Consumer Protection

Court calls federal government’s attempt to starve CFPB of funding a “transparent display of partisanship”

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today celebrated a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Acting Director Mark Paoletta must request necessary funding from the Federal Reserve so the CFPB can operate as Congress intended — lawfully funded and able to work so consumers have access to fair, transparent, and competitive markets for consumer financial products. The court held that former Acting Director Russell Vought’s insistence not to request funds for the CFPB were unlawful and violated the Separation of Powers Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Today’s order resolves in large part the lawsuit filed last year by Attorney General Bonta and a coalition of 22 attorneys general, pending appeal.  

“Today, we celebrate a giant win for consumers. A court has declared that the federal government’s attempt to refuse to fund the CFPB — the agency responsible for protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts by Big Corporations — is an illegal, unconstitutional, and partisan attempt to starve the CFPB of lawful funding,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The CFPB is a critical resource for families and working Americans and has worked for over a decade to stand up for consumers taken advantage of by big banks, debt collectors, and credit reporting companies. The order we secured today demands the agency continue to be lawfully funded in order to keep up this important work, and halts the federal government from playing games with the financial protection of consumers in the future. Especially amid a crisis of affordability, today’s win is great news for families across the United States.”

The CFPB was created to protect consumers in the financial marketplace, and it performs critical functions necessary to the functioning of the financial system. For 14 years, the CFPB has served as an invaluable partner to state attorneys general and state banking regulators, as an enforcer, regulator, and resource for consumers. Shortly after taking office, the Trump Administration launched a campaign of destruction and systemic shuttering of the CFPB, threatening catastrophic harm to hardworking families and consumer financial markets nationwide.

The Trump Administration has taken a series of actions intended to debilitate the CFPB, including issuing a suspension of work across the agency, terminating probationary employees, attempting to issue reduction in force notices to 90% of the CFPB’s workforce — a move that was swiftly blocked by the courts.

In November 2025, the CFPB gave notice that it would not request funding from the Federal Reserve to continue its operations based on a specious legal analysis it had received from U.S. DOJ advising that it could not lawfully draw funds from the Federal Reserve to maintain its operations because the Federal Reserve is “unprofitable.” In December 2025, Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging the CFPB Acting Director’s unlawful decision not to fund the agency’s operations, preventing it from performing legally mandated functions. 

In the lawsuit, the attorneys general argued that CFPB’s failure to seek funding for continued operations, including operations of its consumer complaints database, would harm consumers and result in statutorily mandated functions not being performed. The attorneys general asked the court to declare this action unlawful and ensure CFPB is properly funded, and today, it has.

California is tackling AI threats head on, the federal government should be too

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a bipartisan coalition of 25 attorneys general in urging Congress to take immediate action to regulate large scale AI models and developers in light of recent reports of critical cyber safety incidents at multiple frontier AI labs and warnings from insiders that the continued pace of AI development is becoming increasingly dangerous. While California is actively engaged in holding frontier AI labs accountable, continued leadership by California's legislature in adopting state-level protections is essential, paired with federal action to adopt a national foundation of protection, is critical to ensure safe and responsible AI development.

“Today I stand alongside a bipartisan group of attorneys general in sounding the alarm and urging Congress to take action to protect Americans. The stakes have never been higher to ensure that increasingly powerful AI models and AI agents cannot enact grave harms onto humankind,” said Attorney General Bonta. “California has been a leader in the responsible regulation of technology, and continued leadership in adopting state-level protections is critical. But federal action is also urgently needed to achieve the national and international coordination required to prevent catastrophic harm. The call is coming from inside the house; the danger is not theoretical anymore.”

Recent revelations that frontier AI models at OpenAI undergoing evaluation broke out of their testing environments, gained access to the open internet, and intruded into outside computer systems highlight the urgent need for both state and federal legislative action. And, just last week, Anthropic reported that it uncovered specific examples of its AI models being used to attempt to develop and power conventional and biological weapons, spy on sovereign nations, and fuel global cybercrime. These disclosures show that unchecked development and deployment of AI models endangers Americans and could soon threaten our financial system, critical infrastructure, and national security. Increasingly, leaders of frontier AI labs — who should themselves be doing more to protect the public — have also acknowledged that the current pace of model development is unsafe and that comprehensive regulation is essential.

Although California is working to hold frontier AI labs accountable under SB 53 and California's existing consumer protection laws, a federal legislation and oversight is also urgently needed to reduce the risk of future disasters. In the letter, the coalition expresses the immediate need to establish a federal regulatory framework for frontier AI. This effort must include:

• Mandatory federal oversight of safety testing and standards, led by experts in the field of AI model safety, selected by and under the direction of federal regulators, and backed by consistent performance benchmarks. 
• Uniform and transparent government-led incident response, where investigators have a broad mandate and direct access to books and records, with public findings that allow the industry to rapidly evolve in response.
• Mandatory safety infrastructure and experienced leaders to make critical safety decisions unburdened by profit maximization.
• International cooperation to pace AI advancement and prevent the development of harmful superintelligence.
• Safeguards to ensure that regulation does not undermine competition or provide cover for companies to evade their obligations under existing antitrust laws.
• Explicit preservation of state authority to enact and enforce more protective state laws applicable to AI and providing ​​state officials with full authority to enforce any new federal statutes.

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

Attorney General Bonta is deeply concerned and committed to ensuring AI safety, especially when it comes to protecting California’s children. This month, he announced an investigation into July’s security incident involving OpenAI and Hugging Face. And in January of this year, he announced opening an investigation into reports of rampant nonconsensual sexually explicit material on X and produced using Grok, an AI model developed by xAI. Last year, Attorney General Bonta issued two legal advisories reminding Californians of their rights and advising businesses and healthcare entities that develop, sell, or use AI about their obligations to comply with existing California laws. He also sent a letter to 12 of the top AI companies, after reports of sexually inappropriate interactions between AI chatbots and children. Attorney General Bonta has time and time again defended California's right to protect residents from risks posed by AI technology. He is proud to have opposed the federal government's first, second, and third attempts to prevent state regulation of AI, and remains committed to defending California’s laws amid the Trump Administration's attempts to hobble states' right to protect their residents and foster safe AI technology. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined a coalition of 40 attorneys general in announcing a settlement with Credit Acceptance Corporation (CAC), one of the nation’s largest auto finance companies, resolving allegations that CAC engaged in unlawful business practices, including originating auto loans it knew were likely to default. Today’s settlement, which is subject to court approval, provides $694 million in cash and debt relief to consumers across the country in connection with their car loans. While CAC did most of its business in states outside of California, affected California consumers will receive an estimated $1.46 million in restitution and $5.4 million in debt relief. The settlement also resolves a lawsuit initially filed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the New York Attorney General, but ultimately abandoned by the Trump Administration, underscoring the commitment of attorneys general to protect consumers abandoned by the federal government. Today’s settlement includes injunctive terms that, among other things, require CAC to provide consumers disclosures about loan risks, give consumers protections from bad outcomes from certain risky CAC loans, and help guard consumers from dealers deceptively packing CAC auto-loan contracts with unwanted and expensive add-ons, such as service contracts.

“Credit Acceptance Corporation closed its eyes to deceptive origination practices and made predatory, high-cost auto loans that were likely to result in repossession and leave consumers trapped in a cycle of debt. Like other dangerous and defective products, these loans were unfair and abusive, and therefore unlawful in California," said Attorney General Bonta. “Today’s bipartisan settlement returns millions to affected California consumers and is a testament to states banding together to protect consumers from financial exploitation amid inaction by the federal government.”

Consumers eligible to receive restitution or debt relief from this settlement have already been identified, will be notified, and do not need to take action.

CAC provides high-interest car loans to consumers with limited or impaired credit histories. The multistate settlement resolves allegations that CAC originated loans that the company knew or should have known consumers could not afford. CAC gives a proprietary score to each of its loans representing its prediction of the percentage amount CAC will collect on the loan from all sources. The attorneys general allege that consumers could not reasonably afford many of CAC’s low score loans, including those where CAC predicted the consumer would not pay back even the loan’s principal loan amount. Unsurprisingly, many of those low score loans resulted in consumers defaulting on their loans and losing their cars when they were repossessed and sold at auction.

The settlement also resolves allegations that CAC encouraged and failed to reasonably prevent dealers from unlawfully packing CAC auto-loan contracts with unwanted Vehicle Service Contracts (VSC) and Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) products. This lack of reasonable dealer oversight hurt consumers and resulted in dealers aggressively selling VSCs and GAP products in connection with CAC loans when consumers were either unaware they were purchasing the products or were led to believe the products had to be purchased for the consumer to get financing.

The settlement provides $60 million in cash restitution that will be distributed to consumers to whom CAC gave particularly risky loans. For certain risky CAC loans made between November 1, 2015, and November 30, 2025, CAC is also required to provide, on or before November 2, 2026, $388,000,000 in debt relief to consumers whose cars have been repossessed, and $246,000,000 in debt relief to consumers whose cars have not been repossessed, allowing those consumers to keep their cars. CAC must also pay an additional $15 million to the attorneys general, with $574,000 going to California.

The settlement’s injunctive terms include the following requirements designed to meaningfully reform the company’s lending practices:

• For consumers with certain risky CAC loans that CAC made starting in December 2025, CAC will provide “off ramps” for loans that fail quickly. Qualifying consumers will get 95% debt relief, and CAC is prohibited from filing collections lawsuits against them. CAC must provide these off ramps for a five-year period starting on November 2, 2026.
• The settlement mandates a process to prevent unlawful VSC and GAP product packing, including enhanced pre-purchase disclosures, a post-purchase process alerting consumers about the purchase(s) and allowing easier product cancelation, and dealer monitoring.
• CAC must provide consumers with pre-loan disclosures about the risks of default and the value of the vehicle.
• For seven years, CAC must institute a price cap for vehicle prices at 109% of retail book value for certain consumers.
• CAC must implement processes to prevent dealers from raising car prices due to creditworthiness or above advertised prices.

In securing this settlement, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys general of Maryland, Arkansas, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaiʻi, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. New York is concurrently settling litigation it brought against CAC in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Bonta, as part of a coalition of 25 states, filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Learning Resources v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump’s latest unlawful attempt to tax the states and American consumers through illegal tariffs. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta argues the latest round of tariffs levied under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 are pretextual and are not targeted to address the purported harms of forced labor, as that statute requires, but instead are designed to re-create the tariffs already declared illegal by various courts. Last month, Attorney General Bonta and the coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the Administration’s decision to impose these tariffs on over 80 countries that together account for 99.4% of all U.S. imports — costs that will be passed along to Americans already struggling with affordability.

“President Trump is so intent on raising the cost of living for Americans that he is willing to break law after law to continue his tariff regime,” said Attorney General Bonta. "Imposing these tariffs under Section 301 has nothing to do with forced labor and everything to do with continuing the President’s failed economic policy and reimposing the global tariffs that the Supreme Court invalidated. We urge the Court of International Trade to declare the President’s tariffs under Section 301 illegal. Tariffs are taxes, and the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the President’s illegal tariffs.” 

BACKGROUND

For more than a year, President Trump has inflicted chaos on the American economy by imposing tariffs without the legal authority to do so, including through illegal attempts using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — attempts that were struck down by multiple courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of International Trade. A recent analysis concluded that nearly 90% of the costs of tariffs in 2025 were paid by American consumers and businesses. By imposing another round of price increases on American consumers and businesses, the Trump Administration is tripling down on its failed economic policies.

ABOUT THE BRIEF

In the brief, the states highlight evidence exposing the Trump Administration’s stated rationale for the Section 301 tariffs — the forced-labor import practices of certain countries — as merely a pretext, manufactured to sidestep previous court decisions invalidating the Administration’s prior two attempts to unlawfully impose worldwide tariffs. Forced labor is a serious problem and using human rights issues as a tool for the Trump Administration's own destructive economic agenda is wrong. The coalition argues that because the tariffs are pretextual, they violate the Administrative Procedure Act. As evidence, the coalition points to:

The Administration’s own actions show a determination to institute global tariffs and to find any rationale to impose such tariffs when other avenues failed, including by using Section 301. For example, after the IEEPA tariffs were declared illegal, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) stated the Administration would take action “in short order to ensure continuity” including by imposing the Section 122 tariffs. Recognizing Section 122 tariffs were limited by statute to 150 days, the USTR also promised to initiate investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and to “conduct these investigations on an accelerated time frame.” Other Administration officials confirmed this plan: The same day the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the IEEPA tariffs, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared that “[t]his Administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs,” including Section 301, “result[ing] in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.” The USTR affirmed that “[b]y the time the five-month period has elapsed, we’ll have completed [the] investigations under Section 301 that Secretary Bessent talked about,” and stated that “the specific authorities this administration is using have changed, but trade strategy has not . . . we are continuing to impose tariffs[.]”

The USTR fast-tracked an investigation into 60 economies at once, without regard to their record on forced labor, in order to re-impose its former tariff regime. The investigation required to impose Section 301 tariffs targeted 60 economies at once, instead of investigating by individual country, and occurred in a very abbreviated 2.5-month timeframe, as opposed to the 12 months or more typical of these inquiries. And USTR’s actual findings under Section 301 do not specify how any country’s forced-labor import practices burden U.S. commerce or explain how global tariffs will eliminate those practices. Further, the USTR identifies no mechanism by which any economy can secure release from the tariffs in exchange for reforms. There are no standards or benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of a country’s new restrictions or improved enforcement. There is no adjustment process, no sunset date, and no plan to revisit these tariffs.

The tariffs’ rate and exemptions track the previous, unlawful tariff regime and were timed to take effect at the exact minute that the prior tariffs expired. The Section 301 tariff rates of 10% and 12.5% largely track the former IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs, which both imposed a baseline 10% tariff on most goods. The Section 301 tariffs also exempt similar goods as the Section 122 tariffs, even when doing so undermines their supposed goal. For example, the Administration’s report on its investigation identified just three products made with forced labor to justify tariffs on dozens of countries. Yet one of these, frozen beef from Brazil, is exempted from the tariffs.

In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joined the attorneys general of Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governors of Pennsylvania and Kentucky.

Lawsuit alleges Amazon illegally overcharges businesses that use its platform to advertise their products

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today joined the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a bipartisan coalition of 22 attorneys general in challenging deceptive conduct by Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) related to auction sales of digital advertising on its platform. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges Amazon acted in violation of California’s Unfair Competition and False Advertising Laws when it illegally overcharged businesses that use its platform to advertise their products. Amazon obtained over $20 billion in undisclosed surcharges from its unsuspecting advertising customers. In today's complaint, the attorneys general and the FTC ask the court to end Amazon's deceptive digital advertising practices and for remedies, including injunctive relief, civil penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits, and restitution.

“For years, Amazon has misrepresented how it calculates the cost of advertising on its platform,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Over the years, Amazon has rigged billions of ad auctions, inflating Amazon’s profits at the expense of Americans who rely on Amazon’s advertising to generate business. I’m proud to stand alongside the FTC and my colleagues across the nation in protecting our small and medium-sized businesses from being taken advantage of by this multi-trillion-dollar company.”  

In addition to operating the world’s largest e-commerce platform, Amazon generates more than $68 billion of annual advertising revenue, primarily by selling advertising space on its e-commerce website and app. More than one million advertisers purchase advertising on Amazon’s platform through auctions.  

As detailed in the complaint, Amazon has represented to customers that advertise on its website that its advertising prices are set by “second price” auctions that rank participants by a combination of their bid and relevance to shoppers’ searches, and where the winning advertiser only pays the minimum amount necessary (e.g., one cent more) to beat the second-place bid. However, the complaint alleges that, in 2019, Amazon started to add surcharges on top of the second-place bid set by the auctions and thereby drove up the final price paid by the winning bidder and did not disclose this change to its digital advertising customers.  

The complaint further alleges that Amazon’s use of surcharges was intended to extract more revenue from advertising customers, who ended up paying more for the same advertising placement. The lawsuit illustrates that time and time again, Amazon made false or misleading statements to its advertising customers about how prices were determined in its auctions and those customers were unable to discover the truth about the surcharges because Amazon controlled and limited the auction data available to customers.

The lawsuit today alleges that Amazon continues to use deceptive surcharges in its digital advertising auction sales to this day.

In filing this lawsuit, Attorney General Bonta joins the FTC and the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington.

Meta must make massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm from its platforms — and will do it within months.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, as part of a bipartisan coalition of 51 attorneys general, today announced a proposed settlement, which remains subject to court approval through entry of a consent judgment, resolving the Attorney General's lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), alleging among other things, that the company designed and deployed harmful features on Instagram and Facebook that drive compulsive use by children and teens to their mental and physical detriment, all the while misleading users, their families, and the public regarding the existence and severity of these risks. Trial in this case began on August 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Today’s settlement, subject to court approval, provides for strong injunctive terms designed to help protect children from the mental health harms associated with social media, including default daily time limits on social media and a block on overnight use that can only be lifted by a parent, enhanced parental supervision tools, robust age assurance measures to detect users under 18 and children under 13 that are on the platform, and the appointment of an independent auditor to oversee compliance. The proposed settlement also includes a monetary payment of up to $17 billion to the states over ten years — California alone will receive $1.5 billion to $2.1 billion if this settlement is approved by the court. 

“Today, we have secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of a difference for children and their families,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Meta has agreed to make massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm from its platforms — and will do it within months. We are talking about time limits, stopping notifications during school, a block on the app during critical overnight hours, bans on plastic surgery filters, and so much more. Alongside a bipartisan coalition of my colleagues, I am proud to deliver this settlement that addresses the concerns at the core of our lawsuit and institutes real change, real transparency, and real enforceable protections for children on Facebook and Instagram — right now, no more waiting.”

TODAY’S SETTLEMENT 

How a significant portion of the payment received by California will be spent will ultimately be decided by the Legislature and Governor, but in the proposed settlement it is earmarked for purposes related to the prevention or remediation of mental health or other harms to young Californians associated with social media use. The proposed settlement critically includes strong injunctive terms designed to help protect teens from the mental health harms associated with social media use, including bans and blocks on features known to be harmful, like:

• A default daily time limit of two hours for users under 18 that can only be lifted by a parent. If other social media platforms agree to similar terms, the daily time limit will drop to one hour. 
• A default nighttime block between midnight and 6am for users under 18 that can only be lifted by a parent. If other social media platforms agree to similar terms, the nighttime block will expand to cover 10pm to 7am. 
• Default blocks on notifications to users under 18 from 10pm to 7am and during the school day (8am to 3pm from August 15 to June 15.)
• An enhanced mechanism for teens to report potentially harmful content and a requirement that Meta respond to 90% of those reports within six hours.
• A ban on displaying numbers of likes or reactions to users under 18. 
• A ban on cosmetic procedure image filters for users under 18. 
• An option for users under 18 to have a non-personalized feed, meaning a feed that doesn’t use an algorithm to target them with content aimed to keep them endlessly scrolling. 
• A commitment from Meta to maintain, review, and improve existing teen content safety measures.

The company will also be required to maintain other potections. For example: 

• Meta has agreed to maintain, review, and improve existing teen content safety measures and will create enhanced parent supervision tools.
• Meta will institute robust age assurance measures to detect users under 18, as well as measures to identify and remove kids under 13 from their platforms.
• Meta will bring on an independent auditor with expansive access to information and resources, regular reporting, and the right to communicate concerns to the Attorneys General.
• Finally, Meta will be subject to an injunction prohibiting it from making further false, misleading, or deceptive statements around its safety features. 

BACKGROUND

The lawsuit, filed in 2023, alleged Meta illegally collected and used the data of children under the age of 13 who used its platforms, made decisions in designing its platforms that drove excessive use and put young users at risk, and that it lied to users, their families, and the public about the safety of Facebook and Instagram. In doing so, it violated federal and state laws, including the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, California's False Advertising Law, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. 

In announcing this settlement, Attorney General Bonta is joined by Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skirmetti, Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, and New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport. Also joining the settlement are the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Puerto Rico. 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today issued a consumer alert following Governor Gavin Newsom’s declaration of a state of emergency in Calaveras County in response to the Gann Fire. The Gann Fire has burned more than 10,300 acres, threatening communities throughout Calaveras County and forcing the evacuation of thousands. Hot temperatures and low humidity have fueled elevated fire danger conditions in Calaveras County, and the fire threatens homes, structures, and critical infrastructure — including transmission and distribution lines that provide power to large portions of Northern Calaveras County. 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 high temperatures increase the intensity of the Gann Fire, I urge Californians to listen to 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, 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. Stay safe, California.” 

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. The Attorney General and local district attorneys and city prosecutors can enforce the statute.

LOS ANGELES — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the creation of the first-of-its-kind Affordability Response Team within the California Department of Justice (DOJ). The Affordability Response Team will draw on the knowledge of experts from sections across the department, working together to find, investigate, and go after individuals and corporations deploying unlawful practices that are making life unaffordable for the people of California.

“Californians, we hear you: The cost of living is much too high. For many people in our state the cost of a week off work, a set of new tires, or a trip to the grocery store — let alone a mortgage or a visit to the emergency room — are not within reach,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Today, I am proud to announce the launch of my office’s Affordability Response Team. Comprised of legal experts from across DOJ, the Affordability Response Team will work to investigate and go after practices that are unlawfully raising costs. It will create a pipeline to tackle affordability from all angles — whether it be unlawful behavior by corporations, landlords, scammers, or policies that are driving up prices. Hardworking Californians deserve fair prices, deserve the ability to make enough to meet their basic needs — and also deserve to have the experiences, vacations, and joys that make life richer.”

Californians are facing an affordability crisis of epic proportion — and many cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel. Housing shortages, skyrocketing grocery prices, rising healthcare and childcare costs, predatory corporate behavior, and the federal government’s unstable economic policies are all making it difficult not only to cover the basics, but to enjoy many of the things hardworking Americans should be able to afford — like a family vacation or a dinner out. The affordability crisis disproportionately impacts low-income households, communities of color, individuals with disabilities, and young adults. In fact, 23% of California’s young adults ages 18–24 live in poverty. And seven in 10 Californians feel that healthcare expenses place a financial strain on their household.

Because these challenges are entrenched and complex, tackling the affordability crisis requires creative thinking and a willingness to attack the problem from all angles. As the top law enforcement officer of California, Attorney General Bonta has been engaged in work that goes after illegal conduct contributing to rising costs. The creation of the Affordability Response Team will amplify DOJ’s ongoing focus on affordability, to allow this work to continue, create a pipeline for continued enforcement, and signal to bad actors that California is zeroed in on this.

THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS 

Americans across the country are feeling squeezed by a wall of rising costs.

Already high food prices are predicted to increase by 3.4% over the next year and a growing number of people are skipping meals or relying on food banks because of rising food costs. Utility prices and gas prices have also increased, at the same time, wages have stagnated or declined for many workers. Since 1970’s, wages for the bottom 90% of earners have increased 44%, while wages for the top 1% of earners have risen more than 180%. More Americans are taking on debt because of the rising cost of necessities. Credit card debt in the U.S. by the end of 2025 hit a record of $1.28 trillion — and in the first quarter of this year, the percentage of credit-card balances that were at least 90 days delinquent rose to 13.12%, the highest level in 15 years.

Not all Americans are feeling the squeeze. As most households are trying to figure out how the numbers are supposed to add up for life in America, demand for luxury yachts and private jets is surging. The top 1% of Americans held 32% of America’s wealth and CEO compensation increased by almost 6% to $17.7 million as company boards rewarded their top executives for bigger profits. President Trump has said he doesn’t think about Americans financial situation and his Administration is walking the talk by exacerbating the affordability crisis with its polices. Policies like rolling back antitrust enforcement that holds large corporations accountable, pursuing international policy that leaves consumers feeling pain at the pump, prioritizing tax cuts for wealthier Americans, levying an illegal regime of tariffs, and destroying the agency responsible for protecting Americans from exploitation by big businesses who aren’t playing by the rules. All the while, the President and his own family are profiting wildly from holding public office.

FOCUS AREAS 

The Affordability Response Team will deploy DOJ's tools in these areas:

Keeping the Household Running: Grocery, Gas, and Utility Costs

From cable bills to grocery runs, the household bills Californians grapple with every month seem to be endlessly going up.

Affordability in Action:

• May 2026: Attorney General Bonta Secures End of Unlawful Meat Price Coordination, Announces Settlement with Agri Stats
• April 2026: Naming Names: Attorney General Bonta Secures Public Access to Evidence in Amazon Price Fixing Case

A Roof Over Your Head: Housing & Insurance Costs

Confronting California’s housing shortage, unlawful landlord behavior, and rising home insurance costs.

Affordability in Action:

• February 2026: Attorney General Bonta Announces Settlement with Redding Property Management Company for Violating Tenant Protection Act
• November 2025: Attorney General Bonta Announces $7 Million Settlement with Greystar for Participating in an Algorithmic Rent Alignment Scheme

Relief from Sickening Healthcare Costs

Tackling consolidation in the healthcare industry and the rising costs associated with going to the doctor and paying for prescriptions, so that all Californians can afford the care they need to be well.

Affordability in Action:

• May 2026: Attorney General Bonta Conditionally Approves Proposed Transaction to Ensure Continued Access to Senior Care Services in Fresno County
• March 2026: Attorney General Bonta Opposes Trump Administration’s Proposed Expansion of Catastrophic Health Insurance Plans 

Investing in Our Future: Childcare, Education, & Retirement

Ensuring Californians can care for their families, pursue a livelihood, invest in their future, and plan for every stage of their lives.

Affordability in Action:

• May 2026: Attorney General Bonta Opposes Plan to Weaken Federal Protections for Retirement Investments
• February 2026: Attorney General Bonta Defeats Trump Administration in Court Again, Continues Protecting Over $10 Billion in Child Care and Family Assistance Funding

All Work and Harder to Play: The High Cost of Enjoying Life

From planning a vacation to seeing your favorite band in concert, the joys of life are getting harder and harder to afford. The Affordability Response Team is tackling hidden fees and going after corporate practices hiking up prices for entertainment, tech, and trips.

Affordability in Action:

• April 2026: Attorney General Bonta Celebrates Historic Verdict in Live Nation/Ticketmaster Trial
• July 2024: Attorney General Bonta to Consumers: This Summer, Enjoy California — Without the Hidden Fees

Financial Protection: Protecting Your Hard-Earned Money

Protecting Californians by going after shady practices by big banks, lenders, and policies that unfairly penalize consumers and leave them worse off.

Affordability in Action:

• January 2026: Attorney General Bonta Helps Secure $425 Million Capital One Settlement
• January 2026: We're Going to Need a Bigger Boat: Attorney General Bonta Continues Championing Legislation to Protect California Veterans Against Claim Sharks, Financial Exploitation

Earning Less: Labor, Wages, and the Cost of Doing Business

Championing workers’ rights and maintaining a vibrant, profitable economy go hand in hand.

 Affordability in Action:

• March 2026: Attorney General Bonta Urges Congress to Fix Trump’s Tariff Mess, Refund Americans
• July 2025: Attorney General Bonta Announces Nearly $2 Million Settlement with Janitorial Franchising Companies Barring Use of Franchising to Misclassify Workers

Scams, Scams, Scams!

From social media investment scams to job scams and robocalls, cracking down and sounding the alarm on conduct preying on consumers’ pocketbooks.

Affordability in Action:

• April 2026: All That Glitters isn’t Gold: Attorney General Bonta Warns Californians of LA 2028 Olympic Games Ticket Scams
• August 2025: The Robocall Task Force Strikes Again! Attorney General Bonta Launches Operation Robocall Roundup

Click here to learn more about DOJ’s Recent Affordability Work.

RESOURCES — You Tell Us, What Corporations or Practices Should We Know About?

Housing: The Housing Justice Team reminds Californians that they can send complaints or tips related to housing to oag.ca.gov/report. Tenants who need legal help can find legal aid resources in their area at www.LawHelpCA.org.

Antitrust: Antitrust laws and their enforcement help protect consumers by ensuring businesses compete fairly, which often results in lower prices, higher quality goods, and more innovative products. Use DOJ’s Antitrust Complaint Form to report anticompetitive conduct — like price fixing, collusion, or monopolization concerns — that potentially violate the antitrust laws.

Consumer/Business/Healthcare: If you have a complaint about a business who is not complying with consumer protection or other laws, consumers can visit DOJ’s reporting page to submit a complaint.

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a $4.6 million settlement with Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS), a large sub-prime mortgage servicer operating in California, resolving allegations that the company violated state and federal mortgage servicing and debt collection laws during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today’s settlement includes enforcement of California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights (HBOR), a set of laws that provide protections to homeowners who are facing foreclosure. Under the settlement, subject to court approval, SPS must pay $1.6 million in civil penalties and $3 million in consumer relief, and must implement changes to ensure, among other things, that homeowners receive adequate support and accurate information when seeking loan modifications and other foreclosure-prevention alternatives. 

“Californians are facing a crisis of affordability, and many of our residents struggle every month to keep a roof over their heads. Our state recognized this when it passed strong debt collection and mortgage servicing laws designed to give homeowners a meaningful opportunity to avoid losing their homes amid rough financial patches — patches like the one brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Attorney General Bonta. “My office's settlement with Select Portfolio Servicing resolves our investigation into the company, which found that the mortgage servicer violated these laws amid the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in struggling homeowners not having clarity or accurate information at a time of chaos and financial uncertainty. As part of the settlement, we are proud to secure $3 million that goes right back into the pockets of thousands of impacted homeowners.”

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, families across California faced difficulty affording rent and mortgage payments, including as a result of layoffs and reduced working hours. In 2021, Attorney General Bonta issued a consumer alert reminding California’s tenants and homeowners of their rights and protections amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

The California Department of Justice’s investigation into SPS, based in part on information provided by Housing and Economic Rights Advocates and California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., found, among other things, that the company:

• Failed to give homeowners adequate information about COVID-19 forbearance plans, including related to their forbearance exit options and their ability to apply for other loss mitigation options while in forbearance.
• Sent mortgage statements to borrowers on COVID-19 forbearance plans wrongly stating that late fees would be charged for missed payments.
• Failed to have tailored loss mitigation discussions with homeowners nearing the end of their COVID-19 forbearance plans.
• Failed to ensure that homeowners seeking foreclosure prevention alternatives received adequate support from the single points of contact SPS was required to provide under HBOR. 
• Failed to ensure that homeowners could submit loan modification applications according to the timelines and under the circumstances that HBOR allows.

Homeowners eligible to receive restitution from this settlement have already been identified and will receive payment automatically.

What is the California’s Homeowner Bill of Rights?

California’s HBOR provides protections to homeowners facing foreclosure and tenants in foreclosed homes and puts certain responsibilities on mortgage servicers. Key provisions include:

• Notification of Foreclosure-Prevention Options: Your mortgage servicer must try to contact you at least 30 days before starting the foreclosure process to discuss your financial situation and explore your options to avoid foreclosure. Within five days of recording a notice of default, your servicer must generally give you information about options to avoid foreclosure that may be available.
• Acknowledgment of Application: If you apply for a loan modification, your servicer must notify you within five business days of any missing information, other errors, and deadlines for completing your application.
• Guaranteed Single Point of Contact: If you ask for a loan modification or other foreclosure-prevention alternative, your servicer must assign you a specific person or team who can walk you through application requirements and deadlines, knows the facts and status of your application, including missing documents needed to complete your application, and can get you a decision on your application.
• Restrictions on Dual Tracking: Your servicer must generally pause the foreclosure process while it is making a decision on your completed loan-modification application and until after it gives you time to appeal a denial. It also cannot foreclose on you while you are complying with the terms of an approved loan modification, forbearance, repayment plan, or other foreclosure-prevention option.
• Tenant Rights: Purchasers of foreclosed homes must give tenants at least 90 days before starting eviction proceedings. If the tenant has a fixed-term lease that was entered into before the foreclosure sale, the new owner must honor the lease unless certain exceptions apply.

For more information about the Homeowner Bill of Rights, please visit https://oag.ca.gov/hbor. The Housing Justice Team reminds Californians that they can report complaints related to housing to oag.ca.gov/report. Tenants who need legal help can find legal aid resources in their area at www.LawHelpCA.org. 

Federal data privacy law should not preempt strong state privacy laws  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta yesterday led a coalition of 18 attorneys general and state agencies in opposing the Securing and Establishing Consumer Uniform Rights and Enforcement over Data Act (SECURE Data Act), a proposed federal data privacy bill. The SECURE Act would result in California’s landmark privacy law being replaced with weaker protections and would hamper the ability of California to adequately protect the privacy of its citizens. In the letter, the coalition calls on Congress to reject the SECURE Data Act, and to respect additional privacy protections states already grant their residents or would provide in future state-level legislation.

“Federal action to protect Americans' privacy is essential, but not at the expense of the strong state laws that already protect Californians. I join colleagues from across the country in opposition to the SECURE Data Act, federal legislation that would leave millions of consumers worse off and with fewer privacy protections,” said Attorney General Bonta. “As tech and data collection practices rapidly innovate, it is essential states keep our ability to respond just as rapidly to protect our residents from emerging privacy threats.” 

Since California passed the first comprehensive privacy law in 2018, numerous states have followed suit. For years, the California Consumer Privacy Act and other similar state laws give millions of Americans robust protections and rights to manage and control the use of their data. Comprehensive state privacy laws have set minimum data privacy standards, including heightened protections for minors and sensitive consumer data, limits on how data may be used and retained, and the ability for consumers to stop the sale of their data via a universal opt-out preference signal. The SECURE Data Act would wipe out these meaningful protections, making it harder for consumers to exercise their rights, give businesses more discretion on how to use and retain their data, and significantly limit enforcement remedies. 

In the letter, the coalition argues that the bill moves privacy rights in the wrong direction, leaving consumers worse off and with fewer protections. Any federal privacy framework must leave room for states to legislate responsively to changes in technology and data collection practices, as states are better equipped to address the unique needs of their citizens and quickly adjust to the challenges presented by technological innovation.

In sending the letter, Attorney General Bonta was joined by the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, as well as the California Privacy Protection Agency and the Hawai’i Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.