U.S. Supreme Court

Attorney General Bonta: Today’s SCOTUS Decision Holds the Sackler Family Accountable for Their Role in Fueling the Opioid Epidemic

June 27, 2024
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down confirmation of Purdue Pharma L.P.’s (Purdue) bankruptcy plan in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, finding that nonconsensual third-party releases are not authorized under the Bankruptcy Code. Purdue’s bankruptcy plan provided the Sackler family, which owned Purdue, immunity in exchange for paying up to $6 billion for claims related to the company’s misleading marketing of its powerful pain medication OxyContin and their role in creating the opioid crisis. Today’s decision reverses a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that had afforded the Sacklers broad protection from liability that far exceeded what they would have obtained had they gone through bankruptcy themselves.

 “For years, the Sackler family prioritized their own interests and profits over people, fueling the opioid epidemic that ravaged our communities and led to the loss of countless lives across our country,” said Attorney General Bonta. “No amount of money will ever undo the devastation that the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma have caused in perpetuating this crisis, but today’s decision will allow those that have suffered at the hands of the Sacklers to hold them accountable for their greed and willful misconduct. There is still much work to be done to fight the opioid epidemic, and the California Department of Justice remains committed to building on our efforts to heal our communities and respond to this epidemic from all angles, from providing resources for prevention and treatment to holding those responsible for this crisis accountable.”

Attorney General Bonta is unwavering in his commitment to protect California communities and fight the opioid crisis. In September, Attorney General Bonta filed a letter with the U.S. Supreme Court in this case again expressing his view that nonconsensual third party releases, such as those here, were unlawful. In addition, the California Department of Justice has secured over $48 billion through nationwide settlements, including up to $4.25 billion for California, bringing needed funding back to communities for treatment and prevention strategies.

Attorney General Bonta Remains Committed to Protecting Reproductive Healthcare Providers and People Seeking Reproductive Healthcare

June 27, 2024
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the following statement after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Idaho v. U.S.  that it would not decide whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a federal law, requires hospitals to provide necessary abortion care to pregnant people experiencing medical emergencies irrespective of any conflicting State law. Every hospital in the United States that operates an emergency department and participates in Medicare is subject to EMTALA. Under the law, emergency departments are required to provide all patients who have an emergency medical condition with the treatment required to stabilize their condition. Yet Idaho’s radical abortion ban, which came into effect after the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade, criminalized the very abortion care required by EMTALA. Idaho’s law allows only those abortions necessary to prevent a pregnant patient’s death, and so subjects healthcare providers who provide the broader swath of medically necessary emergency abortion care required by EMTALA to criminal prosecution and loss of their license. Instead of deciding whether Idaho’s law impermissibly prohibits emergency abortion care required by EMTALA, the Supreme Court will allow the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to decide the issue in the first instance. The Supreme Court also decided today that it will allow a preliminary injunction entered by the district court in Idaho to go into effect. For now, that preliminary injunction prevents Idaho from enforcing its ban with respect to emergency abortion care covered by EMTALA.  

“Today’s ruling ensures that, at least for now, pregnant patients facing medical emergencies in Idaho cannot be denied health-preserving abortion care,” said Attorney General Bonta. “But today’s decision is at best a temporary reprieve for pregnant patients and physicians in Idaho and any other State with a ban on abortion care. The battle to protect access to reproductive healthcare remains as this case and others continue, and as anti-abortion extremists work to undermine Americans’ most basic and fundamental reproductive rights. Our message to all who seek or provide reproductive healthcare is clear: California welcomes and supports you. We will continue to fight for every individual’s right to make their own healthcare decisions and reaffirm our commitment to making our state a beacon of reproductive freedom to every individual across this country.” 

The Attorney General remains committed to supporting, expanding, and protecting reproductive freedom. In April, the Attorney General issued guidance to remind medical providers, staff, and volunteers from states with near-total abortion bans of their rights and protections when providing reproductive healthcare under California state law. For more information on your reproductive rights in California, please click here. To report potential violations of EMTALA, please click here.

Attorney General Bonta: California’s Unfair Competition Law Supersedes Insurance Policy Statute of Limitations

April 11, 2024
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today filed an amicus brief in Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (State Farm), a case that hinges on whether an Unfair Competition Law (UCL) action filed by a policyholder against their insurance company is subject to the UCL's four-year statute of limitations or the Insurance Code’s one-year limitations period for actions to recover on an insurance policy. The brief, filed in the California Supreme Court, argues 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 contrary decision would hinder consumers’ ability to challenge unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent conduct by insurance companies. 

“We must protect consumers’ right to challenge abusive business practices by insurance companies,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California's Unfair Competition Law protects all 39 million Californians from unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices by any industry, including insurance companies. The lower court got it wrong and if allowed to stand the decision threatens to undermine the broad protections afforded to Californians under the Unfair Competition Law. I urge the California Supreme Court to overturn the erroneous decision.”

California’s UCL prohibits businesses in California from engaging in illegal, unfair, or fraudulent practices in any aspect of their business, and allows California consumers injured by those practices to go to court to protect their rights. The UCL can also be enforced by the Attorney General and district attorneys, as well as by some city attorneys and county counsels.  

The plaintiff in this case filed an insurance claim under their homeowners’ insurance policy with State Farm, which the insurer denied. Roughly a year and a half later, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against State Farm, alleging that it violated the UCL by engaging in unfair and misleading practices that included failing to properly investigate property insurance claims and failing to provide explanations for claim denials. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief that would require the company to reform its marketing practices and its process for investigating and resolving certain home-insurance claims. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action as untimely, holding that the plaintiff’s UCL claims were subject to the contractual one-year limitations period rather than the UCL’s four-year statute of limitations because they arose from parties’ contractual relationship.

In today’s brief Attorney General Bonta argues that the one-year limitations period set forth in the Insurance Code does not apply to a UCL action, regardless of whether the action relates to an insurance claim. The brief also notes that the Court of Appeal's decision departs from long-standing Supreme Court precedent holding that the UCL’s statute of limitations “admits no exceptions.” 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to upholding Californians’ protections under the UCL:

  • In February, Attorney General Bonta sent a letter small banks and credit unions warning that overdraft and returned deposited item fees may violate state and federal consumer protection laws, and urged small financial institutions to eliminate these fees.
  • Also in February, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in Capito v. San Jose Healthcare System, LP, urging the court to clarify when consumers can sue businesses for engaging in fraudulent acts or practices, and to adopt a standard for unfair acts or practices in UCL cases.
  • In January 2023, Attorney General Bonta announced a lawsuit against the nation's largest insulin makers and pharmacy benefit managers for driving up the cost of the lifesaving drug through unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices in violation of California's consumer protection laws.
  •  In September 2022, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a lawsuit against Amazon alleging that the company stifled competition and caused increased prices across California through anticompetitive contracting practices in violation of California’s consumer protection and antitrust laws.

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

 

Attorney General Bonta Holds Contractor Liable for Unpaid Overtime and Back Payroll Taxes That Resulted from Past Relationship with Labor Broker

April 10, 2024
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

Amalfi Stone & Masonry Company to pay $826,000 to resolve violations of payroll tax and labor code

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the filing of a complaint and stipulated judgment with Amalfi Stone & Masonry Company, Inc., (Amalfi) resolving allegations of unfair competition, payroll tax and labor violations committed by Amalfi and between July 2018 and May 2020. During this period, Amalfi, a stoneware company located in Sunland, California, utilized an unlicensed, out-of-state labor broker named Fabio Anselmo through their business, MALU Company, Inc. A joint investigation with the California Department of Justice (DOJ), the Employment Development Department (EDD), and the Labor Commissioner’s Office – Criminal Investigation Unit (LCO-CIU, as part of the Department of Industrial Relations) found that Amalfi failed to report and pay payroll taxes, pay overtime, and provide itemized wage statements to workers as a result of their association with Anselmo, the labor broker. 

“Workers are the backbone of California’s economy, and all workers deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor. The California Department of Justice will hold accountable companies who gain an unfair advantage in the market by using unscrupulous labor brokers who cut costs through wage theft or violating payroll taxes,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “The growing use of labor brokers makes it difficult for honest, law-abiding companies to compete, and results in the mistreatment of workers. Today’s agreement with Amalfi Stone & Masonry is an important step towards correcting payroll tax and labor code violations, and we appreciate the steps that Amalfi took to cut ties with Anselmo in 2020. My office will continue to stand up for workers and defend labor laws and wages owed for workers across the state.”

“EDD and its partners stand firmly dedicated to combating unlawful activity in the underground economy, which hurts both law-abiding businesses and California workers," said EDD Director Nancy Farias. "Our investigators will continue working in collaboration with our law enforcement counterparts to apprehend and bring wrongdoers to justice." 

 “The construction industry has joint liability laws holding companies accountable for contracting with an unlicensed contractor. In this case, the company who contracted with an unlicensed contractor will pay the owed wages to workers,” said Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower. “Thanks to our collaborative work with the Department of Justice and the Employment Development Department, we are able to hold companies who hire labor contractors accountable and ensure workers are protected.”

Anselmo, a Florida resident and unlicensed labor broker, acted as a labor broker for Amalfi, recruiting and paying workers on Amalfi’s behalf to work on projects in Southern California. Most of the workers were from Florida and did not know that they were entitled to overtime pay when they worked more than eight hours a day or 40 days a week. None of the wages of the workers recruited by Fabio Anselmo were reported to the Employment Development Department (EDD). In 2020, Amalfi ceased using the services of the labor broker, Fabio Anselmo, and the company has taken steps to correct its practices in accordance with labor law. The stipulated judgment filed today resolves violations against Amalfi stemming from its association with Fabio Anselmo, and as part of the agreement, Amalfi will pay restitution for the victims and repay all unpaid taxes.

As part of the stipulated judgment, which is subject to court approval, Amalfi has agreed to pay the total amount of $826,430, including $426,340 to the EDD for back payroll taxes plus interest, $280,000 to 86 workers who were recruited by Anselmo and not paid overtime wages for overtime hours, $100,000 towards a civil penalty, and $20,000 for the cost of a restitution administrator.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to defending workers' rights, workplace safety, and California's fair and competitive labor market. Through the Civil Rights Enforcement Section, the Worker Rights and Fair Labor Section, and the Antitrust Law Section, Attorney General Bonta enforces California’s laws to protect the welfare of California workers and legitimate businesses operating in California. In 2024, Attorney General Bonta took action by defending wages and overtime owed in the West Coast Drywall Lawsuit. In 2023, Attorney General Bonta took action to protect workers, launching an historic investigation into gender discrimination in the National Football League, joined 17 attorneys general in supporting the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed rule limiting noncompete agreements, fought for the rights of transportation workers, and immigrant children. In November 2022, Attorney General Bonta joined 21 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief opposing McDonald’s attempt to evade liability for past alleged efforts to stifle competition and undercut wages through the use of “no-poach” agreements. In October 2022, Attorney General Bonta filed an amicus brief in an effort to protect Californians from discrimination in the employment hiring process. 

A copy of the complaint is available here and stipulated judgment pending court approval is available here.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta Announces Settlement with Arnel Management Company over Illegal Withholding of Security Deposits

March 29, 2024
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement resolving allegations that Arnel Management Company (Arnel) illegally withheld security deposits from tenants in Southern California. Specifically, Arnel — a corporate landlord that operates 19 apartment complexes in Orange and Los Angeles counties — is alleged to have automatically deducted pre-set cleaning charges from security deposits in violation of California law and an existing injunction. Under the terms of today’s settlement, Arnel will pay over $1 million and be subject to more stringent injunctive terms to deter future misconduct.

“California tenants have rights, and my office is committed to protecting those rights,” said Attorney General Bonta. “For many renters, especially those from lower income backgrounds, affording a security deposit entails a great deal of sacrifice. We are holding Arnel accountable because, in some cases, the company failed to return to tenants the entire security deposit that they were legally entitled to and worked hard to save up for.”

In 2001, the California Attorney General’s Office reached a separate settlement with Arnel related to its security deposit withholding practices. Today’s settlement is the result of a new investigation into Arnel and will replace and refine the terms of the 2001 judgment. The new investigation revealed that in some buildings Arnel was deducting pre-set cleaning fees from tenants’ security deposits, irrespective of the condition of the unit. Tenants could only avoid the pre-set cleaning fees by having their unit professionally cleaned when they moved out. 

Under the settlement, Arnel will, among other things:  

  • Pay $500,000 in additional civil penalties.
  • Pay $650,000 that will go to tenant rights-related legal aid organizations in Orange and Los Angeles counties.
  • Be prohibited from requiring a tenant to repair any damages or defective conditions that preexisted the tenancy or that resulted from ordinary wear and tear.
  • Be prohibited from imposing any pre-set or predetermined deductions, or treating any portion of a security deposit as nonrefundable, including, without limitation, by charging a standard cleaning fee, a standard carpet cleaning fee, a standard painting fee, or any other standard fees or deductions not tied to the condition of the unit.
  • Be required to provide clear notice to tenants of their rights.
  • Be required to respond to tenant complaints in writing, and support security deposit deductions with pictures. 

Under state law, withholding cleaning fees from a security deposit is allowed only when the unit is not left in the same level of cleanliness as when the tenant moved in. Tenants may clean their unit themselves, and landlords may not deduct for repairing ordinary wear and tear. In addition, tenants may ask their landlord to inspect their unit before they move out and identify any issues, so that the tenant has the chance to fix or clean them in order to avoid security-deposit deductions. Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta issued five consumer alerts advising California tenants of their rights and protections under state law, and alerting property managers and landlords of their obligations to tenants. The consumer alert on security deposits can be found here. It is also available in SpanishChineseKoreanTagalog, and Vietnamese

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

California Department of Justice Investigating Fontana Police Department Officer-Involved Shooting Under AB 1506

November 13, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

**The information provided below is based on preliminary details regarding an ongoing investigation, which may continue to evolve**

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that the California Department of Justice (DOJ), pursuant to Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), is investigating and will independently review an officer-involved shooting (OIS) that occurred in Fontana, California on Saturday, November 11, 2023, at approximately 8 p.m. The OIS incident resulted in the death of one individual and reportedly occurred as officers with the Fontana Police Department responded to a call for assistance regarding disturbing the peace at a residence.

Following notification by local authorities, DOJ’s California Police Shooting Investigation Team initiated an investigation in accordance with AB 1506 mandates. Upon completion of the investigation, it will be turned over to DOJ’s Special Prosecutions Section within the Criminal Law Division for independent review.

More information on the California Department of Justice’s role and responsibilities under AB 1506 is available here: https://oag.ca.gov/ois-incidents

 

Attorney General Bonta Voices Support for LGBTQ+ Community Following Unfavorable U.S. Supreme Court Decision

June 30, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

 

OAKLAND – In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision today in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, California Attorney General Rob Bonta reiterated his unyielding commitment to LGBTQ+ rights. Attorney General Bonta criticized the ruling, which denies equal access to public businesses for LGBTQ+ individuals. In August 2022, Bonta joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief, urging the Supreme Court to reject a challenge to the State of Colorado’s public accommodations law.

“California’s unwavering support for the LGBTQ+ community remains steadfast even in the face of today's disheartening decision," said Attorney General Bonta. "We unequivocally reject any form of discrimination. While this ruling is a setback, we will continue and redouble our pursuit of equality for all.”

In 303 Creative, Lorie Smith, owner of a graphic design firm, sought to exclude same-sex couples from her provision of wedding website design services based on her religious beliefs. That exclusion would have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits businesses serving the public from discriminating on multiple grounds, including sexual orientation. Smith filed a lawsuit in federal court contesting the constitutionality of CADA on First Amendment grounds. The district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit rejected that theory, but today the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Smith to offer wedding website design services to same-sex couples.

Historically, the law has required businesses that serve the public to treat all customers equally. After the Civil War, many states, including Colorado, enacted this common law principle into statute. Today, most states have laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating against customers based on characteristics like race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. These laws ensure that everyone, irrespective of their background or identity, can access goods and services without fear of exclusion. This is particularly important for the LGBTQ+ community, which is often the target of discrimination. Today’s unfortunate ruling undermines the effectiveness of these laws, but Attorney General Bonta remains committed to ensuring that LGBTQ+ individuals can access goods and services on the same terms as the rest of the public.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision can be accessed here.

Attorney General Bonta: California Will Ensure Equal Access to Education, Despite U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Higher Education Admissions

June 29, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a statement following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions on Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. University of North Carolina. In significant rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that race-based preferences in the admissions policies of both universities are unconstitutional.

“Today’s Supreme Court decisions have far-reaching implications for diversity and equal opportunity in higher education, said Attorney General Bonta. “I am deeply disappointed about the potential impact on ongoing efforts to create inclusive learning environments. Today’s rulings will make it harder to achieve that goal. California has long recognized the value of diversity in institutions of higher learning. While the ruling narrows the scope of permissible consideration of race in admissions, it does not diminish our resolve to pursue policies and practices that ensure equal access and opportunities for all students. I remain committed to working with educational institutions, community leaders, and stakeholders to find innovative solutions that promote diversity, equality, and inclusion.”

Attorney General Bonta joined a multi-state amicus brief in support of education access for underserved communities in Philadelphia. He also joined a multistate coalition to reduce barriers to education for underrepresented student groups. Attorney General Bonta remains committed to exploring innovative approaches to ensure equal opportunities for all students and to dismantle barriers that hinder their success. 

Attorney General Bonta Joins Multistate Coalition in Defense of Respect and Privacy for Transgender Students

June 28, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

 

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general in an amicus brief in support of the Ludlow School Committee’s efforts to create a safe and supportive environment for transgender children and all students. The Ludlow School Committee in Massachusetts is currently facing a challenge to its policy that seeks to prevent the unnecessary disclosure of a student’s gender identity, while also striving to include families in creating a safe school environment for transgender students. In the friend-of-the-court brief, the attorneys general reiterate the role of states in supporting safe, inclusive school environments that help all children learn, thrive, and grow into contributing members of society.

“All students, including those who identify as transgender, deserve a safe and supportive school environment that respects their identities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “We believe in nurturing a culture of understanding and acceptance that keeps students feeling safe, diminishes mental health risks, and sets up all students for success. At the California Department of Justice, we continue to uphold the rights of all students, including those from the LGBTQ+ community.”

Ludlow School Committee and its members, like other school authorities around the country, are charged with one of the most important functions of government — nurturing successive generations of children into capable citizens. In recognition of the paramount importance of this responsibility, courts have long afforded state and local governments significant discretion to shape school policies in order to best serve this goal, so long as they act within the constraints of federal law, including both the Constitution and federal anti-discrimination law. In the current case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the coalition asserts that Ludlow School Committee has exercised its lawful discretion to craft a policy to support transgender or gender-nonconforming students. The policy balances parents’ involvement in their child’s education with the recognition that not all families are supportive, and not all students are open about their gender identity at home. The policy endeavors to keep transgender students supported and safe while at school and at home. In addition, research shows that protecting transgender students’ ability to make choices about how and when to inform others is critical to their well-being, as transgender students are exposed to high levels of harassment and mistreatment at school and in their communities. 

In the amicus brief, the coalition asserts: 

  • States have an interest in making schools a safe and supportive environment for all youth, including transgender youth.
  • All students benefit from safe and supportive schools.
  • Transgender youth face unique struggles that are addressed through a safe and supportive school environment, and a policy that protects their privacy and preserves their trust increases their academic success and lowers their risk of missing school, dropping out, or committing suicide.
  • The plaintiffs’ proposed framework creates significant burdens on state and local governments' ability to fulfill the mission of their schools. 
  • The appellate court should uphold the district court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ challenge to Ludlow School Committee’s policy.

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

A copy of the amicus brief is available here.

Attorney General Bonta Announces Lawsuit Against Telecommunications Company over Billions of Illegal Robocalls

May 23, 2023
Contact: (916) 210-6000, agpressoffice@doj.ca.gov

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.