Consumer Protection

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed an amicus brief in Gulkarov v. Plum, PBC, a case that alleges unfair and deceptive practices after Plum failed to disclose to consumers that its baby food products contained trace amounts of heavy metals and perchlorate. In the brief, filed in the Ninth Circuit, Attorney General Bonta defends the right of consumers victimized by deceptive omissions to sue for remedy under California’s consumer protection laws and supports the plaintiffs’ motion to bring this issue to the California Supreme Court.

“California is home to some of the most robust consumer protections nationwide and consumers deserve full protection under those laws. However, current lack of clarity inhibits effective enforcement of these laws and creates confusion,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We all understand that an omission can be as deceptive and harmful as an affirmative lie — the two should be treated the same when it comes to informing consumers about risks posed by the products they buy. I urge the Supreme Court to weigh in and apply Unfair Competition Law standards broadly to protect consumers from unfair and fraudulent business practices.” 

In the lawsuit, consumer plaintiffs sued Plum under state consumer laws including California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law, for allegedly selling certain baby food products without disclosing that they contained trace amounts of heavy metals, including lead, and perchlorate. There is no known safe level of exposure to lead. High levels of exposure to lead early in life can lead to learning disabilities and behavioral difficulties. Children are particularly vulnerable to the potential harmful effects of lead exposure.

The district court in this case granted judgment to Plum under California consumer protection laws on the grounds that plaintiffs failed to meet certain prerequisites for demonstrating a viable consumer protection claim based on omissions rather than misrepresentations. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta urges the Ninth Circuit to request that the California Supreme Court weigh in on this case so that it can clarify the standard in deciding omissions liability in the context of consumer deception claims. The state Supreme Court has never treated deceptive omissions differently from deceptive statements in the context of the UCL and has repeatedly emphasized that plaintiffs in UCL deception cases need only show that consumers are likely to be deceived. Attorney General Bonta argues that the likelihood of deception standard should apply equally to all deceptive business conduct, whether it happens to result from a misleading statement, deceptive half-truth, or clever failure to mention an important truth.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to advocating for transparency for California consumers seeking justice. In February 2024, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP, a case that alleges unfair and deceptive emergency room billing practices involving a surprise fee charged to all patients. In the brief, filed in the California Supreme Court, Attorney General Bonta argues the UCL standards applied by lower courts are unclear, and encourages the court to clarify when plaintiffs can sue for fraudulent business acts or practices and to adopt a standard for unfair acts or practices in UCL cases. In April 2024, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. arguing that a UCL action is distinct from an action to recover policy benefits, therefore an insurance policy claims period cannot override the four-year statute of limitations that applies to all UCL actions. 

A copy of the brief can be found here.

Gender-based price differences for similar consumer products are illegal in California

OAKLAND — Today, on Women’s Equality Day, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a consumer alert, reminding Californians of their rights under AB 1287, which prohibits businesses from charging different prices for substantially similar goods based on the gender of the product’s target audience — a practice known as the “Pink Tax” when used to charge women higher prices than men for essentially the same goods. On average, products marketed to women cost 7% more than those marketed to men and as much as 13% more for personal care products. AB 1287, authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), went into effect on January 1, 2023, and is enforceable by Attorney General Bonta. If you have seen or been a victim of gender-based price differences that you believe violate the law, please file a complaint at oag.ca.gov/report.

“The Pink Tax is a sexist practice that is illegal in California. Women, especially Black and Latinx women, are paid less than their white, male counterparts in the same roles, yet have to spend more than men to buy very similar products,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “California consumers have the right to shop without fear of discrimination. I encourage consumers to be aware of their rights under California’s Pink Tax Law and to file a complaint if they believe there have been violations of this law.”

“It has been two years since the passage of AB 1287 and it is very exciting to see the work Attorney General Bonta is doing to guarantee consumers rights under California’s Pink Tax Law. Unequal prices for women translate to impacts for their own financial wellbeing as well as that of their families. This also exacerbates the already-existing gender gap in financial inequality," said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. "Around 80 percent of product volume is gender-targeted. This type of arbitrary gendered pricing has no place in California. Closing these unnecessary and burdensome gaps is an important step toward gender equality.”  

“Women are still earning less than our male counterparts, and the fact that some companies may continue charging more for a product simply because it is marketed to women is a sexist penalty that is now illegal,” said Darcy Totten, Interim Executive Director of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. “The Commission is proud to have cosponsored AB 1287 to put an end to arbitrary price differences for everyday products and encourage anyone who has been a victim of gender-based price differences to file a complaint. We are grateful to Attorney General Rob Bonta for issuing a Consumer Alert to help ensure that women and girls in our state know their rights as we collectively remove one of the last pillars of commercial gender discrimination to ensure women equal access to products without paying a “tax” for their gender.” 

In passing California’s Pink Tax Law, the Legislature cited considerable evidence of the existence of the “Pink Tax,” including a 2015 study showing that girls’ or women’s products cost more than similar products for boys or men 42% of the time.

Some examples of products where gender-based pricing may be found include:

• Toys and accessories (e.g., pink vs. red bikes and scooters, pink vs. blue helmets, arts and crafts)
• Children’s clothing
• Adult clothing
• Personal care products (e.g., hair care products, razors and razor cartridges, lotions)
• Senior/home health care products (e.g., personal urinals, supports and braces, canes)  

AB 1287 does not prohibit charging different prices for goods that are seemingly alike, but different for reasons that do not have to do with gender-based marketing. These reasons include differences in: 

• The amount of time to manufacture the goods
• Difficulty of manufacturing the goods
• Cost incurred to manufacture the goods
• Labor used to manufacture the goods
• Materials used to manufacture the goods

Women make up as much as 85% of consumer purchases in the United States — they also face higher prices for seemingly neutral products like mortgage rates. Compounded by the gender pay gap, unequal pricing translates into unjust and harmful financial impacts for women and their families. Wealth inequality disproportionally affects women and women of color. Women earn approximately 82% of what men earn. For every 1 dollar earned by white men, Latinx women earn 65 cents. AB 1287 disrupts this cycle by holding those who still charge the Pink Tax accountable. Because the Attorney General has enforcement authority for violations of California’s Pink Tax Law, it is important that we hear from the public about potential violations of the law.

If you have seen or experienced gender-based price differences that you believe violate the law, please file a complaint at oag.ca.gov/report.

For more information on AB 1287, California’s Pink Tax Law, please visit oag.ca.gov/ab1287. 

A copy of the consumer alert can be found here.  

Merger to impact consumers and workers in Southern California 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement on the first day of trial in the state’s lawsuit challenging Kroger’s $24.6 billion purchase of Albertsons. Kroger and Albertsons are the two largest national supermarket chains in the country and this merger presents a significant risk of reduced competition and higher food prices nationwide. In California specifically, the Albertsons-Kroger merger is expected to further consolidate the highly concentrated retail grocery market in Southern California, leading consumers to face fewer choices and higher prices. The merger is also expected to reduce the ability of unions to negotiate working conditions at these stores, impacting thousands of employees in California.

In February 2024, Attorney General Bonta joined the Federal Trade Commission and a bipartisan coalition of states in filing a lawsuit that seeks to block the proposed Albertsons-Kroger merger, alleging it is in violation of the federal Clayton Act. 

“Across California, families are struggling to make ends meet and wincing at the price of everything from groceries to gas. As the People’s Attorney, it is my honor to stand up to big corporations who only care about their bottom line and directly contribute to this unaffordability. That is exactly what we are doing with this lawsuit,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This merger will leave Californians with fewer choices over where to shop – and for workers in this industry, where to work. We are in court today to prevent this unlawful attempt by Kroger and Albertsons to merge their operations and reduce competition in the marketplace.”

Pricing alignment schemes contributed to higher rent prices throughout Southern California 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, alongside the U.S. Department of Justice, and a bipartisan coalition of eight attorneys general, filed a lawsuit against RealPage, a revenue management software company used by landlords to price multifamily rental housing units. The lawsuit alleges RealPage enabled landlords to artificially raise rents by participating in a pricing alignment scheme that increased their rent revenue across the board, enabled by the illegal sharing of confidential pricing and supply information. This harmed consumers by decreasing competition, limiting price negotiation, and increasing prices in the rental housing industry. Pricing alignment schemes affected rental housing throughout California, especially in multifamily buildings in Southern California including in Orange County, Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga, Temecula, Murrieta, San Diego, and Carlsbad.

“Anticompetitive agreements are illegal, whether done by a human or software program. RealPage misused private and sensitive consumer data to take the competition out of the rental industry, leaving renters no other choice but to pay the intentionally high prices that landlords agreed to set,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This means that even if rental home supply was high, rent prices stayed the same, and in some cases, rents went up. This conduct is unacceptable and illegal, and given California’s current housing shortage and affordability crisis, it is causing real harm. Every day, millions of Californians worry about keeping a roof over their head and RealPage has directly made it more difficult to do so.”

RealPage is in the business of generating rent increases and growing revenue for landlords by using algorithmic models to recommend price increases to subscribers. It does so by amassing competitively sensitive data from competing landlords through its pricing algorithms and sharing this data among subscribers. Landlords understand that their nonpublic data will be used to recommend prices not just for their own units, but also for competitors who use the programs. Landlords agree to provide this information because they understand they will benefit from the information of their rivals. In other words, RealPage knows what competing landlords are charging and can increase profits for landlords by using that information to recommend landlords set or raise their prices uniformly, thereby eliminating competition, and leaving renters no choice but to pay artificially high prices.

Over the last four decades, housing needs have significantly outpaced housing production in California. Housing costs have skyrocketed, making it harder for Californians to keep a roof over their heads. California's 17 million renters spend a significant portion of their paychecks on rent, with an estimated 700,000 Californians at risk of eviction.   

The lawsuit filed today alleges RealPage violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which prohibits anticompetitive agreements, monopolization, and attempted monopolization. Monopolization offenses occur when a single firm maintains a monopoly unlawfully, by using its control of the market to exclude rivals and harm competition. RealPage’s unlawful sharing of nonpublic, competitively sensitive data aligns landlords’ pricing and effectively removes the competitive pressure that benefits renters. Without competitive pressure, landlords have no incentive to decrease prices or offer discounts common in rental markets, like a free month or waived fees. RealPage’s rivals who lawfully compete on merits cannot guarantee landlords the increased profits that RealPage can provide, this maintains and protects RealPage’s monopoly power. 

The lawsuit seeks to end:

• The anticompetitive agreements between RealPage and its landlord customers to share confidential, competitively sensitive information.
• A pricing alignment scheme to raise rents for the American public.
• RealPage’s illegal monopoly in revenue management software built on the competitors’ data that it collects and uses.

In filing the lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the U.S. Department of Justice and the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington.

A copy of the complaint can be found here. 

More than $20 million paid in consumer restitution

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced filing a complaint and stipulated judgment resolving the investigation into ticket reseller StubHub, Inc. (StubHub) for failing to timely pay refunds to California consumers for canceled events during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the onset of the pandemic, StubHub failed to honor its advertised policy of providing full cash refunds for canceled events and instead issued consumers StubHub credit for future events. Following an investigation by the California Department of Justice, StubHub reversed its decision in May 2021 and began providing cash refunds to California consumers. The settlement, which was approved today in Los Angeles Superior Court, includes strong injunctive terms for future StubHub ticket sales, a penalty of $295,000, and memorializes $20 million in cash refunds that StubHub provided to more than 45,000 California consumers following the commencement of this investigation.

“By failing to issue full cash refunds for canceled events during the pandemic, StubHub not only violated its advertised policy but also violated the trust of its consumers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My office proudly works to keep California consumers safe from false or misleading business practices. If you believe you are the victim of false or misleading advertising, please report it to oag.ca.gov/report.”

StubHub operates one of the largest online ticket reselling marketplaces, where buyers purchase tickets to concerts, sports, and other events. StubHub had long advertised that consumers would receive full refunds for tickets purchased on its website or app if the event were later canceled. StubHub made this “FanProtect Guarantee” a central part of its marketing efforts. But in late March 2020, as mass events were canceled in response to COVID-19, StubHub announced a policy change in which consumers would instead receive 120% credit for future StubHub purchases, rather than a full refund for canceled events. This new policy was applied to new ticket purchases and to consumers who had already purchased tickets based on the prior FanProtect Guarantee.

The complaint alleges StubHub violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and California’s False Advertising Law by misleading ticket buyers who relied on the advertised refund policy when purchasing tickets before March 2020.

In addition to $20 million in consumer restitution and a $295,000 penalty under the UCL, StubHub will have to comply with significant injunctive terms requiring StubHub to abide by the UCL and other consumer protection laws, including not violating California laws specific to event ticket sales. The negotiated terms also specifically prohibit StubHub from making any misrepresentations regarding its refund policies or failing to honor the existing refund policy unless it is modified by agreement with the informed consent of the consumer.

California law imposes several obligations on ticket sellers, including with respect to canceled or rescheduled events.  As of January 1, 2022, ticket sellers must provide a full refund for any canceled event within 30 calendar days of the cancellation. For events that are postponed, rescheduled, or replaced with another event at the same time and place, a consumer is entitled to a full refund upon request, which must be provided by the ticket seller within 30 calendar days of the request.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to investigating and remedying harm to consumers affected by unlawful and deceptive business practices. 

• In July, Attorney General Bonta issued information for consumers following Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) going into effect on July 1, 2024. SB 478 makes it illegal for businesses to advertise or list a price for a good or service that does not include all required fees or charges other than certain government taxes and shipping costs. 
• In May, Attorney General Bonta, alongside a multistate coalition, announced a $10.25 million settlement with major U.S wireless carriers after an industry-wide investigation of misleading advertising practices. The settlement requires industry-wide changes to deceptive advertising practices in the marketing of cell phones.
• In April, Attorney General Bonta, along with the District Attorneys of Alameda and Marin counties, and city and county of San Francisco, announced a $23 million settlement with Service Corporation International, the nation’s largest funeral service provider for engaging in false advertising and unlawful and deceptive acts in its marketing and sale of pre-need cremation packages.
• Also in April, Attorney General Bonta submitted a comment letter supporting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed rule which 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.

A copy of the complaint and stipulated judgment can be found here, and here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today sent a letter to Congress expressing his strong concerns with the Securing and Enabling Commerce Using Remote and Electronic (SECURE) Notarization Act, which would preempt state notarization laws. In the letter, Attorney General Bonta argues that any federal law providing for remote online notarization should allow states to monitor and prevent data breaches, fraud, and other abuses, by allowing coexistence with more robust and protective state notarization laws that states may have in place now or in the future.

“As more of our lives move online, we must be diligent about safeguarding consumer privacy and preventing fraud,” said Attorney General Bonta. “States are the front lines of consumer protection, any federal legislation should embrace, rather than preempt, state notarization laws. As the People’s Attorney, I'm committed to protecting vulnerable Californians from fraud and other abuses. That will be much more difficult for many of our most sensitive transactions — from buying a house to signing a will — if California's online notarization laws are preempted.”

The main purpose of notarization is to verify the identities of the individuals whose signatures are used to formalize important transactions. This includes creating advance healthcare directives, granting powers of attorney, and conducting real estate sales and purchases. The events requiring notarization are infrequent in most people's lives, but the consequences of related fraud can be significant.

The rules regarding notarizations have long been governed by the states. California, for example, has an extensive body of state law governing notaries and notarial acts, including the registration, eligibility, and duties of notaries; the identity authentication process; the preservation of private California information related to the notarial act; and regulatory oversight by the California Secretary of State. In 2023, the California Legislature enacted SB 696, the Online Notarization Act, with broad bipartisan support, after failing to pass similar legislation on three separate occasions that did not achieve the same levels of consumer protections. SB 696 provides many safeguards for Californians, including prohibitions on sharing consumers’ personal information, and requirements for data security.

The SECURE Notarization Act would deprive Californians of most of these protections by broadly preempting state notarization law in the emerging area of remote online notarization. If signed into law, the SECURE Notarization Act would also require states to recognize out-of-state online notarizations that meet minimum standards, with forced reciprocity that would inevitably result in a race to the bottom regarding consumer protections. The SECURE Notarization Act lacks guidance relating to the preservation of electronic recordings and other sensitive personal information, which could be subject to data breaches or other misuse. This data — likely to be retained by notaries as a result of remote online notarizations — had not previously been collected during the traditional notarization process.

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Consumers’ financial future should not be ruined for seeking lifesaving care

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today sent a letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in support of the Bureau’s Proposed Rule which would prohibit the reporting of medical debt on credit reports. The proposed rule is expected to provide desperately needed relief for millions of Americans burdened by unexpected or inaccurate medical bills. Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta, Senator Monique Limón (D- Santa Barbara), and a coalition of prominent consumer advocacy organizations unveiled SB 1061, legislation seeking to protect consumers from having their credit ruined by prohibiting medical debt from being reported on credit reports.

“When someone is scared and in pain, the last thing they should think about is whether seeking care will take away their ability to buy a house or land a job. Unfortunately, this is the reality for many people today,” said Attorney General Bonta. “There is no need for medical debt to appear on credit reports as it is not a good predictor of repayment, and it pushes more and more people into a harmful debt cycle that is very difficult to escape. I thank the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for their nationwide leadership on this issue and for proposing a rule that sets a floor for consumer protections and allows states to enact stronger protections for their residents.”

Credit reports are meant to gauge an individual’s ability to repay future debt. Medical debt is often unforeseen and not a reliable indicator of financial risk, yet it can unfairly prevent consumers from getting loans, renting an apartment, or getting a job. Millions of Californians are saddled with medical debt as a result of our broken healthcare system. Fifty-two percent of adults reported that in the last 12 months, they or a family member had delayed or postponed care due to cost, 36% had medical debt, and 27% had problems paying or could not pay their medical bills.

In the letter, Attorney General Bonta notes that medical debt impacts consumers regardless of payment method and proposes the definition of medical debt be expanded to include all forms of payments made to health care providers. For instance, individuals might not directly owe money to medical or dental care providers; they might have settled their bills by incurring different types of debt, such as paying their provider with a credit card. These forms of debt should also be included in the coverage of the rule. For example, many Californians who cannot pay for health care turn to credit cards they are unable to pay down. The share of consumers who put medical or dental bills on a credit card is growing, now accounting for 25% of Californians, up from 19% just one year ago. This number is even higher for historically marginalized groups.

The letter also addresses CFPB’s concerns about the feasibility of identifying medical debt owed to third-party lenders, such as credit cards, by explaining that these lenders already have systems in place to categorize types of debt, which could be used to identify medical debt.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting the financial health of Californians, especially vulnerable populations. In April, Attorney General Bonta submitted a comment letter supporting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s proposed overdraft fee rule which 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. In February, Attorney General Bonta issued letters to small banks and credit unions warning that overdraft and returned deposited item fees may violate California’s Unfair Competition Law and the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act. California consumers paid an estimated $200 million in overdraft fees in 2022, with the financial burden disproportionately falling on low-income consumers and consumers of color.

A copy of the letter can be found here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued the following statement after a federal judge ruled that Google maintained an unlawful monopoly on internet general search services and general search text ads in United States v. Google.

“As the fifth largest economy in the world, California has a special interest in protecting a landscape where competition and innovation will flourish,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This historic win sets the tone for what we as a country and state will not allow. The California Department of Justice remains vigorously committed to enforcing antitrust laws.” 

On December 11, 2020, then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that California would join the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Google regarding its monopoly on general internet search services and search-based advertising. In November 2023, Attorney General Bonta issued a statement following the conclusion of the 10-week bench trial.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert following Governor Newsom’s declaration of a state of emergency in Kern County due to the Borel Fire. The Borel Fire began burning in the Sequoia National Forest last week and is one of several fires comprising the SQF Lightning Complex, which has burned close to 90,000 acres to date.

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 see here. 

“As the Borel Fire sweeps through Kern County communities, I want to issue another reminder: Price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal. Businesses and landlords cannot unlawfully raise the price of essential supplies, hotels, rental housing, and more,” said Attorney General Bonta.  “I urge all Californians to be prepared, keep safe, and understand that in California you have rights protecting you during an emergency.” 

California law generally prohibits charging a price that exceeds, by more than 10%, the price of an item before a state or local declaration of emergency. For any item 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, certain transportation services, 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. 

Violators of the price gouging statute are subject to criminal prosecution that can result in a one-year imprisonment in county jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Violators are also subject to civil enforcement actions including civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, injunctive relief, and mandatory restitution. The Attorney General and local district attorneys can enforce the statute. 

For additional information, please see DOJ's FAQs on price gouging here.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert following Governor Newsom’s declaration of a state of emergency in Plumas County due to the Gold Complex Fire, and in Butte and Tehama Counties due to the Park Fire. The fires have together burned more than 181,000 acres, forcing the evacuation of thousands of residents, destroying homes, and threatening critical infrastructure.

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 see here. 

“As the Gold Complex and Park Fires force evacuations across Plumas, Butte, and Tehama Counties, I want to be very clear: Price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal. This means that businesses and landlords cannot unlawfully raise the price of essential supplies, hotels, rental housing, and more,” said Attorney General Bonta. “ I urge all Californians to listen to communication from officials, lend a helping hand where they can, and report price gouging when they see it.” 

California law generally prohibits charging a price that exceeds, by more than 10%, the price of an item before a state or local declaration of emergency. For any item 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, certain transportation services, 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. 

Violators of the price gouging statute are subject to criminal prosecution that can result in a one-year imprisonment in county jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000. Violators are also subject to civil enforcement actions including civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, injunctive relief, and mandatory restitution. The Attorney General and local district attorneys can enforce the statute. 

For additional information, please see DOJ's FAQs on price gouging here.