FCA-Regulated Forex Brokers Are Declining — 31 Platforms to Avoid
As of December 1, 2025, a total of 105 companies in the United Kingdom held CFD licences.
简体中文
繁體中文
English
Pусский
日本語
ภาษาไทย
Tiếng Việt
Bahasa Indonesia
Español
हिन्दी
Filippiiniläinen
Français
Deutsch
Português
Türkçe
한국어
العربية
Abstract:The state of Tennessee sued Walgreens on Wednesday, accusing the retail pharmacy giant of fueling the state’s opioid epidemic by willfully flooding the market with an oversupply of prescription narcotics in violation of consumer protection and public nuisance laws.

According to the lawsuit, Walgreens used its position as one of the states largest pharmacy chains to dispense over 1.1 billion oxycodone and hydrocodone pills within Tennessee from 2006 to 2020, roughly equivalent to 175 tablets for every resident of the state.
“The sheer volume of opioids that Walgreens released into Tennessee was unreasonable and highly suspicious on its face,” said the 148-page lawsuit, filed in Knox County Circuit Court. “Walgreens utterly saturated the state of Tennessee with narcotics.”
Tennessee, home to nearly 7 million residents, has been one of the hardest-hit in the U.S. opioid crisis, documenting at least three opioid-related overdose deaths every day, according to the lawsuit.
“Walgreens did not flood the state of Tennessee with opioids by accident. Rather, the fuel that Walgreens added to the fire of the opioid epidemic was the result of knowing – or willfully ignorant – corporate decisions,” it said.
Walgreens has been the target of similar lawsuits brought by other jurisdictions.
In May, its corporate parent, the Illinois-based holding company Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc, reached a $683 million settlement with Florida to resolve claims that the pharmacy chain exacerbated an opioid epidemic in that state. But Walgreens did not admit to wrongdoing under the agreement.
“We will continue to defend against the unjustified attacks on the professionalism of our pharmacists, dedicated health professionals who live in the communities they serve,” the company said in a statement emailed to Reuters on Wednesday.
“Walgreens never manufactured or marketed opioids, nor did we distribute them to the pain clinics and ”pill mills“ that fueled this crisis,” the company said.
According to the lawsuit, Walgreens effectively became part of an “unlawful controlled substance selling scheme” by ignoring numerous signs of suspicious opioid prescription practices.
The suit cited such “red flags” as a lack of individualized dosing; multiple prescriptions for the strongest dose available; many customers with the same diagnosis codes; high percentages of patients paying in cash; customers frequently seeking early refills; and customers traveling long distances to fill prescriptions.
Tennessees greatest jump in opioid dispensing, according to the lawsuit, coincided with the years 2006 to 2014 when Walgreens operated as a wholesale distributor for its own pharmacies, thus occupying two rungs of the supply chain.
Operating some 200 to 300 stores statewide, Walgreens pharmacies collectively purchased 795 million opioids from distributors during that period, the suit said. Some were sourced from other wholesalers, but Walgreens “self-distributed” 81% of its own retail opioid supplies in that era, according to the complaint.
A similar lawsuit brought against Walgreens and two pharmaceutical companies by the city of San Francisco is now under consideration by a federal judge following an 11-week trial during which the two other firms reached a $58 million settlement with the city last month.
Separately, a federal court jury decided in November that Walgreens, along with fellow pharmacy chain CVS Health Corp and discount retail giant Walmart Inc, was liable for helping create a public nuisance with an alleged flood of pain pills that wound up on the black market in two Ohio counties.
It is now up to a federal judge to decide what the companies should pay.

Disclaimer:
The views in this article only represent the author's personal views, and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the information in the article, and will not be liable for any loss caused by the use of or reliance on the information in the article.

As of December 1, 2025, a total of 105 companies in the United Kingdom held CFD licences.

Has Dbinvesting failed to honor your fund withdrawal requests? Did you notice that the broker remained fine when you were losing and turned worse as your numbers gained on the Dbinvesting login? Did the broker wipe out your profits and block your trading account? Many such allegations from users across India, the US and other regions have become headlines on broker review platforms such as WikiFX. To make it comprehensive, we have prepared an in-depth investigation report into user allegations, the company’s products and services, and, importantly, regulatory status, in this Dbinvesting review article.

Times are tough for the rupee as it again slipped to 95 against the USD towards the end of April 2026 after some gains due to the RBI-led interventions early this month. The depreciation is largely attributable to surging crude oil prices. The prices climbed to their 3-year high over the US-Iran conflict. On April 30, 2026, the rupee opened at 95.02 mark against the USD, sliding 0.2% from its previous day’s ending at 94.84 against the greenback. As the day progressed, it slipped further to a new record low of 95.32 against the USD, beating the earlier fall of 95.22 in March 2026.

When you ask, "Is AssetsFX legit?", you're asking an important question about keeping your funds safe. After looking at all the available information, the answer is concerning: AssetsFX shows serious risks that traders should worry about. Our research found multiple problems that can't be overlooked. WikiFX, a website that checks brokers worldwide, gives AssetsFX only 2.44 points out of 10. They also warn users: "Low score, please stay away!" This very low rating isn't random. It comes from two main problems: the company doesn't have proper licenses from respected authorities, and many users have complained about losing funds. This article will explain the evidence behind this rating, giving you the facts you need to make a smart choice and protect your investments.