Consumer Protection

“I’m making efforts to push the market back to a retail that will give you [Amazon] solid headroom…”

“I am very determined to help you hunt the disrupters in the market.”

“If the problematic retail does not fix by the end of the week, we will discontinue [these products] from your problematic competition to ensure that Amazon can return to a healthy state with these items.”

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the public release of evidence clearly showing Amazon’s illegal price fixing scheme that is artificially driving up prices for Americans. In February, Attorney General Bonta filed a request for a preliminary injunction asking the San Francisco Superior Court to halt Amazon’s illegal conduct while California's lawsuit proceeds, and today he secured a largely unredacted copy of that filing for the public. The unredacted filing paints a clear and shocking picture of specific interactions in which Amazon, vendors, and competing retailers like Target, Walmart, Chewy, Best Buy, Home Depot, and others agree to increase retail prices across their platforms, all so Amazon can maintain its profit margins at the expense of consumers.

“The evidence we've uncovered is clear as day: Amazon is working to make your life more unaffordable. The company is price fixing, colluding with vendors and other retailers to raise costs for Americans beyond what the market requires — beyond what is fair,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Amid a crisis of affordability, Amazon is illegally working to rake in profits by making sure consumers have nowhere else to turn to for lower prices. We’ll see them in court."

What is Happening? Amazon is illegally raising prices for Americans. 

For years, Amazon has reached out to its vendors and instructed them to increase retail prices on competitors’ websites, threatening dire consequences if vendors do not comply. Vendors, bullied by Amazon’s overwhelming bargaining leverage and fearing punishment, agree to raise prices on competitors’ websites, or to remove products from competing websites altogether. 

This price fixing scheme typically begins with Amazon demanding that vendors “fix,” “correct,” “increase,” “raise,” or “look into” the prices of products on other retailers’ websites. These directives to vendors are backed by the threat of significant penalties for failure to comply — ranging from advertising and promotion restrictions, to demands for financial compensation, to the removal of vendors’ products from Amazon.

How Are Prices Being Raised? Amazon uses three different illegal schemes, all of which result in increased prices for consumers. 

• Amazon or its competitor, through their common vendor, will agree to increase the retail price or make a product temporarily unavailable, so that the other retailer can match the increased market price, increasing the price for consumers. 
• A competitor offering a cheaper price on a product will increase its retail price at Amazon’s request (a request made through the vendor), so that Amazon can then match that increased retail price, thereby increasing the price for consumers.
• The vendor removes a product from a competing retailer that is offering a lower price than Amazon, so that the lower price is no longer available in the market and Amazon then raises its retail price, resulting in a higher price for consumers. 

What Are Some Examples of These Schemes in Action?

Highlights from the newly revealed portions of the preliminary injunction include the following:

• Amazon, Levi’s, and Walmart Agreed on Increased Retail Pricing for Khaki Pants: Amazon sent Levi’s links to Khaki pants that were priced lower on Walmart.com [$25.47 to $26.99], saying it “hop[ed] these can get resolved over the next few days.” The next day, Levi’s reported that “I talked to Walmart and they have partnered with us to … take Easy Khaki Classic fit back up to…$29.99 immediately” and provided links to show the increased Walmart price. Amazon acknowledged that Walmart raised its price and confirmed it had matched that higher price: “the updated pricing of $29.99 is now showing up on [Amazon].” 
• Amazon, GlobalOne, and Chewy Agreed on Increased Retail Prices for Pet Treats: The plan was written in an email between Amazon and its vendor, GlobalOne. For its part, Amazon would raise GlobalOne’s Canine Naturals pet treat prices to get Chewy to follow, then GlobalOne would “reach out to Chewy” to let them know that Amazon was increasing the pricing and “would ask that [Chewy] follow.” In other words, if Chewy agreed, Amazon would increase its retail pricing for the Canine Naturals pet treats and Chewy would match the price increase. The plan materialized. Amazon told GlobalOne that the pricematch override was in place, and to “let Chewy know to update [pricing] immediately.” That same day, GlobalOne confirmed the “ones that went up on Amazon immediately went up on Chewy [happy face emoji] … Overall this looks like it’s working!” The result of Amazon, Chewy and GlobalOne’s price fixing agreement was to increase the retail prices of over ten Canine Naturals pet treat products on Amazon and Chewy.
• Amazon, Hanes, and Target Worked to Raise the Price of Apparel: Amazon sent Hanes links to Target.com and Walmart.com showing lower prices than were on Amazon, and Hanes confirmed that it “reached out to Target and Walmart to have the prices increased.” 
• Amazon, Allergan, and Walmart Worked to Increase the Price of Eyedrops: Amazon emailed vendor Allergan to say that it had temporarily suppressed eye drops due to a price match at $13.59, telling the vendor that it would “check the price match regularly throughout the day.” In response, Allergan sent a screenshot of Walmart’s website at $16.99, stating that “Walmart got their price back up” and asked Amazon to unsuppress the product. Amazon did so, confirming: “Buy box back up at $16.99.” 
• Amazon, Agrothrive, and Home Depot Worked to Raise the Price of Plant Fertilizer: Amazon complained to vendor Agrothrive about lower prices for Agrothrive’s products at Home Depot, to which Agrothrive responded: “Yes, just got out of a meeting with the Home Depot manager and she has agreed to raise the prices this time.”
• Amazon, Songmic, and Wayfair Worked to Increase the Price of a Trash Can: Amazon complained to vendor Songmic that Wayfair was selling Songmic’s trash can product for less and that the price needed to increase. In response, Songmic “urgently asked” Wayfair “to stop running deals for it.” 

The examples above are not outliers and are not exhaustive. They are illustrative of countless interactions — spanning years and product lines — in which Amazon, vendors, and Amazon’s competitors agree to increase and fix the prices of products on other retail websites. As Amazon told one vendor explicitly: “I am very determined to help you hunt the disrupters in the market.” 

What Happens Next?

As part of the motion for preliminary injunction, originally filed in February, Attorney General Bonta asks the court to stop Amazon’s unlawful conduct while this case proceeds, including: engaging in explicit price fixing with its vendors and its competitors; communicating with vendors about other retailers’ pricing; and coercing its vendors to serve as the go-between with its competitors by demanding money to make Amazon whole for price matching a lower-priced retailer. The hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is set for July 23. This case is scheduled to go to trial in January 2027. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 23 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) draft Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2026-2030. The plan proposes rollbacks to the agency's supervision, enforcement, and other work, putting consumers at risk of financial harm. In the comment letter, the attorneys general urge the CFPB to reconsider its Strategic Plan, arguing that it would undermine the CFPB’s statutory purpose, place a greater burden on state enforcement, and result in less relief for consumers. The CFPB was created to protect consumers in the financial marketplace, and it performs critical functions necessary to the functioning of the financial system. However, the Trump Administration pursued efforts to dismantle the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide. The Administration’s past actions, along with the Strategic Plan’s stated goals, have also resulted and will continue to result in less relief for consumers, not more.

“President Trump has pushed policies that have raised the cost of living for Americans. At the same time, the Administration has proposed changes that would make it harder for the CFPB to protect and defend those same Americans from being taken advantage of by big corporations,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The CFPB was created to stand up for consumers against big banks, debt collectors, and credit reporting companies, but the changes shown in the Bureau’s blueprint for the next five years severely undermine this purpose. When it comes to fighting bad business practices, the federal government should be squarely on the side of the American people.”

As the cornerstone of federal consumer financial protections for nearly 15 years, the CFPB has been an invaluable enforcement partner to California, working to protect hardworking families and make the marketplace fairer in California and across the country, returning over $20 billion to Americans since its creation. Among other important functions, the CFPB maintains a publicly available online complaint-handling system and database through which consumers can submit complaints about financial products and services and receive responses from regulated entities. The Trump Administration has taken a series of actions intended to debilitate the CFPB, including issuing a suspension of work across the agency, terminating probationary employees, attempting to issue reduction-in-force notices to 90% of the CFPB’s workforce — a move that was swiftly blocked by the courts.

Despite states’ best and often successful attempts to curtail the Trump Administration’s weakening of the CFPB, the Bureau has dismissed actions resulting in a loss of over $3.5 billion in consumer relief. For example, in 2025 the CFPB dismissed or withdrew 22 enforcement actions, including a lawsuit against Capital One Bank alleging it withheld over $2 billion in interest from its accountholders. In today's comment letter, the attorney generals argue the proposed changes in the Strategic Plan will only make those dismissals more common and those losses greater, including proposals to:

• Focus supervision on depository institutions (like FDIC-insured banks and credit unions) at a critical time when consumers are increasingly turning to nonbanks for credit and other financial services.
• Reduce the collection of civil penalties and remove what the Bureau defines as “improper submissions” to the complaint system, which would result in less recovery for harmed consumers.
• “Minimize duplicative action”, a goal that is ill-defined and may result in an increased workload for state supervision and/or a lack of supervision as opposed to streamlining it.
• Deemphasize civil penalties, which would take away a key accountability measure to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws.

Attorney General Bonta joined today’s comment letter along with the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. 

Attorney General Bonta has been an outspoken critic amid the attempts of the Trump Administration’s CFPB to shrink its responsibilities and has submitted amicus briefs in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the CFPB. In December 2025, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the CFPB Acting Director’s unlawful decision not to fund the agency’s operations, preventing it from performing legally mandated functions. That lawsuit is ongoing.

If it’s too fast, it’s not an e-bike — you might be riding illegally 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe today issued a consumer alert to remind manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and parents that California has important safety laws regarding the sale and use of electric bicycles, also known as e-bikes. Two-wheeled vehicles that go over 28 miles per hour with pedal assistance or 20 miles per hour with throttle assistance are not e-bikes — under California law, they are mopeds or motorcycles and require additional licensing and age requirements to operate and sell. Importantly, modifying an e-bike to exceed the speed or power limits mentioned above is dangerous, may transform the e-bike into a motorcycle or moped under California law, and may be a crime if riders do not have appropriate licenses.  

“Sometimes, what looks like an e-bike or is marketed as an e-bike is not a bike at all. We are seeing a surge of safety incidents on our sidewalks, parks, and streets. Bike riders and parents: If your or your teen's electric two-wheeled vehicle goes too fast, it might be a motorcycle or a moped — not an e-bike,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “To ride a motorcycle or moped, you need to have the appropriate driver’s license and comply with rules of the road. With the popularity of e-bikes booming, I highly encourage manufacturers, retailers, and especially parents to review the consumer alert today and ensure they and their kids are complying with California law.” 

“I’m proud of the actions Marin’s community leaders, schools, and cities have already taken to improve e-bike safety,” said Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli. “But to keep everyone safe while enjoying our shared streets, trails, and open spaces, we must make sure that products marketed and sold as e-bikes are truly legitimate e-bikes — not electric motorcycles.” 

“Electric bicycles can be an economical, enjoyable, and convenient way to get around,” said San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “Unfortunately, many retailers are marketing and selling two-wheeled vehicles as ‘e-bikes’ when they do not qualify as electric bicycles in California. Consumers, and especially parents of teenage children, should carefully check that the product they want to purchase legally qualifies as an electric bicycle. If not, it may actually be a motorcycle (or motorcycle equivalent), which requires a license, registration and insurance. This is a matter of both consumer protection and public safety.”

“Legally operated e-bikes can be a fun and environmentally friendly transportation option," said San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. “However, San Mateo County has seen many illegal motorcycles and mopeds which are marketed and sold as e-bikes. The safety of our communities requires manufacturers, sellers, and buyers, including parents, to know and comply with California’s e-bike laws.”

All About E-Bikes:

Bicycles, including e-bikes, are part of California’s commitment to alternative forms of transportation that reduce reliance on fossil fuels. 

E-bikes are bicycles equipped with an electric motor that provide power assistance while pedaling, with some models featuring a throttle which can allow riders to power their e-bike without pedaling. They make cycling faster, easier, and more accessible by reducing effort. E-bikes can expand access to California’s roads, open spaces, and trails, offer transportation options to riders with reduced mobility, and are less expensive to purchase and maintain than cars.

However, because of their higher speeds, e-bikes can pose a dangerous risk, especially if they are modified to go faster, transforming them into motorcycles or mopeds. A study by the University of California, San Francisco found that rider injuries from e-bikes nearly doubled each year from 2017 to 2022, and a University of California, San Diego study showed injuries in San Diego among e-bike riders under 18 soared by 300% from 2019 to 2023.

E-bikes fall into three classifications: 

• Class 1, also known as low-speed pedal-assisted e-bikes, provide assistance only while being pedaled and only at speeds under 20 miles an hour.
• Class 2, also known as low-speed throttle-assisted e-bikes, provide power assistance up to 20 mph but have a throttle that allows the rider to engage the motor without pedaling.
• Class 3, also known as speed pedal-assisted electric bicycles, are like Class 1 bicycles except that the motor assistance must stop when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.

All e-bikes sold in California must have a permanent label that discloses the bike’s classification number, identifies the e-bike’s top assisted speed and the wattage of its motor.  

While people of all ages may ride Class 1 or Class 2 e-bikes, Class 3 e-bikes may only be ridden by people who are 16 years old or older and who are wearing helmets. Cities, counties, and other local governments including schools and parks districts may have additional rules and ordinances regarding where and how e-bikes can be ridden.  

NOT all two-wheeled vehicles with electric motors are considered e-bikes under California law. If a two-wheeled vehicle with an electric motor has any of the features mentioned below, it may require registration with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and proper licensing:

• Provides pedal assistance beyond 28 miles per hour;
• Provides throttle assistance beyond 20 miles per hour; 
• Has a motor with more than 750 watts of power; or
• Does not have operable pedals.

For Retailers:

Sellers may only advertise or sell vehicles as “e-bikes” if they fall within one of the three classes listed above. Sellers must also not advertise or sell as “e-bikes” vehicles that are intended to be modified to exceed applicable limits. Misrepresenting the characteristics of a bicycle or other vehicle, converting one for illegal use, or selling one without the required DMV occupational licenses is a crime. The DMV has specific requirements for dealer and salesperson licensing.   

For Parents: 

Attorney General Bonta and the District Attorneys encourage all parents to carefully ensure any bicycle or e-bike that they are purchasing for their children is safe and legal for their children to ride. Children under 16 may only ride Class 1 or Class 2 e-bikes. Class 3 e-bikes may only be ridden by people who are 16 years old or older and who are wearing helmets.  

If a vehicle does not qualify as an e-bike, because it lacks pedals or exceeds the power or speed thresholds mentioned above, it may be considered a motorcycle or moped under California law. In that event, the owner or operator must observe all requirements that pertain to those vehicles, including possession of an M1 or M2 operator’s license, adequate insurance, and registration with the DMV.

Parents should also be aware that some school districts have rules regarding bicycles, including rules that restrict unsafe and overpowered bicycles from campus grounds. Modifying an e-bike to exceed the speed or power limits mentioned above is dangerous, may transform the e-bike into a motorcycle or moped under California law, and may be a crime if riders lack the appropriate DMV licenses (available only to people 16 years old or older). 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, alongside a coalition of 17 attorneys general, called on Congress to take immediate action to halt federal agencies’ use of commercially purchased data and artificial intelligence tools that enable mass surveillance of Americans without judicial, legislative, or public oversight. The letter calls on Congress to close the data‑broker loophole, require warrants for federal access to Americans’ digital data, prevent domestic surveillance via foreign intelligence laws, mandate deletion of unlawfully collected information and related AI models, and establish nationwide transparency and accountability standards for data brokers. 

“Every day, we give off a steady stream of data that broadcasts not only who we are, but where we go. This data is deeply personal, can identify your everyday habits and movements, and can be bought. Data brokers compile, package, and sell this information to various entities, typically without a consumer even knowing," said Attorney General Bonta. "California boasts the nation’s most robust privacy protection law to give consumers control over their data, but no such federal privacy framework exists, allowing the federal government potential access to this trove of data once it has been collected. Allowing federal agencies to buy or compile, analyze, and use large profiles of information about Americans without limits, oversight, or accountability undermines the public’s faith in our system of governance and is dangerous for democracy. In light of federal assaults on immigrant and LGBTQ+ communities, and on gender-affirming healthcare and abortion providers, I urge Congress to take action now and limit the ability of the federal government to deploy mass surveillance on Americans."

Data comes from nearly everywhere online, even when people think they’re not revealing anything. Websites, apps, and software can track and amass personal information and behavioral data like pages visited, detailed purchase information, location data, health information, and more in order to create and share profiles and inferences about consumers. These businesses often sell information to third-parties that then amass whole profiles on consumers. The federal government has not kept up with California and other states in protecting consumers from these practices.   

In the letter sent to the leadership of the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition warn that federal agencies are exploiting a “data broker loophole” to obtain detailed information about Americans’ movements, associations, political activity, and daily lives — information the government would otherwise be required to obtain through a warrant or pursuant to other legal procedures. The attorneys general cite recent examples — including federal agencies’ purchase of billions of airline ticketing records and mobile location data from commercial brokers — that reveal a pattern of warrantless surveillance through the acquisition of massive datasets. Several of these practices have already drawn bipartisan concern in Congress and the public after media reporting uncovered the federal government’s ability to track individuals’ travel, movements, and daily routines. 

The attorneys general urge Congress to enact comprehensive reforms, including measures that would: 

• Prohibit federal agencies from purchasing data that would otherwise require a warrant to obtain. 
• Require judicial warrants before accessing Americans’ web browsing activity, search queries, and location information. 
• Ensure intelligence agencies cannot circumvent limits on domestic surveillance by exploiting foreign intelligence authorities or third‑party vendors. 
• Mandate deletion of unlawfully collected data and any algorithms trained using such data.  

Joining Attorney General Bonta in sending this letter are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.  

California's Privacy Laws

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) vests California consumers with control over the personal information that businesses collect about them, including the right to request that businesses stop selling or sharing your personal information. With some exceptions, businesses cannot sell or share your personal information after they receive your opt-out request unless you later provide authorization allowing them to do so again.

The Delete Request and Opt-out Platform (DROP), developed by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy), gives Californians more control over their personal information and helps limit the information that data brokers sell. With the launch of DROP earlier this year, Californians have a safe and secure way to protect their privacy. The tool — made possible by the Delete Act (Becker, 2023) — transmits a single deletion request telling over 500 registered data brokers to delete all the personal information they have about you and to not sell your data going forward. For more information about DROP and how Californians can submit a deletion request, visit: privacy.ca.gov/drop.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today led a coalition of eight attorneys general in filing a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the merger of Tegna Inc. (Tegna) and Nexstar Media Group, Inc. (Nexstar), after the broadcasting giants received merger approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). On Wednesday night, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit to block the merger, a deal that is expected to create the largest broadcast station group in the United States, put more broadcast programming in the hands of fewer people, cut local jobs, increase cable bills, and significantly impact the delivery of news and other media content to Americans nationwide.

“The federal government has an obligation to protect our economy, consumers' wallets, and competitive markets in which businesses and workers can thrive. With its approval of the disastrous Nexstar/Tegna broadcasting merger, the Trump Administration has once again put corporate interests ahead of the interests of everyday Americans — not on our watch,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, alongside a coalition of attorneys general, I’ve filed an emergency motion asking the court to stop this merger. This merger is illegal, plain and simple, running contrary to federal antitrust laws that protect consumers. Nexstar/Tegna is not a done deal. I will not let these corporate behemoths merge without a fight.”

If approved, this multibillion-dollar deal would combine the nation’s largest and third-largest television-station conglomerates, creating a titan covering 80% of U.S. television households. In California, the combined entity would own half of the Big Four (FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS) network-affiliated stations in two areas: the local FOX and ABC stations in the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto area and the local FOX and CBS stations in the San Diego area. Alarmingly, reports have already detailed Nexstar’s firing of long-standing journalists in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.

The Trump Administration has shown states and consumers that it is more concerned with protecting corporate interests than in doing its job to defend the public and uphold consumer protection and antitrust laws that help make life more affordable for American families. Attorney General Bonta has responded by intervening, after the Trump Administration allegedly greenlit the Hewlett-Packard Enterprises/Juniper Networks merger not for the public interest, but to line the pockets of its friends. And he is continuing to fight for a better deal for consumers after U.S. DOJ settled days into the much-awaited Live Nation/Ticketmaster trial — an action promptly rejected by a bipartisan group of attorneys general.

Merger would create a media giant covering 80% of U.S. television households

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, alongside a coalition of eight attorneys general, filed a lawsuit to block the acquisition of Tegna Inc. (Tegna) by Nexstar Media Group, Inc. (Nexstar). Tegna and Nexstar are two major broadcast station companies that own and operate television stations throughout the country. If allowed to proceed, the deal would create the largest broadcast station group in the United States, putting more broadcast programming in the hands of fewer people, removing control from the communities they report to, cutting local jobs, and significantly impacting the delivery of news and other media content to Americans nationwide. Due to the considerable increase in consolidation, the deal is also expected to raise prices and harm consumers. In California, the combined entity would own half of the Big Four (FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS) network-affiliated stations, including the local FOX and ABC stations in the Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto area and the local FOX and CBS stations in the San Diego area. Alarmingly, reports have already detailed Nexstar’s firing of long standing journalists in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.

“Today, my office has filed a lawsuit to block the proposed merger of broadcasting giants Nexstar and Tegna. This merger would cause incredibly high levels of concentration in local TV markets and is expected to raise cable and satellite prices across the country, causing irreparable harm to local news and consumers who rely on their reporting as a critical source of information,” said Attorney General Bonta. “If approved, this multibillion-dollar deal would combine the nation’s largest and third-largest television-station conglomerates, creating a behemoth covering 80% of U.S. television households. This merger is illegal, plain and simple, running contrary to federal antitrust laws that protect consumers. When broadcast media is owned by a handful of companies, we get fewer voices, less competition, and communities lose the critical check on power that local journalism delivers.”

The lawsuit, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleges that the merger clearly violates Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which holds that mergers that substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly are illegal. If the Nexstar/Tegna merger is allowed to proceed, local markets will immediately see a lessening of competition, including both the Sacramento and San Diego markets. 

In addition to the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also has authority and responsibility to halt such a merger, as the $6.2 billion Nexstar/Tegna deal would violate an FCC rule which would prohibit this merger. However, on February 7, 2026, President Trump tweeted “Get that deal done!,” saying that the two companies should be allowed to merge in order to “Knock out the Fake News” from the “Fake News National TV Networks.” FCC Chairman Brendan Carr immediately responded on social media: “Let’s get it done." 

In filing today's lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, North Carolina, Connecticut, and Virginia.

The Trump Administration has shown states and consumers that it is more concerned with protecting corporate interests than doing its job to defend the public and uphold consumer protection and antitrust laws that help make life affordable for American families. Attorney General Bonta has responded by intervening when the Trump Administration allegedly greenlit the Hewlett-Packard Enterprises/Juniper Networks merger not for the public interest, but to line the pockets of its friends, and by continuing to fight for a better deal for consumers after U.S. DOJ settled days into the much-awaited Live Nation/Ticketmaster trial — an action promptly rejected by a bipartisan group of attorneys general.

Antitrust enforcement is an essential component of a healthy economy. Competitive marketplaces established through antitrust vigilance help consumers by ensuring fair prices for goods and services, an array of products to choose from, quality goods and services, and the steady introduction of innovative new products. As part of the Attorney General’s commitment to enforce antitrust laws, the California Department of Justice has launched an Antitrust Complaint Form for people to report anticompetitive conduct that potentially violates the antitrust laws.

Americans were hurt by the President’s illegal actions; they should not be hurt by a clunky refund process

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 18 attorneys general in sending a letter calling on Congress to take legislative action regarding President Trump’s illegal tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to ensure businesses and consumers receive timely, automatic refunds. Tariffs under IEEPA were unlawfully imposed on imported goods, resulting in an estimated $166 billion paid by over 330,000 American businesses. In particular, small businesses and low-income households have been disproportionately burdened by the tariffs, which raised prices on groceries, clothing, household items, machinery and equipment. Last year, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under IEEPA without the consent of Congress — tariffs that were last month declared illegal and struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Earlier this month, California joined a coalition of 24 states in filing a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s new attempt to impose tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, an archaic, never-before-used law.

“American businesses and consumers who were forced to shoulder the cost of President Trump’s illegal tariffs deserve to be fully refunded — with interest and without jumping through endless hoops. Anything less is unacceptable,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Trump’s illegal tariffs caused harm to businesses and families across the country, further squeezing people already struggling with affordability, and exacerbating economic inequality. Today, we urge Congress to lead, do right by the American people, and swiftly take action to clean up Trump’s tariff mess and quickly and automatically refund businesses and consumers.”

BACKGROUND

Last year, President Trump imposed unlawful tariffs that made the affordability crisis worse for millions of Americans. In January 2026 alone, U.S. consumers paid as much as $12.6 billion in indirect illegal tariffs. The President’s destructive and unpredictable tariff regime sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe, including in California, the fourth-largest economy in the world and the country’s largest importer and second-largest exporter among the 50 states. The Administration’s tariffs imposed under IEEPA were projected to cost California’s economy $25 billion and result in the loss of over 64,000 jobs.

In today’s letter, Attorney General Bonta urges Congress to enact legislation that would require the Trump Administration to provide a timely refund, with interest, of all duties wrongfully levied under IEEPA. The Trump Administration has repeatedly pledged that, in the event the tariffs were found to be unlawful, claims would be returned and refunded with interest. Congress has a responsibility to guarantee that the Trump Administration abides by this commitment and extends relief to as many affected businesses and consumers as possible. A legislative solution is critical because the Administration continues to imply that a refund process may be delayed or require affected businesses and consumers to sue or file for refunds, which will disproportionately impact small businesses and individuals who may not have the resources to do so.  

In sending today’s letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. 

 Californians, check out these tips to find safe, free, and low-cost ways to file your taxes 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert urging Californians to learn about free or low-cost tax filing options. As Tax Day approaches, many Californians may seek out assistance with filing their tax returns. Through the CalFile program, eligible California taxpayers can file their 2025 state taxes for free. 

“For Californians, Tax Day isn’t just a deadline, it is a reminder of how much hard work goes into every dollar earned and every dollar owed. What many Californians may not realize is that filing doesn’t have to come with additional costs. Too often, people pay for third-party tax preparation services without knowing they may qualify to file their taxes for free,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As Tax Day approaches, I encourage Californians to file early and explore trusted free or low-cost filing options. Before paying to file, take a moment to check if you qualify and keep more of your hard-earned money where it belongs — in your pocket.”

Franchise Tax Board’s (FTB) CalFile is California's free e-filing service for state tax returns. The CalFile program allows eligible taxpayers to file state tax returns quickly, securely, and free of charge. By removing barriers to filing, this program may allow consumers to get tax refunds and claim critical tax benefits like California’s Earned Income Tax Credit and Young Child Tax Credit.

MORE TAX PREPARATION RESOURCES:

• Code for America Tax File is a free tax filing service that offers virtual tax filing service that helps qualified individuals and families file their taxes online, maximize refunds, and access essential tax credits.
• The IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program provides free tax help to people who make $64,000 or less annually, persons with disabilities, and people who do not understand English well.
• The Tax Counseling for the Elderly program offers free tax help for all taxpayers, particularly those over 60, specializing in questions about pensions and retirement-related issues. 
• More Cash in your Pocket: You may qualify for cash back or a reduction of the tax you owe under the Earned Income Tax Credit and the California Earned Income Tax Credit programs.
• Need more time to prepare? You can electronically request an automatic tax-filing extension, regardless of your income. You will then have until October 15 to file a return. More information on how to request an extension can be found on the IRS website.
• Find a Reputable Tax Preparer: If you decide to hire a tax preparer, make sure your tax preparer is reputable and qualified to provide tax services. In California, only an attorney, certified public accountant (CPA), IRS-enrolled agent, or registered-tax preparer can prepare tax returns for a fee. You can verify a CPA’s license with the California Board of Accountancy. You can also confirm whether a tax preparer is registered with the IRS.  

If you believe you have been the victim of a tax-related scam or other misconduct, you can file a complaint with our office at oag.ca.gov/report or with the IRS.

To learn about how to protect yourself and your loved ones against fraud, visit our website at oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/taxes.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today, along with a coalition of 22 attorneys general and the states of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, announced a new lawsuit challenging President Trump’s imposition of global tariffs using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The lawsuit, to be filed today in the Court of International Trade, argues that the President’s use of Section 122 to impose tariffs is illegal because the President’s justifications for its use do not fall within the limited circumstances required by the statute. Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom previously challenged the President’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). And last month, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under IEEPA, declaring them illegal.

“American consumers and business owners have made it clear they do not want tariffs, yet President Trump has tried over and over again to implement them. This time, the President is attempting to use an obscure law as a tool for his tariffs, and is yet again, going about it illegally,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This is not new terrain for California, but it is exasperating. Why is President Trump — who ran on the promise of making life more affordable for families — breaking the law to raise the cost of living for Americans? California has challenged the illegal imposition of tariffs time and time again because this question matters enormously for Californians who are already struggling with rising costs. For the 60th time since he took office, we’ll see the President in court."  

“These tariffs are nothing more than a tax on working families — shifting the burden of Trump’s failed trade negotiations onto folks who are already struggling to make ends meet. Trump keeps throwing out illegal, reckless policies, hoping something sticks, while everyday Americans pay the price," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "Trump’s tariffs were overturned by the Supreme Court, so now he’s inflicting new tariffs on Californians and all Americans like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. Chaos is not leadership. And we deserve better.” 

BACKGROUND 

The President’s regime of unlawful tariffs has made the affordability crisis worse for millions of Americans and has sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe — including in California, which is the fourth-largest economy in the world and the country’s largest importer and second-largest exporter among the 50 states. A recent Yale report found that the tariffs led to the average family losing $1,751 dollars last year. 

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the tariffs President Trump imposed under IEEPA were unlawful. That same day, the President issued a proclamation claiming authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% tariff on most products and countries worldwide. The next day, President Trump announced he would be raising these these tariffs to 15%. Tariffs under this statute cannot exceed 15% and are limited to 150 days, after which the President must seek congressional approval.

Section 122 Tariffs 

Section 122 authorizes the President to impose tariffs under a very specific set of circumstances, namely when fundamental international payments problems require special import measures to restrict imports. Section 122 tariffs are allowed only when such fundamental payment problems require special measures under three conditions: (1) to deal with large and serious balance-of-payments deficits, (2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar, or (3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting international financial disequilibrium. 

President Trump justifies invoking Section 122 on four grounds including (1) ongoing trade deficits, (2) negative primary income balance, (3) decline in the net international-investment position of the United States, and (4) persistent deficit of the balance on secondary income. Not a single one of the four justifications offered by the President are circumstances where Section 122 tariffs would be legal and appropriate.

Additionally, Section 122 requires tariffs be applied in a nondiscriminatory manner among countries and uniformly across products. Because the Proclamation exempts many goods from Canada, Mexico, Costa Rica, and other countries, it violates the Section 122 requirement that the tariffs be applied consistently with the principle of nondiscriminatory treatment. Because the Proclamation also includes 84 pages of product exceptions, it also violates the requirement that the tariffs be applied uniformly across products. The lawsuit also includes a claim against U.S. Customs and Border Protection arguing that the agency guidance announcing its implementation of the President’s Proclamation is illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The case is led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. 

California has worked to challenge the President’s illegal tariffs on all fronts. Last year, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. Attorney General Bonta has filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump as well as in the D.C. Circuit in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, cases challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs, and filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump. In addition, he has hosted roundtable discussions in San Francisco and Los Angeles with business leaders on the front lines of the tariff war to discuss the impacts of tariffs on industries across California.

REDDING — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, in partnership with Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett, announced a settlement with a Redding property management company, Property Upsurge, and its property-owning affiliates. The settlement resolves allegations that Property Upsurge, which manages approximately 1,300 rental units across Northern California, improperly issued eviction notices, imposed rent increases above what state law allows, and charged higher rents to tenants using Section 8 vouchers, among other egregious conduct in violation of California law. As part of the settlement, Property Upsurge must pay $550,000 to tenants and provide an additional $200,000 in debt relief, pay $50,000 in civil penalties, and take specific actions to ensure compliance with injunctive terms. 

“Forcing families out of their homes, charging illegal rent, and targeting vulnerable tenants is not just unjust, it's unlawful,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Every Californian, in every corner of our state, deserves housing that is safe, stable, and reliable. Today’s settlement and my office’s tenant protection work proves that if landlords or property managers, no matter how small or large, violate tenant protections laws, my office will come knocking. I thank the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office, Legal Services of Northern California, and City of Redding’s Code Enforcement Division for their assistance with this investigation.”

“This resolution reflects our strong partnership with state and local agencies and our commitment to protecting residents of Shasta County,” said Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie A. Bridgett. “We will continue working to address unlawful business practices and help ensure tenants are treated fairly under the law.”

In 2023, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) launched an investigation into Property Upsurge, in partnership with the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office. The investigation revealed that Property Upsurge, which is a major property owner and management company in Redding’s lower-to mid-cost rental market, had violated the California Tenant Protection Act, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, state tenant protection laws governing habitability and liquidated damages, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Violations included issuing pretextual eviction notices, imposing rent increases above what state law allows, charging fees without engaging in the required liquidated-damages analysis, engaging in localized habitability violations, and charging higher rents to tenants using Section 8 vouchers, in violation of California's civil rights laws.

Under today’s settlement, which is subject to court approval, Property Upsurge is required to:

• Pay $550,000 to tenant victims, provide an additional $200,000 in debt relief, and pay $50,000 in civil penalties, which will be split between the state and Shasta County and used for the enforcement of consumer protection laws.
• Comply with the Tenant Protection Act’s substantial-remodel eviction process requirements.
• Design and implement new policies and procedures for tracking and reviewing rent increases to ensure that they are in line with state law, and train employees on these changes.
• Complete an annual compliance audit covering all rent increases for the next three years.
• Cease charging three-day notice fees entirely, engage an expert to conduct an analysis to support any late fees charged by the company, and limit those fees to the actual costs resulting from late payments of rent.
• Respond to all tenant complaints within a reasonable time, not to exceed three business days, and as immediately as possible for conditions affecting life, safety, health, and immediate well-being of residents.
• Report code enforcement citations and information on tenant complaints to DOJ and the District Attorney. 
• Rent units at the same rate regardless of whether tenants pay with government vouchers.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting the rights of tenants across California. Last year, Attorney General Bonta and nine other attorneys general, announced a $7 million settlement with Greystar Management Services LLC to prevent the use of software that uses sensitive information to align rent prices. He also secured a $495,000 settlement with Mission Rock Residential California, Inc. resolving allegations that the company had raised rent for 140 families in excess of the Tenant Protection Act’s rent cap.

Members of the public are encouraged to visit DOJ’s Housing Portal and HCD’s website for more resources and information aimed at supporting access to housing. If you believe your landlord has violated the law, you can file a report online at www.oag.ca.gov/report. Tenants who need legal help are encouraged to visit www.lawhelpca.org to find legal aid resources in their communities.