Consumer Protection

Federal rule must set a floor, not a ceiling and must complement California’s strong consumer protection laws

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding its rulemaking proceedings to address unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to online food delivery fees. The letter commends the FTC for its attention to this matter and urges that any final rule does not preempt state law, in order to complement California’s existing laws that protect consumers and honest businesses from this deceptive conduct across industries, including food delivery. In 2023, California was the first state to pass an honest pricing law, SB 478, which works to empower consumers by arming them with accurate information upfront, so that they can compare prices between merchants.

“Consumers always, but especially amid a crisis of affordability, deserve to do business with companies that act transparently and with integrity. In 2023, California led the country in banning hidden fees and this week, I applaud the Federal Trade Commission’s work to ensure all Americans are protected from unfair or deceptive online food delivery fees,” said Attorney General Bonta. “At the same time, any federal rule must work with and complement the robust protections Californians already enjoy. I appreciate the Federal Trade Commission’s continued interest and effort to protect consumers and honest businesses throughout the nation and to recognize and preserve the vital role of state consumer-protection laws.”

California has taken action to protect consumers from deceptive price advertising across industries, including food delivery. In California, when food delivery platforms advertise a price for a delivery service, it must be the full, all-in price of the delivery service. Deceptive price advertising violates California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. To further this work, in 2023, the California Department of Justice and the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition co-sponsored California’s Honest Pricing Law (SB 478), which makes clear that the advertised price must include all mandatory fees other than tax and shipping. This law went into effect on July 1, 2024, and, with limited exceptions, governs all companies doing business in California, including food delivery platforms. SB 478 does not change what price a business can charge or what may be included in that cost, it simply requires that the price listed include all mandatory charges consumers will pay. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of 24 attorneys general and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s final rule that narrows the federal definition of a “professional degree” and would dramatically reduce the availability of federal student loans for some categories of professional students. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, argues that the Trump Administration’s new definition will exclude students seeking graduate degrees in nursing, physician assistant studies, physical therapy, and other professions from eligibility for higher student loan borrowing limits. This change will make it harder for these vital healthcare workers to pursue advanced degrees, threatening the availability of a critical workforce as well as the operations of healthcare systems in California and across the country.

“Across the nation, healthcare systems are underwater, with doctors, nurses, and other health professionals stretched to meet the needs of their communities. Nurses, physician assistants, and other health professionals are absolutely vital to keep our healthcare system running,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Now, the Trump Administration is threatening to make this crisis even worse by limiting students' access to the  federal student loans that make it possible to pursue the professional degrees needed for critical specialized work. This is not only illegal — it further strains an already strained system and threatens to reduce Californians’ access to medical care. We’ll see the President in court.” 

BACKGROUND 

For decades, the federal student loan program has expanded access to graduate and professional degrees without regard to discipline. By enabling more students to obtain post-baccalaureate degrees, the federal government has helped create a skilled workforce of well-paid professionals.

In July 2025, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which, in part, establishes annual and aggregate borrowing limits for federal student loans. It distinguishes between “graduate students” and “professional students” for the purposes of establishing the annual and aggregate loan limits. Prior to enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, students could borrow up to the full cost of attendance of a graduate program, regardless of whether it was considered a “graduate” or “professional” program. Under the statute, graduate students now have a $20,500 annual and $100,000 aggregate cap for borrowing, while “professional” students have a $50,000 annual and $200,000 aggregate cap.

Health professionals with advanced training through master’s or doctoral programs play critical roles in the U.S. healthcare system. The advanced training they receive allows them to fulfill specialized, vital roles in the healthcare process. Advance practice nurses with professional degrees, for example, provide essential, high-quality care to their patients, and they often do it in underserved, rural communities. Nurses, physician assistants, and other graduate health professionals can fill healthcare gaps by, among many other things, seeing patients, prescribing medication, and manning helplines. They are essential in fields that attract too few doctors because of relatively low pay, like family medicine, as well as in subspecialties that require years of specific training. The change in definition will discourage potential healthcare workers from entering the field, at a critical time when more dedicated professionals in these roles are needed. 

The new rule will also discourage students from seeking graduate degrees by making such degrees inaccessible or more expensive and may push students toward often-predatory private student loans. The rule is also expected to threaten states’ ability to meet critical workforce needs and exacerbate the shortage of health professionals in teaching positions, which will affect universities’ capacity to train the next generation of providers.

THE LAWSUIT

In the complaint today, the attorneys general challenge the restrictive definition of “professional degree,” which the coalition argues is contrary to law, in excess of statutory authority, and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The coalition also challenges the arbitrary and capricious implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s grandfathering provision, which would disadvantage students who transfer schools or withdraw and then re-enroll. The Act provided that currently enrolled students who borrowed federal student loans as of June 30, 2026, are “grandfathered” into the preexisting loan limits. But the final rule excludes students who transfer institutions or withdraw and re-enroll from grandfathering. 

In filing the lawsuit today, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

OAKLAND — The California Department of Justice (California DOJ) today released proposed regulations under Senate Bill (SB) 976, also known as the "Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act.” The Act, enacted in September 2024, protects minors from addictive features on online platforms, including social media. The Act requires the Attorney General to adopt regulations in furtherance of the Act’s purposes, including regulations regarding age assurance and parental consent. The Act also requires that the Attorney General solicit public comment about the impact that any regulation might have based on the nondiscrimination characteristics set forth in anti-discrimination law.

A copy of the SB 976 proposed regulations and other related documents can be found at: oag.ca.gov/sb976.

45-Day Written Comment Period and Public Hearing

As part of the regulatory process, California DOJ is opening a 45-day public comment period on the proposed regulations. Any interested party or their duly authorized representative may submit written comments regarding the proposed SB 976 regulations by 5:00pm PT on June 30, 2026. All comments received by the deadline will be posted on the California DOJ website and are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. Comments may be submitted to sb976@doj.ca.gov or by mail to:

California Department of Justice
Consumer Protection Section
1515 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612

Following the written comment period, California DOJ will hold a public hearing to provide all interested persons an opportunity to present statements or arguments, either orally or in writing, with respect to the proposed regulations:

WHEN: June 30, 2026, 1:00pm-3:00pm PT

WHERE: Elihu Harris Auditorium, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612 or by Zoom, https://doj-ca.zoomgov.com/j/1655551112.

Public Comment: Total time allocated for public comment may be limited depending on the number of attendees. We anticipate each attendee will be given approximately three (3) minutes to speak; however, California DOJ staff may shorten or lengthen the time limit depending on how many attendees are waiting to speak. Members of the public who wish to speak at the hearing are requested to RSVP in advance. Members of the public can RSVP here. California DOJ requests, but does not require, that persons who provide oral comments at the hearing also submit a written copy of their testimony to sb976@doj.ca.gov.

Accessibility: If you need assistance, including disability-related modifications or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please make your request by contacting sb976@doj.ca.gov at least five (5) business days before the meeting. 

For more information about the public hearing, please visit oag.ca.gov/meetings. You may also contact the department by e-mail at sb976@doj.ca.gov, by mail at California Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Section 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612, or by phone at 510-879-3992.

Requests information on 2026 World Cup ticket sales for California games following recent reporting

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today sent a letter to FIFA raising concerns about reports of potentially misleading ticketing practices related to the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and requesting information to assess potential violations of California law. California law provides strong protections for consumers, including strict prohibitions on marketing practices that are likely to mislead them. Businesses and organizations also cannot justify misleading practices by pointing to fine print or other terms that a reasonable consumer would not have seen or understood. Recent reports have raised concerns that FIFA sold tickets based on seating categories displayed on stadium maps and later altered those seating categorizations before assigning precise seat locations. 

“Californians deserve transparency and fairness when purchasing tickets for any event held in our state,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The FIFA World Cup only comes once every four years — and as someone who played soccer in college and beyond, has a daughter and daughter-in-law who play professional soccer, and still has a deep passion for the sport — I understand the significance these matches hold for fans. Californians should be able to trust that the seats they purchase match the representations made during the sales process. We look forward to receiving the requested information from FIFA as part of our ongoing review.” 

Scheduled to begin on Thursday, June 11, the 2026 FIFA World Cup will feature matches across the United States, including in California at SoFi Stadium in the Los Angeles area and Levi's Stadium in the San Francisco Bay area. To assess whether California law may have been violated, Attorney General Bonta is requesting information about ticket sales for the 2026 World Cup games in California, including how seating categories were represented, whether seat assignments differed from those representations, what disclosures were provided to buyers, and how any issues were addressed through refunds or other remedies.

Californians who believe they were misled can file a complaint at oag.ca.gov/report.

Settlement includes first-in-state injunctive terms, $2 million in penalties, and $300,000 in restitution

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced reaching a settlement with Aspen Dental Management, Inc. (Aspen Dental) for allegedly violating California’s ban on the corporate practice of dentistry and engaging in false and misleading advertising. Owned by private equity firms, Aspen Dental describes itself as a dental support organization that provides business management and administrative services to dental offices, each of which operates under the “Aspen Dental” name and branding. However, the company is alleged to have exceeded that role by, among other things, interfering with and unlawfully directing the practice, ownership, and management of dentistry in California. The settlement, which remains subject to court approval, includes unprecedented injunctive terms to protect California consumers and clinical staff, $2 million in penalties, and $300,000 in restitution funds for certain patients.  

“As Americans face an affordability crisis, there is no room for unlawful business practices that can increase healthcare costs or harm consumers. We allege that Aspen Dental went beyond providing business support services and became involved in managing dental operations, while also using advertising that misrepresented services to consumers,” said Attorney General Bonta. “With this settlement, my office is making clear that patient care must remain in the hands of licensed professionals. If you believe you are a victim of false or misleading advertising, please report it to oag.ca.gov/report.” 

Since its founding in 1998, Aspen Dental has expanded to more than a thousand offices nationwide. It entered California in 2019 and has since opened 19 offices and served tens of thousands of patients. As part of this expansion, it is alleged that Aspen Dental did not contract with existing dental offices, but rather selected, purchased, staffed, and advertised its offices without clearly identifying an independent dentist-owner. For example, Aspen Dental designed, built out, and furnished all of its offices and made detailed decisions about each location, down to the artwork in bathrooms. It also selected, purchased, and installed all dental equipment across offices.

Aspen Dental also encouraged the sale of particular products and services through direct incentives to practices’ clinical employees. For example, Aspen Dental developed and implemented an incentive program for hygienists to encourage the sale of clear aligners. The program offered hygienists $50 per sale to new patients or $100 per sale to existing patients. Business practices of this kind limited dentist-owners, restricted staff, misguided patients, and purportedly violated California’s ban on the corporate practice of dentistry and California’s Unfair Competition Law. 

Further, many advertisements that Aspen Dental created contained misleading and/or false representations, including misleading testimonials, ambiguity, misleading cost claims, and inexact pricing language. Some Aspen Dental advertisements represented that its offices worked with all insurance or no insurance. However, Aspen Dental offices did not accept state or federally funded insurance programs. Other advertisements described low prices for certain products or procedures without clearly disclosing the factors that affect the price or what’s provided.

As a part of the settlement, Aspen Dental has agreed to $2 million in penalties, $300,000 in restitution funds, and injunctive terms, including:

• Not replacing any practice owner with another dentist of its choosing.
• Not requiring practice owners to effectively give up ownership of any dental practices if they decide to terminate their contractual relationship with Aspen Dental.
• Not owning the property for any practice. 
• Not practicing dentistry, including but not limited to owning or managing any dental office.
• Not basing service fees on revenue, sales, or profits.
• Not suggesting, directing, or encouraging any licensed clinician, other than a practice owner, to sell or increase revenue for any service or product.
• Not compensating any of its employees based on the sales or revenue of practices.
• Not paying any practice employees incentives based on practice sales, revenue, or profit, including the sale of a particular service or product.
• Discontinuing the use of and not enforcing any existing contractual provision that restricts where any licensed clinician may practice or be employed. 
• Providing a written fee schedule for products and laboratory services.
• Registering with the Dental Board of California as a Dental Group Advertising and Referral Service. 
• Clearly and conspicuously identifying the practice owners name when creating, publishing, or disseminating advertisements.

California expected to receive over $440 million from the settlement

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced that a $7.4 billion settlement previously reached with Purdue Pharma and its owners, the Sackler family, has become legally effective, capping nearly a decade of work by attorneys general from across the country in pursuing investigations and litigation over Purdue’s and the Sacklers’ role in fueling the opioid crisis. The attorneys general launched a multistate investigation of Purdue in 2016, and California sued Purdue and certain members of the Sackler family in 2019. The settlement permanently bars the Sacklers from selling opioids in the U.S. and delivers funds for addiction treatment, prevention, and recovery to communities across the country over the next 15 years. California is expected to receive over $440 million from the settlement. 

After Purdue filed bankruptcy in September 2019 in light of massive litigation against it, the attorneys general took a lead role in the bankruptcy proceedings, including negotiating a new settlement that obtained more money from the Sacklers after the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 invalidated provisions in a prior settlement. The settlement gives funds to communities across the country, as well as individual victims and other groups who filed claims in the bankruptcy proceedings.

“With the settlement now in effect, California will, at long last, receive critical funding from Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family to help address the opioid crisis,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Our work doesn’t end here. We will continue holding those responsible for this crisis to account.” 

Fifty-five attorneys general, representing all eligible U.S. states and territories, signed onto the settlement in June 2025. It resolves litigation against Purdue and the Sacklers for producing and aggressively marketing opioids in the United States, fueling the largest drug crisis in the country’s history.

Most settlement funds will be distributed in the first three years. The Sacklers are paying more than $1.5 billion today, followed by approximately an additional $500 million in May 2027, $500 million in May 2028, and $400 million in May 2029. Additionally, Purdue is paying approximately $900 million today. 

The settlement also means that Purdue’s manufacturing operations transfer, effective today, to Knoa Pharma LLC (Knoa), which will be overseen by a board of directors with no connection to Purdue. The settlement prevents Knoa from marketing opioids and provides for an independent monitor to ensure it provides these medicines in the safest possible manner that limits the risk of diversion.

The settlement also provides that Purdue and the Sacklers will make public more than 30 million documents related to their opioid business. 

With this settlement, California’s total opioid settlement funds are expected to exceed $4.65 billion. 

Attorney General Bonta is joined in reaching the settlement by attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert warning Californians of counterfeit tickets for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympic Games and related scams. In today’s alert, Attorney General Bonta reminds Californians to exercise caution in their online transactions and provides tips to avoid falling victim to ticket scams.  

“Californians are excited to welcome the world to the Olympic Games in Los Angeles in 2028. Being a host city presents an opportunity for Californians to be part of this amazing and infrequent world wide event,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, I remind Californians to be cautious around Olympic ticket sales, purchase only from authorized vendors, and protect their personal information. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If you have fallen victim to a scam or suspect fraudulent activity, submit a complaint. You can file a report with my office at oag.ca.gov/report as well as with the Better Business Bureau and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.” 

Protect Yourself from Ticket Scams: 

• Purchase tickets from authorized vendors: When possible, always purchase tickets directly from official websites to ensure authenticity.
• Know the refund policy: Before purchasing third-party resale tickets, look into the reseller’s refund policy and whether they offer a guarantee regarding the authenticity and timely arrival of tickets.
• Protect your personal information: Never provide personal information, such as your Social Security number or bank account number, to prevent financial loss and fraud.
• Verify the web address safety: Double-check the website URL by ensuring the link starts with “https://” and has a padlock icon to ensure your credit card and billing information remain safe.
• Do your research: Search for online reviews of the seller and any potential customer complaints for prior scams.
• Use secure payment methods: Consider using your credit card to ensure that you have an opportunity to dispute fraudulent charges. Avoid using instant payment platforms like Zelle, Venmo, and Cash App, or you could risk never getting your money back. Do not pay for tickets with gift cards, prepaid debit cards, wire transfers, or cryptocurrency. Demands for payment using those methods are a strong warning sign of a scam.
• Be wary of overly discounted tickets: Be extra cautious with low-priced and/or hard-to-get tickets. If the price seems too good to be true, it probably is. 

If consumers have fallen victim to a ticket scam, they can file a complaint with our office at oag.ca.gov/report. Consumers can also report the incident to the Better Business Bureau and the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.

“I’m making efforts to push the market back to a retail that will give you [Amazon] solid headroom…”

“I am very determined to help you hunt the disrupters in the market.”

“If the problematic retail does not fix by the end of the week, we will discontinue [these products] from your problematic competition to ensure that Amazon can return to a healthy state with these items.”

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the public release of evidence clearly showing Amazon’s illegal price fixing scheme that is artificially driving up prices for Americans. In February, Attorney General Bonta filed a request for a preliminary injunction asking the San Francisco Superior Court to halt Amazon’s illegal conduct while California's lawsuit proceeds, and today he secured a largely unredacted copy of that filing for the public. The unredacted filing paints a clear and shocking picture of specific interactions in which Amazon, vendors, and competing retailers like Target, Walmart, Chewy, Best Buy, Home Depot, and others agree to increase retail prices across their platforms, all so Amazon can maintain its profit margins at the expense of consumers.

“The evidence we've uncovered is clear as day: Amazon is working to make your life more unaffordable. The company is price fixing, colluding with vendors and other retailers to raise costs for Americans beyond what the market requires — beyond what is fair,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Amid a crisis of affordability, Amazon is illegally working to rake in profits by making sure consumers have nowhere else to turn to for lower prices. We’ll see them in court."

What is Happening? Amazon is illegally raising prices for Americans. 

For years, Amazon has reached out to its vendors and instructed them to increase retail prices on competitors’ websites, threatening dire consequences if vendors do not comply. Vendors, bullied by Amazon’s overwhelming bargaining leverage and fearing punishment, agree to raise prices on competitors’ websites, or to remove products from competing websites altogether. 

This price fixing scheme typically begins with Amazon demanding that vendors “fix,” “correct,” “increase,” “raise,” or “look into” the prices of products on other retailers’ websites. These directives to vendors are backed by the threat of significant penalties for failure to comply — ranging from advertising and promotion restrictions, to demands for financial compensation, to the removal of vendors’ products from Amazon.

How Are Prices Being Raised? Amazon uses three different illegal schemes, all of which result in increased prices for consumers. 

• Amazon or its competitor, through their common vendor, will agree to increase the retail price or make a product temporarily unavailable, so that the other retailer can match the increased market price, increasing the price for consumers. 
• A competitor offering a cheaper price on a product will increase its retail price at Amazon’s request (a request made through the vendor), so that Amazon can then match that increased retail price, thereby increasing the price for consumers.
• The vendor removes a product from a competing retailer that is offering a lower price than Amazon, so that the lower price is no longer available in the market and Amazon then raises its retail price, resulting in a higher price for consumers. 

What Are Some Examples of These Schemes in Action?

Highlights from the newly revealed portions of the preliminary injunction include the following:

• Amazon, Levi’s, and Walmart Agreed on Increased Retail Pricing for Khaki Pants: Amazon sent Levi’s links to Khaki pants that were priced lower on Walmart.com [$25.47 to $26.99], saying it “hop[ed] these can get resolved over the next few days.” The next day, Levi’s reported that “I talked to Walmart and they have partnered with us to … take Easy Khaki Classic fit back up to…$29.99 immediately” and provided links to show the increased Walmart price. Amazon acknowledged that Walmart raised its price and confirmed it had matched that higher price: “the updated pricing of $29.99 is now showing up on [Amazon].” 
• Amazon, GlobalOne, and Chewy Agreed on Increased Retail Prices for Pet Treats: The plan was written in an email between Amazon and its vendor, GlobalOne. For its part, Amazon would raise GlobalOne’s Canine Naturals pet treat prices to get Chewy to follow, then GlobalOne would “reach out to Chewy” to let them know that Amazon was increasing the pricing and “would ask that [Chewy] follow.” In other words, if Chewy agreed, Amazon would increase its retail pricing for the Canine Naturals pet treats and Chewy would match the price increase. The plan materialized. Amazon told GlobalOne that the pricematch override was in place, and to “let Chewy know to update [pricing] immediately.” That same day, GlobalOne confirmed the “ones that went up on Amazon immediately went up on Chewy [happy face emoji] … Overall this looks like it’s working!” The result of Amazon, Chewy and GlobalOne’s price fixing agreement was to increase the retail prices of over ten Canine Naturals pet treat products on Amazon and Chewy.
• Amazon, Hanes, and Target Worked to Raise the Price of Apparel: Amazon sent Hanes links to Target.com and Walmart.com showing lower prices than were on Amazon, and Hanes confirmed that it “reached out to Target and Walmart to have the prices increased.” 
• Amazon, Allergan, and Walmart Worked to Increase the Price of Eyedrops: Amazon emailed vendor Allergan to say that it had temporarily suppressed eye drops due to a price match at $13.59, telling the vendor that it would “check the price match regularly throughout the day.” In response, Allergan sent a screenshot of Walmart’s website at $16.99, stating that “Walmart got their price back up” and asked Amazon to unsuppress the product. Amazon did so, confirming: “Buy box back up at $16.99.” 
• Amazon, Agrothrive, and Home Depot Worked to Raise the Price of Plant Fertilizer: Amazon complained to vendor Agrothrive about lower prices for Agrothrive’s products at Home Depot, to which Agrothrive responded: “Yes, just got out of a meeting with the Home Depot manager and she has agreed to raise the prices this time.”
• Amazon, Songmic, and Wayfair Worked to Increase the Price of a Trash Can: Amazon complained to vendor Songmic that Wayfair was selling Songmic’s trash can product for less and that the price needed to increase. In response, Songmic “urgently asked” Wayfair “to stop running deals for it.” 

The examples above are not outliers and are not exhaustive. They are illustrative of countless interactions — spanning years and product lines — in which Amazon, vendors, and Amazon’s competitors agree to increase and fix the prices of products on other retail websites. As Amazon told one vendor explicitly: “I am very determined to help you hunt the disrupters in the market.” 

What Happens Next?

As part of the motion for preliminary injunction, originally filed in February, Attorney General Bonta asks the court to stop Amazon’s unlawful conduct while this case proceeds, including: engaging in explicit price fixing with its vendors and its competitors; communicating with vendors about other retailers’ pricing; and coercing its vendors to serve as the go-between with its competitors by demanding money to make Amazon whole for price matching a lower-priced retailer. The hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is set for July 23. This case is scheduled to go to trial in January 2027. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 23 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) draft Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2026-2030. The plan proposes rollbacks to the agency's supervision, enforcement, and other work, putting consumers at risk of financial harm. In the comment letter, the attorneys general urge the CFPB to reconsider its Strategic Plan, arguing that it would undermine the CFPB’s statutory purpose, place a greater burden on state enforcement, and result in less relief for consumers. The CFPB was created to protect consumers in the financial marketplace, and it performs critical functions necessary to the functioning of the financial system. However, the Trump Administration pursued efforts to dismantle the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide. The Administration’s past actions, along with the Strategic Plan’s stated goals, have also resulted and will continue to result in less relief for consumers, not more.

“President Trump has pushed policies that have raised the cost of living for Americans. At the same time, the Administration has proposed changes that would make it harder for the CFPB to protect and defend those same Americans from being taken advantage of by big corporations,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The CFPB was created to stand up for consumers against big banks, debt collectors, and credit reporting companies, but the changes shown in the Bureau’s blueprint for the next five years severely undermine this purpose. When it comes to fighting bad business practices, the federal government should be squarely on the side of the American people.”

As the cornerstone of federal consumer financial protections for nearly 15 years, the CFPB has been an invaluable enforcement partner to California, working to protect hardworking families and make the marketplace fairer in California and across the country, returning over $20 billion to Americans since its creation. Among other important functions, the CFPB maintains a publicly available online complaint-handling system and database through which consumers can submit complaints about financial products and services and receive responses from regulated entities. 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, attempting to issue reduction-in-force notices to 90% of the CFPB’s workforce — a move that was swiftly blocked by the courts.

Despite states’ best and often successful attempts to curtail the Trump Administration’s weakening of the CFPB, the Bureau has dismissed actions resulting in a loss of over $3.5 billion in consumer relief. For example, in 2025 the CFPB dismissed or withdrew 22 enforcement actions, including a lawsuit against Capital One Bank alleging it withheld over $2 billion in interest from its accountholders. In today's comment letter, the attorney generals argue the proposed changes in the Strategic Plan will only make those dismissals more common and those losses greater, including proposals to:

• Focus supervision on depository institutions (like FDIC-insured banks and credit unions) at a critical time when consumers are increasingly turning to nonbanks for credit and other financial services.
• Reduce the collection of civil penalties and remove what the Bureau defines as “improper submissions” to the complaint system, which would result in less recovery for harmed consumers.
• “Minimize duplicative action”, a goal that is ill-defined and may result in an increased workload for state supervision and/or a lack of supervision as opposed to streamlining it.
• Deemphasize civil penalties, which would take away a key accountability measure to ensure compliance with consumer protection laws.

Attorney General Bonta joined today’s comment letter along with the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. 

Attorney General Bonta has been an outspoken critic amid the attempts of the Trump Administration’s CFPB to shrink its responsibilities and has 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 December 2025, Attorney General Bonta co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the CFPB Acting Director’s unlawful decision not to fund the agency’s operations, preventing it from performing legally mandated functions. That lawsuit is ongoing.

If it’s too fast, it’s not an e-bike — you might be riding illegally 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli, San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, and San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe today issued a consumer alert to remind manufacturers, retailers, consumers, and parents that California has important safety laws regarding the sale and use of electric bicycles, also known as e-bikes. Two-wheeled vehicles that go over 28 miles per hour with pedal assistance or 20 miles per hour with throttle assistance are not e-bikes — under California law, they are mopeds or motorcycles and require additional licensing and age requirements to operate and sell. Importantly, modifying an e-bike to exceed the speed or power limits mentioned above is dangerous, may transform the e-bike into a motorcycle or moped under California law, and may be a crime if riders do not have appropriate licenses.  

“Sometimes, what looks like an e-bike or is marketed as an e-bike is not a bike at all. We are seeing a surge of safety incidents on our sidewalks, parks, and streets. Bike riders and parents: If your or your teen's electric two-wheeled vehicle goes too fast, it might be a motorcycle or a moped — not an e-bike,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “To ride a motorcycle or moped, you need to have the appropriate driver’s license and comply with rules of the road. With the popularity of e-bikes booming, I highly encourage manufacturers, retailers, and especially parents to review the consumer alert today and ensure they and their kids are complying with California law.” 

“I’m proud of the actions Marin’s community leaders, schools, and cities have already taken to improve e-bike safety,” said Marin County District Attorney Lori Frugoli. “But to keep everyone safe while enjoying our shared streets, trails, and open spaces, we must make sure that products marketed and sold as e-bikes are truly legitimate e-bikes — not electric motorcycles.” 

“Electric bicycles can be an economical, enjoyable, and convenient way to get around,” said San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins. “Unfortunately, many retailers are marketing and selling two-wheeled vehicles as ‘e-bikes’ when they do not qualify as electric bicycles in California. Consumers, and especially parents of teenage children, should carefully check that the product they want to purchase legally qualifies as an electric bicycle. If not, it may actually be a motorcycle (or motorcycle equivalent), which requires a license, registration and insurance. This is a matter of both consumer protection and public safety.”

“Legally operated e-bikes can be a fun and environmentally friendly transportation option," said San Mateo District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. “However, San Mateo County has seen many illegal motorcycles and mopeds which are marketed and sold as e-bikes. The safety of our communities requires manufacturers, sellers, and buyers, including parents, to know and comply with California’s e-bike laws.”

All About E-Bikes:

Bicycles, including e-bikes, are part of California’s commitment to alternative forms of transportation that reduce reliance on fossil fuels. 

E-bikes are bicycles equipped with an electric motor that provide power assistance while pedaling, with some models featuring a throttle which can allow riders to power their e-bike without pedaling. They make cycling faster, easier, and more accessible by reducing effort. E-bikes can expand access to California’s roads, open spaces, and trails, offer transportation options to riders with reduced mobility, and are less expensive to purchase and maintain than cars.

However, because of their higher speeds, e-bikes can pose a dangerous risk, especially if they are modified to go faster, transforming them into motorcycles or mopeds. A study by the University of California, San Francisco found that rider injuries from e-bikes nearly doubled each year from 2017 to 2022, and a University of California, San Diego study showed injuries in San Diego among e-bike riders under 18 soared by 300% from 2019 to 2023.

E-bikes fall into three classifications: 

• Class 1, also known as low-speed pedal-assisted e-bikes, provide assistance only while being pedaled and only at speeds under 20 miles an hour.
• Class 2, also known as low-speed throttle-assisted e-bikes, provide power assistance up to 20 mph but have a throttle that allows the rider to engage the motor without pedaling.
• Class 3, also known as speed pedal-assisted electric bicycles, are like Class 1 bicycles except that the motor assistance must stop when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.

All e-bikes sold in California must have a permanent label that discloses the bike’s classification number, identifies the e-bike’s top assisted speed and the wattage of its motor.  

While people of all ages may ride Class 1 or Class 2 e-bikes, Class 3 e-bikes may only be ridden by people who are 16 years old or older and who are wearing helmets. Cities, counties, and other local governments including schools and parks districts may have additional rules and ordinances regarding where and how e-bikes can be ridden.  

NOT all two-wheeled vehicles with electric motors are considered e-bikes under California law. If a two-wheeled vehicle with an electric motor has any of the features mentioned below, it may require registration with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and proper licensing:

• Provides pedal assistance beyond 28 miles per hour;
• Provides throttle assistance beyond 20 miles per hour; 
• Has a motor with more than 750 watts of power; or
• Does not have operable pedals.

For Retailers:

Sellers may only advertise or sell vehicles as “e-bikes” if they fall within one of the three classes listed above. Sellers must also not advertise or sell as “e-bikes” vehicles that are intended to be modified to exceed applicable limits. Misrepresenting the characteristics of a bicycle or other vehicle, converting one for illegal use, or selling one without the required DMV occupational licenses is a crime. The DMV has specific requirements for dealer and salesperson licensing.   

For Parents: 

Attorney General Bonta and the District Attorneys encourage all parents to carefully ensure any bicycle or e-bike that they are purchasing for their children is safe and legal for their children to ride. Children under 16 may only ride Class 1 or Class 2 e-bikes. Class 3 e-bikes may only be ridden by people who are 16 years old or older and who are wearing helmets.  

If a vehicle does not qualify as an e-bike, because it lacks pedals or exceeds the power or speed thresholds mentioned above, it may be considered a motorcycle or moped under California law. In that event, the owner or operator must observe all requirements that pertain to those vehicles, including possession of an M1 or M2 operator’s license, adequate insurance, and registration with the DMV.

Parents should also be aware that some school districts have rules regarding bicycles, including rules that restrict unsafe and overpowered bicycles from campus grounds. Modifying an e-bike to exceed the speed or power limits mentioned above is dangerous, may transform the e-bike into a motorcycle or moped under California law, and may be a crime if riders lack the appropriate DMV licenses (available only to people 16 years old or older).