Consumer Protection

Potential victims of xAI can file a complaint at oag.ca.gov/report

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced opening an investigation into the proliferation of nonconsensual sexually explicit material produced using Grok, an AI model developed by xAI. xAI appears to be facilitating the large-scale production of deepfake nonconsensual intimate images that are being used to harass women and girls across the internet, including via the social media platform X. 

“The avalanche of reports detailing the non-consensual, sexually explicit material that xAI has produced and posted online in recent weeks is shocking. This material, which depicts women and children in nude and sexually explicit situations, has been used to harass people across the internet. I urge xAI to take immediate action to ensure this goes no further. We have zero tolerance for the AI-based creation and dissemination of nonconsensual intimate images or of child sexual abuse material,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, my office formally announces an investigation into xAI to determine whether and how xAI violated the law. As the top law enforcement official of California tasked with protecting our residents, I am deeply concerned with this development in AI and will use all the tools at my disposal to keep California’s residents safe.”

Over the past weeks there have been numerous news reports of Grok users taking ordinary images of women and children available on the internet and using Grok to depict these people in suggestive and sexually explicit scenarios and “undress” them, all without the subjects’ knowledge or consent. xAI developed Grok’s image generation models to include what the company calls a “spicy mode,” which generates explicit content. The company has used this mode as a marketing point for the company, and it has unsurprisingly resulted in the proliferation of content that sexualizes people without their consent.

Grok-generated images are being used to harass public figures and ordinary social media users alike. Most alarmingly, news reports have described the use of Grok to alter images of children to depict them in minimal clothing and sexual situations. xAI has also reportedly produced photorealistic images of children engaged in sexual activity. Use of Grok for these purposes appears to be happening on a large scale. According to one analysis, more than half of the 20,000 images generated by xAI between Christmas and New Years depicted people in minimal clothing, and some of those appeared to be children. 

Attorney General Bonta is deeply concerned about the harms of chatbots and remains committed to ensuring AI safety, especially when it comes to protecting California’s children. This is an area where he has been very involved, including by supporting state legislation aiming to protect children from AI companion chatbots and by directly engaging with AI companies.  

In September, Attorney General Bonta and Delaware Attorney General Jennings met with OpenAI expressing their deep concern over increased reports of how OpenAI’s products interact with young people. In August, AG Bonta sent a letter to 12 of the top AI companies, after reports of sexually inappropriate interactions between AI chatbots and children. In the letter, the attorneys general make it clear to the companies that states throughout the nation are paying close attention to how companies craft their policies surrounding AI safety and highlight that as entities that benefit from children’s engagement with their products, these companies have a legal obligation to children as consumers. In 2023, Attorney General Bonta joined a bipartisan coalition of 54 states and territories in sending a letter to Congressional leaders  calling for the creation of an expert commission to study how AI can be used to exploit children through child sexual abuse material (CSAM). 

Attorney General Bonta has time and time again defended California's right to protect residents from risks posed by AI technology. He is proud to have opposed the first proposal for an AI regulation ban — which Congress ultimately struck down — and remains committed to defending our state's laws amid the Trump Administration's attempts to hobble states' right to protect their residents and foster safe AI technology.

Settlement doubled in value after AG Bonta demanded a better deal for consumers

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today commended the preliminary approval of a new class action settlement and related resolution of claims by the attorneys general that, if approved by the court, will require Capital One to provide $425 million in restitution and better interest rates for its 360 Savings customers who were cheated out of higher interest payments on their savings accounts for years. Last year, Attorney General Bonta joined a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in opposing an earlier proposed class action settlement that did not deliver enough for Capital One customers who were wronged. This new settlement more than doubles the value of the earlier one. The resolution, preliminarily approved this week, includes an order resolving related claims by California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island, giving those states the authority to enforce payment of consumer relief, and stopping Capital One from making false or deceptive statements or otherwise violating state consumer protection laws pertaining to interest rates provided by the bank’s deposit accounts. This resolution follows the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) dismissal of a related enforcement action against the company and underscores the value of continued attorney general enforcement efforts in the wake of the Trump Administration’s cuts to the CFPB. 

“Capital One misled consumers through false marketing and a lack of transparency regarding its savings account system, cheating consumers nationwide. Given an opportunity to make loyal customers whole, Capital One sank their teeth in even more, attempting to underpay people it harmed and continue its deceptive practices," said Attorney General Bonta. "My office proudly stepped in and called this out for what it was: unacceptable and hopelessly inadequate. California consumers deserve a fair deal and someone fighting in their corner. We celebrate a settlement of more than double what was initially brought to the table. I thank my friend and colleague, New York Attorney General Letitia James, for leading this effort and taking further action to hold Capital One accountable.”

Capital One marketed its 360 Savings accounts as “high interest” accounts with “one of the nation’s best savings rates” that would earn its customers more than an average savings account. However, while interest rates rose nationwide beginning in 2022, Capital One kept the interest rates for its 360 Savings accounts artificially low. This saved Capital One nearly $3 billion in interest. Instead, Capital One created “360 Performance Savings,” a nearly identical type of savings account that provided much higher interest rates than 360 Savings — at one point, more than 14 times higher.

In September, Attorney General Bonta joined a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus brief opposing a proposed class action settlement that would have shortchanged 360 Savings customers. The proposed settlement would have delivered less than $300 million in restitution payments and $125 million in future additional interest payments while allowing Capital One to continue to underpay 360 Savings customers’ interest. After Attorney General Bonta and the coalition raised objections to this settlement, the court rejected it.

Capital One has now agreed to a new settlement that would deliver substantially more for 360 Savings customers. The settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the court this week, will require Capital One to pay $425 million in restitution. The settlement will also require Capital One to match 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings interest rates, erasing the misleading two-tiered system of accounts and providing an estimated $530 million to consumers nationwide in future additional interest.

Rolling back oversight risks financial calamity, repeating conditions that led to Great Recession

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing a comment letter strongly opposing a proposed rule from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that would significantly limit federal banking regulators’ authority to supervise banks and enforce banking laws. The proposed rule undermines vital consumer protections and effectively abandons the federal government’s responsibility to police unsafe or risky conduct from banks, especially at a time when the U.S. is experiencing new financial products and innovations. This proposal continues the Trump Administration’s attempt to shirk its responsibility to protect Americans and leave consumers on their own to fend off potentially harmful actions from their banks. 

“Proactive and robust supervision of banks is crucial for our nation’s financial health and to protect the millions of Americans who rely on our financial system. Now, the Trump Administration is attempting to remove enforcement tools from the regulators who ensure that the banks where we keep our savings and deposit our checks are acting responsibly,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration is ignoring the lessons of the Great Recession, making the same mistakes that nearly crashed our economy and upended the lives of Americans nationwide. Weakening supervision over banks is indefensible and puts working people and our economy at serious risk — I urge the Administration to reverse course.”  

Less than 20 years after the Great Recession, active supervision of state and national banks remains essential to keep U.S. financial markets safe and stable. The purpose of bank supervision is to promote a safe, sound, and efficient banking system that supports a strong economy. The purpose is not to protect the banks themselves; rather, it is to protect Americans who rely on banks for deposit, safekeeping, and transmissions of money. Effective bank supervision includes identifying and addressing weaknesses before they threaten the financial stability of banks and possibly spread through the financial system. For example, recent bank supervision identified issues with potentially illegal overdraft fees and led to consumer refunds of nearly $250 million.  

The proposed rule scraps this proactive approach and continues the Trump Administration’s abandonment of consumer protection work, this time by giving up the responsibility of monitoring and identifying unsafe or risky behavior at the country’s largest financial institutions. 

In the letter, the attorneys general argue that the proposed rule should be dismantled because it:

• Unwinds banking protections put in place by Congress to ensure federal banking regulators address significant consumer protection issues.  
• Undermines effective supervision by abandoning, without justification, a proactive approach for one in which banking regulators cannot issue supervisory warnings for practices that could result in bank or consumer harm. 
• Prohibits banking regulators from looking at significant threats that are not yet imminent, including the rapid rise of new financial products and structures, like cryptocurrency and crypto-adjacent products; private credit offered by hedge funds, private equity firms, and other nonbanks; and the enormous investment to support ongoing development of artificial intelligence.

In submitting the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting consumers in the financial marketplace. Last week, he filed a lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) unlawful decision not to fund the agency’s operations, preventing it from performing legally mandated functions. Shortly after taking office, the Trump Administration launched a campaign of destruction and systemic shuttering of the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide. Attorney General Bonta has been an outspoken critic amid these attempts 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 October, the CFPB prematurely terminated the consent order that documented its settlement with Citibank for allegedly discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants in Southern California, sending a strong message of the Trump Administration’s abandonment of these critical protections for consumers. Attorney General Bonta responded by issuing a consumer alert reminding consumers and lenders that credit discrimination is illegal under both California and federal law and sending a letter to the Trump Administration opposing their plan to eliminate critical rules that help fight discrimination.  

In March, Attorney General Bonta issued a statement after Congress overturned a CFPB rule that would have limited overdraft fees to $5. Typically, banks charge $35 for an overdraft. The rule was expected to have saved Americans billions of dollars each year. 

In April 2024, he supported a rule that would close a regulatory loophole that enables banks to extract billions of dollars from consumers by charging overdraft fees without adequately disclosing basic credit terms. And in February 2024, he warned smaller banks and credit unions that overdraft fees disproportionately penalize lower-income consumers and consumers of color, and may violate consumer protection laws.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert following the Governor’s declaration of a state of emergency in response to powerful winter storms. A series of atmospheric rivers has brought high-intensity rainfall and strong winds statewide to already saturated soils, heightening the risk of rapidly rising creeks and rivers, flooding, landslides, and debris flows — especially to recently burned areas. In today’s alert, Attorney General Bonta reminds all Californians that price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal under Penal Code Section 396. Californians who believe they have been the victim of price gouging should report it to their local authorities or to the Attorney General at oag.ca.gov/report. To view a list of all price gouging restrictions currently in effect as a result of proclamations by the Governor, please visit the Governor's Office of Emergency Services Price Gouging webpage. 

“As incoming heavy rain and strong winds increase the risk of flooding and landslides, I urge Californians up and down the state to listen to communication from officials and keep safe — especially if you have travel plans this holiday season. California’s price gouging law protects people impacted by an emergency from illegal price gouging on housing, gas, food, and other essential supplies,” said Attorney General Bonta. “If you see price gouging — or if you've been the victim of it — I encourage you to immediately file a complaint with my office online at oag.ca.gov/report or contact your local police department or sheriff’s office.” 

California law generally prohibits charging a price that exceeds, by more than 10%, the price a seller charged for an item before a state or local declaration of emergency. For items a seller only began selling after an emergency declaration, the law generally prohibits charging a price that exceeds the seller's cost of the item by more than 50%. This law applies to those who sell food, emergency supplies, medical supplies, building materials, and gasoline. The law also applies to repair or reconstruction services, emergency cleanup services, transportation, freight and storage services, hotel accommodations, and rental housing. Exceptions to this prohibition exist if, for example, the price of labor, goods, or materials has increased for the business.

Violations of the price gouging statute are misdemeanors that are subject to criminal prosecution that can result in imprisonment and/or a fine. They can also result in civil enforcement actions, including civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, injunctive relief, and restitution. The Attorney General and local district attorneys and city prosecutors can enforce the statute.

Settlement includes additional compensation for theft-related costs to eligible consumers, free installation of anti-theft update on vulnerable vehicles 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, joined a bipartisan coalition of 36 attorneys general, announced a settlement with Kia America (Kia), Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai), and affiliated entities for selling millions of cars that contained significant security weaknesses, including a lack of industry-standard, anti-theft technology. These security failures made Hyundai and Kia vehicles easy to hotwire and steal, resulting in a surge of car thefts and joyriding across the country that continues to threaten public safety to this day. The settlement resolves allegations that the companies violated federal motor vehicle safety standards and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Under the proposed settlement, which is pending court review and approval, Hyundai and Kia have agreed to equip all future vehicles sold in the United States with appropriate anti-theft technology and offer ignition cylinder sleeve anti-theft updates, free of charge, to owners or lessees of eligible vehicles. The cylinder sleeve is a physical anti-theft device that prevents vehicle theft by the popular hotwiring method. The settlement also requires Hyundai and Kia to pay additional restitution to eligible consumers whose cars are damaged by thieves.

“Today, my office announced a settlement with Kia and Hyundai for failing to equip millions of cars with industry-standard, anti-theft technology. This led to an epidemic of car thefts that threatened public safety and disrupted the lives of Californians — and it was illegal,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My office stepped in, and as part of our settlement, Hyundai and Kia will install a free security update and further compensate eligible consumers who had their cars damaged by thieves. Cars are often one of the largest purchases a family will ever make — Californians shouldn’t have to worry that manufacturers are cutting corners that could put their purchase at risk.” 

From 2011 to 2022, Kia and Hyundai manufactured and sold cars with easily bypassed ignition locks and without anti-theft devices called engine immobilizers that were a standard feature in almost every other new car manufactured during that period, including the same Hyundai and Kia models sold in Canada and Europe. An engine immobilizer prevents thieves from starting a vehicle’s engine without the vehicle’s “smart” key, which stores the vehicle’s electronic security code. On social media, thieves shared videos demonstrating that even teenagers could exploit the security vulnerability to hotwire Hyundai and Kia cars and challenged others to steal them too. And steal they did: In Los Angeles, for instance, thefts of Hyundai and Kia cars increased by approximately 85% in 2022 and constituted approximately 20% of stolen cars in Los Angeles in 2022, up from 13% in 2021. In 2024, Hyundai and Kia models were the first, second, and fifth most commonly stolen vehicles nationwide. 

The preventable crisis posed a serious threat to public safety and placed higher demands on California’s law enforcement and other first responders. Not only did the number of thefts and attempted thefts of Hyundai and Kia vehicles explode, but many of the stolen vehicles were used in connection with other crimes and were involved in traffic collisions, some fatal. As a result of the security weakness in the vehicles, California consumers have had their vehicles stolen or rendered unusable, incurring significant costs for repairs, towing, and insurance deductibles, and costs associated with alternative transportation. Additionally, because of the security weakness, the resale value of their vehicles has plummeted. 

Hyundai and Kia were slow to respond to the crisis, waiting until 2023 to launch a service campaign to update the software on most of the affected vehicles. While the companies claimed that the software update was effective at preventing the viral theft method, the states alleged that the software update could be — and in fact was — easily bypassed by thieves, and pressed Hyundai and Kia to do more to protect consumers and their communities. 

Under the settlement announced today, Hyundai and Kia have agreed to:

• Equip all future vehicles sold in the United States with industry-standard, engine immobilizer anti-theft technology;
• Offer free zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protectors to owners or lessees of eligible vehicles, including vehicles that previously were only eligible for the companies’ software updates;
• Provide up to $4.5 million in additional restitution to eligible consumers whose cars are damaged by thieves; and
• Pay $4.5 million to the states to defray the costs of the investigation.

Eligible consumers will be notified by the companies that they will have one year from the date of the notice to make an appointment to have the zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protector installed at their local Hyundai or Kia authorized dealerships. Attorney General Bonta urges eligible consumers to schedule the installation of the zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protector as soon as possible.

Consumers who previously received the software update on their vehicles (or were scheduled to do so) but nonetheless experienced a theft or attempted theft of their vehicle on or after April 29, 2025, are eligible to file a claim for compensation for certain theft and attempted-theft related expenses. This compensation is in addition to the monetary payment Hyundai and Kia agreed to provide through a private consumer class action. 

For more information about eligibility and how to submit a claim for compensation, please visit: www.HKMultistateimmobilizersettlement.com

In securing the settlement, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada,  Washington, Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Please see here for a copy of the complaint, and a copy of the proposed judgment. 

No going back — everyone deserves fair access to credit

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in sending a comment letter opposing the Trump Administration's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) proposed rule that would remove or change several provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) regulations, effectively eliminating critical antidiscrimination tools. The provisions in question prohibit lenders from discriminating against applicants based on personal characteristics when evaluating, approving, or setting the terms of credit. In the letter, the attorneys general request that CFPB withdraw the rule, arguing that these provisions are consistent with the statutory purpose of ECOA and are still necessary in today’s credit market.

"The federal government is seeking to reverse decades of established rules that prevent discrimination in the credit industry despite there being continued clear examples of ongoing discriminatory treatment by credit and lending institutions," said Attorney General Bonta. "Eliminating these safeguards would leave people more vulnerable to unfair treatment, financial harm, and opaque lending practices. Everyone, no matter their background, race, age, sex, or religion, deserves fair and transparent access to credit. Credit should not be a privilege, but a right for economic opportunity. We urge the CFPB to withdraw these proposed rules that will create insurmountable barriers to enforcing antidiscrimination statutes."

What is Credit Discrimination?

Credit discrimination is when a lender makes a decision about offering or denying credit based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, military or veteran status, because they receive public assistance, or based on another impermissible basis. Credit discrimination can manifest in various ways, such as consumers being discouraged from applying for credit, being offered less favorable terms such as higher interest rates or higher fees, or being refused credit despite meeting requirements, because of the factors listed above.

People use credit to take out student loans, open businesses, and buy cars and homes. Building credit helps consumers to build a better future for themselves and future generations. Credit discrimination prevents people from having access to these opportunities and can make credit more expensive.

The Federal Government's Proposal

On November 13, 2025, the CFPB published a proposed amendment to ECOA regulations that would undermine protections against credit/loan application discouragement; severely restrict special purpose credit programs offered by for-profit organizations; and remove the ability to claim disparate impact to demonstrate discrimination. Disparate-impact discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral policy or action causes a disproportionate and unjustified negative harm to a group based on a characteristic like race or marital status. These provisions have been in place for decades and were originally designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, and age in the credit and lending industry. These provisions are imperative to combatting credit and lending discrimination.

In the comment letter, the attorneys general argue that amendments to provisions regarding disparate impact and discouragement violate the Administrative Procedure Act and undermine ECOA. The attorneys general further argue that proposed amendments to the disparate impact provisions should be withdrawn because:

• Contrary to the position taken by the CFPB in the proposal, a proper reading of ECOA compels the conclusion that the statute authorizes a disparate impact theory of liability.
• The proposal erroneously and without any factual basis assumes that in the absence of disparate impact liability, consumers will still enjoy the broad protections against discrimination that ECOA was enacted to provide.
• Disparate impact liability is an entirely lawful mechanism for enforcing antidiscrimination statutes that provide for this theory of liability.

The attorneys general additionally argue that proposed amendments to the discouragement provisions should be withdrawn because:

• The proposed changes to the discouragement regulations are unlawful.
• The proposed revisions will harm consumers and state enforcement efforts.
• Imposing these harms based solely on unproven speculation is arbitrary and capricious.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta issued a consumer alert reminding Californians that discrimination is still illegal under state and federal law, following CFPB’s premature termination of a consent order that documented its settlement with Citibank for allegedly discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants in Southern California, sending a strong message of the Trump Administration’s abandonment of these critical protections for consumers.

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert following the Governor’s declaration of a state of emergency in response to increased risk of debris flow due to incoming rain and snow in areas affected by the Pack Fire in Mono County. The Pack Fire ignited on November 13 near Lake Crowley in the eastern Sierra Nevada, and was fully contained on December 3, destroying 30 residential and commercial structures and damaging six others. In today’s alert, Attorney General Bonta reminds all Californians that price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal under Penal Code Section 396. Californians who believe they have been the victim of price gouging should report it to their local authorities or to the Attorney General at oag.ca.gov/report. To view a list of all price gouging restrictions currently in effect as a result of proclamations by the Governor, please visit the Governor's Office of Emergency Services Price Gouging webpage. 

“As incoming precipitation and snowfall threatens to increase the risk of debris flow from the Pack Fire, I urge Californians who reside in Mono County to listen to communication from officials and keep safe. California’s price gouging law protects people impacted by an emergency from illegal price gouging on housing, gas, food, and other essential supplies,” said Attorney General Bonta. “If you see price gouging — or if you've been the victim of it — I encourage you to immediately file a complaint with my office online at oag.ca.gov/report or contact your local police department or sheriff’s office.” 

California law generally prohibits charging a price that exceeds, by more than 10%, the price a seller charged for an item before a state or local declaration of emergency. For items a seller only began selling after an emergency declaration, the law generally prohibits charging a price that exceeds the seller's cost of the item by more than 50%. This law applies to those who sell food, emergency supplies, medical supplies, building materials, and gasoline. The law also applies to repair or reconstruction services, emergency cleanup services, transportation, freight and storage services, hotel accommodations, and rental housing. Exceptions to this prohibition exist if, for example, the price of labor, goods, or materials has increased for the business.

Violations of the price gouging statute are misdemeanors that are subject to criminal prosecution that can result in imprisonment and/or a fine. They can also result in civil enforcement actions, including civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, injunctive relief, and restitution. The Attorney General and local district attorneys and city prosecutors can enforce the statute.

Attorney General Bonta continues waging war on robocalls — announces investigation of four major voice service providers, gives update on ongoing robocall enforcement efforts

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced Phase 2 of Operation Robocall Roundup, a multistate, bipartisan effort by the Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force to crack down on robocalls around the country. As part of this phase, Attorney General Bonta and 51 attorneys general have sent warning letters to four of the largest voice service providers in the U.S., demanding they immediately take action to stop illegal robocalls from being routed through their networks. In August, Attorney General Bonta and the Task Force commenced Phase 1 of Operation Robocall, sending warning letters to 37 smaller voice providers that were allowing suspected illegal robocalls onto the U.S. telephone network — an effort that has already delivered results. Phase 2 targets companies with far larger footprints in the U.S. telecom ecosystem. As larger providers, these companies have a heightened responsibility to decline call traffic from known and repeat bad actors. Despite extensive industry traceback notices and years of documented warnings, these four providers continue to route suspected illegal robocalls onto the network and into American homes. 

“Robocalls disrupt our lives and bombard us with never ending voicemails — for many Californians, robocalls are a daily, if not an hourly, source of frustration. These calls aren’t just annoying, in many cases they are illegal and a vehicle for harmful scams that can result in real financial losses for consumers. This is a nationwide problem, and we need nationwide solutions,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I am proud to continue in this national, bipartisan effort to protect consumers from unwanted robocalls by launching Phase 2 of Operation Robocall Roundup. The four companies targeted today are continuing to transmit millions of suspected illegal robocalls. My office is committed to protecting Californians and tackling illegal robocalls that plague our phones, disrupt our days, and threaten our wallets.” 

The four providers targeted in today’s operation (see chart below) have been directed to stop transmitting suspected illegal robocalls across their network. By disregarding notices and warnings meant to protect consumers, these companies have allowed robocalls onto their phone networks and have then passed these calls on to other downstream providers until they reach the phones of Californians. The chart below includes data points illustrating the suspected illegal robocall activity of each of the four service providers targeted today, including the estimated number of Social Security Administration (SSA) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) imposter calls which these companies allowed on their networks.

Operation Robocall Roundup Phase 2: Scope of Suspected Illegal Robocall Activity

*for specific time periods, please see the warning letters linked above.

Operation Robocall Phase 1 is Delivering Results:

After sending warning letters to 37 companies in August, the Task Force saw rapid, measurable changes:

• 13 companies were removed from the FCC’s Robocall Mitigation Database, meaning no provider in the United States may accept their call traffic.
• 19 companies stopped appearing in any traceback results, indicating they ceased routing suspected illegal robocalls.
• At least four providers terminated high-risk customer accounts identified as transmitting illegal traffic.

The Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force of 51 bipartisan attorneys general investigates and takes legal action against those responsible for routing significant volumes of illegal robocall traffic into and across the United States.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to enforcing consumer protections in the state of California and speaking out for consumer protections nationwide, including working to a stop to illegal robocalls. In April, Attorney General Bonta put nine companies on notice for submitting illegal robocall traffic. And in March, he submitted an amicus brief in support of a FCC rule which would have limited unwanted robocalls and robotexts by closing a loophole that bad-acting lead generators try to use to trick a consumer into “consenting” to calls from potentially thousands of companies.

As part of the effort to combat illegal robocall traffic Attorney General Bonta has: 

• Sent warning letters to four telecom companies for transmitting suspected illegal robocall traffic on their networks — including robocalls that impersonated government officials or involved scams.
• Submitted a comment letter to the FCC in support of its proposed rules to protect consumers by increasing the effectiveness of the FCC’s Robocall Mitigation Database.
• Sent a warning letter to a telecom company responsible for transmitting suspected illegal robocall traffic, including robocalls that impersonated government officials. 
• Sent a warning letter to a company that allegedly sent New Hampshire residents scam election robocalls during the New Hampshire primary election. 
• Filed a comment letter to the FCC related to the potential impact of emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technology on efforts to protect consumers from illegal robocalls or robotexts. 

Additionally, the California Department of Justice is involved in ongoing litigation against Avid Telecom for allegedly initiating and facilitating billions of unlawful robocalls that included Social Security Administration scams, Medicare scams, and employment scams.   

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert reminding consumers and lenders that credit discrimination remains illegal, under both California law and federal law. In October, as part of the Trump Administration’s continued gutting of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the CFPB prematurely terminated the consent order that documented its settlement with Citibank for allegedly discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants in Southern California, sending a strong message of the Trump Administration’s abandonment of these critical protections for consumers. 

“Credit discrimination remains illegal in California and throughout the United States. The Trump Administration’s premature termination of the settlement with Citibank for discriminating against Armenian-American applicants in California is alarming and no doubt another sign of the Bureau abandoning its obligation to protect the American people from unfair treatment by big corporations,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This, however, is not a sign that no one is looking. Let me be very clear: I will use the force of my office against financial institutions that deny brighter financial futures to Californians on the basis of their sex, race, religion or any protected characteristics.”

What is Credit Discrimination?

Credit discrimination is when a lender makes a decision about offering or denying credit based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, military or veteran status, because they receive public assistance, or based on another impermissible basis. Credit discrimination can manifest in various ways, such as consumers being discouraged from applying for credit, being offered less favorable terms such as higher interest rates or higher fees, or being refused credit despite meeting requirements, because of the factors listed above. 

People use credit to take out student loans, open businesses, and buy cars and homes. Building credit helps consumers to build a better future for themselves and future generations. Credit discrimination prevents people from having access to these opportunities and can make credit more expensive.

The Legal Bits: Federal and State Laws Banning Credit Discrimination

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination by banks, lenders, credit card companies, and other lenders and financial institutions. 

The federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits financial institutions from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance, and other protected characteristics in all aspects of credit transactions, including applications, approvals, and terms and conditions. (15 U.S.C. section 1691 et seq.)

Similarly, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, age, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, gender, or gender identity, as well as other protected characteristics by any business providing services in the state. (See Cal. Civ. Code section 51 et seq.) In addition to prohibiting discrimination in credit transactions, the Unruh Act prohibits banks, lenders, credit card companies, financial institutions, and other businesses from discrimination in any and all services that the business may provide.

California law also offers specific protections against discrimination in lending for housing finance. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, any financial institution that provides financial assistance for the purchase, organization, or construction of any housing accommodation is prohibited from discriminating in the terms or conditions of financing on the basis of protected characteristics, including but not limited to race, color, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, source of income, veteran or military status, and genetic information. (See Cal. Gov’t Code section 12955, subd. (e).) Likewise, California’s Holden Act provides similar protections against discriminatory practices in housing finance. (See Bus. & Prof. Code section 35800 et seq.). And California's Military and Veterans Code prohibits discriminatory practices targeting members of the armed forces. (See Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code section 394).

Report It!

People who believe that they have been denied services or discriminated against because of a protected characteristic, and whistleblowers with information regarding potential violations of state or federal fair lending laws, can file a complaint with:

• The California Attorney General’s Office: oag.ca.gov/report
• The California Civil Rights Department: calcivilrights.ca.gov
• The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation:  dfpi.ca.gov/submit-a-complaint/

Company failed to offer consumers methods to opt-out of the sale of their personal information

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement with Jam City, Inc. (Jam City), resolving allegations that the mobile app gaming company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to offer consumers methods to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their personal information across its popular gaming apps. Jam City creates games for mobile platforms, including games based on popular franchises such as Frozen, Harry Potter, and Family Guy. In addition to $1.4 million in civil penalties, under today's settlement, Jam City must provide in-app methods for consumers to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data and must not sell or share the personal information of consumers at least 13 and less than 16 years old without their affirmative “opt-in” consent.

“Many Californians like to unwind after a long day by gaming on their cell phones. Even on apps, California law obligates companies to provide a way for consumers to opt-out of the sale and sharing of their personal data,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This process should be simple, transparent, and easy to navigate. My office is committed to the continued enforcement of the CCPA — including by ensuring that mobile gaming companies follow the law so consumers can exercise their right to protect their privacy.”  

Jam City generates revenue, in part, through disclosing personal information for advertising. Jam City and its ad-tech partners use information obtained from consumers to display personalized ads within Jam City games. Despite collecting and sharing consumer personal information nearly exclusively through its mobile games, the California Department of Justice’s investigation found Jam City did not offer CCPA compliant opt-outs in any of its 21 mobile apps. The investigation also found some Jam City games shared or sold the data of children between the age of 13 to 16 without the affirmative consent required by the CCPA. Under the CCPA, minors under the age of 16 are afforded special protections for the sale of their data. 

The CCPA is a landmark law that secures increased privacy rights for California consumers, such as the right to know how businesses collect, share, and disclose their personal information. The 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 their personal information. To learn more about opting out, please see here. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to the robust enforcement California’s nation-leading privacy law. In March, the CCPA investigative sweep into the location data industry involved sending letters to advertising networks, mobile app providers, and data brokers that appear to be in violation of the CCPA. Attorney General Bonta has conducted investigative sweeps related to location data, streaming apps and devices, and employee information.

Today’s settlement represents the sixth enforcement action under the CCPA. 

Last month, Attorney General Bonta secured a settlement with streaming service, Sling TV, resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA by failing to provide an easy-to-use method for consumers to stop the sale of their personal information and by failing to provide sufficient privacy protections for children. 

In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta announced a $1,550,000 settlement with website publisher Healthline Media LLC, resolving allegations that its use of online tracking technology on its health information website violated the CCPA by failing to allow customers to opt-out of targeted advertising and sharing data with third parties without CCPA-mandated privacy protections — including data suggesting that a person may have a serious health condition. In June 2024, Attorney General Bonta and Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto announced a $500,000 settlement with Tilting Point Media LLC resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA and federal law by collecting and sharing children’s data without parental consent in their popular mobile app game “SpongeBob: Krusty Cook-Off.”  In February 2024, Attorney General Bonta announced a settlement with DoorDash, resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA and COPPA by selling California customers’ personal information without providing notice or an opportunity to opt out of that sale. In August 2022, the Attorney General announced a settlement with Sephora resolving allegations that it failed to disclose to consumers that it was selling their personal information and failed to process opt-out requests via user-enabled global privacy controls in violation of the CCPA. 

For more information about the CCPA, visit oag.ca.gov/ccpa. To report a violation of the CCPA to the Attorney General, consumers can submit a complaint online at oag.ca.gov/report.

A copy of the complaint is available here. A copy of the judgment is available here.