Consumer Protection

Sling TV confused and misdirected consumers seeking to exercise their right to stop the sale of their personal information 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a settlement with Sling TV LLC and Dish Media Sales LLC (Sling TV), a streaming service, resolving allegations that the company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to provide an easy-to-use method for consumers to stop the sale of their personal information and by failing to provide sufficient privacy protections for children. The investigation and proposed settlement arise from the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigative sweep announced in January 2024, which focused on the compliance of streaming services and connected TVs with CCPA’s right to opt-out. Under the proposed settlement, Sling TV has agreed to pay $530,000 in CCPA civil penalties and implement changes to ensure the CCPA opt-out is easy for consumers to execute, requires minimal steps, and considers the way the business interacts with consumers. The settlement, subject to court approval, also requires the company to provide parents with clear disclosures and tools to minimize collection and use of their children’s data. 

“Californians have critical privacy rights. Our investigative sweep looked at all the different ways consumers should be able to stop the sale of their data when using streaming services,” said Attorney General Bonta “We take privacy rights seriously and Sling TV was not providing consumers an easy way to opt-out of the sale of their personal data as required. My office is committed to the continued enforcement of the CCPA — every Californian has the right to their online privacy, especially in the comfort of their living room.”  

Sling TV is an internet-based live TV service that offers both a paid subscription and a free, ad-supported streaming service. Unlike traditional television, where advertising is based on the content of the programming, Sling TV uses its internet-based platform to deliver highly targeted advertising, using detailed consumer data such as age, gender, location, and income to personalize ads for viewers, often without their awareness.   

In 2024, DOJ identified Sling TV as a target in its investigative sweep, because of Sling TV’s confusing and hard-to-find methods to opt-out of the sale and sharing of personal information. Sling TV combined cookie preferences with the CCPA opt-out, even though to truly opt-out, turning off cookies was insufficient. Consumers had to look for an embedded link to a webform and click through confirmation steps to complete their request. Even logged-in customers, where Sling TV knew the identity of the customer, had to fill out a webform with their name, address, email, and phone number — information already known to Sling TV. Additionally, Sling TV did not provide methods to opt-out within its apps on various living-room devices. Nor did they offer kids profiles that would reduce the use of targeted advertising when children are watching or otherwise obtain affirmative “opt-in” authorization when minors under the age of 16 were likely watching.  

Under the settlement Sling TV must: 

• Stop directing consumers seeking to implement their CCPA out-out rights to cookie preferences.
• Stop requiring logged-in customers to fill out a webform with information already available to the business, which adds unnecessary steps and could deter consumers from exercising their opt-out rights. 
• Provide an opt-out mechanism within the Sling TV app on various living-room devices, so consumers accessing Sling TV on various devices do not need to go to Sling TV’s website to opt-out.
• Allow parents to designate one or more user profiles as a “kid’s profile” that defaults off the sale and sharing of personal information and targeted advertising.
• Provide parents with clear disclosures and tools to protect their children’s privacy. 

The CCPA is a landmark law that secures increased privacy rights for California consumers, such as the right to know how businesses collect, share, and disclose their personal information. Businesses that are subject to the CCPA have specific responsibilities, including responding to consumer requests to exercise these rights and giving consumers certain notices explaining their privacy practices. 

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

Today’s settlement represents the fifth settlement under the CCPA: 

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

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

A copy of the complaint can be found here. A copy of the proposed judgment, subject to court approval, can be found here.

Federal law invoked by Trump Administration, IEEPA, makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or even “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.”  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, opposing the Trump Administration’s persistent efforts to impose illegal tariffs that have sent shockwaves and uncertainty through global economies, markets, and consumers. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the President has used as a vehicle to levy the tariffs in question, does not delegate any authority to the President to impose tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. President Trump’s illegal tariffs are causing uncertainty and unpredictability, which is bad for business, bad for the economy, and as the fourth largest economy in the world, bad for California. In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. 

“President Trump’s illegal tariffs impact businesses, consumers, and states across the nation — and they are illegal. Any attempt by the Trump Administration to interpret IEEPA as giving it the power to impose tariffs is a feat of mental gymnastics,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “No matter how you spin it, no matter what definitions the Administration reaches for, 2 + 2 does not equal 10. Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes — if Congress had intended to grant the President such extraordinary authority, it would have said so. Today, California asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

“Trump’s illegal tariffs are punishing American families and small businesses. It’s not policy or business acumen — it’s betrayal and grift. Americans are struggling to put food on their tables, and Trump’s response is to send $20 billion in taxpayer money to Argentina and leave our farmers and ranchers out to dry," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "While Trump continues to play political games and make shady deals for his own benefit, California will keep fighting on your behalf. We urge the court to stand firm against authoritarianism and uphold the rule of law that it is sworn to protect.”

Since February 2025, President Trump has issued an unprecedented and chaotic series of executive orders imposing tariffs, ranging from 10% to 145% on nearly every trading partner of the United States. California is the fourth-largest economy in the world and the largest importer of goods among the 50 states. The illegal tariffs imposed by President Trump using IEEPA threaten to devastate California’s economy, depriving it of $25 billion and more than 64,000 jobs. 

Instead of invoking any of the Tariff or Trade Acts as authority for his unilateral overhaul of our nation’s tariff system, the President invoked IEEPA, a federal statute enacted in 1977 that allows the President to take certain specified actions in response to a declared national emergency resulting from an unusual and extraordinary foreign threat. In the nearly fifty years since its enactment, no President has ever before invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs because IEEPA does not reference the power to tax or tariff at all.   

Moreover, every time that Congress has delegated tariff authority to the President, it has referred explicitly to tariffs, using terms like “duties” or “tariffs.” IEEPA makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or any similar term, such as “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.” IEEPA includes the phrase “regulate . . . importation,” which the Administration has taken to mean impose tariffs — despite the Administration’s inability to point to a single other statute in the entirety of the U.S. Code where “regulate” has been understood to bestow such power to the President. 

BACKGROUND:

Attorney General Bonta is committed to challenging the illegal tariffs that threaten California jobs, businesses, and consumers — tariffs that have sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe. The California Department of Justice has challenged President Trump’s illegal tariffs on all fronts:

In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. In June, a judge granted California's request for dismissal to allow the state to appeal its case challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs after the Administration asked that the case be transferred to the Court of International Trade — a motion that California opposed. The dismissal kept the case in California and allowed California to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. California’s case has been held in abeyance by the Ninth Circuit pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of these cases. For more information on California’s case, please see here.

Other states and entities nationwide have filed lawsuits of their own. Attorney General Bonta has filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump as well as in the D.C. Circuit in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, cases challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs.

Attorney General Bonta has hosted roundtable discussions in San Francisco and Los Angeles for business leaders on the front lines of the tariff war to discuss the impacts of tariffs on industries across California. 

A copy of the brief is available here.

 Bill adds warning labels to social media platforms

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) today issued the following statements in response to Governor Gavin Newsom signing into law Assembly Bill 56 (AB 56), legislation that aims to protect children and teens from risks posed by social media.

“People across the nation — including myself — have become increasingly concerned with Big Tech’s failure to protect children who interact with its products. Today, California makes clear that we will not sit and wait for companies to decide to prioritize children’s well-being over their profits,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “By adding warning labels to social media platforms, AB 56 gives California a new tool to protect our children. I thank Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan for introducing this legislation and look forward to continuing the vital work of ensuring social media platform use does not harm our kids.” 

"While I'm grateful Governor Newsom signed AB 56, our work isn't finished. California's children deserve both transparency about social media's harms and accountability when platforms cause damage," said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. "I'll continue working with Attorney General Bonta and my colleagues to ensure comprehensive protections become law. Our children's mental health crisis demands nothing less."

AB 56 requires social media companies to periodically display a warning label on their platforms when used by children and teens. The warning label advises that social media is associated with significant mental health harms and has not been proven safe for young users.  It must be clearly displayed upon the user’s initial access of the platform in a given day, again after the user has reached three hours of cumulative active use that day, and thereafter at least once per hour of active use.  

Last year, former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on Congress to require a surgeon general’s warning on social media platforms. Attorney General Bonta, joined by a bipartisan coalition of 42 attorneys general, supported this proposal and argued that mandating a surgeon general’s warning on algorithm-driven social media platforms could help address the growing youth mental health crisis and protect future generations of Americans. 

A growing body of research links young people’s use of social media platforms to a variety of serious harms, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Adolescents who spend more than three hours per day on social media face double the risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. Social media companies are aware of this, yet do not share this information with consumers. California’s own ongoing lawsuits against Meta and TikTok claim that the social media giants intentionally design their platforms to addict young people to their mental and physical detriment for the sake of profits.

El Departamento de Justicia de California se prepara para tomar medidas contra quienes explotan a los inquilinos de California 

LOS ANGELES — El fiscal general de California, Rob Bonta, ha celebrado hoy una rueda de prensa en Los Angeles para pedir a los inquilinos de California que hayan sufrido daños por parte de sus propietarios que den a conocer sus experiencias. El pasado mes de junio, el fiscal general Bonta demandó a Mike Nijjar, uno de los mayores propietarios de California, y al grupo de empresas inmobiliarias y de gestión de propiedades de su familia, por infringir las leyes de California que protegen a los inquilinos. El Departamento de Justicia de California (California DOJ) desea conocer las historias de los californianos que han sido perjudicados por las empresas del Sr. Nijjar, o por cualquier otro propietario. Aunque California DOJ no representa a particulares, su historia puede ayudarnos a investigar o a emprender otras acciones legales para proteger a los californianos. Las personas que deseen compartir sus historias pueden hacerlo enviando un informe a oag.ca.gov/reportar. Existe la opción de presentar su informe en español.

"Los inquilinos de California tienen derecho a vivir en una casa o apartamento seguro, independientemente del idioma que hablen, su estatus migratorio o su nivel de ingresos. Como fiscal general, mi trabajo consiste en exigir responsabilidades a los propietarios que violan las leyes de protección de los inquilinos, que garantizan su seguridad y su vivienda", afirmó el fiscal general Bonta. "Este verano, mi oficina presentó una demanda en la que se alegaba que el propietario Mike Nijjar y sus empresas explotaban a familias vulnerables sometiendo a los inquilinos a condiciones de vivienda inseguras, como plagas de cucarachas y roedores, goteras en los techos y desbordamientos de alcantarillado, todo ello mientras engañaban a los inquilinos sobre sus derechos a demandar al propietario y exigir reparaciones. Si usted o su familia han sufrido condiciones como estas, quiero saberlo. Póngase en contacto con mi oficina presentando una denuncia en oag.ca.gov/report. Aunque mi oficina no puede representar a inquilinos individuales, sus historias nos ayudan en nuestro proceso judicial contra los propietarios que explotan a los inquilinos de California".

El Sr. Nijjar y sus empresas poseen y gestionan más de 22,000 viviendas de alquiler en todo el estado, principalmente en vecindarios de bajos ingresos y de habla hispana. Las empresas gestoras, anteriormente denominadas PAMA Management e IE Rental Homes, ahora se denominan: 

• Legacy Management (en el condado de Los Angeles y el Inland Empire)
• Regency Management (en el área metropolitana de Los Angeles y el valle de San Gabriel)
• Bridge Management (en el valle de Antelope y el condado de San Bernardino)
• Hightower Management (en la ciudad de San Bernardino y sus alrededores)
• Pro Management (en los condados de San Bernardino y Riverside)
• Equity Management (en Bakersfield, Stockton, Sacramento, Fresno y sus alrededores)
• Mobile Management (en todo el estado)

La demanda del fiscal general Bonta contra el Sr. Nijjar y sus empresas alega que estas empresas someten a los inquilinos a condiciones insalubres e inseguras, lo que supone una violación de la ley de protección de los inquilinos. La demanda alega que las empresas de Nijjar:

• No proporcionan a los inquilinos traducciones al español de sus contratos de alquiler y otros documentos importantes, tal y como exige la ley estatal, incluso cuando llevan a cabo el proceso de alquiler en español.
• Discriminan las solicitudes con vales de la Sección 8 negándose a alquilarles.
• Incluyen cláusulas engañosas en sus contratos de alquiler.
• Aumentaron ilegalmente el alquiler a muchos inquilinos. 

El objetivo principal de la demanda contra el Sr. Nijjar y sus empresas es garantizar que proporcionen condiciones de vida seguras a todos sus inquilinos y cumplan con la ley. California DOJ reconoce la importancia de preservar todas las opciones de vivienda existentes para los californianos con bajos ingresos y no pretende desalojar a los inquilinos de sus hogares ni obligar a la venta de los edificios a promotores inmobiliarios. La demanda busca las medidas correctivas adecuadas según la ley, incluida la indemnización a los inquilinos afectados y medidas cautelares que obliguen a los demandados a cumplir la ley y mejorar las condiciones de sus propiedades. 

Para presentar una queja y compartir su historia con California DOJ, visite oag.ca.gov/reportar. 

Para obtener más información sobre sus derechos como inquilino, visite aquí. 

Los californianos que se enfrentan a un desalojo o creen que su arrendador ha violado sus derechos como inquilinos deben buscar ayuda legal de inmediato. Si no puede pagar un abogado, podría calificar para asistencia legal gratuita o de bajo costo. Para encontrar una oficina de asistencia legal cerca de su domicilio, visite lawhelpca.org y haga clic en la pestaña "Buscar Ayuda Legal". Si no califica para asistencia legal y necesita ayuda para encontrar un abogado, visite la página web del Colegio de Abogados del Estado de California para encontrar un servicio local de referencia de abogados certificados, o visite la página web de los Tribunales de California para inquilinos que enfrentan desalojos.

Para usar gráficos en sus informes, consulte aquí para un mapa de algunas propiedades de Nijjar. Consulte aquí y aquí para una llamada a la acción en español e inglés, respectivamente.

California DOJ prepared to take action against those who exploit California tenants  

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today held a press conference in Los Angeles to ask California tenants who have been harmed by their landlords to come forward with their experiences. This past June, Attorney General Bonta sued Mike Nijjar, one of California’s biggest landlords, and his family’s group of property management and real estate holding companies, for violating California laws that protect tenants. The California Department of Justice (California DOJ) would like to hear the stories of Californians who were harmed by Mr. Nijjar’s companies — or by any other landlord. While California DOJ does not represent individuals, your story may help us investigate or take other legal action to protect Californians. People who wish to share their stories can do so by submitting a report to oag.ca.gov/report. There is an option to make your report in Spanish to oag.ca.gov/reportar. 

“California tenants have the right to live in a safe house or apartment — no matter the language they speak or their immigration status or income level. As the People’s Attorney, it is my job to hold landlords accountable for violating tenant protection laws that keep tenants safe and housed,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This summer, my office filed a lawsuit alleging landlord Mike Nijjar and his companies exploited vulnerable families by subjecting tenants to unsafe housing conditions, including cockroach and rodent infestations, leaking roofs, and overflowing sewage, all while deceiving tenants about their rights to sue their landlord and demand repairs. If you or your family have experienced conditions like these, I want to know. Please reach out to my office by filing a report at oag.ca.gov/report. While my office cannot represent individual tenants, your stories help us in our prosecution of landlords who exploit California tenants.”

Mr. Nijjar and his companies own and manage over 22,000 rental housing units statewide, primarily in lower-income, Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. The management companies, formerly called PAMA Management and IE Rental Homes, go by the following names: 

• Legacy Management (in Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire)
• Regency Management (in metropolitan Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley)
• Bridge Management (in Antelope Valley and San Bernardino County)
• Hightower Management (in and near the City of San Bernardino)
• Pro Management (in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties)
• Equity Management (in and around Bakersfield, Stockton, Sacramento, and Fresno)
• Mobile Management (statewide) 

Attorney General Bonta’s lawsuit against Mr. Nijjar and his companies alleges that these companies subject tenants to unhealthy and unsafe conditions, in violation of tenant protection law. The lawsuit alleges that the Nijjar companies:

• Do not provide Spanish translations of their leases and other important documents to tenants, as required by state law, even when they conduct the leasing process in Spanish.
• Discriminate against applications with Section 8 vouchers by refusing to rent to them.
• Include deceptive lease terms in their leases.
• Unlawfully increased rent for many tenants.  

The main goal of the lawsuit against Mr. Nijjar and his companies is to ensure they provide safe living conditions for all their tenants and comply with the law. California DOJ recognizes it is important to preserve all existing housing options for lower-income Californians and is not seeking to remove tenants from their homes or force the sale of buildings to developers. The lawsuit seeks appropriate remedies under the law, including restitution to affected tenants and injunctive terms requiring the defendants to follow the law and improve conditions at their properties. 

To file a complaint and share your story with California DOJ, please visit oag.ca.gov/report.   

To learn more about your rights as a tenant, please visit here.   

Californians who are facing eviction or believe their landlord has violated their tenant rights should seek legal help immediately. If you cannot afford a lawyer, you may qualify for free or low-cost legal aid. To find a legal aid office near where you live, visit lawhelpca.org and click on the “Find Legal Help” tab. If you do not qualify for legal aid and need help finding a lawyer, visit the California State Bar webpage to find a local certified lawyer referral service, or visit the California Courts’ webpage for tenants facing evictions.

For graphics to use in your reporting, please see here for a map of some Nijjar properties. Please see here and here for a call to action in Spanish and English, respectively. 

Puede encontrar una copia de este comunicado de prensa en español aquí.

Proposed rule would increase the risks of financial harm for millions of Americans 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta this week, along with 20 attorneys general, opposed a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) proposed rule that would limit the CFPB’s authority to oversee nonbank financial services providers. Nonbank providers are part of a fast-growing consumer financial market that provides bank-like services while operating without a banking license, making nonbank financial services companies less regulated than traditional banks. Nonbanks were at the center of the 2008 financial crisis, putting consumers and the financial system at risk due to lack of transparency and regulation. In response, Congress authorized the CFPB to engage in supervision of nonbank entities where there is reason to believe that the companies are posing risks to consumers. The proposed rule imposes haphazard limits on one of the CFPB’s key tools to protect consumers and if passed, would increase the risk of financial harm for millions of Americans, particularly with the increasing move to digital payments and other nonbank financial services. Shortly after taking office, the Trump Administration has engaged in a campaign of destruction and systemic shuttering of the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide. 

“The CFPB was created in response to the failure of regulators to address consumer protection issues that in 2008, led to millions of lost jobs and trillions of dollars in losses for American consumers. Now, the Trump Administration is attempting to gut the CFPB's ability to do its job, to do the very thing it was created to do,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Nonbank financial services providers have a large and increasing significance to the everyday financial lives of consumers, growing at twice the rate of banking services in the last few years — growth that has happened alongside, not despite of, regulation and oversight of the CFPB. Consumers and businesses, especially those without access to traditional banks, rely on these providers for their financial needs. I urge the CFPB to continue its important work in regulating these nonbank providers and helping protect consumers from catastrophic financial harm.”

The past two decades have seen an exceptional growth of digital and financial services provided by entities other than banks, such as digital wallet providers, peer-to-peer payment processors, neobanks, and online or mobile-app lenders. Despite not holding banking licenses, these nonbank providers play an important role in meeting financial needs unmet by conventional banks, especially for people and businesses that might not qualify for regular bank loans.  

Background

After examining the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress concluded the crisis resulted in part from the failure of federal banking and other regulators to address significant consumer protection issues detrimental to both consumers and the safety and soundness of the banking system. In direct response to these events, Congress established the CFPB and tasked it with enforcing numerous federal consumer protection statutes and enacting regulations to further these efforts. For over a decade, the CFPB has served as an invaluable partner to state attorneys general and state banking regulators, both by working to protect consumers against fraudulent and abusive practices and by advancing a fair and level playing field in consumer financial markets by issuing regulations under federal law. California has also expanded oversight of nonbanks at a state level since the financial crisis, including through the establishment of Department of Financial Protection and Innovation.

The Trump Administration has taken a series of actions intended to debilitate the CFPB, including issuing a suspension of work across the agency, terminating probationary employees, and announcing a decision not to draw additional funding from the Federal Reserve. These actions appear to be part of a unilateral effort to permanently shut down the agency, including programs and operations mandated by federal law. Most recently, the Trump Administration issued reduction in force notices to 90% of the CFPB’s workforce — a move that was swiftly blocked by the courts. 

Attorney General Bonta has been a vocal supporter of CFPB. This week, Attorney General Bonta sent multiple letters to the CFPB, opposing a series of proposals that would dramatically shrink the Bureau’s supervisorial oversight of the markets for auto finance, consumer reporting, debt collection, and international money transfer services. Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta submitted amicus briefs in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the CFPB.   

In sending the letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, as well as the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection.

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Proposals would leave consumers who are buying a car, disputing debt, or transferring money internationally, vulnerable

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, along with 19 attorneys general, sent multiple letters to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), opposing a series of proposals that would dramatically shrink the Bureau’s supervisorial oversight of the markets for auto finance, consumer reporting, debt collection, and international money transfer services. The proposals all outline the CFPB’s intention to regulate only a small handful of companies in each of these markets, leaving consumers who use the vast majority of companies in these markets unprotected. The Trump Administration's proposals would limit the CFPB's oversight to as few as six consumer reporting companies, 11 debt collectors, four international money transfer providers, and five auto finance companies. Shortly after taking office, the Trump Administration launched a campaign of destruction and systemic shuttering of the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide.  

“The Trump Administration’s razing of the CFPB, the top cop protecting Americans from financial exploitation, puts families nationwide at a glaring disadvantage when standing up to big businesses that aren’t playing by the rules,” said Attorney General Bonta. “With these proposals to limit its own oversight of critical financial markets, the CFPB is attempting to skirt its obligation under federal law to protect American consumers, meaning that hundreds of thousands of consumer complaints would fall on deaf ears. If you have ever had issues with your car loan, with sending money internationally, or have ever disputed a credit score error, these proposals impact you.”  

The CFPB was created to protect consumers from being taken advantage of by corporations. As the cornerstone of federal consumer financial protections, the CFPB has worked to protect consumers from fraud, abuse, and unfair business practices — and has returned over $20 billion to Americans since its creation.

In the letters today, the attorneys general oppose all four advanced notice of proposed rulemakings under the CFPB's larger participant rulemaking authority. The attorneys general argue that the proposals would leave millions of Americans without a federal agency looking after their best interests and would violate the CFPB’s obligation to protect consumers under federal law. Each proposal would dramatically shrink the CFPB’s oversight of certain markets — most of which are plagued with high consumer complaints.  

Automobile Finance Market Proposal 

Car loans are the most important consumer financial transaction besides a mortgage. Aside from homes, American consumers enter into the largest and most consequential financial decisions of their lives when obtaining automobile loans, which often run from five to seven years. And in its most recent report, the CFPB acknowledged receiving more than 18,000 complaints regarding automobile financing. The proposed rule would radically reduce the CFPB’s coverage of the automobile finance market, leading the CFPB to only supervise less than half of all companies operating in this space, and none of the entities operating in the subprime space (for individuals with low credit scores), which is the riskiest lending space. 

A copy of the letter can be found here. 

Consumer Reporting Market Proposal 

The consumer reporting industry touches the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans in the financial marketplace. When the consumer reporting market does not function properly, consumers are harmed in nearly every area of life, including in their ability to access credit, obtain employment, rent housing, acquire insurance, and open bank accounts. 

As it stands, this system is plagued by inaccuracies, and consumers continue to report trouble exercising their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to dispute incorrect information on their credit reports. In 2024, consumers sent more than 2.7 million complaints to the CFPB about consumer reporting issues, accounting for 85% of all CFPB consumer complaints on any topic. Many complaints related to smaller and specialty consumer reporting companies. 

A copy of the letter can be found here. 

Debt Collection Market Proposal 

American consumers have the right to be free from abusive and predatory debt collection practices. Yet illegal debt collection practices are prevalent throughout the country. In 2024, debt collection related consumer complaints constituted the second highest category of complaints made by consumers to the CFPB. And the volume of debt collection related complaints is skyrocketing. From 2023 to 2024, debt collection complaints to the CFPB rose by a staggering 89%; from 98,000 complaints in 2023 to 207,800 in 2024. In the face of the significant and rising levels of consumer injury from illegal debt collection practices, the proposed rule would significantly reduce the number of debt collectors under the CFPB’s supervision.

A copy of the letter can be found here. 

International Money Transfer Services Proposal

American consumers deserve to be treated fairly when sending money abroad. Yet too often consumers are charged hidden junk fees, lose money due to transfer errors, or are deceived by bad actors in the industry about the terms and conditions of the international money transfers they make. The CFPB is considering significantly shrinking their supervision so that only four international money transfer providers are subject to supervision.

A copy of the letter can be found here.  

Background
 
After examining the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress concluded the crisis resulted in part from the failure of federal banking and other regulators to address significant consumer protection issues detrimental to both consumers and the safety and soundness of the banking system. In direct response to these events, Congress established the CFPB and tasked it with enforcing numerous federal consumer protection statutes and enacting regulations to further these efforts. For over a decade, the CFPB has served as an invaluable partner to state attorneys general and state banking regulators, both by working to protect consumers against fraudulent and abusive practices and by advancing a fair and level playing field in consumer financial markets by issuing regulations under federal law. 
 
The Trump Administration has taken a series of actions intended to debilitate the CFPB, including issuing a suspension of work across the agency, terminating probationary employees, and announcing a decision not to draw additional funding from the Federal Reserve. These actions appear to be part of a unilateral effort to permanently shut down the agency, including programs and operations mandated by federal law. Most recently, the Trump Administration issued reduction in force notices to 90% of the CFPB’s workforce — a move that was swiftly blocked by the courts.

Attorney General Bonta has been a vocal supporter of CFPB. Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta submitted amicus briefs in Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle the CFPB.  

In sending today’s letters, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.

Proposed rule could block student loan forgiveness for thousands, deter job seekers from entering public service

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in opposing a proposed U.S. Department of Education (ED) regulation that would exclude some employees from Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility based on whether their employers engage in actions that the Trump Administration deems to have a "substantial illegal purpose.” The proposed rule may threaten PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in longstanding, important, and legal activities, such as providing legal or other services to immigrants, providing gender-affirming care to minors, participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, or engaging in civil protest and the right to assembly. 

“Nationwide, millions of Americans took out student loans to become public servants with the promise of debt relief down the line, and now, the Trump Administration is attempting to hold this debt relief tool hostage from employers that engage in actions the President does not like,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The promise of Public Service Loan Forgiveness allows states like California to attract and retain talent to serve the public good — this is critically important and essential for borrowers who would otherwise be unable to afford serving in the public sector. Today, I urge the U.S. Department of Education to reconsider this vague and arbitrary rule and put public service ahead of retributive political games.”

PUBLIC SERVICE LOAN FORGIVENESS BACKGROUND

In 2007, a bipartisan Congress created PSLF to encourage college graduates to work in the public sector, where salaries are often lower than at for-profit companies. The PSLF program enables public servants who work in eligible government and nonprofit roles to have their qualifying federal student loans forgiven after 10 years of qualifying service and payments. It helps public service employers recruit and retain skilled workers who might otherwise be forced to turn to private sector employment to afford to pay their student loans. Many California state employees are eligible for, actively pursuing, or have already benefited from PSLF as a means of managing the significant student debt that they incurred in preparing for skilled public service careers. 

THE PROPOSED RULE 

ED’s proposed rule would allow the Secretary of Education to disqualify employers from PSLF if she determines they are engaged in “substantially illegal” activity. The vagueness of the rule could empower the Trump Administration to target politically disfavored conduct and may threaten PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in longstanding and legal activities. As drafted, the rule would create uncertainty as to who is an eligible employer and will deter student borrowers from entering public service. If allowed to go into effect, ED could deem the State of California or specific California state agencies ineligible for PSLF, denying loan relief to state employees, and undercutting the state’s ability to recruit and retain skilled employees.  

In sending the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general of Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York lead the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Delay in implementation halts important public safety reform

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta this week joined eight attorneys general in calling for the review of the Wireline Competition Bureau’s abrupt suspension of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) order capping the cost of phone and video call rates for incarcerated people and their families, indefinitely postponing these reforms without adequate justification. Communication services play an important role in keeping incarcerated people connected to their loved ones and support systems, ultimately reducing disciplinary actions in prison, improving the likelihood of rehabilitation, and mitigating the negative impacts of incarceration on the community. These services can be provided at a reduced cost without sacrificing accessibility or safety, as California and other states that have opted to provide these services free of charge have clearly demonstrated. Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the FCC’s order. 

“States like California have shown that reducing or eliminating the cost of a simple phone call only serves to enhance public safety in communities. When incarcerated people are better connected to their family — and especially their children — they can better reintegrate into their communities upon their release. Stronger communication services allow incarcerated parents to act as supportive figures to their kids — this is associated with better outcomes for children and the communities they belong to. Incarcerated people who keep in touch with their communities have a place to return to, and return to prison at lower rates than those who do not have this opportunity,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Lawmakers and advocates understood the importance connection makes for public safety when Congress passed bipartisan legislation to ensure affordable and accessible communication services for incarcerated people and their families — yet reforms are delayed. I urge the FCC to review these delays in implementation and to move swiftly to give communities across the nation the best chance at building safety, stability, and a brighter future.”

BACKGROUND

Communication services in carceral settings have long been recognized as essential to successful rehabilitation. However, they have historically been provided at significant cost to the user, causing many people to incur thousands of dollars in debt and sacrifice basic needs, such as food or utility payments, to stay connected to their loved ones in correctional facilities. The high cost of staying in touch with incarcerated family members leads more than one in three families to go into debt to pay for phone calls and visits.

THE ORDER

The FCC first addressed this issue in 2015, issuing rate caps for calling services and prohibiting correctional facilities from taking a commission. After a court vacated these reforms, Congress enacted the Martha Wright-Reed Act in 2022, expressly authorizing the FCC to regulate these communications services. 

In September 2024, the FCC issued a new order that, among other things: (1) lowers the maximum rates correctional facilities can charge for phone calls and video communications; (2) establishes rate caps, for the first time, of video communication services; (3) eliminates ancillary fees; and (4) prohibits commissions to correctional facilities. Under the new rate caps, the cost of a 15-minute phone call would drop from as much as $11.35 to $0.90 in large jails and from $12.10 to $1.35 in small jails. While state prisons and juvenile detention facilities in California are already required to provide free phone calls under the Keep Families Connected Act of 2022, local adult jails and federal prisons within the state are not. The FCC’s order would hold local adult jails and federal prisons to a similar standard, meaning that fees for communication services will be greatly reduced or eliminated.

THE DELAY 

In the amicus brief, the attorneys general argue that the Bureau’s suspension of the FCC’s order violates Congress’s mandate that these reforms be implemented within 24 months of the Martha Wright-Reed Act of 2022 and fail to comply with required notice and comment rulemaking, ignoring critical issues and evidence in the record and violating the Bureau’s own regulations. The attorneys general urge the FCC to review the suspension order to ensure that these critical reforms can become effective on the timeline prescribed by Congress and previously established by the FCC without further delay. 

In submitting the letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. 

A copy of the letter can be found here.

Continues advocating to protect children from harm related to advancing technology  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced his support of Assembly Bill 1064, also known as the Leading Ethical AI Development (LEAD) for Kids Act. If signed by the Governor, the LEAD for Kids Act, authored by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), would take an important first step by prohibiting the availability of so-called “companion chatbots” to children unless the chatbots are not foreseeably capable of certain conduct, such as engaging in sexually explicit interactions, or encouraging children to harm themselves, harm others, participate in illegal activity, among other things. In the last few weeks, Attorney General Bonta has warned 12 of the largest artificial intelligence (AI) companies of their legal responsibility to children as consumers after reports of sexually inappropriate interactions between AI chatbots and children. Attorney General Bonta and Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings have also met with OpenAI to discuss deep concerns over increased reports of how OpenAI’s products interact with children, especially after reports that one young Californian died by suicide after engaging with a chatbot. 

“As the fourth largest economy in the world and the home to Silicon Valley, California knows that protecting our kids and pursuing innovation go hand in hand — they are not opposites. When faced with the decision about how their products treat children, we cannot wait for companies developing and deploying AI technologies to decide to prioritize children’s well-being over their profits. It is our job as policymakers and leaders to intervene and ensure that companies are not harming children,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “People across the nation — including myself — have become increasingly concerned with AI companies’ failure to protect children who interact with their chatbots. We need policies governing emerging AI technology that put consumer protection — especially when it comes to our most vulnerable consumers — front and center. I thank Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan for introducing this legislation, a much needed first step to ensure that our children are not treated as test subjects as AI innovation moves quickly.” 

"Our children deserve a future where technology isn’t designed to exploit their vulnerabilities for profit," said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda). "It's imperative that we fight for stronger protections and hold companies accountable when their products put children at risk. I'm grateful for Attorney General Bonta's support as we work together to build a safer digital world for California's children."

AI is increasingly integrated into children’s lives without sufficient information about how the technology will impact the children using it. AI companion chatbots are programs designed to form a relationship with a human user by engaging in human-like conversations, offering emotional support, and providing companionship. These chatbots can simulate human personalities and deep emotional relationships and falsely present as friends, romantic companions, or even mental health specialists. Because AI companion chatbots are capable of responding to emotions and behaviors to keep children engaged, the lines between what is real and not real can become increasingly blurred, especially for a still-developing brain. Companion chatbots have already harmed children and adolescents, including incidents of exposure to hypersexualized interactions, as well as encouragement of self-harm and suicide. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting Californians by responding to emerging and rapidly evolving technology. In the past years, Attorney General Bonta has filed lawsuits against Meta and TikTok. Both lawsuits are ongoing and claim that the social media giants intentionally designed their platforms to addict young people to their mental and physical detriment. 

Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta issued two legal advisories, reminding consumers of their rights, and advising businesses and healthcare entities who develop, sell, or use AI about their obligations under California law. Although AI technology is developing rapidly, entities must comply with existing California laws. The legal advisories can be found here, and here. In the last few months, Attorney General Bonta sent multiple letters (here and here) to Congressional leaders strongly opposing a 10-year ban on states from enforcing any state law or regulation addressing AI and automated decision-making systems, arguing the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology demands the flexibility and responsiveness that states can provide and urging lawmakers to remove the provision. The ban was struck down in July. 

In 2024, Attorney General Bonta sent a comment letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) related to the potential impact of emerging AI technology on efforts to protect consumers from illegal robocalls or robotexts. In 2023, Attorney General Bonta joined a bipartisan coalition of 54 states and territories in sending a letter to Congressional leaders calling for the creation of an expert commission to study how AI can and is being used to exploit children through child sexual abuse material (CSAM).