Consumer Protection

Settlement signals the steadfast commitment of California and its state partners to the robust enforcement of worker and consumer protection laws

SAN FRANCISCO — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a settlement with HCA Healthcare, Inc. and Health Trust Workforce Solutions, LLC (together, HCA), resolving allegations that HCA unlawfully required entry-level nurse employees to repay the cost of a mandatory training program if they did not remain employed with the company for two years. HCA is one of the nation’s largest hospital systems and has several hospitals in northern and southern California. Today’s settlement is the result of a years-long investigation by Attorney General Bonta and the attorneys general of Colorado and Nevada, working in partnership with the Biden Administration’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The states’ investigation found that HCA violated California employment and consumer protection laws as well as the federal consumer financial protection laws by using training repayment agreement provisions (TRAPs) in nurses’ employment contracts. These TRAPs are a form of employer-driven debt, or debt obligations incurred by individuals through employment arrangements.

“All too often, employer-driven debt forces workers to remain in jobs that they would otherwise leave. That’s not just wrong; it’s illegal under state and federal law. Workers must be able to pursue better pay and better working conditions — not be trapped by debt that their employer makes them take out,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “I’m grateful to my fellow attorneys general in Colorado and Nevada for their partnership. With today’s settlement, we are taking a stand for workers in our states by holding HCA Healthcare accountable — ensuring that all affected nurses are made whole financially, that the company pays a penalty for its wrongdoing, and that the company is subject to strong injunctive terms to deter future misconduct.” 

“California Nurses Association and our national union, National Nurses United, want to thank Attorney General Bonta for his leadership in addressing this growing trend of employers, such as HCA, using debt repayment contracts to lock nurses and other workers into jobs,” said Sandy Reding, RN and a president of the California Nurses Association. “HCA, the largest for-profit hospital system in the country, has a shameful track record of using predatory stay-or-pay contracts, or Training Repayment Agreement Provisions (TRAPS), which handcuff nurses to our employers through the threat of serious financial consequences or ruin. No nurses and no other workers should be locked into a job under the weight of debt to their employer.”

“The Attorney General has found that HCA’s StaRN scheme violated the law and exploited new nurses in the process. As the largest hospital system in the US, HCA should strive to make nursing a rewarding career, not punish new nurses by entrapping them in debt,” said Rosanna Mendez, Executive Director, SEIU 121RN. “Attorney General Bonta’s action demonstrates that he strongly supports California’s frontline healthcare workers, even when it means taking on a large and powerful corporation.”

“The StaRN program put new nurses under HCA’s thumb, harming nurses’ morale at a time when we need them the most,” said Leo Perez, President, SEIU 121RN. “HCA is notorious for prioritizing profit over employee well-being. We are hopeful that this settlement will encourage them to reevaluate those priorities.”

”We stand with Attorney General Bonta in sending a clear message: Nurses should never be forced into debt just to launch their careers,” said Charmaine S. Morales, RN, President of United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals. “As advocates who understand the real pressures nurses face, we support this settlement as a powerful step toward holding corporations accountable and protecting the dignity of our profession.”

As a condition of employment at an HCA hospital, HCA generally requires that entry-level nurse employees complete the Specialty Training Apprenticeship for Registered Nurses (StaRN) Residency Program. The company has advertised StaRN as an avenue for entry-level RNs to get the education and training they need to land their first nursing jobs in an acute-care hospital setting, although StaRN does not provide nurses with education or training necessary for licensure as an RN. Until the Spring of 2023, HCA required that RNs hired through the StaRN program at facilities in several states, including California, sign a TRAP agreement in their new-hire paperwork. The TRAPs purported to require nurses to repay a prorated portion of the StaRN “value” if they did not work for HCA for two years. If a nurse left HCA before the end of the two-year period, then the TRAP loan was typically sent to debt collection.

HCA imposed TRAPs on nurses who worked at their five hospitals in California: Good Samaritan Hospital in San Jose; Regional Medical Center in San Jose; Los Robles Regional Medical Center in Thousand Oaks; Riverside Community Hospital in Riverside; and West Hills Hospital & Medical Center in West Hills (no longer under HCA ownership).

Under California’s settlement, HCA will:

• Pay approximately $83,000 to provide full restitution to California nurses who made payments on their TRAP debt to HCA.
• Be prohibited from imposing TRAPs on nurse employees and attempting to collect on the approximately $288,000 in outstanding TRAP debt incurred by California nurses who signed TRAPs with HCA.
• Pay $1,162,900 in penalties to California. 

HCA will pay a total of $2,900,000 in penalties under settlements filed in California, Colorado, and Nevada today. 

Employer-driven debt refers to debt incurred by individuals through employment arrangements. This can include arrangements where an employer provides training, equipment, or supplies to a worker, but requires the worker to reimburse the employer for these expenses if the worker leaves their job before a certain date. Employer-driven debt has grown not only in the healthcare industry but also in the trucking, aviation, and the retail and service industries, among others. However, California workers are protected by state law that restricts the use of employer-driven debt, as Attorney General Bonta highlighted in a legal alert issued in July 2023 and a consumer alert in October 2024. Workers who believe their rights have been violated are encouraged to file a complaint at oag.ca.gov/report. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to ensuring California continues its vital work as a pillar of consumer protection enforcement and an outspoken advocate for robust federal protections. The settlement today comes on the heels of the 15th anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices. The Dodd-Frank Act also authorizes state attorneys general to enforce its provisions and thereby promote stability, accountability, and transparency in the United States financial system.

Attorney General Bonta proudly supports Assembly Bill 692 (AB 692, Kalra), co-sponsored by the California Nurses Association, which would prohibit employment contracts that require workers to pay their employers a debt if they leave their job, regardless of whether that worker was fired, laid off, or quit.

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

Los californianos pueden enviar quejas o sugerencias relacionadas con la vivienda a housing@doj.ca.gov 

OAKLAND— El Fiscal General de California, Rob Bonta, emitió hoy una alerta al consumidor recordando a los californianos que es ilegal que los propietarios discriminen a los inquilinos, tomen represalias contra ellos o influyan en los inquilinos para que se muden amenazando con revelar el estatus migratorio de un inquilino a ICE o a las fuerzas del orden. Especialmente mientras la administración federal lleva a cabo su inhumana campaña de deportación masiva y crea una cultura de miedo y desconfianza, es crucial que los propietarios e inquilinos comprendan sus obligaciones y derechos según la ley de California. 

“Las familias de todo el país están experimentando miedo e incertidumbre como resultado de la agenda de inmigración inhumana del presidente Trump. Hoy, les recuerdo a los propietarios que es ilegal en California discriminar a los inquilinos o acosarlos o tomar represalias contra un inquilino al revelar su estatus migratorio a las autoridades”, dijo el Fiscal General Bonta. “Los inquilinos de California, sin importar su estatus migratorio, tienen derecho a una vivienda segura y a acceder a documentos de vivienda en un idioma que puedan entender. Usaré todo el poder de mi cargo para perseguir a quienes intentan aprovecharse de los inquilinos de California durante un momento ya de por sí difícil”.

La discriminación en materia de vivienda es ilegal en California. Es ilegal que los propietarios discriminen a los inquilinos por motivos de raza, origen nacional, orientación sexual, religión, identidad o expresión de género, estado de discapacidad, estado familiar, fuente de ingresos (incluida la asistencia para el alquiler, como los vales de la Sección 8), condición de veterano o ciertas otras características protegidas (Código de Gobierno § 12955).

Los proveedores de vivienda privada no pueden preguntar sobre el estatus migratorio o de ciudadanía de un inquilino o solicitante y no pueden discriminar en función del estatus migratorio, ciudadanía o idioma principal. Por ejemplo, los propietarios no pueden negarse a alquilar a un inquilino potencial, decir que un alquiler no está disponible para alquilar cuando sí lo está, cobrarle más alquiler a un inquilino, perseguir a un inquilino para desalojarlo o proporcionarle a un inquilino cláusulas de alquiler menos favorables en función de estas características (Código Civil § 1940.3(b); Código de Gobierno § 12955(d); Código Civil § 51).

Los propietarios no pueden acosar ni tomar represalias contra un inquilino al revelar su estatus migratorio a las fuerzas de seguridad (Código Civil §§ 1940.3(b), 1942.5). Los propietarios tampoco pueden amenazar con revelar el estatus migratorio de un inquilino para presionarlo a mudarse. (Código Civil § 1940.2).  En la mayoría de los casos, a los propietarios no se les permite preguntar a un inquilino o potencial inquilino su estatus migratorio o de ciudadanía.

Los inquilinos tienen derecho a documentos de vivienda que puedan entender. Según la ley de California, si los inquilinos se comunican principalmente en español, chino, tagalo, vietnamita o coreano con el propietario o administrador de la propiedad al solicitar un apartamento y firmar un contrato de arrendamiento, el propietario debe proporcionar al inquilino una traducción escrita del contrato de arrendamiento en ese idioma antes de que se firme el contrato de arrendamiento, siempre y cuando el contrato de arrendamiento sea por más de un mes. (Código Civil, § 1632(b)). Los documentos posteriores que realicen cambios sustanciales en el contrato de arrendamiento, como avisos de aumentos de alquiler o de tarifas, también deben traducirse. (Código Civil, § 1632(g)(1)).

Los propietarios que infrinjan estas leyes pueden verse obligados a pagar a los inquilinos por daños y perjuicios, sanciones y honorarios de abogados. Por ejemplo, un propietario que revele el estatus migratorio de un inquilino a cualquier autoridad de inmigración se le puede ordenar a pagar al inquilino una indemnización por daños y perjuicios equivalente a entre 6 y 12 veces el alquiler mensual (Código Civil § 1940.35(b)). Los inquilinos tienen una variedad de otros derechos y protecciones según la ley de California. Algunas ciudades y condados también tienen protecciones adicionales para los inquilinos, incluidas limitaciones a los desalojos y aumentos de alquiler. Para obtener más información, visitehttps://oag.ca.gov/tenants. 

Propietarios y autoridades de inmigración  

Si las autoridades de inmigración (ICE, por sus siglas en inglés) le exigen a un propietario que proporcione información sobre un inquilino, como la solicitud de alquiler u otros documentos del inquilino, el propietario puede solicitar que le muestren una orden judicial u otro poder. Los propietarios deben buscar asesoramiento legal de inmediato para determinar si deben cumplir con la solicitud y asegurarse de no infringir las leyes contra la discriminación y la privacidad de California. Los diferentes tipos de documentos que ICE puede presentar son los siguientes:

• Una orden administrativa de ICE o un aviso para comparecer a una audiencia de inmigración no le da a ICE poderes especiales para inspeccionar los registros de un propietario. Los propietarios deben buscar asesoramiento legal sobre cómo responder. Vea un ejemplo de orden administrativa de ICE y aviso de comparecencia aquí (consulte los Anexos B-D).
• Si ICE presenta una orden emitida por un tribunal federal u otra orden judicial firmada por un juez, los propietarios deben cumplir con prontitud y, cuando sea posible, buscar asesoramiento legal antes de responder. Vea un ejemplo de orden de un tribunal federal aquí (consulte los Anexos E y F).
• Los propietarios a quienes se les presente una citación para presentar documentos o pruebas deben buscar asesoramiento legal sobre cómo responder. Vea ejemplos de citaciones aquí (consulte los Anexos G y H). Obtenga más información sobre las citaciones y otros documentos utilizados para aplicar las medidas de control de inmigración aquí (véanse las páginas 17 a 19).
• Los propietarios no deben interferir físicamente con los oficiales de ICE cuando estos desempeñan sus funciones.

El Fiscal General Bonta se compromete a garantizar que se respeten los derechos de los inquilinos en California. El Fiscal General Bonta ha responsabilizado a los propietarios por violar las leyes de California en Bakersfield, Marysville y en todo California. El mes pasado, el Fiscal General Bonta demandó a un grupo de empresas de administración de propiedades y holdings inmobiliarios propiedad de Mike Nijjar y miembros de su familia. 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. La demanda alega que las empresas de Nijjar violaron flagrantemente numerosas leyes de California al someter a los inquilinos a unidades inseguras, discriminar a los solicitantes con vales de vivienda de la Sección 8, cobrar de más el alquiler a algunos inquilinos, utilizar contratos de arrendamiento que engañan a los inquilinos sobre sus derechos legales y negarse a proporcionar traducciones al español de estos contratos de arrendamiento a pesar de solicitar de manera intencional inquilinos hispanohablantes. 

Es posible que los inquilinos conozcan las empresas de Nijjar 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. 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, visite aquí.  

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

Californians can send complaints or tips related to housing to housing@doj.ca.gov 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert reminding Californians that it is against the law for landlords to discriminate against tenants, retaliate against tenants, or influence tenants to move out by threatening to disclose a tenant’s immigration status to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or law enforcement. Especially as the federal administration carries out an inhumane campaign of mass deportation and creates a culture of fear and mistrust, it is crucial that landlords and tenants understand their obligations and rights under California law. 

“Families across the country are experiencing fear and uncertainly as a result of President Trump’s inhumane immigration agenda. Today, I remind landlords that it is illegal in California to discriminate against tenants or to harass or retaliate against a tenant by disclosing their immigration status to law enforcement,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California tenants — no matter their immigration status — have a right to safe housing and to access housing documents in a language they can understand. I will use the full force of my office to go after those who seek to take advantage of California tenants during an already challenging time.”

Housing discrimination is illegal in California. It is illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants based on race, national origin, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity or expression, disability status, familial status, source of income (including rental assistance such as Section 8 vouchers), veteran status, or certain other protected characteristics (Gov. Code § 12955.)

Private housing providers cannot inquire about a tenant’s or applicant’s citizenship or immigration status and cannot discriminate on the basis of immigration status, citizenship, or primary language. For example, landlords cannot refuse to rent to a potential tenant, say that a rental is not available for rent when it is available, charge a tenant more rent, target a tenant for eviction, or provide a tenant with less favorable rental terms based on these characteristics (Civil Code § 1940.3(b); Gov. Code § 12955(d); Civil Code § 51.)

Landlords are never allowed to harass or retaliate against a tenant by disclosing their immigration status to law enforcement (Civil Code §§ 1940.3(b), 1942.5.) Landlords also cannot threaten to disclose a tenant’s immigration status in order to pressure a tenant to move out. (Civil Code § 1940.2.)  In most cases, landlords are not allowed to ask a tenant or potential tenant their immigration or citizenship status.

Tenants have the right to housing documents they can understand. Under California law, if tenants speak primarily Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, or Korean with the landlord or property manager when applying for an apartment and signing a lease, the landlord must provide the tenant with a written translation of the lease in that language before the lease is signed, if the lease is for longer than one month. (Civil Code § 1632(b).) Later documents making substantial changes to the lease, such as notices of rent increases or fee increases, must also be translated. (Civil Code § 1632(g)(1).)

Landlords who violate these laws may be required to pay tenants for damages, penalties, and attorney’s fees. For example, a landlord who discloses a tenant’s immigration status to any immigration authority may be ordered to pay the tenant statutory damages equal to 6 to 12 times the monthly rent (Civil Code § 1940.35(b).) Tenants have an array of other rights and protections under California law. Some cities and counties also have additional renter protections, including limitations on evictions and rent increases. For more information, please visit https://oag.ca.gov/tenants. 

Landlords and Immigration Authorities  

If immigration authorities like ICE demand tenant information from a landlord, such as a tenant’s rental application or other documents, the landlord may ask to see a warrant or other authority. Landlords should immediately seek legal advice to determine whether they must comply and to ensure that they do not violate California’s anti-discrimination and privacy laws. There are different types of documents that ICE may present: 

• An ICE administrative warrant or a notice to appear for an immigration hearing does not give ICE special powers to search a landlord’s records. Landlords should seek legal advice about how to respond. See a sample ICE administrative warrant and notice to appear here (see Appendix B-D).
• If ICE presents a warrant issued by a federal court or other court order signed by a judge, landlords should comply promptly and, where feasible, seek legal advice before responding. See a sample federal court warrant here (see Appendix E, F).
• Landlords presented with a subpoena for documents or evidence should seek legal advice on how to respond. See sample subpoenas here (see Appendix G, H). See more information about subpoenas and other documents used for immigration enforcement here (see pages 17-19).
• Landlords should not physically interfere with ICE officers in the performance of their duties. 

Attorney General Bonta is committed to ensuring the rights of tenants in California are respected. Attorney General Bonta has held landlords accountable for violating California laws in Bakersfield, Marysville, and across California. Last month, Attorney General Bonta sued a group of property management and real estate holding companies owned by Mike Nijjar and members of his family. 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. The lawsuit alleges Nijjar’s companies egregiously violated numerous California laws by subjecting tenants to unsafe units, discriminating against applicants with Section 8 housing vouchers, overcharging some tenants for rent, using leases that deceive tenants about their legal rights, and refusing to provide Spanish translations of these leases despite intentionally soliciting Spanish-speaking tenants. 

Tenants may know Nijjar’s companies 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. 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.  

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

 A copy of this press release is available in Spanish here.  

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.