Consumer Protection

Rolling back oversight risks financial calamity, repeating conditions that led to Great Recession

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta joined a coalition of 16 attorneys general in filing a comment letter strongly opposing a proposed rule from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that would significantly limit federal banking regulators’ authority to supervise banks and enforce banking laws. The proposed rule undermines vital consumer protections and effectively abandons the federal government’s responsibility to police unsafe or risky conduct from banks, especially at a time when the U.S. is experiencing new financial products and innovations. This proposal continues the Trump Administration’s attempt to shirk its responsibility to protect Americans and leave consumers on their own to fend off potentially harmful actions from their banks. 

“Proactive and robust supervision of banks is crucial for our nation’s financial health and to protect the millions of Americans who rely on our financial system. Now, the Trump Administration is attempting to remove enforcement tools from the regulators who ensure that the banks where we keep our savings and deposit our checks are acting responsibly,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Trump Administration is ignoring the lessons of the Great Recession, making the same mistakes that nearly crashed our economy and upended the lives of Americans nationwide. Weakening supervision over banks is indefensible and puts working people and our economy at serious risk — I urge the Administration to reverse course.”  

Less than 20 years after the Great Recession, active supervision of state and national banks remains essential to keep U.S. financial markets safe and stable. The purpose of bank supervision is to promote a safe, sound, and efficient banking system that supports a strong economy. The purpose is not to protect the banks themselves; rather, it is to protect Americans who rely on banks for deposit, safekeeping, and transmissions of money. Effective bank supervision includes identifying and addressing weaknesses before they threaten the financial stability of banks and possibly spread through the financial system. For example, recent bank supervision identified issues with potentially illegal overdraft fees and led to consumer refunds of nearly $250 million.  

The proposed rule scraps this proactive approach and continues the Trump Administration’s abandonment of consumer protection work, this time by giving up the responsibility of monitoring and identifying unsafe or risky behavior at the country’s largest financial institutions. 

In the letter, the attorneys general argue that the proposed rule should be dismantled because it:

• Unwinds banking protections put in place by Congress to ensure federal banking regulators address significant consumer protection issues.  
• Undermines effective supervision by abandoning, without justification, a proactive approach for one in which banking regulators cannot issue supervisory warnings for practices that could result in bank or consumer harm. 
• Prohibits banking regulators from looking at significant threats that are not yet imminent, including the rapid rise of new financial products and structures, like cryptocurrency and crypto-adjacent products; private credit offered by hedge funds, private equity firms, and other nonbanks; and the enormous investment to support ongoing development of artificial intelligence.

In submitting the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of New York, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to protecting consumers in the financial marketplace. Last week, he filed a lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) unlawful decision not to fund the agency’s operations, preventing it from performing legally mandated functions. Shortly after taking office, the Trump Administration launched a campaign of destruction and systemic shuttering of the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide. Attorney General Bonta has been an outspoken critic amid these attempts 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 October, the CFPB prematurely terminated the consent order that documented its settlement with Citibank for allegedly discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants in Southern California, sending a strong message of the Trump Administration’s abandonment of these critical protections for consumers. Attorney General Bonta responded by issuing a consumer alert reminding consumers and lenders that credit discrimination is illegal under both California and federal law and sending a letter to the Trump Administration opposing their plan to eliminate critical rules that help fight discrimination.  

In March, Attorney General Bonta issued a statement after Congress overturned a CFPB rule that would have limited overdraft fees to $5. Typically, banks charge $35 for an overdraft. The rule was expected to have saved Americans billions of dollars each year. 

In April 2024, he supported a rule that would close a regulatory loophole that enables banks to extract billions of dollars from consumers by charging overdraft fees without adequately disclosing basic credit terms. And in February 2024, he warned smaller banks and credit unions that overdraft fees disproportionately penalize lower-income consumers and consumers of color, and may violate consumer protection laws.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert following the Governor’s declaration of a state of emergency in response to powerful winter storms. A series of atmospheric rivers has brought high-intensity rainfall and strong winds statewide to already saturated soils, heightening the risk of rapidly rising creeks and rivers, flooding, landslides, and debris flows — especially to recently burned areas. In today’s alert, Attorney General Bonta reminds all Californians that price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal under Penal Code Section 396. Californians who believe they have been the victim of price gouging should report it to their local authorities or to the Attorney General at oag.ca.gov/report. To view a list of all price gouging restrictions currently in effect as a result of proclamations by the Governor, please visit the Governor's Office of Emergency Services Price Gouging webpage. 

“As incoming heavy rain and strong winds increase the risk of flooding and landslides, I urge Californians up and down the state to listen to communication from officials and keep safe — especially if you have travel plans this holiday season. California’s price gouging law protects people impacted by an emergency from illegal price gouging on housing, gas, food, and other essential supplies,” said Attorney General Bonta. “If you see price gouging — or if you've been the victim of it — I encourage you to immediately file a complaint with my office online at oag.ca.gov/report or contact your local police department or sheriff’s office.” 

California law 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 rental housing. Exceptions to this prohibition exist if, for example, the price of labor, goods, or materials has increased for the business.

Violations of the price gouging statute are misdemeanors that are subject to criminal prosecution that can result in imprisonment and/or a fine. They can also result in civil enforcement actions, including civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, injunctive relief, and restitution. The Attorney General and local district attorneys and city prosecutors can enforce the statute.

Settlement includes additional compensation for theft-related costs to eligible consumers, free installation of anti-theft update on vulnerable vehicles 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, joined a bipartisan coalition of 36 attorneys general, announced a settlement with Kia America (Kia), Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai), and affiliated entities for selling millions of cars that contained significant security weaknesses, including a lack of industry-standard, anti-theft technology. These security failures made Hyundai and Kia vehicles easy to hotwire and steal, resulting in a surge of car thefts and joyriding across the country that continues to threaten public safety to this day. The settlement resolves allegations that the companies violated federal motor vehicle safety standards and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Under the proposed settlement, which is pending court review and approval, Hyundai and Kia have agreed to equip all future vehicles sold in the United States with appropriate anti-theft technology and offer ignition cylinder sleeve anti-theft updates, free of charge, to owners or lessees of eligible vehicles. The cylinder sleeve is a physical anti-theft device that prevents vehicle theft by the popular hotwiring method. The settlement also requires Hyundai and Kia to pay additional restitution to eligible consumers whose cars are damaged by thieves.

“Today, my office announced a settlement with Kia and Hyundai for failing to equip millions of cars with industry-standard, anti-theft technology. This led to an epidemic of car thefts that threatened public safety and disrupted the lives of Californians — and it was illegal,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My office stepped in, and as part of our settlement, Hyundai and Kia will install a free security update and further compensate eligible consumers who had their cars damaged by thieves. Cars are often one of the largest purchases a family will ever make — Californians shouldn’t have to worry that manufacturers are cutting corners that could put their purchase at risk.” 

From 2011 to 2022, Kia and Hyundai manufactured and sold cars with easily bypassed ignition locks and without anti-theft devices called engine immobilizers that were a standard feature in almost every other new car manufactured during that period, including the same Hyundai and Kia models sold in Canada and Europe. An engine immobilizer prevents thieves from starting a vehicle’s engine without the vehicle’s “smart” key, which stores the vehicle’s electronic security code. On social media, thieves shared videos demonstrating that even teenagers could exploit the security vulnerability to hotwire Hyundai and Kia cars and challenged others to steal them too. And steal they did: In Los Angeles, for instance, thefts of Hyundai and Kia cars increased by approximately 85% in 2022 and constituted approximately 20% of stolen cars in Los Angeles in 2022, up from 13% in 2021. In 2024, Hyundai and Kia models were the first, second, and fifth most commonly stolen vehicles nationwide. 

The preventable crisis posed a serious threat to public safety and placed higher demands on California’s law enforcement and other first responders. Not only did the number of thefts and attempted thefts of Hyundai and Kia vehicles explode, but many of the stolen vehicles were used in connection with other crimes and were involved in traffic collisions, some fatal. As a result of the security weakness in the vehicles, California consumers have had their vehicles stolen or rendered unusable, incurring significant costs for repairs, towing, and insurance deductibles, and costs associated with alternative transportation. Additionally, because of the security weakness, the resale value of their vehicles has plummeted. 

Hyundai and Kia were slow to respond to the crisis, waiting until 2023 to launch a service campaign to update the software on most of the affected vehicles. While the companies claimed that the software update was effective at preventing the viral theft method, the states alleged that the software update could be — and in fact was — easily bypassed by thieves, and pressed Hyundai and Kia to do more to protect consumers and their communities. 

Under the settlement announced today, Hyundai and Kia have agreed to:

• Equip all future vehicles sold in the United States with industry-standard, engine immobilizer anti-theft technology;
• Offer free zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protectors to owners or lessees of eligible vehicles, including vehicles that previously were only eligible for the companies’ software updates;
• Provide up to $4.5 million in additional restitution to eligible consumers whose cars are damaged by thieves; and
• Pay $4.5 million to the states to defray the costs of the investigation.

Eligible consumers will be notified by the companies that they will have one year from the date of the notice to make an appointment to have the zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protector installed at their local Hyundai or Kia authorized dealerships. Attorney General Bonta urges eligible consumers to schedule the installation of the zinc-reinforced ignition cylinder protector as soon as possible.

Consumers who previously received the software update on their vehicles (or were scheduled to do so) but nonetheless experienced a theft or attempted theft of their vehicle on or after April 29, 2025, are eligible to file a claim for compensation for certain theft and attempted-theft related expenses. This compensation is in addition to the monetary payment Hyundai and Kia agreed to provide through a private consumer class action. 

For more information about eligibility and how to submit a claim for compensation, please visit: www.HKMultistateimmobilizersettlement.com

In securing the settlement, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Connecticut, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Nevada,  Washington, Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Please see here for a copy of the complaint, and a copy of the proposed judgment. 

No going back — everyone deserves fair access to credit

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in sending a comment letter opposing the Trump Administration's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) proposed rule that would remove or change several provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) regulations, effectively eliminating critical antidiscrimination tools. The provisions in question prohibit lenders from discriminating against applicants based on personal characteristics when evaluating, approving, or setting the terms of credit. In the letter, the attorneys general request that CFPB withdraw the rule, arguing that these provisions are consistent with the statutory purpose of ECOA and are still necessary in today’s credit market.

"The federal government is seeking to reverse decades of established rules that prevent discrimination in the credit industry despite there being continued clear examples of ongoing discriminatory treatment by credit and lending institutions," said Attorney General Bonta. "Eliminating these safeguards would leave people more vulnerable to unfair treatment, financial harm, and opaque lending practices. Everyone, no matter their background, race, age, sex, or religion, deserves fair and transparent access to credit. Credit should not be a privilege, but a right for economic opportunity. We urge the CFPB to withdraw these proposed rules that will create insurmountable barriers to enforcing antidiscrimination statutes."

What is Credit Discrimination?

Credit discrimination is when a lender makes a decision about offering or denying credit based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, military or veteran status, because they receive public assistance, or based on another impermissible basis. Credit discrimination can manifest in various ways, such as consumers being discouraged from applying for credit, being offered less favorable terms such as higher interest rates or higher fees, or being refused credit despite meeting requirements, because of the factors listed above.

People use credit to take out student loans, open businesses, and buy cars and homes. Building credit helps consumers to build a better future for themselves and future generations. Credit discrimination prevents people from having access to these opportunities and can make credit more expensive.

The Federal Government's Proposal

On November 13, 2025, the CFPB published a proposed amendment to ECOA regulations that would undermine protections against credit/loan application discouragement; severely restrict special purpose credit programs offered by for-profit organizations; and remove the ability to claim disparate impact to demonstrate discrimination. Disparate-impact discrimination occurs when a seemingly neutral policy or action causes a disproportionate and unjustified negative harm to a group based on a characteristic like race or marital status. These provisions have been in place for decades and were originally designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, and age in the credit and lending industry. These provisions are imperative to combatting credit and lending discrimination.

In the comment letter, the attorneys general argue that amendments to provisions regarding disparate impact and discouragement violate the Administrative Procedure Act and undermine ECOA. The attorneys general further argue that proposed amendments to the disparate impact provisions should be withdrawn because:

• Contrary to the position taken by the CFPB in the proposal, a proper reading of ECOA compels the conclusion that the statute authorizes a disparate impact theory of liability.
• The proposal erroneously and without any factual basis assumes that in the absence of disparate impact liability, consumers will still enjoy the broad protections against discrimination that ECOA was enacted to provide.
• Disparate impact liability is an entirely lawful mechanism for enforcing antidiscrimination statutes that provide for this theory of liability.

The attorneys general additionally argue that proposed amendments to the discouragement provisions should be withdrawn because:

• The proposed changes to the discouragement regulations are unlawful.
• The proposed revisions will harm consumers and state enforcement efforts.
• Imposing these harms based solely on unproven speculation is arbitrary and capricious.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Bonta issued a consumer alert reminding Californians that discrimination is still illegal under state and federal law, following CFPB’s premature termination of a consent order that documented its settlement with Citibank for allegedly discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants in Southern California, sending a strong message of the Trump Administration’s abandonment of these critical protections for consumers.

In filing the comment letter, Attorney General Bonta is joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert following the Governor’s declaration of a state of emergency in response to increased risk of debris flow due to incoming rain and snow in areas affected by the Pack Fire in Mono County. The Pack Fire ignited on November 13 near Lake Crowley in the eastern Sierra Nevada, and was fully contained on December 3, destroying 30 residential and commercial structures and damaging six others. In today’s alert, Attorney General Bonta reminds all Californians that price gouging during a state of emergency is illegal under Penal Code Section 396. Californians who believe they have been the victim of price gouging should report it to their local authorities or to the Attorney General at oag.ca.gov/report. To view a list of all price gouging restrictions currently in effect as a result of proclamations by the Governor, please visit the Governor's Office of Emergency Services Price Gouging webpage. 

“As incoming precipitation and snowfall threatens to increase the risk of debris flow from the Pack Fire, I urge Californians who reside in Mono County to listen to communication from officials and keep safe. California’s price gouging law protects people impacted by an emergency from illegal price gouging on housing, gas, food, and other essential supplies,” said Attorney General Bonta. “If you see price gouging — or if you've been the victim of it — I encourage you to immediately file a complaint with my office online at oag.ca.gov/report or contact your local police department or sheriff’s office.” 

California law 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 rental housing. Exceptions to this prohibition exist if, for example, the price of labor, goods, or materials has increased for the business.

Violations of the price gouging statute are misdemeanors that are subject to criminal prosecution that can result in imprisonment and/or a fine. They can also result in civil enforcement actions, including civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, injunctive relief, and restitution. The Attorney General and local district attorneys and city prosecutors can enforce the statute.

Attorney General Bonta continues waging war on robocalls — announces investigation of four major voice service providers, gives update on ongoing robocall enforcement efforts

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced Phase 2 of Operation Robocall Roundup, a multistate, bipartisan effort by the Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force to crack down on robocalls around the country. As part of this phase, Attorney General Bonta and 51 attorneys general have sent warning letters to four of the largest voice service providers in the U.S., demanding they immediately take action to stop illegal robocalls from being routed through their networks. In August, Attorney General Bonta and the Task Force commenced Phase 1 of Operation Robocall, sending warning letters to 37 smaller voice providers that were allowing suspected illegal robocalls onto the U.S. telephone network — an effort that has already delivered results. Phase 2 targets companies with far larger footprints in the U.S. telecom ecosystem. As larger providers, these companies have a heightened responsibility to decline call traffic from known and repeat bad actors. Despite extensive industry traceback notices and years of documented warnings, these four providers continue to route suspected illegal robocalls onto the network and into American homes. 

“Robocalls disrupt our lives and bombard us with never ending voicemails — for many Californians, robocalls are a daily, if not an hourly, source of frustration. These calls aren’t just annoying, in many cases they are illegal and a vehicle for harmful scams that can result in real financial losses for consumers. This is a nationwide problem, and we need nationwide solutions,” said Attorney General Bonta. “I am proud to continue in this national, bipartisan effort to protect consumers from unwanted robocalls by launching Phase 2 of Operation Robocall Roundup. The four companies targeted today are continuing to transmit millions of suspected illegal robocalls. My office is committed to protecting Californians and tackling illegal robocalls that plague our phones, disrupt our days, and threaten our wallets.” 

The four providers targeted in today’s operation (see chart below) have been directed to stop transmitting suspected illegal robocalls across their network. By disregarding notices and warnings meant to protect consumers, these companies have allowed robocalls onto their phone networks and have then passed these calls on to other downstream providers until they reach the phones of Californians. The chart below includes data points illustrating the suspected illegal robocall activity of each of the four service providers targeted today, including the estimated number of Social Security Administration (SSA) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) imposter calls which these companies allowed on their networks.

Operation Robocall Roundup Phase 2: Scope of Suspected Illegal Robocall Activity

*for specific time periods, please see the warning letters linked above.

Operation Robocall Phase 1 is Delivering Results:

After sending warning letters to 37 companies in August, the Task Force saw rapid, measurable changes:

• 13 companies were removed from the FCC’s Robocall Mitigation Database, meaning no provider in the United States may accept their call traffic.
• 19 companies stopped appearing in any traceback results, indicating they ceased routing suspected illegal robocalls.
• At least four providers terminated high-risk customer accounts identified as transmitting illegal traffic.

The Anti-Robocall Multistate Litigation Task Force of 51 bipartisan attorneys general investigates and takes legal action against those responsible for routing significant volumes of illegal robocall traffic into and across the United States.

Attorney General Bonta is committed to enforcing consumer protections in the state of California and speaking out for consumer protections nationwide, including working to a stop to illegal robocalls. In April, Attorney General Bonta put nine companies on notice for submitting illegal robocall traffic. And in March, he submitted an amicus brief in support of a FCC rule which would have limited unwanted robocalls and robotexts by closing a loophole that bad-acting lead generators try to use to trick a consumer into “consenting” to calls from potentially thousands of companies.

As part of the effort to combat illegal robocall traffic Attorney General Bonta has: 

• Sent warning letters to four telecom companies for transmitting suspected illegal robocall traffic on their networks — including robocalls that impersonated government officials or involved scams.
• Submitted a comment letter to the FCC in support of its proposed rules to protect consumers by increasing the effectiveness of the FCC’s Robocall Mitigation Database.
• Sent a warning letter to a telecom company responsible for transmitting suspected illegal robocall traffic, including robocalls that impersonated government officials. 
• Sent a warning letter to a company that allegedly sent New Hampshire residents scam election robocalls during the New Hampshire primary election. 
• Filed a comment letter to the FCC related to the potential impact of emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technology on efforts to protect consumers from illegal robocalls or robotexts. 

Additionally, the California Department of Justice is involved in ongoing litigation against Avid Telecom for allegedly initiating and facilitating billions of unlawful robocalls that included Social Security Administration scams, Medicare scams, and employment scams.   

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert reminding consumers and lenders that credit discrimination remains illegal, under both California law and federal law. In October, as part of the Trump Administration’s continued gutting of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the CFPB prematurely terminated the consent order that documented its settlement with Citibank for allegedly discriminating against Armenian-American credit card applicants in Southern California, sending a strong message of the Trump Administration’s abandonment of these critical protections for consumers. 

“Credit discrimination remains illegal in California and throughout the United States. The Trump Administration’s premature termination of the settlement with Citibank for discriminating against Armenian-American applicants in California is alarming and no doubt another sign of the Bureau abandoning its obligation to protect the American people from unfair treatment by big corporations,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This, however, is not a sign that no one is looking. Let me be very clear: I will use the force of my office against financial institutions that deny brighter financial futures to Californians on the basis of their sex, race, religion or any protected characteristics.”

What is Credit Discrimination?

Credit discrimination is when a lender makes a decision about offering or denying credit based on a person's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, military or veteran status, because they receive public assistance, or based on another impermissible basis. Credit discrimination can manifest in various ways, such as consumers being discouraged from applying for credit, being offered less favorable terms such as higher interest rates or higher fees, or being refused credit despite meeting requirements, because of the factors listed above. 

People use credit to take out student loans, open businesses, and buy cars and homes. Building credit helps consumers to build a better future for themselves and future generations. Credit discrimination prevents people from having access to these opportunities and can make credit more expensive.

The Legal Bits: Federal and State Laws Banning Credit Discrimination

Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination by banks, lenders, credit card companies, and other lenders and financial institutions. 

The federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) prohibits financial institutions from discriminating against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance, and other protected characteristics in all aspects of credit transactions, including applications, approvals, and terms and conditions. (15 U.S.C. section 1691 et seq.)

Similarly, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, age, marital status, sexual orientation, sex, gender, or gender identity, as well as other protected characteristics by any business providing services in the state. (See Cal. Civ. Code section 51 et seq.) In addition to prohibiting discrimination in credit transactions, the Unruh Act prohibits banks, lenders, credit card companies, financial institutions, and other businesses from discrimination in any and all services that the business may provide.

California law also offers specific protections against discrimination in lending for housing finance. Under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, any financial institution that provides financial assistance for the purchase, organization, or construction of any housing accommodation is prohibited from discriminating in the terms or conditions of financing on the basis of protected characteristics, including but not limited to race, color, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, source of income, veteran or military status, and genetic information. (See Cal. Gov’t Code section 12955, subd. (e).) Likewise, California’s Holden Act provides similar protections against discriminatory practices in housing finance. (See Bus. & Prof. Code section 35800 et seq.). And California's Military and Veterans Code prohibits discriminatory practices targeting members of the armed forces. (See Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code section 394).

Report It!

People who believe that they have been denied services or discriminated against because of a protected characteristic, and whistleblowers with information regarding potential violations of state or federal fair lending laws, can file a complaint with:

• The California Attorney General’s Office: oag.ca.gov/report
• The California Civil Rights Department: calcivilrights.ca.gov
• The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation:  dfpi.ca.gov/submit-a-complaint/

Company failed to offer consumers methods to opt-out of the sale of their personal information

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement with Jam City, Inc. (Jam City), resolving allegations that the mobile app gaming company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to offer consumers methods to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their personal information across its popular gaming apps. Jam City creates games for mobile platforms, including games based on popular franchises such as Frozen, Harry Potter, and Family Guy. In addition to $1.4 million in civil penalties, under today's settlement, Jam City must provide in-app methods for consumers to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their data and must not sell or share the personal information of consumers at least 13 and less than 16 years old without their affirmative “opt-in” consent.

“Many Californians like to unwind after a long day by gaming on their cell phones. Even on apps, California law obligates companies to provide a way for consumers to opt-out of the sale and sharing of their personal data,” said Attorney General Bonta. “This process should be simple, transparent, and easy to navigate. My office is committed to the continued enforcement of the CCPA — including by ensuring that mobile gaming companies follow the law so consumers can exercise their right to protect their privacy.”  

Jam City generates revenue, in part, through disclosing personal information for advertising. Jam City and its ad-tech partners use information obtained from consumers to display personalized ads within Jam City games. Despite collecting and sharing consumer personal information nearly exclusively through its mobile games, the California Department of Justice’s investigation found Jam City did not offer CCPA compliant opt-outs in any of its 21 mobile apps. The investigation also found some Jam City games shared or sold the data of children between the age of 13 to 16 without the affirmative consent required by the CCPA. Under the CCPA, minors under the age of 16 are afforded special protections for the sale of their data. 

The CCPA is a landmark law that secures increased privacy rights for California consumers, such as the right to know how businesses collect, share, and disclose their personal information. The CCPA vests California consumers with control over the personal information that businesses collect about them, including the right to request that businesses stop selling or sharing their personal information. To learn more about opting out, please see here. 

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

Today’s settlement represents the sixth enforcement action under the CCPA. 

Last month, Attorney General Bonta secured a settlement with streaming service, Sling TV, resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA by failing to provide an easy-to-use method for consumers to stop the sale of their personal information and by failing to provide sufficient privacy protections for children. 

In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta announced a $1,550,000 settlement with website publisher Healthline Media LLC, resolving allegations that its use of online tracking technology on its health information website violated the CCPA by failing to allow customers to opt-out of targeted advertising and sharing data with third parties without CCPA-mandated privacy protections — including data suggesting that a person may have a serious health condition. In June 2024, Attorney General Bonta and Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto announced a $500,000 settlement with Tilting Point Media LLC resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA and federal law by collecting and sharing children’s data without parental consent in their popular mobile app game “SpongeBob: Krusty Cook-Off.”  In February 2024, Attorney General Bonta announced a settlement with DoorDash, resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA and 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. 

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 judgment is available here.

Greystar, the largest landlord in the United States, manages nearly 950,000 rental units nationwide. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a coalition of nine attorneys general, announced a $7 million settlement with Greystar Management Services LLC (Greystar), one of the property management companies named as a defendant in Attorney General Bonta's ongoing antitrust lawsuit against software company RealPage. As part of today's settlement, Greystar agrees to stop using software offered by any company, including RealPage, that uses competitively sensitive information to align rent prices. Greystar also agrees to cooperate in the ongoing prosecution of RealPage and other defendant landlords. Attorney General Bonta alleges that Greystar used RealPage’s revenue management system to align rental prices with competing landlords by illegally sharing and gathering confidential pricing information. 

"Whether it's through smoke-filled backroom deals or through an algorithm on your computer screen, colluding to drive up prices is illegal,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Families across the country are staring down an affordability crisis. Companies that intentionally fuel this unaffordability by raising prices to line their own pockets can be sure I will use the full force of my office to hold them accountable. California is stronger when we protect tenants and a competitive economy.” 

RealPage uses algorithmic models to recommend price increases to subscribers. As alleged the January 2025 complaint, Greystar and other landlords, including five co-defendants, shared competitively sensitive data to generate pricing recommendations using RealPage’s algorithms. Greystar and other landlords discussed competitively sensitive topics — including pricing strategies, rents, and selected parameters for RealPage’s software — directly with each other. Landlords also understood that their nonpublic data would be used to recommend prices not just for their own units, but also for competitors who use the programs, and agree to provide this information because they understood they would benefit from the information of their rivals. In other words, RealPage knew what competing landlords were charging and could increase profits for landlords by using that information to recommend landlords set or raise their prices uniformly, thereby eliminating competition, and leaving renters no choice but to pay artificially high prices.

In California, Greystar manages approximately 333 multifamily rental properties that use RealPage’s pricing software. Over the last four decades, housing needs have significantly outpaced housing production in California. Housing costs have skyrocketed, making it harder for Californians to keep a roof over their heads. California's 17 million renters spend a significant portion of their paychecks on rent, with an estimated 700,000 Californians at risk of eviction.    

Today’s settlement, subject to court approval, requires Greystar to pay $7 million in penalties and fees to the states. Greystar must also:  

•  Refrain from using any anticompetitive algorithm that generates pricing recommendations using its rivals’ competitively sensitive data or that incorporates certain anticompetitive features;
• Refrain from sharing competitively sensitive information with competitors;
• Accept a court-appointed monitor if it uses a third-party pricing algorithm that is not certified pursuant to the terms of the consent decree;
• Refrain from attending or participating in RealPage-hosted meetings of competing landlords; and
• Cooperate with the states’ monopolization claims against RealPage.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in reaching this settlement were the attorneys general of North Carolina, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, and Tennessee.

To learn more about the ongoing lawsuit against RealPage and property management companies Camden, Pinnacle, LivCor, and Willow Bridge please see here.

A copy of the proposed judgment can be found here. 

ANTITRUST AND YOU:

Antitrust enforcement is an essential component of a healthy economy. Competitive marketplaces established through antitrust vigilance help consumers by ensuring fair prices for goods and services, an array of products to choose from, quality goods and services, and the steady introduction of innovative new products. As part of the Attorney General’s commitment to enforce antitrust laws, the California Department of Justice has launched an Antitrust Complaint Form. Please click here to report anticompetitive conduct that potentially violates the antitrust laws.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert reminding consumers, healthcare providers, and credit reporting agencies that in California it remains illegal for medical debt to appear on credit reports. Recently, the Trump Administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued an interpretive rule claiming that federal law generally preempts state medical debt laws — it does not. 

“In California, it is illegal for medical debt to appear on your credit report. Medical debt — which the law generally defines as debt owed to a provider of medical services, products, or devices — is generally unforeseen; it is not a reliable predictor of credit risk and can make it harder for people who are already struggling to secure housing, a job, or a car to get to work," said Attorney General Bonta. "California banned medical debt from appearing on credit reports because we recognized this practice as harmful to struggling consumers and not helpful in determining creditworthiness. Let me be clear: This remains the law in California. I urge consumers to understand their rights and to regularly check their credit reports to ensure medical debt does not make an appearance. The California Department of Justice is committed to protecting and enforcing all of California's laws — including this one.”

California’s Law

Senate Bill 1061 (SB 1061), authored by Senator Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) and sponsored by Attorney General Bonta, went into effect on January 1, 2025, and protects consumers from having their credit ruined by medical debt appearing on credit reports. 

Nationally, medical debt continues to rise, creating significant barriers to employment, housing, and equitable access to healthcare. People with medical debt are more likely than those with student loans or credit card debt to report being denied a rental or mortgage, increasing their risk of homelessness or forcing them into substandard housing. Medical debt can hinder employment opportunities, as employers often rely on credit reports in hiring decisions, further complicating efforts to repay the debt. Many consumers also delay essential medical care due to financial burdens, which can result in worsening health conditions.  

Monitoring Your Credit Report 

The best way to ensure medical debt has not appeared on your credit report is by regularly checking your credit report for inaccuracies or changes. Consumers are entitled to one free credit report per year from each of the three national credit bureaus. Those bureaus are Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. You have the option of requesting all three reports at once or staggering them. Checking your credit reports at least once a year is a good way to discover errors, like the inclusion of medical debt or even identity theft. These errors could raise your cost of credit or cut you off from credit. The sooner these errors are discovered, the easier they are to clear up.  

You can order your free annual credit reports through a toll-free phone number (1-877-322-8228), online, at www.annualcreditreport.com/cra/index.jsp, or by mailing the order form here to the following address: 

Annual Credit Report Request Service
P. O. Box 105281
Atlanta, GA 30348-5281

For more information on how to order, read, and correct your credit report, please visit here. 

If You Find Medical Debt on Your Credit Report 

If consumers find medical debt on their credit report, they should notify the medical provider’s office, debt holder, and credit agency to allow them an opportunity to quickly remove the information from their credit report. If the issue persists after providing notice to the medical provider, debt holder or credit bureau, consumers may consider consulting a private attorney or legal aid.

Consumers who find medical debt on their credit report can also file a complaint with the California Department of Justice at oag.ca.gov/report.