Consumer Protection

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that he has joined a bipartisan coalition of 23 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) that underscores the need for transparency and accountability in Artificial Intelligence (AI) policies. The NTIA is located within the U.S. Department of Commerce and advises the President of the United States on telecommunications and information policy matters. On April 13, 2023, the NTIA issued a request for public comment on AI regulation, and today’s letter responds to that request.

“AI is increasingly a part of our lives, influencing transactions and decisions big and small. We need policies governing this technology that prioritize transparency, audits, and accountability, and that put consumer protection front and center,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’m pleased to join a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general to share with the NTIA our recommendations on this critical issue.”

In the letter, the Attorneys General:

• Call for independent standards for AI transparency, testing, assessments, and audits, such as by ensuring that consumers are told when they are interacting with AI rather than a human being, and by ensuring that companies regularly commit to third-party auditing of its AI systems;

• Highlight the need for AI legislation that both fosters innovation and protects consumers; and

• Stress that state attorneys general should have concurrent enforcement authority in any Federal regulatory regime governing AI, referencing the California Privacy Rights Act as a key tool that already gives Californians more control over the personal information that businesses collect about them and that allows the California Attorney General to take legal action against non-compliant entities.

In submitting the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia.

A copy of the letter is available here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued the following statement in response to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issuing a cease-and-desist order against Avid Telecom. As part of a bipartisan coalition of 49 attorneys general, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against Avid Telecom on May 23, 2023 for allegedly initiating and facilitating billions of unlawful robocalls in California and around the country. 

“The FCC’s decision to issue a cease-and-desist order against Avid Telecom is a significant development in our collective efforts to stop illegal robocalls,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I joined a coalition of bipartisan attorneys general last month in suing Avid Telecom for its alleged role in sending or attempting to send billions of unlawful robocalls to consumers. While that lawsuit is ongoing, the FCC has put Avid Telecom on notice: stop originating illegal robocalls immediately or face serious consequences, like having all your call traffic blocked. I hope that other telecommunications companies responsible for perpetuating robocall traffic are paying attention.”

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta joined a bipartisan coalition of 28 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on proposals designed to reduce the number of robocalls and robotexts received by consumers. On March 16, the FCC adopted anti-robotext rules requiring for the first time that mobile wireless providers block text messages that are highly likely to be illegal — because the sender phone numbers are invalid, unallocated, unused, or found on a “do-not-originate” list. Attorney General Bonta strongly supported those rules. Today’s letter builds on that work by responding to the FCC’s request for public comment regarding additional anti-robotext and anti-robocall protections needed for consumers.

“Day in and day out, Californians receive illegal robocalls and robotexts — that needs to stop,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Robocalls and robotexts are not just annoyances, but can also scam consumers, particularly our elders, out of hundreds or thousands of dollars. While we’ve made some progress in addressing this problem, I support the FCC’s efforts because there is more work that needs to be done.”

In the comment letter, the attorneys general:

• Support the FCC’s proposed rule that would formally clarify that the Do-Not-Call Registry protections extend to robotexts, not just robocalls. This means that a company cannot send a marketing text to a phone number on the Do-Not-Call Registry without the prior express consent of that consumer.
• Support the FCC's proposed rule that would require wireless telecommunications companies, after receiving notice from the FCC, to investigate and block texts of senders suspected of transmitting illegal texts. 
• Urge the FCC to clarify what it means for a consumer to “consent” to receiving telemarketing calls or texts under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The attorneys general write that in order to close the so-called “lead generator loophole" — through which an entity provides a service online, such as an insurance quote, in exchange for a consumer agreeing to receive calls and/or texts from that entity's marketing partners — the FCC needs to make clear that consent to receiving telemarketing calls or texts should be given one entity at a time. A single entity's marketing partners can often run in the thousands. 

Attorney General Bonta has been at the forefront of multistate and state-federal efforts to combat illegal robocalls and robotexts. Among other actions, Attorney General Bonta has filed a lawsuit against Avid Telecom for allegedly initiating and facilitating billions of unlawful robocalls in California and around the country; announced a new partnership on robocall investigations with the FCC;  and announced the launch of a bipartisan, nationwide Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force to investigate and take legal action against the telecommunications companies responsible for bringing a majority of foreign robocalls into the United States.

In submitting the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

A copy of the letter is available here.

California receiving over $7.1 million of settlement funds 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Bonta today joined a coalition of 42 attorneys general in announcing a settlement against Invidior Inc. (Indivior) to resolve allegations that the global pharmaceutical company violated state and federal antitrust laws by attempting to maintain market exclusivity over Suboxone. As part of the settlement, Indivior will pay $102.5 million to the states and be prohibited from engaging in future anticompetitive conduct. Manufactured and marketed by Invidior, Suboxone is a prescription drug approved for use by recovering opioid addicts to avoid or reduce withdrawal symptoms while they undergo treatment. California will be receiving over $7.1 million of the multistate settlement funds.

"The cost of prescription drugs is a tremendous problem for many Californians, and Indivior contributed to that problem by preventing lower cost generics from competing with Suboxone, their branded opioid addiction treatment drug," said Attorney General Bonta. "Opioid addiction treatments should be accessible to everyone — especially our most vulnerable populations that need them for their recovery. With today's settlement, we're holding Indivior accountable and ensuring it doesn't engage in similar anticompetitive conduct in the future." 

In addition to requiring Indivior to pay $102.5 million, under the settlement:  

• Indivior must provide the states with information and reasons for any reformulated versions of Suboxone; 
• If pharmaceutical companies file for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of generic versions of Suboxone, Indivior must leave the original product on the market for a limited period to allow doctors and patients to choose which formulation they like better; and
• If Indivior files an FDA Citizen Petition in an attempt to delay generic competition in the future, it must also submit any data or information underlying that petition to the FDA and the states.

Indivior received FDA approval for Suboxone in 2002, along with exclusive rights to sell the drug for seven years based on representations that it was otherwise unlikely to recover its investment in the drug. Suboxone originally came in tablet form. However, in 2010 — a year after Indivior's exclusive right to the Suboxone tablet had expired and generic manufacturers were set to enter the market — the company switched from tablet to sublingual film, falsely citing safety concerns. Sublingual film is a dissolving film. 

In response, the California Attorney General's office and fellow attorneys general sued Indivior in 2016, alleging that Indivior engaged in a “product-hopping” scheme to block competition to Suboxone. In such a scheme, pharmaceutical companies try to maintain profits generated via a monopoly by slightly reformulating their product in a way that blocks generic competitors without offering any significant medical or therapeutic advantages to patients. 

In April 2021, Attorney General Bonta announced a separate $300 million settlement against Indivior resolving claims that Indivior falsely and aggressively marketed Suboxone, resulting in improper use of state Medicaid funds. California was a part of the team of states that negotiated the settlement which was paid to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

Attorney General Bonta is joined in today's settlement by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

A copy of the agreement, which was submitted to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for approval, can be found here.

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta is co-leading a coalition of 15 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that proposes much-needed reforms to the tenant screening process. Californians seeking rental housing are facing an increasingly competitive housing market, and their efforts to secure housing are hampered by landlords and tenant screening companies that engage in problematic practices during the tenant screening process, commonly referred to as the tenant background check. In their letter, the attorneys general underscore that they have a strong interest in ensuring that all renters — including minorities and renters with lower income levels, who may be more likely to be harmed by problematic screening practices — have access to safe, quality, and affordable housing.
 
“For too many Californians, securing a good, decent place to rent is challenging,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I’m co-leading a coalition of attorneys general urging action to address one of the barriers to doing so. We are sharing with the FTC and CFPB problems that renters commonly encounter during the background check process and proposed regulatory reforms that would mitigate those issues. Federal action on these issues would complement the work the California Department of Justice’s Housing Justice Team is doing to advance housing access, affordability, and equity in California.” 
 
The FTC and CFPB are jointly responsible for enforcing the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which imposes requirements on certain aspects of tenant screenings. On February 28, 2023, as part of the Biden Administration’s whole-of-government approach to promoting greater fairness in the rental housing market, the FTC and CFPB published a Request for Information on tenant screenings. This letter responds to that Request for Information.
 
In their letter, the attorneys general underscore that:

• Prospective tenants are often subject to inflated and hidden application fees. The attorneys general recommend, among other things, requiring that application fees be clearly disclosed and commensurate with the actual costs incurred by the landlord.

• Tenant screening reports compiled and sold by tenant screening companies, which are often generated on automated record retrieval with little or no verification, often contain inaccuracies that can lead to rental applicants being denied housing. For example, screening companies may search for only partial name matches, even though doing so does not comply with the FCRA. The attorneys general recommend, among other things, requiring tenant screening companies to provide a free copy of any tenant screening report to a housing applicant when it provides the report to a landlord, to disclose the underlying data used to make a recommendation or screening score, and to investigate and correct allegedly inaccurate or incomplete information in screening reports.

• Landlords and tenant screening companies increasingly rely on problematic screening algorithms that combine various information to generate a single score or result indicating how “safe” it would be to rent to a prospective tenant. These algorithms lack transparency and can be inaccurate, and can have a discriminatory impact on underserved communities. The attorneys general recommend, among other things, requiring that tenant screening companies disclose their reliance on algorithms and screen algorithm models for bias against protected classes and prohibiting the use of certain types of records in screening reports. 

In submitting the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta was joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with Merced County District Attorney Nicole Silveira, Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko, and Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, today announced a settlement against Walmart over allegations that illegal weapons — specifically brass knuckles — were sold to California consumers by Walmart and by third-party sellers through Walmart’s website. As part of the settlement, Walmart will pay $500,000 and be required to prevent the sale of illegal weapons, including by third parties, on its website. Today’s announcement is the result of an investigation conducted by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) in partnership with the District Attorney’s Offices of Merced, Ventura, and Yolo Counties. Examples of brass knuckles sold on Walmart’s website can be found here and here.

“Illegal weapons have no place in California. The settlement we have reached with Walmart makes crystal clear that online retailers are responsible for what they are allowing to be offered for sale in our state,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “I’d like to thank the legal team from our Consumer Protection Section as well as Merced County District Attorney Nicole Silveira, Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig, and Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko for their partnership.”

“Brass knuckles sold online are just as dangerous to our community as if they were sold from a store counter,” said Merced County District Attorney Nicole Silveira. “Online retailers must put safety over profits. We are encouraged by the steps taken by Walmart as a result of our investigation and confident that today’s agreement will put an end to future sales.”

“It was too easy for our investigators to make online purchases of illegal brass knuckles,” said Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko. “Walmart, and other retailers need to take a hard look at their online sales practices and ensure that they are in compliance with California law.”

“Upon being notified by our offices, Walmart’s upper management, IT, and attorneys moved quickly to address the root cause of these weapon sales,” said Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig. “Walmart’s actions have gone a long way in halting what were initially alarming issues and we are looking forward to building upon this good work going forward.”

Walmart’s website, Walmart.com, allows the retailer to sell products directly to consumers and serves as an e-commerce platform for third-party sellers. The Attorney General’s complaint alleges that approximately 250 products that may be classified as brass knuckles were sold through Walmart’s website. The complaint further alleges that approximately 60% of those brass knuckles were sold directly by Walmart, and the remaining 40% by third-party sellers. 

Under the settlement, Walmart will: 

• Pay $125,000 to DOJ as well as each of the three district attorneys’ Offices — for a total of $500,000 — in civil penalties and costs;
• Be prohibited from selling brass knuckles on its website;
• Be required to prohibit third-party sellers from offering or exposing for sale or selling illegal weapons on its platform;
• Be required to implement and maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent sales of illegal weapons by third-party sellers;
• Be required to provide a mechanism on each individual product page to allow customers to report the offering or exposing for sale or sale of unlawful weapons to California;
• Be required to take reasonable steps to identify California consumers who have purchased unlawful weapons from Walmart and send a notice to those consumers notifying them that the item may be unlawful and that they may contact their local law enforcement agency for information on how to properly surrender the item; and
• Be required to provide compliance reports for five years on a semi-annual basis for the first year and on an annual basis thereafter.

Under California law, brass knuckles are classified as a deadly weapon. Offering or exposing for sale brass knuckles is a violation of Penal Code section 21810 and is punishable by imprisonment up to one year. In addition, the offering or exposing for sale of metal knuckles and other dangerous weapons in violation of applicable Penal Code sections violates the unlawful prong of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code sections 17200.

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

An Estimated 577 Million Robocalls Sent to California Telephone Numbers on National Do Not Call Registry 

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a bipartisan coalition of 49 attorneys general, announced a lawsuit against Avid Telecom for allegedly initiating and facilitating billions of unlawful robocalls in California and around the country. Those robocalls included Social Security Administration scams, Medicare scams, and employment scams; two robocall examples can be found here and here. Today’s complaint is the result of efforts by the nationwide Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force, which Attorney General Bonta helped launch last year and is charged with taking legal action against telecommunications companies that perpetuate robocall traffic.

“As the People’s Attorney, I’ve been laser focused on protecting consumers since taking office, and stopping unwanted robocalls is an important bipartisan and nationwide effort,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In addition to being a daily annoyance, robocalls can and do cause real financial damage. I’m taking Avid Telecom to court for delivering not hundreds, or thousands, or millions of robocalls — but billions of robocalls. Our coalition alleges that Avid Telecom has violated federal and state laws, and we are confident that we will prevail.” 

From December 2018 to January 2023, Avid Telecom sent or attempted to transmit over 24.5 billion calls to consumers. More than 90% of those calls lasted under 15 seconds, strongly indicating that they were likely robocalls. Further, Avid Telecom sent or transmitted over 7.5 billion calls to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, an estimated 577,879,156 of those calls were to telephone numbers in California. Registering for the National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to legally opt out from receiving telemarketing calls, but robocallers regularly fail to respect such legal prohibitions.

In the multistate coalition's complaint, among other misconduct, Attorney General Bonta alleges that Avid Telecom:

• Violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits any person from making a call using an automatic telephone-dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any cellular telephone;
• Violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which prohibits abusive and deceptive acts or practices by “sellers” or “telemarketers”; 
• Violated the Truth in Caller ID Act, which prohibits the transmission of misleading or inaccurate caller-ID information;
• Violated California's Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and practices, by transmitting a colossal number of illegal robocalls into California. 

In filing today’s complaint, Attorney General Bonta joined the attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, 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, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.

Decision protects market competition on high traffic routes between Northeast Alliance cities and Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Long Beach, Burbank, Ontario, Oakland, Sacramento, San Jose, and Santa Ana

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement on a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts blocking American Airlines and JetBlue from continuing and from further implementing the Northeast Alliance. 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 routes to and from New York and Boston, 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. In 2021, Attorney General Bonta, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and a bipartisan coalition of states, filed a lawsuit against the airlines alleging that the Northeast Alliance violated the federal Sherman Act. 

“With each passing decade, the airline industry has grown more and more consolidated and hardworking consumers are paying the price,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Northeast Alliance's only benefit was to American Airlines and JetBlue’s bottom line. With the Northeast Alliance officially dismantled, I hope American Airlines and JetBlue can get back to focusing on what really matters – their customers. Today’s decision sends a strong message: Whether you call it a merger, a takeover, or an alliance, we're not going to stand by when companies take action to consolidate their market share and disrupt competition in the process.” 

A copy of the decision is available here.

States call for higher benchmarks for Green Guides standards on environmental advertising to prohibit deceptive marketing to consumers

OAKLAND – Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a multistate coalition in submitting comments urging the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to strengthen its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, or “Green Guides,” which states like California use to hold marketers accountable and protect consumers. In a letter sent to FTC Chair Lina Khan, Attorney General Bonta was joined by 15 attorneys general in calling for updates to the federal Green Guides to bolster consumer protection laws against advertising that overstates environmental benefits, often called “greenwashing.” 

“California is a leader in reducing waste, enacting environmental laws with the highest standards, and protecting and preserving our precious natural resources. FTC’s Green Guides must be updated and strengthened to better ensure individuals and businesses can base their consumer decisions on accurate information,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We are urging the federal government to go even further in developing strong standards to protect people from misleading information and to establish a stringent baseline for environmental marketing claims.”

The Green Guides were first developed in 1992 by the FTC to hold marketers accountable for deceptive marketing claims under state consumer protection laws. The Green Guides are an essential tool in public and private efforts to address critical environmental issues by helping to ensure that consumers are not misled when making purchasing decisions based on products and services’ environmental benefits.

The states recommend continuing to publish, clarify, and strengthen the Green Guides. The multistate coalition advises the FTC to expand the scope of the Green Guides to consider how the standards for each environmental marketing claim could be clarified and strengthened to better ensure they are supported by real environmental benefits. Additionally, the states argue that the Green Guides should not preclude states and localities from enacting stronger standards.

More specifically, the states advise that the following be included in updated guidance: 

• Voluntary carbon offsets should ensure a reduction in GHG emissions that is additional to any reduction that would likely have occurred without the purchase of the offset.
• The definition of “compostable” should incorporate both scientific standards and the known practical limitations of composting at scale.  
• FTC should make explicit that “recyclable” means what the FTC has intended it to mean and what consumers understand it to mean: that when the consumer properly disposes of a “recyclable” item, it is actually recycled as a matter of course.
• A renewable energy claim should be underwritten by actual environmental benefit, wherein marketers who make renewable energy claims must actually procure and use renewable energy.

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta was joined by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

AB 1366 would establish restitution fund to make victims of consumer fraud whole, even if the business that defrauded them goes bankrupt or is insolvent  

SAN DIEGO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, and Assemblymember Brian Maienschein (D-San Diego), today announced new legislation, Assembly Bill 1366 (AB 1366) to protect victims of predatory businesses found to have violated California consumer protection laws. While current state law allows victims to be eligible for restitution after a judgment has been reached, in many cases of successful prosecutions by the Attorney General, these businesses collapse or become insolvent, leaving no resources to compensate victims for their losses. The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Maienschein and sponsored by Attorney General Bonta, would establish a new Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund in the state Treasury that would be funded by the penalties paid by businesses that violate the law, and would be used to help make victims whole.

“True justice is not served when victims are left behind,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “While our office continues to hold predatory businesses accountable for misconduct, the success feels hollow when we know that the consumers who were defrauded cannot be made whole because the business has no money left to compensate its victims for their losses. This legislation would create a mechanism to help compensate victims in such situations. I urge our legislature to join the states that have already implemented this simple and commonsense protection for victims.”

“When a predatory business takes advantage of a consumer, it’s only right that the proceeds gained from illegal conduct should go towards compensating victims rather than remaining in the bank accounts of bad actors,” said Assemblymember Brian Maienschein. “AB 1366 will ensure that victims can and will receive restitutions for the wrongdoings they endure by crooked businesses on the brink of collapse."

“The Victims of Consumer Fraud Restitution Fund legislation will be an effective, commonsense addition to California‘s consumer protection toolkit," said Professor Christopher L. Peterson, John J. Flynn Endowed Professor of Law, University of Utah. "AB 1366 is an example of strong leadership in the fight to put consumers first and to stop scammers and predatory companies from profiting through deceit."

Under AB 1366, the restitution would be funded from the ill-gotten gains of businesses that violate California’s consumer protection laws, rather than through taxes or fees charged to law-abiding businesses. Specifically, AB 1366 would allow the Attorney General to seek the remedy of disgorgement in actions brought under the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law. Disgorgement would require companies that have violated the law to give up the profits that they made through their illegal conduct. These funds would be held in the new Restitution Fund as a future source of funding to help provide restitution to victims who cannot otherwise be made whole by the defendant who defrauded them. 

Attorney General Bonta cites a number of instances where the California Department of Justice successfully obtained judgments against a company where victims were unable to obtain restitution due to insolvency or collapse of the company after prosecution:

• In November 2022, Attorney General Bonta obtained a $20 million judgment against Paul Blanco’s Good Car Company. Ultimately, Paul Blanco became insolvent, went out of business and left its victims with little to no compensation.
• In March 2016, the California Department of Justice obtained a $1.1 billion judgment against Corinthian Colleges, Inc., a predatory chain of for-profit schools. That judgment ordered Corinthian to pay $820 million in restitution to tens of thousands of defrauded students in California, which went unpaid by the company following Corinthian’s bankruptcy filing and liquidation.
• In September 2016, the California Department of Justice secured a multistate judgment against USA Discounters, which had defrauded and illegally discriminated against servicemembers at stores outside military bases across the country. While the Attorney General’s Office secured $7 million in debt relief for more than 4,000 California victims through the bankruptcy, the company — which had closed and liquidated in bankruptcy — had insufficient assets left to make all of its victims whole.  

While California has strong consumer protection laws, other states have stepped ahead in providing this safeguard for consumers. For example, attorneys general in some other states — including New York and Arizona — can obtain disgorgement under their consumer protection laws, but this is not the case under California law. Additionally, the federal government has established the Civil Penalty Fund, allowing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to compensate victims who haven’t received full compensation for their harm through redress paid by the defendant.