Consumer Protection

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a $93 million settlement with Google resolving allegations that its location-privacy practices violated California consumer protection laws. The settlement follows a multi-year investigation by the California Department of Justice that determined Google was deceiving users by collecting, storing, and using their location data for consumer profiling and advertising purposes without informed consent. In addition to paying $93 million, Google has agreed to accept strong injunctive terms to deter future misconduct. 

“Our investigation revealed that Google was telling its users one thing – that it would no longer track their location once they opted out – but doing the opposite and continuing to track its users’ movements for its own commercial gain. That’s unacceptable, and we’re holding Google accountable with today’s settlement,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I want to thank my Consumer Protection Section for their work on this matter and for securing important privacy safeguards on behalf of all Californians.”

Based in Mountain View, California, Google generates the majority of its revenue from advertising, and location-based advertising (or geotargeted advertising) is a critical feature of Google’s advertising platform because advertisers want the ability to market to users based on their geographical locations. Google also uses their location data to build behavioral profiles of users to help determine which ads to serve users. 

In a complaint filed with the proposed stipulated judgment, Attorney General Bonta alleges that Google deceived users in numerous ways regarding how it collected, stored, and used a person’s location data. For example, the complaint alleges that Google falsely told users that if they turned off the “Location History” setting, then Google would not store their location data. However, according to the complaint, even when a user turned Location History off, Google continued to collect and store that user’s location data through other sources. The complaint also alleges that Google deceived users about their ability to opt out of advertisements targeted to their location. 

Under the settlement, Google must pay the state $93 million and be subject to a number of injunctive terms that will protect the privacy interests of California users, including requirements that Google:

• Show additional information to users when enabling location-related account settings.
• Provide more transparency about location tracking.
• Provide users with detailed information about the location data that Google collects and how it is used through a “Location Technologies” webpage.
• Disclose to users that their location information may be used for ads personalization.
• Disclose to users before using Location History data to build ad targeting profiles for users.
• Obtain review by Google’s internal Privacy Working Group and document approval for all material changes to location-setting and ads personalization disclosures that will have a material impact on privacy. 

A copy of the complaint and proposed stipulated judgment, which details the aforementioned settlement terms and remains subject to court approval, can be found here and here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today 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 artificial intelligence (AI) can and is being used to exploit children through child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The coalition asks that the expert commission propose legislation to protect children from those abuses. As the U.S. Department of Justice notes, “The production of CSAM creates a permanent record of the child’s victimization.”

“Artificial intelligence is ushering extraordinary advances in healthcare and other sectors throughout the world. But it is also a tool that poses risks — risks that we need to tackle head-on. Among other concerns, AI can be used to threaten the safety and well-being of our children. I won’t stand for that,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As a father, and as the People’s Attorney, I’m proud to join this nationwide, bipartisan coalition in calling on Congress to do more to protect our kids. We have zero tolerance for child sexual abuse of any sort.”  

The attorneys general write that:

• AI can be used to exploit children, including by identifying their location and mimicking their voices. For example, with only a short recording of a person’s voice, AI tools can clone the voice and use it to say things the person never actually said. Indeed, scammers have even been able to use AI to aid in fake kidnappings.  
• Most troublingly, AI tools can create “deepfakes” of children. Deepfakes are fake images or videos that seem real. Among other things, AI can be used to study real photographs of abused children and generate new images showing those children in sexual positions, or to overlay photographs of otherwise unvictimized children on the internet with photographs of abused children to create new abusive content involving both children.
• While Congress is aware of the threats posed by AI generally, the safety of children should not fall through the cracks. 

Attorney General Rob Bonta is committed to protecting the safety and well-being of children, and to ensuring that AI tools are responsibly developed and regulated. In August 2023, he announced 22 arrests as part of “Operation Bad Barbie” in Kern County, which targeted adults seeking to sexually exploit children by using undercover agents and detectives posing as minors offering sex for pay on online websites commonly used by victims of sex trafficking. In June 2023, he joined a bipartisan coalition in submitting a comment letter to call for AI transparency and accountability. In June 2021, he formally launched the Human Trafficking and Sexual Predator Apprehension Teams (HT/SPAT) within the California Department of Justice to take action against human trafficking.

In sending today’s letter to Congressional leaders, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia. Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

A copy of the letter is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement with The Money Source, Inc. (TMS), resolving allegations that the company failed to properly process, and timely grant, mortgage deferment requests made by California military reservists called to active duty. Under the California Military and Veterans Code, including the California Military Families Financial Relief Act (CMFFRA), reservists called to active duty can defer payments on certain financial obligations — including their mortgage, credit cards, property taxes, car loans, utility bills, and student loans — if they submit a written request and a copy of their military orders to the lender or other appropriate entity. Last year, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) received a credible complaint alleging that TMS mishandled a reservist’s mortgage deferment request. Subsequently, DOJ launched an investigation into TMS’s processes for handling mortgage deferment requests. As part of today’s settlement, TMS will pay $58,000 in penalties, fully reimburse the affected reservists, and be subject to injunctive terms. 

“California is proud to have some of the strongest state military consumer protection laws in the country. Today, we are making clear that we won’t hesitate to enforce those protections,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Reservists face unique financial challenges when they are called to active duty and shouldn’t have to worry about mortgage payments as they put their lives on the line for us. Unfortunately, several reservists were still trying to resolve issues with their mortgage servicer, The Money Source, while they were deployed overseas — including to Iraq and Kuwait. I welcome The Money Source’s commitment to ensuring that this doesn’t happen again. One deploying service member who is denied his or her rights is one deploying service member too many.”

In 2018, DOJ sponsored AB 3212, which was authored by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D-Thousand Oaks) and strengthened the CMFFRA upon becoming effective on January 1, 2019. Among other things, AB 3212 requires the prompt processing and response to requests for deferments, interest rate reductions, lease terminations, and other rights that California law provides service members. Any business or other covered person that receives a good faith request from a service member invoking one of these protections is required to provide a written response within 30 days of receiving the request if the business or other person believes the request is incomplete or insufficient or that the service member is not entitled to the relief requested. If that business or person fails to provide such a written response within the 30-day timeframe, the service member is automatically entitled to the relief requested. 

DOJ’s investigation revealed that TMS, on at least 10 occasions, delayed granting CMFFRA deferment requests, requested information for eligibility review beyond the 30-day timeframe to do so, and improperly denied CMFFRA deferment requests. In addition, TMS attempted to collect payment from certain borrowers during the requested deferral period by making collection calls and sending debt collection notices warning of foreclosure if payment was not made. TMS also wrongly imposed late fees or other fees against certain borrowers for the nonpayment of payments that should have been deferred and furnished inaccurate negative credit information to credit reporting agencies. On April 1, 2023, TMS transferred its servicing operations, including all loans, to Allied First Bank, S.B, which does business as Servbank.

Under the terms of the settlement:

• TMS has agreed to pay a total of $58,000 in civil penalties.
• TMS must remediate consumer harm. TMS has largely already addressed harm by retroactively applying the requested deferments, correcting any negative credit reporting, and reversing any fees or penalties. The settlement requires TMS to take any further actions needed to address consumer harm from the covered conduct.
• If TMS fails to request information from borrowers for purposes of eligibility review within 30 days of receiving a CMFFRA deferment request, TMS shall be prohibited from requesting such information from those borrowers, including proof of reduced income, and shall grant and apply the requested deferment no later than 45 days from receipt of the request.
• If TMS engages in mortgage-loan servicing, the company must create, implement, and maintain letter templates that are sent to borrowers regarding the status of their CMFFRA deferment request; and must create, implement, and maintain written policies and procedures that set forth practices sufficient to ensure compliance with the injunctive terms.
• If TMS engages in mortgage-loan servicing, the company must provide annual trainings to all customer-facing employees and employees who handle loans for military members regarding TMS’s obligation and the rights of borrowers under the CMFFRA and other state military consumer protection laws.
• TMS, must for the next three years, provide annual reports to our office documenting compliance with the injunctive terms. 

Attorney General Bonta reminds deploying reservists that they can get additional protections by seeking a court-ordered deferment under another provision of the California Military and Veterans Code. Further, Attorney General Bonta reminds businesses that they must follow the CMFFRA in addition to other state and federal military consumer protection laws. A business that receives a request from a reservist invoking protections provided by the California Military and Veterans Code may request additional information for eligibility review, but must do so within 30 days of receiving the request. If the business fails to do so within the 30-day timeframe, under the expanded protections provided by AB 3212, it waives any objection to the request and the service member is entitled to the requested relief.

California service members have important consumer protections under state and federal law. These protections are in place to ease the stress and burden of financial obligations at home, and to allow the service member to focus on performing their mission and coming home safely. If a service member believes their rights have been violated, they can ask the nearest military legal assistance office for help. For contact information, service members should ask their unit or use the U.S. Armed Forces Legal Services Locator. California National Guard personnel can also contact the office of the State Staff Judge Advocate for help. For more information about the resources available to military consumers, visit https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/military.

A copy of the complaint and judgment, which details the aforementioned settlement terms, can be found here and here.

Relief stems from evidence provided by the California Department of Justice during successful lawsuit brought against the college and its parent company 

OAKLAND – Joined by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, the Biden-Harris Administration today announced the approval of $72 million in borrower defense to repayment discharges for more than 2,300 students who attended Ashford University (Ashford) and applied for relief. Ashford University was an online, for-profit school based in San Diego. The approvals come from a review by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) of evidence presented by the California Department of Justice during a successful lawsuit brought against Ashford University and its parent company, Zovio, Inc. (Zovio), which resulted in a judgment against the company in March 2022. Based upon evidence presented in that lawsuit, which covered the period from March 1, 2009, through April 30, 2020, the Department concluded Ashford and Zovio made numerous substantial misrepresentations during that period that borrowers relied upon to their detriment. The approved claims are from borrowers who enrolled in Ashford during this period and filed applications for borrower defense with allegations corroborated by these findings. Ashford student borrowers who were misled by Ashford and are not benefiting from today’s action can submit an application for relief at https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense. For help with the application, Ashford student borrowers can visit https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense-update.

“What Ashford University did to its students was unconscionable and illegal. That’s why the California Department of Justice took Ashford and its parent company to court. Ultimately, we prevailed, securing more than $22 million in penalties,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I want to thank the Biden-Harris Administration for changing the lives of thousands of former Ashford students today. They have lived a nightmare for too long. I encourage other individuals who took out federal student loans to attend Ashford, and were subject to its deceptive or misleading tactics, to apply for relief from the U.S. Department of Education as soon as possible.”

Borrowers will not have to make any payments on the loans being discharged. The Department will email borrowers who qualified for a borrower defense discharge in September that their applications have been approved. Borrowers will see any remaining loan balances for federal loans zeroed out and credit trade lines deleted. Any payments those borrowers made to the Department on their federal student loans will be refunded. Separately, the Department intends to initiate a recoupment proceeding at a later date to seek repayment of the liabilities associated with these approved claims.

“As the California Department of Justice proved in court, Ashford relied extensively on high-pressure and deceptive recruiting tactics to lure students,” said Under Secretary James Kvaal. “Today we are protecting the students who were cheated by Ashford, and we will also hold the perpetrators accountable, protect taxpayers, and deter future wrongdoing.”

The Department will also review the evidence to examine whether members of Ashford’s management and leadership took actions that violated Federal laws or regulations and threatened the integrity of the federal student financial aid programs. If the evidence shows they did, the Department may pursue appropriate remedies to enforce those rules.

In 2017, the California Department of Justice brought a lawsuit against Ashford and Zovio (which at the time was known as Bridgepoint Education) arguing that the for-profit college and its leadership engaged in numerous practices that misled and deceived prospective Ashford students. That suit led to an 18-day trial that featured nearly two dozen witnesses and more than 1,500 exhibits, plus additional written depositions. 

On March 3, 2022, the court ruled in favor of the California Department of Justice, concluding that Ashford made more than 1.2 million misleading representations to prospective students nationwide and assessing a civil penalty of $22.3 million. As the judgment said, the “Court heard substantial evidence that over the last decade, Defendants created a high-pressure admissions department whose north star was enrollment numbers.” It found that “admissions counselors would cross a ‘gray line’ ethically or ‘do things they wouldn’t normally do’ to boost numbers to keep their jobs.” The court found that executives’ testimony that Ashford “always put students first” lacked credibility. In fact, the court described a “paper trail [showing] that company executives were well aware of [the admissions department’s] fear-based culture.”   

The penalty assessed is the subject of an ongoing appeal, but Zovio did not challenge the court’s findings about the underlying conduct. As established by the court and verified through the Department’s independent review of the evidence, Ashford and Zovio engaged in extensive substantial misrepresentations:

• Ashford recruiters told students they would be able to work as teachers, social workers, nurses, or drug and alcohol counselors. But Ashford never obtained the necessary state approval and/or accreditation for students to enter these professions, meaning students wasted years of their lives and incurred tens of thousands of dollars of debt for degrees they could not use. 
• Ashford recruiters also lied about the cost to attend Ashford, the amount and type of financial aid students would receive, and the amount of debt students would accumulate. For instance, before they had access to borrowers’ financial aid award information some recruiters told prospective students that they would not incur out-of-pocket costs, that every Ashford student qualified for Federal Pell Grants, or that loan payments would be $50–$75 per month. Borrowers later discovered these promises were untrue when, for example, they unexpectedly reached lifetime loan limits during their enrollment, unexpectedly incurred out-of-pocket costs, and were forced to withdraw with debt but no degree. 
• Ashford recruiters misled students about how long it would take to obtain an Ashford degree by stating its bachelor’s programs were “accelerated” or by comparing Ashford’s bachelor’s programs to traditional four-year schools when, in fact, Ashford’s bachelor’s degree programs were structured to take five academic years to complete. 
• Ashford recruiters misled students about the ability to transfer credits both into Ashford and out of Ashford. Recruiters told students that Ashford would accept previously earned credits, reducing the amount of time and money students would spend completing their degrees. Students would later learn only some of the promised credits actually transferred. Ashford recruiters also promised students that the credits they earned at Ashford would transfer to other universities, when this was not always true.  

Borrowers relied upon these substantial misrepresentations to their detriment. Additionally, the evidence from the California case demonstrated that three-quarters of all Ashford bachelor’s degree programs would have resulted in a negative value for students, making the education they obtained effectively worthless. The Department approved these findings prior to July 1, 2023, and this action covers loans under the 1995 or 2016 regulation, as applicable.

Three years into the California lawsuit, on Aug. 3, 2020, the University of Arizona announced a plan for its affiliated foundation to acquire Ashford University and turn it into the University of Arizona Global Campus (UAGC). The University of Arizona acquired direct ownership of UAGC at the end of June 2023.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Delandes v. McDonald’s, holding that a lower court prematurely ruled against former McDonald’s workers who are seeking to hold accountable the fast-food corporation for using “no-poach” agreements. 

“Workers should be able to move freely to another job — one that might pay them better, or have better hours, or better benefits, or be closer to their home. McDonald's use of no-poach provisions in their contracts undermines competition,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’m pleased that the 7th Circuit ruled in favor of the former McDonald’s workers and allowed their lawsuit to proceed. My office filed an amicus brief in support of their efforts last year, and we continue to stand with them.”

In California, employers, including employers who operate out of state but employ California residents, are generally prohibited from enforcing no-poach or non-compete agreements. No-poach agreements prevent competitors from hiring each other’s workers, and suppress worker mobility, wages, and benefits. Non-compete agreements also prevent worker mobility, and generally require workers to refrain from accepting new employment opportunities in a similar line of work or establishing a competing business. And non-compete agreements are often buried in fine print and go unmentioned in discussions between workers and employers. Even worse, these provisions are sometimes added to the terms of employment after a worker has accepted a job, or even after they have begun work. 

Workers who have been harmed by no-poach agreements or have been wrongly presented with, or have entered into, an unreasonable or overly restrictive non-compete agreement should report it immediately to the Attorney General’s office at oag.ca.gov/report.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with the Federal Trade Commission and five other state attorneys general, today announced a settlement with Roomster and its owners, John Shriber and Roman Zaks. Roomster is a room- and roommate-finding platform that primarily advertises private rooms in cities and towns across the globe. The company targets lower-income renters for whom Roomster acknowledges that “every penny counts.” Roomster makes money by charging a subscription fee to potential renters for the ability to message potential roommates or landlords. On August 30, 2022, the coalition sued Roomster, alleging that the company violated federal and state consumer protection laws — including California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law — by purchasing thousands of fake positive reviews to promote its app and fraudulently claiming that its room and roommate listings were “verified” and “authentic.” Today’s settlement resolves the August 2022 lawsuit and requires substantial changes to Roomster’s business practices.

“Our coalition’s investigation revealed that Roomster was, in simple terms, conning people seeking rental housing. That’s why we sued the company last year. Today, as a result of the hard work by our legal teams, we’re holding Roomster accountable for its illegal conduct,” said Attorney General Bonta. “With California experiencing a severe housing crisis, every part of the puzzle matters — from ensuring every city in the state follows the law and builds their fair share of housing, to making sure that fraudsters don’t get in the way of people finding rental housing." 

Under the settlement, Roomster and its owners, Shriber and Zaks:

• Will pay $1.6 million to California and the other state plaintiffs for consumer restitution, consistent with their alleged limited ability to pay. 
• Have agreed to the entry of a suspended judgment of more than $47 million. This money will be payable if Roomster, Shriber, or Zaks fail to make a timely payment, violate the settlement’s injunctive terms, or are discovered to have misrepresented their financial condition in the course of settlement negotiations.
• Are prohibited from paying for or incentivizing reviews; using interested or biased reviews to promote Roomster’s services; misrepresenting listings; or otherwise making any other material misrepresentations to consumers. These injunctive terms also apply to any subsequent entities created by Shriber or Zaks.
• Will be required to monitor and promptly cease doing business with any affiliates who engage in unlawful or deceptive practices. 

Roomster's platform is accessible either on Roomster’s website, or through iOS and Android mobile apps available in the Apple iTunes and Google Play stores, respectively. The coalition previously announced a related settlement, which resolved allegations that Jonathan Martinez — owner of the review sales business AppWinn — and AppWinn violated the False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law by promoting Roomster through fake online reviews posted in the Apple and Google app stores. As part of the settlement, Martinez was required to comply with strong injunctive terms to deter future misconduct and pay $100,000 to the states.

Attorney General Bonta joins the FTC and the attorneys general of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York in announcing today’s settlement.

A copy of today’s settlement, which is subject to court approval, is available here.

OAKLAND — As part of a bipartisan coalition of 42 attorneys general, California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a U.S. veteran’s attempt to access the full 48 months of educational benefits under the GI Bill that he had earned through his service as both an Army officer and an enlisted soldier. The veteran, FBI Agent James R. Rudisill, served multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, was injured, received the Bronze Star, and planned to use his GI Bill benefits to attend Yale Divinity School so that he could continue to serve his country as an Army chaplain. However, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied him a year of his hard-earned education benefits.  

On August 15, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims sided with Mr. Rudisill, finding that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was wrong to limit Mr. Rudisill and veterans like him to only 36 months of education benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit initially affirmed the lower court's decision but then reversed based on a second review. On April 14, 2023, Attorney General Bonta joined a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court at the cert stage, asking the Court to review the Federal Circuit's decision. On June 26, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case and today's amicus brief is on the merits of Mr. Rudisill's arguments. 

“This is the second action we've taken in support of Mr. Rudisill, and we are proud of it. Veterans like him selflessly dedicate their lives to serving our country. We should not be turning our backs on them now, or ever," said Attorney General Bonta. "Our coalition of attorneys general strongly believes that Mr. Rudisill is entitled to the full 48 months of educational benefits that he earned through his service — not 36 months." 

In the amicus brief, the attorneys general: 

• Support Mr. Rudisill’s argument that veterans like him — who served two separate terms of military service that qualify them for both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill — are entitled to receive education benefits under both of these GI Bill programs. 
• Explain that states’ veteran citizens rely on federal programs such as the GI Bill to transition successfully back to civilian life, and states in turn rely on the GI Bill and other federal benefits as a complement to the state benefits they provide veterans. Accordingly, the reduced access to GI Bill benefits that would result if the lower court’s decision stands would harm states and their veteran citizens.
• Argue that the lower court’s refusal to apply the "pro-veteran canon" in interpreting GI Bill statutory provisions was in error and such disregard of the canon would prejudice veterans in accessing other benefits to which they are entitled by law. The "pro-veteran canon" instructs courts to interpret any ambiguity in federal laws concerning veterans benefits in favor of veterans. 

California is home to approximately 1.6 million veterans, who are entitled to access various programs in areas such as housing and disability benefits access, including those offered by the California Department of Veterans Affairs. In 2021, 513,600 of the state’s veterans, or 37.8 percent, held a bachelor’s degree or higher, including 321,300 with a bachelor’s degree, 142,500 with a master’s, 26,000 with a professional degree (M.D., D.D.S.), and 23,800 with a doctorate (Ph.D.). 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting service members, veterans, and their families. On August 9, 2023, he sent a letter to Congress expressing his support for bipartisan federal legislation that aims to protect veterans from financial exploitation. On August 4, 2023, he reminded California veterans who were exposed to dangerous toxins in the course of their service to submit a claim for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, or notify the VA of their intent to file to obtain benefits under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. On July 26, 2023, he joined a bipartisan coalition of 24 attorneys general in submitting a letter to Congress in support of H.R. 1255, the Sgt. Isaac Woodard, Jr. and Sgt. Joseph H. Maddox GI Bill Restoration Act of 2023. 

In the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands. 

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement against Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) in connection with numerous unqualified environmental marketing claims the company made in 2019 that natural gas is “renewable.” Such claims are misleading. The vast majority of natural gas — including a vast majority of the gas distributed by SoCalGas — is not renewable, but rather is derived from fossil fuels. An investigation by the California Attorney General’s office revealed that SoCalGas made the misleading statements in a wide range of mediums, such as print, electronic media, informative displays, backdrops, and promotional swag.

“SoCalGas is a large, sophisticated entity. While we appreciate its cooperation in our investigation, SoCalGas should have known better than to broadcast unqualified claims suggesting that all natural gas is ‘renewable.’ Truth in marketing matters, and it’s required under state law,” said Attorney General Bonta. "Today’s settlement should send a clear message: The California Department of Justice is committed to holding accountable corporations that mislead or deceive consumers about the environmental attributes of a product.”

Under the settlement — which resolves allegations that SoCalGas violated California’s consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law — SoCalGas will: 

• Be prohibited from making similar unqualified statements that natural gas is “renewable.”
• Pay $175,000 in penalties, 50% ($87,500) of which will be directed to the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental Justice Small Grants Program to fund a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) focused on environmental justice.
• Publish a corrective statement on its website within 14 days of the settlement’s effective date. 

A copy of the complaint and proposed judgment, which details the aforementioned settlement terms and remains subject to court approval, can be found here and here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today announced joining a coalition of 21 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief supporting former employees of Saks department stores who were harmed by agreements between Saks and other sellers of luxury brand goods (Brand Defendants) — including Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Prada — not to hire former Saks employees. These agreements are commonly referred to as “no-hire agreements” or “no-poach agreements.” The appeal, Giordano v. Saks Inc., involves a proposed nationwide class of workers that would include employees at Saks stores in California and is currently pending in the Second Circuit after the employees lost at the district court. 

“No-hire agreements are anti-worker and anticompetitive. They have no place in the labor market,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Employees who were wronged should know that we have their backs. Employers should remember that we expect everyone to play by the rules. At the California Department of Justice, we have previously challenged the legality of no-hire agreements and have prevailed. The bottom line is that workers should be able to freely transition to a new job if that new job makes sense for them.”

In the amicus brief, the attorneys general underscore that:

• In their experience, no-hire agreements suppress competition for employees, depress wages, and limit workers’ mobility. For example, in 2014, California announced a $3.75 million settlement with eBay over allegations the company violated state competition laws by making a “no-poach” agreement with Intuit between 2006 and 2009. Moreover, California entered settlements with fast-food franchise companies to prohibit them from continuing to include “no-poach” provisions in their franchise agreements: in 2019 against Arby’s, Dunkin’, Five Guys, and Little Caesars, and in 2020 against Burger King, Popeyes, and Tim Hortons. 
• The district court erred in concluding that the agreements between Saks and the Brand Defendants were not per se unlawful. Each of the employees involved in this litigation was interested in working for one or more of the Brand Defendants, including because the Brand Defendants often offered higher wages than Saks. 

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington.

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released a statement on the final permanent injunction issued today by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts officially ending the Northeast Alliance between American Airlines and JetBlue. The Northeast Alliance was an anticompetitive joint venture that enabled two of the largest airlines in the United States to function like a single carrier on certain routes, threatening competition in an industry already experiencing the negative impacts of market consolidation. The California cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Burbank, Ontario, Oakland, Sacramento, San Jose, and Santa Ana were the most affected by this illegal activity.  

“The court's injunction permanently ends the Northeast Alliance, an illegal venture that was driving up airfare prices. Critically, American Airlines and JetBlue are now prohibited from entering into any new agreements substantially similar to that alliance," said Attorney General Bonta. "We are proud to have worked with our federal and state partners to secure this important win for consumers. We will continue to step in to protect the competitive market whenever it is threatened." 

On September 21, 2021, Attorney General Bonta, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and a bipartisan coalition of states, sued the airlines over the Northeast Alliance. On May 19, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the Northeast Alliance violated the federal Sherman Act. On July 5, 2023, JetBlue decided to terminate the Northeast Alliance. Today's final permanent injunction confirms the final terms of the court's order blocking and terminating JetBlue and American Airlines' anticompetitive venture.

A copy of the final permanent injunction is available here.