Consumer Protection

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement today after the Senate rejected a proposed 10-year ban on states enforcing any state law or regulation addressing artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making systems which was included in budget reconciliation bill. In the last few months, California has sent letters (here and here) to Congressional leaders strongly opposing the ban arguing the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology demands the flexibility and responsiveness that states can provide and urging lawmakers to remove the provision. 

“Lawmakers across the aisle have recognized that states must retain the ability to protect their residents and respond to emerging and rapidly evolving AI technology,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The promise of AI raises exciting and important possibilities. California’s continued advancements, in AI and beyond, are something to be proud of, embrace, and encourage. But, like any emerging technology, there are risks to adoption without responsible, appropriate, and thoughtful oversight. California is proud to have vigorously opposed the ban and remains committed to ensuring the rights of our residents are respected.” 

In January, 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 quickly, entities must comply with existing California laws, as well as new laws that went into effect on January 1, 2025. The first legal advisory advises consumers and entities about their rights and obligations under the state’s consumer protection, civil rights, competition, and data privacy laws; the second advisory provides guidance specific to healthcare entities about their obligations under California law. The legal advisories can be found here, and here. 

Action represents fourth settlement, continued enforcement priority under the California Consumer Privacy Act

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement pending court approval with website publisher Healthline Media LLC (Healthline), resolving allegations that its use of online tracking technology on its health information website, Healthline.com, violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). An investigation by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) found that Healthline failed to allow consumers to opt out of targeted advertising and shared data with third parties without CCPA-mandated privacy protections — including data suggesting that a person may have a serious health condition. The proposed settlement, pending final approval from the court, includes $1.55 million in civil penalties and strong injunctive terms, including a novel term that prohibits Healthline from sharing article titles that reveal that a consumer may have already been diagnosed with a medical condition — banning the company from engaging in these types of data transmissions.

“Our settlement with Healthline underscores that Californians have critical privacy rights under the CCPA to fight online surveillance — including by website publishers. Healthline shared data with third parties that could have revealed consumers’ private medical diagnoses, and while doing so, disregarded consumer’s rights to opt-out of the sale and sharing of this data,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California continues to lead the nation in enforcing our robust privacy protection law, and businesses that collect consumer data must honor consumers’ privacy rights. My office is committed to the continued enforcement of the CCPA — every Californian has the right to their online privacy.” 

Healthline.com is a health and wellness information website that is one of the top 40 most visited websites in the world. Healthline generates revenue by showing ads — some of which are personally targeted at the reader. To maximize ad revenue, Healthline allows online trackers, like cookies and pixels, to communicate data about readers to advertisers and other third parties. Healthline shared data that could uniquely identify the consumer, in addition to the title of the article they were reading. Some titles indicated that the reader may have already been diagnosed with a serious illness, such as “You’ve Been Newly Diagnosed with MS. What’s Next?” And because these online trackers run invisibly in the background in the first milliseconds when a webpage loads, consumers often have no idea how many online trackers might be running. In Healthline’s case, dozens of trackers were sharing consumer data with numerous third parties.

The complaint filed today alleges Healthline violated the CCPA and the Unfair Competition Law by:

• Failing to opt consumers out of the sharing of their personal information for targeted advertising. The CCPA gives consumers the right to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their personal information for certain targeted advertising. Businesses and website publishers must honor these requests, including requests submitted through the Global Privacy Control. Healthline continued to share data with some third parties involved in advertising, even for consumer who exercised their right to opt -out.  

• Violating the Purpose Limitation Principle. Under the CCPA, a business’s use of personal information is limited to the purposes for which the personal information was collected or processed or another disclosed, compatible purpose. Healthline violated this principle by sharing article titles suggesting a consumer may have already been diagnosed with a specific medical condition to target advertising at the consumer.   

• Failing to maintain CCPA-required contracts. Healthline had not ensured its advertising contracts contain privacy protections for readers’ data required by the CCPA. Instead, Healthline had assumed, but not verified, that the third parties had agreed to abide by an industry contractual framework. 

• Deceiving consumers about privacy practices. The Unfair Competition Law prohibits deceptive business practices. Healthline.com featured a “consent banner” that did not disable tracking cookies, despite purporting to do so if a consumer unchecked a box.   

Under the settlement today, Healthline is required to ensure that its opt-out mechanisms work correctly; must stop disclosing information that can link a specific consumer to a specific article title that suggests that consumers have been diagnosed with a disease; must maintain a CCPA compliance program that, among other things, mandates that Healthline audits its contracts for specific, required privacy terms or confirm that third parties have signed an industry contractual framework that includes those terms; and maintain accurate online disclosures and privacy policy. 

Today's settlement represents Attorney General Bonta's fourth enforcement action under the CCPA, and his continued priority to enforce California’s robust privacy laws:  

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 COPPA, 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. 

This March, as part of ongoing efforts to enforce the CCPA, Attorney General Bonta announced an investigative sweep into the location data industry, sending letters to advertising networks, mobile app providers, and data brokers that appear to be in violation of the CCPA. The risk posed by the widespread collection and sale of location data has become immediately and particularly relevant given federal threats to California's immigrant communities, and to reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare. Attorney General Bonta has previously conducted investigative sweeps related to streaming apps and devices and employee information.

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 is available here, a copy of the proposed settlement is available here. The settlement is pending court approval.

If you need help with immigration relief or if your loved one has been detained, be careful who you hire

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued guidance to help California's immigrant communities avoid immigration scams by those seeking to take advantage of fear and uncertainty resulting from President Trump’s cruel mass detention and deportation campaign. The alert released today provides tools for people looking to hire free or low-cost legal help and for those looking to locate loved ones who are detained. 

“Families across the country are experiencing fear and uncertainly as a result of President Trump’s inhumane immigration agenda — and scammers are paying attention. Immigration scams, including notario fraud, prey on the hopes of safety and stability of our immigrant communities,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Before hiring someone claiming to offer help with immigration matters or assistance locating a detained loved one, I urge people to familiarize themselves with existing resources that are often available at little or no cost and learn how to check that the individual is qualified to provide immigration help.”

What is Notario Fraud?

Only lawyers, accredited representatives, and recognized organizations can give you legal advice or represent you in immigration court. Immigration consultants – who may call themselves immigration experts, notarios, notaries public, or paralegals – cannot do so. 

In many Spanish-speaking nations, “notarios” are powerful attorneys with special legal credentials. In the United States, however, notary publics are people authorized by state governments to witness the signing of important documents and are not necessarily authorized to provide legal services. A notario público is not authorized to provide people with any legal services related to immigration.

How to Locate Detained Loved Ones

Try to find your loved one’s Alien Registration number (A-Number), which is on their immigration documents. If someone has not previously had contact with immigration authorities or has not applied for an immigration benefit, they will not have an A number but will be assigned one if detained. To find someone in detention, search locator.ice.gov  by their A-Number or by their full name and country of birth. Once you identify the detention center, go to ice.gov/detention-facilities  for location, visiting, and other information. Using the A-Number, you can look up immigration court hearing information at acis.eoir.justice.gov. For more information, please visit nilc.org/resources.

Protect Yourself from Immigration Scams

If you need help applying for immigration relief, be careful who you hire. Watch out for immigration scams that can cost you thousands of dollars and/or harm your immigration status. Here are some tips and resources to help:  

• Confirm that anyone helping you with your case is licensed or accredited. Only lawyers, accredited representatives, and recognized organizations can give you legal advice or represent you in immigration court. Some immigration consultants may fraudulently call themselves immigration lawyers. If someone claims they are licensed in California or another state and can practice immigration law, confirm they are licensed and in good standing in that particular state by visiting americanbar.org/groups/legal_services/flh-home/flh-lawyer-licensing. If someone claims to be an accredited representative or recognized organization, visit justice.gov/eoir/recognition-accreditation-roster-reports to confirm that information.

• Go to a legitimate legal aid organization for free legal help. Many nonprofit organizations provide free immigration help to low-income individuals, such as those found through the resources below. To find a legal aid organization near you, go to lawhelpca.org. 

• Keep your original documents in a safe place. Don’t give your original documents to anyone unless you see proof that the government requires the original document. Make sure you have a trusted emergency contact who can access these documents. Keep copies of all immigration-related documents, including copies of documents filed with the government and communications with the government, in a safe place.

• Do not give money or personal information to anyone who calls, texts, or emails you claiming that there is a problem with your immigration matter. No federal or state agency, including USCIS, will ever ask for your personal information or payment over the phone, by email, or text. Be skeptical of social media or other ads promising new or quick immigration help.

Access Free and Low-Cost Legal Assistance 

Visit Law Help CA or Immigration Law Help to find immigration assistance near you.

Find free immigration help through the U.S. Department of Justice’s list of no cost legal service providers and list of accredited representatives.

If You are the Victim of an Immigration Scam

Report it to the California Department of Justice at oag.ca.gov/report. You can also contact your local District Attorney or county department of consumer affairs.

You can get help from a legitimate legal aid organization at lawhelpca.org.

For more do’s and don’ts, see the full “Protecting Yourself from Immigration Scams” consumer alert here. The alert is available in Spanish here. 

Travel agent failed to offer refunds for trips cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Mateo District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe today announced a settlement with Nawas International Travel Service (Nawas), a California travel agency focusing on religious travel, for failing to provide full refunds to consumers whose trips were cancelled during the COVID-19 pandemic. The settlement today, pending court approval, includes at least $567,138 in full restitution of cancellation fees to affected California travelers, $560,000 in civil penalties under the California’s Unfair Competition Law and Seller of Travel Act, and strong injunctive terms that prohibit Nawas from imposing cancellation fees that violate California law. 

“We are proud to announce that today, in partnership with the San Mateo District Attorney, we’ve secured full refunds for hundreds of Californians who were harmed by the illegal practices of Nawas International Travel Service. Travel agents operating in California must comply with California’s strong consumer protection laws, which includes providing timely refunds for cancelled travel,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today's settlement provides important restitution for those harmed by Nawas's attempt to disregard California law and a reminder to the travel industry that all California Sellers of Travel need to play by the rules."  

“California law provides protections for consumers when purchasing travel from Sellers of Travel. My office was pleased to work with the Attorney General’s Office in this case to ensure these laws were enforced,” said San Mateo District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe. 

Nawas is a seller and provider of tours to religious sites around the world, including sites in the Middle East and Europe. Nawas markets its tours largely through clergy and many of Nawas’s travelers are senior citizens. In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Nawas cancelled hundreds of international tours. After the cancellation, rather than refunding the full amount of the travelers’ deposits and tour payments, Nawas unlawfully withheld “cancellation fees” of between $200 and $1,150 per traveler. In all, Nawas withheld approximately $560,000 in what they termed cancellation fees from approximately 600 California travelers. Nawas’s withholding of those funds violated the California Seller of Travel Act, which requires sellers of travel to provide full refunds for any travel that they are unable to provide, with certain limited exceptions that do not apply here. Although Nawas claimed to travelers that it was allowed to withhold cancellation fees under its own terms and conditions, the Seller of Travel Act expressly prohibits this where, as here, the seller of travel is unable or unwilling to provide the purchased travel. 

The Attorney General’s Office operates the Seller of Travel Program, which registers travel agents and certain other travel businesses operating in California. The attorney general and district attorneys can bring enforcement actions against sellers of travel for violations of the law. We encourage any Californian who believes they have been wronged by a seller of travel to contact their local district attorney and file a complaint with our office at ‪www.oag.ca.gov/report.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to investigating and remedying harm to consumers affected by unlawful and deceptive business practices, including in the travel industry: 

Earlier this year, Attorney General Bonta announced securing a nine-year jail sentence against Iqbal Randhawa for defrauding more than a dozen members of the South Asian immigrant community in Northern California. Between 2017 and 2020, each victim hired Randhawa, a travel agent, to purchase airline tickets, paying him between $1,100 and $12,000. Instead of buying the tickets, Randhawa provided fraudulent itineraries and stole the funds. Also last year, Attorney General Bonta and San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan announced the sentencing of Marie Martin, a San Diego-based travel agent and registered seller of travel, who embezzled travel funds from more than 150 parents who paid for eighth-grade school trips to the East Coast. After the school trips were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Martin refused to provide refunds to the parents, instead spending funds on personal expenses. In 2021, Attorney General Bonta announced a settlement  with Voyageurs International, resolving allegations that the Colorado-based travel agent offered only partial refunds for a cancelled European trip for California high school students and improperly pocketed their clients’ remaining fees. The settlement required Voyageurs to provide a full refund to its 130 California consumers, for a total of approximately $247,000 in restitution.  

A copy of the complaint and proposed settlement can be found here and here. The settlement is pending court approval. 

Ban would leave Americans unprotected from current AI-related harms

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of the Consortium of Privacy Regulators (Consortium), today sent a letter to U.S. Senate leaders urging lawmakers to remove a provision in the federal budget reconciliation bill that establishes a 10-year ban on states from enforcing any state law or regulation addressing artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision-making systems. In the letter, the Consortium explains that the rapidly evolving nature of AI technology demands the flexibility and responsiveness that states can provide and asks lawmakers to remove the provision and ensure that states retain their essential role in protecting their residents from privacy harms. Last month, Attorney General Bonta joined a bipartisan coalition of 40 attorneys general in sending a similar letter voicing nationwide concern and opposition over the ban. 

“Leaders nationwide — across both sides of the aisle — are sounding the alarm: a ban on state AI regulation could rob millions of Americans of rights they already enjoy and end states’ ability to swiftly respond to emerging and evolving privacy challenges spurred by AI technology,” said Attorney General Bonta. “States are often on the front lines of developing strong privacy and technology protections for their residents — I urge lawmakers to remove the 10-year AI regulation ban provision on states and allow this important work to continue.”

AI systems affect nearly all aspects of everyday life. The promise of AI raises exciting and important possibilities. But, like any emerging technology, there are risks to adoption without responsible, appropriate, and thoughtful oversight. States have played a leading role in developing strong privacy and technology protections to address a wide range of harms associated with AI and automated decision-making. State privacy authorities are often the first to receive consumer complaints and identify problematic practices and have the proximity and agility to identify emerging threats and implement innovative solutions. In the letter, the Consortium explains that state privacy laws already address substantial privacy harms posed by AI, and provide consumers with transparency about how their personal information is used. The ban threatens these important protections, creating legal uncertainty, undermining years of regulatory development, and creating a regulatory vacuum that threatens the privacy rights of Americans nationwide. 

In April, Attorney General Bonta announced an agreement of formal collaboration between seven states and the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) to promote collaboration and information sharing in the bipartisan effort to safeguard the privacy rights of consumers. Known as the Consortium of Privacy Regulators, the group regularly discusses developments in privacy law, shared priorities, and coordinates enforcement, as appropriate, based on the members’ common interest. 

In sending today’s letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the CCPA and the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont. 

A copy of the letter can be found here.

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the filing of charges against a Southern California real estate agent for price gouging two families who were evacuated in the wake of the Pacific Palisades Fire. The investigation by the California Department of Justice revealed that after the Emergency Order was in place, the defendant increased the rental price by over 30% — including to tenants who eventually signed a lease. These increases exceeded the 10% limit laid out in Penal Code section 396. The charge carries a potential penalty of a $10,000 maximum fine and the possibility of 12 months in jail.  

“Today, we’ve announced another price gouging charge, this time against a real estate agent for price gouging two families in the wake of the Pacific Palisades Fire. Profiting off Californians' pain though price gouging is illegal and I will not stand for it,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I urge current or prospective tenants to share their stories directly with local authorities like the LA City Attorney or LA District Attorney, or our office by visiting oag.ca.gov/LAfires or calling our hotline at (800) 952-5225.”

As part of Attorney General Bonta's work to protect Californians following the Southern California wildfires, DOJ has also sent more than 750 warning letters to hotels and landlords who have been accused of price gouging. Working alongside our District Attorneys, City Attorneys, and other law enforcement partners, DOJ has opened active investigations into price gouging, fraud, scams, and unsolicited low-ball offers on property during the state of emergency.

California law – specifically, Penal Code section 396 – generally prohibits charging a price that exceeds, by more than 10%, the price a seller charged for an item before a state or local declaration of emergency. For items 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, transportation, freight and storage services, hotel accommodations, and long- and short-term 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 prosecutors can enforce the statute.

TIPS FOR REPORTING PRICE GOUGING, SCAMS, FRAUD AND OTHER CRIMES:

1. Visit oag.ca.gov/LAfires or call our hotline at: (800) 952-5225.
2. Include screenshots of all correspondence including conversations, text messages, direct messages (DMs), and voicemails
3. Provide anything that shows what prices you were offered, when, and by whom.
4. If you’re on a site like Zillow, you can also send screenshots of the price history and a link to the listing. 
5. Include first and last names of the realtors, listing agents, or business owners you spoke to. Be sure to include phone numbers, email addresses, home and business addresses, websites, social media accounts.
6. Don't leave out any information that can help us find and contact the business or landlord.

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/LAfires. To view a list of all price gouging restrictions currently in effect as a result of proclamations by the Governor, please see here.

A copy of the complaint can be found here. 

OAKLAND — El Fiscal General de California, Rob Bonta, presentó una demanda contra un grupo de empresas de administración de propiedades y holdings inmobiliarios propiedad del magnate de viviendas de alquiler del sur de California Swaranjit “Mike” Nijjar, su hermana Daljit “DJ” Kler y otros miembros de su familia. La demanda, tras una investigación de tres años, alega que las empresas de Nijjar, conocidas comúnmente como PAMA Management, violan de manera atroz numerosas leyes de California al someter a los inquilinos a unidades inseguras marcadas por plagas de cucarachas y roedores, techos con goteras, desbordamiento de aguas residuales y otros problemas. La demanda también alega que las empresas discriminan a los solicitantes con vales de vivienda de la Sección 8, cobran alquileres excesivos a algunos inquilinos y utilizan contratos de alquiler que engañan a los inquilinos sobre sus derechos legales, entre otras violaciones. La mayoría de los inquilinos que viven en propiedades de PAMA tienen ingresos bajos o fijos, y muchos se enfrentan a la horrible elección entre soportar condiciones graves y a veces catastróficas o quedarse sin hogar. En la denuncia que se presentó hoy en el Condado de Los Angeles, el Fiscal General Bonta solicita sanciones, restitución total por el daño financiero sufrido por los inquilinos, restitución de las ganancias obtenidas de manera ilícita y medidas cautelares que prohíban al Sr. Nijjar, a PAMA y a las empresas relacionadas continuar con estas prácticas comerciales ilegales y atroces. 

“PAMA y las empresas propiedad de Mike Nijjar y su familia son conocidas por sus condiciones deplorables y precarias, algunas tan malas que los residentes han sufrido resultados trágicos. Nuestra investigación sobre las propiedades de Nijjar reveló que PAMA se aprovecho de familias vulnerables, negándose a invertir los recursos necesarios para erradicar las plagas, reparar techos anticuados e instalar sistemas de plomería que funcionen, todo mientras engañaba a los inquilinos sobre sus derechos a demandar a su propietario y exigir reparaciones”, dijo el Fiscal General Bonta. “Sin embargo, Nijjar y sus asociados han tratado demanda tras demanda y violación del código tras violación del código como el costo de hacer negocios y se les ha permitido operar y cobrar cientos de millones de dólares cada año a familias que duermen, se duchan y alimentan a sus hijos en condiciones insalubres y deplorables. Ya es suficiente. Hoy intervengo. Estoy agradecido con todas las personas que dieron un paso al frente, incluido el Equipo de Protección al Consumidor del Departamento de Justicia, los periodistas de California que dieron la voz de alarma, los funcionarios encargados de hacer cumplir el código local que responden de manera incansable a las quejas de los inquilinos y, sobre todo, los inquilinos de PAMA que hablaron sobre sus angustiosas experiencias.” 

Antecedentes

La familia Nijjar y sus empresas relacionadas poseen y administran más de 22,000 unidades de vivienda de alquiler en todo el estado, principalmente en vecindarios de bajos ingresos en los Condados de Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino y Kern, pero también se extienden hasta los Condados de Sacramento y San Joaquin. Los funcionarios encargados de hacer cumplir el código en estas comunidades citan rutinariamente las propiedades de la familia Nijjar por violar las normas mínimas de habitabilidad. En los últimos años, las empresas de la familia han resuelto docenas de demandas alegando defectos de habitabilidad y condiciones inseguras; estas demandas afectaron a cientos de inquilinos, incluidos algunos niños que resultaron gravemente heridos en propiedades de PAMA. En 2016, un bebé murió en un incendio en una de las casas móviles de PAMA en el condado de Kern, que no estaba permitida para la ocupación humana. 

A pesar de todo, esto ha sido la practica de negocio en curso para Mike Nijjar y sus entidades corporativas: siguen con la compra de propiedades nuevas, ignoran las peticiones de reparaciones de los inquilinos y operan bajo una lista cada vez mayor de nombres de empresas que lo hace aun mas dificil que los inquilinos sepan a quién le están alquilando. Los inquilinos pueden conocerlos por los nombres de sus empresas de administración de propiedades actuales y recientes: no solo PAMA Management, sino también I E Rental Homes, Bridge Management, Equity Management, Golden Management, Hightower Management, Legacy Management, Mobile Management, Pro Management y Regency Management.  

Luego de una extensa cobertura mediática por parte de la prensa y las partes interesadas, el Departamento de Justicia de California inició una investigación sobre PAMA a fines de 2022 que descubrió violaciones generalizadas de habitabilidad y otras violaciones graves de los derechos de los inquilinos. 

Violación de las normas básicas de habitabilidad 

La demanda del Fiscal General alega que, al no realizar un mantenimiento adecuado de las unidades, PAMA y las empresas relacionadas pusieron en riesgo inmediato la seguridad y la salud de los inquilinos. Las unidades PAMA sufren amplios problemas de mantenimiento, entre los más comunes se encuentran:

• intrusión de agua debido a goteras en los techos y plomería anticuada; 
• daños estructurales causados por la intrusión de agua y el mantenimiento retrasado;
• mal funcionamiento de las tuberías, incluidas las aguas residuales superficiales; y 
• plagas de cucarachas y roedores. 

Estas violaciones no son sólo un error; son parte de prácticas comercialesen curso. PAMA aplaza las inversiones necesarias en mantenimiento a favor de reparaciones rápidas y baratas; utiliza operarios no cualificados incluso para trabajos especializados; ofrece poca o ninguna formación al personal, muchos de los cuales no tienen experiencia en gestión de propiedades; y no realiza un seguimiento sistemático y rutinario de las solicitudes de mantenimiento, que a menudo se pierden o nunca se completan. PAMA está al tanto de estos problemas y sabe que sus operaciones generan condiciones inhabitables, pero estas prácticas comerciales han persistido durante años.

Cláusulas de alquiler engañosas

La demanda también alega que PAMA y las empresas relacionadas celebraron decenas de miles de contratos de alquiler con cláusulas ilegales y engañosas que intentan invalidar los derechos garantizados por la ley. Estos derechos incluyen el derecho del inquilino a demandar a su propietario y presentar su caso ante un jurado; a realizar reparaciones que el propietario descuidó y deducir el costo de dichas reparaciones del alquiler; y a que el propietario ejerza un deber de cuidado para evitar lesiones personales o daños a la propiedad personal.

PAMA también violó la ley de California al negarse a proporcionar traducciones en español de estos contratos de alquiler y otros documentos importantes, a pesar de solicitar de manera intencionada inquilinos hispanohablantes a través de publicidad en dos idiomas y la contratación de empleados hispanohablantes para llenar unidades vacantes y comunicarse con los inquilinos.  

Discriminación contra inquilinos con vales de la Sección 8 

La demanda alega además que PAMA y las empresas relacionadas discriminan a los solicitantes con vales de la Sección 8 que buscan una vivienda. Los vales de la Sección 8 ayudan a las familias de bajos ingresos a alquilar viviendas a propietarios privados, lo que permite que la familia pague parte del alquiler mientras el gobierno paga el resto. En California, es ilegal discriminar a un inquilino o solicitante de vivienda en función de su fuente de ingresos, incluida la recepción de asistencia de alquiler de la Sección 8. Las empresas de administración relacionadas con PAMA han violado la ley al decirles a los solicitantes con vales que hay una lista de espera para las unidades o que no hay unidades de alquiler disponibles, incluso cuando de hecho hay unidades disponibles y se están alquilando a solicitantes sin vales de la Sección 8. 

Aumentos ilegales de alquiler y otras conductas indebidas

La demanda del Fiscal General también alega violaciones a la Ley de Protección de Inquilinos de California (TPA) en más de 2,000 unidades, donde PAMA y empresas relacionadas trasladaron ciertos costos obligatorios de servicios públicos, que solían ser pagados por el propietario, a sus inquilinos. Para los inquilinos protegidos por la TPA, es ilegal que los propietarios ignoren el límite de alquiler cuando exigen a los inquilinos que paguen tarifas o cargos de servicios públicos nuevos o mayores. La denuncia alega que estas empresas comenzaron a cobrar a los inquilinos por servicios públicos compartidos, como el agua, a través de un sistema de facturación de servicios públicos proporcional, conocido como “RUBS”, obligando a los inquilinos a pagar cargos por servicios públicos que estaban fuera de su control. La combinación de estas nuevas tarifas de servicios públicos y los aumentos anuales del alquiler resultaron en aumentos totales de hasta el 20%: más del doble del límite de alquiler de la TPA. Además, PAMA y las empresas relacionadas violaron los requisitos de notificación de la TPA al no incluir en los contratos de alquiler de los inquilinos las divulgaciones exigidas por ley para que el inquilino sepa si las protecciones de la TPA (que incluyen controles de aumento de alquiler y limitaciones a los desalojos) se aplican a ellos. 

Además de las violaciones anteriores, la demanda alega que PAMA y las empresas relacionadas emitieron avisos de desalojo ilegales a docenas o cientos de inquilinos, y también que las empresas no han cumplido con los requisitos básicos de licencia inmobiliaria desde 2020.

Se alienta a cualquier persona, incluidos inquilinos actuales o anteriores, que tenga información que pueda ser relevante para este caso a que comparta sus historias con nuestra oficina en oag.ca.gov/report. 

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

Una copia de la denuncia está disponible aquí.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta today filed a lawsuit against a group of property management and real estate holding companies owned by Southern California rental-housing tycoon Swaranjit “Mike” Nijjar, his sister Daljit “DJ” Kler, and other members of his family. The lawsuit filed today, after a three-year investigation, alleges Nijjar’s companies, commonly known as PAMA Management, egregiously violated numerous California laws by subjecting tenants to unsafe units marked by cockroach and rodent infestations, leaking roofs, overflowing sewage, and other problems. The lawsuit also alleges that the companies discriminate against applicants with Section 8 housing vouchers, overcharge some tenants for rent, and use leases that deceive tenants about their legal rights, among other violations. Most tenants living in PAMA properties have low or fixed incomes, and many are faced with the horrible choice between enduring serious and sometimes catastrophic conditions or becoming homeless. In the complaint filed today in Los Angeles County, Attorney General Bonta seeks penalties, full restitution for financial harm to tenants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and injunctive relief barring Mr. Nijjar, PAMA, and related companies from continuing these unlawful and appalling business practices. 

“PAMA and the companies owned by Mike Nijjar and his family are notorious for their rampant, slum-like conditions — some so bad that residents have suffered tragic results. Our investigation into Nijjar’s properties revealed PAMA exploited vulnerable families, refusing to invest the resources needed to eradicate pest infestations, fix outdated roofs, and install functioning plumbing systems, all while deceiving tenants about their rights to sue their landlord and demand repairs,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Nijjar and his associates have treated lawsuit after lawsuit and code violation after code violation as the cost of doing business and have been allowed to operate and collect hundreds of millions of dollars each year from families who sleep, shower, and feed their children in unhealthy and deplorable conditions. Enough is enough — today, I step in. I am grateful to all the people who came forward, including the DOJ Consumer Protection Team, California reporters who sounded the alarm, local code enforcement officers who tirelessly respond to tenant complaints, and, most of all, PAMA tenants who spoke out about their distressing experiences.” 

Background 

The Nijjar family and their related companies own and manage over 22,000 rental housing units statewide, primarily in low-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Kern Counties — but also spanning up to Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties. Code enforcement officers in these communities routinely cite the Nijjar family’s properties for violating minimum habitability standards. In recent years, the family’s companies have settled dozens of lawsuits alleging habitability defects and unsafe conditions; these lawsuits have involved hundreds of tenants, including some children who have become seriously injured at PAMA properties. In 2016, an infant died in a fire at one of PAMA’s mobile homes in Kern County — which was not permitted for human occupancy. 

Through this all, it has been business as usual for Mike Nijjar and his corporate entities, which continue to buy new properties, ignore tenants’ pleas for repairs, and operate under an expanding list of company names that makes it difficult for tenants to understand who they are renting from. Tenants may know them by the names of their current and recent property management companies: not only PAMA Management, but also, I E Rental Homes, Bridge Management, Equity Management, Golden Management, Hightower Management, Legacy Management, Mobile Management, Pro Management, and Regency Management. 

Following extensive reporting from the press and stakeholders, the California Department of Justice began an investigation into PAMA in late 2022 that uncovered widespread habitability violations and other egregious violations of tenants’ rights. 

Violation of Basic Habitability Standards 

The Attorney General’s lawsuit alleges that, through their failure to properly maintain units, PAMA and related companies put tenant safety and health at immediate risk. While PAMA units suffer from extensive maintenance issues, among the most common are:

• water intrusion from leaking roofs and outdated plumbing; 
• structural damage caused by water intrusion and deferred maintenance;
• malfunctioning plumbing, including surfacing sewage; and 
• cockroach and rodent infestations. 

These violations are not just a mistake; they are part of ongoing business practices. PAMA defers necessary investments in maintenance in favor of quick and cheap repairs; uses unskilled handymen even for specialized work; provides little to no training to staff, many of whom have no experience in property management; and fails to track maintenance requests in any systematic, routine fashion — requests are often lost or never completed. PAMA is aware of these issues and knows their operations lead to uninhabitable conditions, yet these business practices have persisted for years.

Deceptive Lease Terms

The lawsuit also alleges that PAMA and related companies entered into tens of thousands of leases with unlawful and deceptive terms that attempt to invalidate rights guaranteed by law. Such rights include the tenant’s right to sue their landlord and present their case to a jury; to make repairs that the landlord neglected and deduct the cost of such repairs from rent; and to have the landlord exercise a duty of care to prevent personal injury or personal property damage.

PAMA also violated California law by refusing to provide Spanish translations of these leases and other important documents, despite intentionally soliciting Spanish-speaking tenants through dual-language advertising and the hiring of Spanish-speaking employees to fill vacant units and communicate with tenants.  

Discrimination against Tenants with Section 8 Vouchers

The lawsuit further alleges that PAMA and related companies discriminate against applicants with Section 8 vouchers who are looking for a home. Section 8 vouchers help low-income families rent housing from private landlords, allowing the family to pay part of the rent while the government pays the rest. In California, it is unlawful to discriminate against a tenant or housing applicant based on their source of income, including their receipt of Section 8 rental assistance. Management companies related to PAMA have violated the law by telling applicants with vouchers that there is a waiting list for units, or that no rental units are available, even when units are in fact available and are being rented to applicants without Section 8 vouchers. 

Unlawful Rent Increases and Other Misconduct

The Attorney General’s lawsuit also alleges violations of California’s Tenant Protection Act (TPA) at over 2,000 units, where PAMA and related companies shifted certain mandatory utilities costs — which used to be paid by the landlord — onto their tenants. For tenants protected by the TPA, it is unlawful for landlords to ignore the rent cap when requiring tenants to pay new or increased fees or utility charges. The complaint alleges that these companies began charging tenants for shared utilities, like water, through a ratio utility billing system, known as “RUBS,” forcing tenants to pay for utility charges beyond their control. The combination of these new utility fees and annual rent increases resulted in total increases of up to 20% — more than double the TPA’s rent cap. Furthermore, PAMA and related companies violated the TPA’s notice requirements by failing to include in tenants’ leases legally mandated disclosures to let a tenant know whether the TPA’s protections — which include rent-increase controls and limitations on evictions — apply to them. 

In addition to the violations above, the lawsuit alleges that PAMA and related companies issued unlawful eviction notices to dozens or hundreds of tenants, and also that the companies have failed to comply with basic real-estate licensing requirements since 2020.

Anyone – including current or former tenants – who has information that might be relevant to this case are encouraged to share their stories with our office by going to oag.ca.gov/report. To learn more about your rights as a tenant, please visit here.  

A copy of the complaint can be found here. 

A Spanish version of this press release can be found here. 

Meta must do better to protect consumers from financial harm 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a bipartisan coalition of 42 attorneys general, today sent a letter to Meta expressing deep concern regarding a flurry of investment scam advertisements (ads) running on its platforms — including Facebook newsfeeds. These investment scam ads threaten the pockets of consumers nationwide and Meta's existing systems have been shown to be insufficient to address the problem. In response to this concerning trend, the attorneys general ask Meta to take immediate action to improve its capabilities to detect and respond to these ads.

“It’s alarming to see how easy investment scam ads — which have cost some consumers their life savings — can be created and disseminated on Meta platforms. This growing trend, combined with Meta’s inadequate method of identifying these ads and its significant delay in removing them, makes this a recipe for disaster,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, I urge Meta to prioritize the safety of its users against investment scam ads — Meta can and must do right by the millions of people that use its platforms.” 

Investment scam ads running on Meta's platforms deceive consumers with images of well-known investors. Upon clicking on the ads, users are prompted to download WhatsApp and become members of groups that are not in fact sponsored or affiliated with the investors identified in the ads.  They are then targeted in an illegal investment scheme, commonly known as a “pump and dump” scheme. As part of the scheme, scammers encourage users to invest in penny stocks, thus inflating or pumping up the stock price. Then the scammers quickly sell the stocks — leaving the users holding worthless stock that they can no longer sell to recover their losses. In some cases, these scams have resulted in users losing their life savings. The impact on victims is devastating, leading not only immense financial losses, but also significant psychological and social consequences. 

In the letter, the attorneys general urge Meta to adopt protocols to properly tackle this pervasive issue — or otherwise ban all investment ads on its platforms. Although Meta uses a combination of automated systems and occasional human review to try to detect, block, and remove these advertisements, these systems do not work and allow vast numbers of scam ads to get through to publication.  

The letter sent today highlights the latest way Meta fails to protect its users against harmful content. In 2023, Attorney General Bonta, along with a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general, sued Meta for its role in designing and deploying harmful features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children and teens to their mental and physical detriment. This lawsuit remains ongoing. Last year, Attorney General Bonta sent a letter to Meta expressing concern regarding the increase in account takeovers and lockouts on Facebook and Instagram and the inadequacy of the company’s response to prevent and address consumer harm from these takeovers.  

In sending today’s letter to Meta, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washinton, West Virginia, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

A copy of the letter can be found here.

 Announcement comes following robust joint state-local investigation 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta along with San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan, Alameda District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson, Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman, Marin County District Attorney Lori E. Frugoli, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and Sonoma District Attorney Carla Rodriguez, today announced a settlement with Pacific Magazine Billing, resolving allegations that the company deceptively disguised solicitation mailers for magazine subscriptions as bills. As part of the settlement announced today, Pacific Magazine Billing agreed to pay $275,000 and is banned from participating in the mail order magazine solicitation industry. 

“In California, we boast nation-leading consumer protection laws — robust tools my office and the offices of local law enforcement partners can use to protect our residents. Pacific Magazine Billing used dishonest tactics to trick recipients into thinking they owed money to get consumers to sign up for a magazine subscription,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today, the settlement secured by my office and our law enforcement partners sends a clear message to companies looking to make a buck off unsuspecting Californians: If you deceive consumers, we will go after you, it’s that simple.” 

“Deceptive business practices that exploit unsuspecting people in Alameda County will not be tolerated, and this joint settlement shows business owners will be held to account for their actions,” said Alameda District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson. 

“My office will not tolerate unscrupulous companies profiting from deception,” said Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman. “Pacific Magazine Billing is accused of disguising third party offers as legitimate invoices in order to trick consumers into paying fake bills — conduct specifically prohibited by state and federal consumer protection laws. Our office will protect consumers from being tricked by these large companies. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office vigorously fights for consumers in our county, and when companies violate consumer protection laws across the state, we proudly partner with fellow district attorneys and the Attorney General to hold violators accountable.”

“The Company’s business model was a scheme built on deception,” said Marin County Deputy District Attorney Michael Wear. “Consumers believed they were paying legitimate bills, when in fact they were being scammed. Our action puts a stop to Pacific Magazine Billing’s fraudulent practices.”

“My office is committed to protecting consumers in San Francisco and around the State from direct mailers that are deceptive or misleading,” said San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “I encourage any consumer who receives an unsolicited mailer that seems confusing or just not right to contact my office’s consumer protection unit. I also want to thank my fellow District Attorneys and our partners in the Attorney General’s Office for working jointly to address the conduct alleged in this case.”

“Our Environmental and Consumer Law Division is committed to holding businesses and individuals accountable when they mislead California consumers,” said Sonoma District Attorney Carla Rodriguez. “We are pleased that we were able to work with the California Attorney General and other California District Attorneys around the state to stop this practice.”

Spurred by consumer complaints, in late 2022 the District Attorneys’ offices and the California Department of Justice launched a joint investigation into Pacific Magazine Billing. The investigation revealed that between 2016 and 2022 the company blasted out tens of millions of mailers that looked like bills for existing magazine subscriptions, when the mailers were in truth solicitations designed to deceive consumers into unknowingly starting or renewing subscriptions. 

The settlement announced today resolves allegations that in sending the mailers, Pacific Magazine Billing misled consumers and violated California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition Laws. As part of the settlement, Pacific Magazine Billing will pay a total of $275,000 in combined civil penalties and other payments that will be used to fund the enforcement of consumer protection laws. The company has also agreed to strong injunctive terms that permanently stop it from issuing solicitations for any magazine subscriptions and mailing solicitations designed as bills in any other business effort. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed working with law enforcement partners up and down the state to protect California consumers. In April, Attorney General Bonta in partnership with Napa County District Attorney Allison Haley and Santa Barbara County District Attorney John T. Savrnoch, announced a settlement with HomeOptions, a realty company based in Oakland that engaged in a predatory real estate scheme impacting over 500 California homeowners, and its Chief Executive Officer. In 2024, Attorney General Bonta, along with Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto, announced a $500,000 settlement with Tilting Point Media LLC resolving allegations that the company violated state and federal laws by collecting and sharing children’s data without parental consent in their popular mobile app game “SpongeBob: Krusty Cook-Off.” In 2023, Attorney General Bonta, along with District Attorneys from Merced, Ventura, and Yolo Counties, announced a settlement against Walmart over allegations that illegal weapons were sold to California consumers by Walmart and by third-party sellers through Walmart’s website.

A copy of the complaint and final judgement can be found here and here. The settlement is pending court approval.