-labor-audit-patrick-williams)

## On the podcast

- [Health Plan Fiduciary Duty Starts With the Employer: Alden Bianchi on ERISA exposure](https://ethosbenefits.com/podcast/health-plan-fiduciary-duty-alden-bianchi), The Business of Benefits, Episode 65
- [Benefits Broker Conflicts and Hidden Compensation: Jay Gepfert of Culpepper RFP](https://ethosbenefits.com/podcast/benefits-broker-conflicts-jay-gepfert), The Business of Benefits, Episode 57
- [ERISA Fiduciary Duty and Your Health Plan: Conference Episode, Part 1](https://ethosbenefits.com/podcast/erisa-fiduciary-duty-health-plan), The Business of Benefits, Episode 51
- [Fiduciary Liability Insurance for Your Benefits Committee: Paul Hacker of Axis Insurance Services](https://ethosbenefits.com/podcast/fiduciary-liability-insurance-paul-hacker), The Business of Benefits, Episode 46

## Frequently asked questions

### What is an ERISA health plan lawsuit?

It is a suit, usually a class action, in which plan participants claim the employer or other plan fiduciaries broke ERISA duties of prudence and loyalty in running the health plan. Recent suits target prescription drug prices, PBM contracts, tobacco surcharges and broker commissions on voluntary benefits.

### What was the Johnson & Johnson health plan lawsuit about?

In Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson, filed February 5, 2024 in federal court in New Jersey, participants alleged J&J's plan fiduciaries let the plan and its members overpay for prescription drugs through an imprudent PBM arrangement. The court dismissed the case for lack of standing, and the plaintiffs' appeal to the Third Circuit was fully briefed and awaiting decision as of October 2026.

### Why have courts dismissed health plan drug pricing cases?

Most dismissals turn on Article III standing. Courts in the Johnson & Johnson and Wells Fargo cases found that participants could not show that the alleged overpayments actually raised their own premiums or costs, or that winning the case would lower them. Both dismissals are on appeal, in the Third and Eighth Circuits.

### Can an employer be sued over a tobacco surcharge?

Yes. Dozens of suits allege that tobacco surcharges violated the wellness program rules and ERISA fiduciary duties, for example by not offering or explaining a reasonable alternative standard or not giving back the full reward. One case settled for $4.7 million and another produced a summary judgment ruling for employees in October 2026.

### Are brokers and consultants being sued too?

Yes. Voluntary benefits suits filed since December 2025 name benefits consultants alongside employers, alleging the consultants acted as functional fiduciaries and collected excessive commissions built into employee premiums. As of late September 2026, no court had ruled on whether those consultants are fiduciaries.

### What happened in the JPMorgan Chase health plan lawsuit?

In Stern v. JPMorgan Chase, filed March 13, 2025 in the Southern District of New York, participants alleged JPMorgan kept a traditional PBM pricing arrangement, including spread pricing, without considering alternatives. On March 9, 2026, the court dismissed the fiduciary breach claims as plan design decisions but found specific out-of-pocket overpayments were a concrete injury, so a prohibited transaction claim continues.

## Sources

1. [29 U.S. Code § 1104, Fiduciary duties (ERISA section 404)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1104), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
2. [29 U.S. Code § 1106, Prohibited transactions (ERISA section 406)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1106), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
3. [29 U.S. Code § 1108, Exemptions from prohibited transactions (ERISA section 408)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1108), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
4. [Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 590 U.S. 538 (2020)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-1712), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
5. [Cunningham v. Cornell University (2025)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23-1007), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
6. [FAQs About Affordable Care Act and HIPAA Implementation Part 74 (August 26, 2026)](https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/aca-part-74.pdf), U.S. Departments of Labor, HHS and the Treasury