Consumer Protection Law News: Latest Enforcement Actions and Regulatory Updates

Throughout 2024, consumer protection enforcement hit unprecedented levels—both in dollar amounts and in the types of business practices regulators targeted. Federal regulators alone secured over $2.3 billion through settlements and judgments since January. State-level actions added hundreds of millions more.

What's different this year? Enforcers aren't just chasing outright fraud anymore. They're scrutinizing interface designs, algorithmic pricing, and subscription cancellation flows. Even practices that companies considered "industry standard" now face regulatory challenges.

For consumers, this enforcement wave translates into expanded rights and, in many cases, refund checks. But you need to know where to look and what these actions mean for your specific situation.

Recent FTC Enforcement Actions Against Major Corporations

Amazon paid $30.8 million in a June 2024 settlement covering two distinct privacy violations. Ring, Amazon's doorbell camera subsidiary, gave employees and third-party contractors unrestricted access to customers' private video feeds. Meanwhile, Amazon's Alexa division kept children's voice recordings stored permanently—even when parents explicitly asked the company to delete them.

The settlement goes beyond just writing a check. Amazon can't use any deleted voice data or location information to train its algorithms. The company must purge inactive child accounts according to strict timelines. Most significantly, the order sets a precedent that privacy policies aren't just aspirational marketing copy—they're enforceable commitments.

In September 2024, Intuit paid $141 million to settle charges related to TurboTax's "free" filing advertisements. The problem? Roughly 70% of tax filers couldn't actually use the free version. Intuit spent millions on Super Bowl commercials shouting "free, free, free" while hiding eligibility requirements in microscopic footnotes. Many consumers paid $60-$120 for services they could have accessed free through the IRS Free File program. Settlement funds went directly to affected consumers as refunds.

Credit Karma's March 2024 settlement ($3 million) addressed a particularly sneaky practice. The company labeled certain credit card offers as "pre-approved" with "90% chance of acceptance." Internal emails showed Credit Karma knew approval rates for some user segments dropped below 10%. Consumers submitted applications thinking approval was virtually guaranteed, resulting in hard credit inquiries that dinged their credit scores—often for cards they were never going to get. New disclosure requirements force Credit Karma to show realistic approval odds before consumers apply.

Epic Games, creator of Fortnite, paid the largest administrative penalty in FTC history—$275 million—in December 2023. The violations centered on "dark pattern" interface designs. Purchase buttons sat directly next to menu navigation controls. The game lacked confirmation screens before charging credit cards. Kids racked up hundreds of dollars in charges while their parents thought they were just playing. A separate $245 million penalty addressed children's privacy violations where voice chat features exposed minors to harassment and predatory behavior.

These cases share a pattern: growth teams overruled compliance concerns, companies prioritized revenue over transparency, and internal documents showed executives knew about the problems years before enforcement arrived.

Author: Michelle Granton;

Source: skeletonkeyorganizing.com

State-Level Consumer Rights Litigation: Key Cases to Watch

California and New York Lead Multi-State Actions

California's attorney general sued Amazon in September 2024, with twenty-three other states joining the action. The allegation? Amazon's contracts with third-party sellers include "fair pricing policies" that effectively ban sellers from offering lower prices anywhere else online. According to the complaint, this keeps prices artificially high across the entire e-commerce ecosystem. Unlike typical antitrust cases seeking only monetary damages, this lawsuit demands structural changes to Amazon's marketplace contracts.

New York's AG secured a $15 million settlement from Zoetis, a pet medication manufacturer, in August 2024. Zoetis required veterinarians to sign contracts prohibiting them from discussing medication prices or telling pet owners about cheaper pharmacy options. Vets couldn't even mention that the same medication might cost 40% less at a competing pharmacy. The settlement bans these gag clauses permanently and requires Zoetis to notify every veterinary practice that they're now free to discuss pricing openly with clients.

Seventeen state attorneys general launched coordinated investigations in May 2024 into rental housing platforms. The focus: algorithmic rent-setting tools like RealPage. These platforms collect competing landlords' pricing data, then generate rent recommendations. State enforcers are investigating whether this crosses the line from price optimization into illegal price-fixing—particularly given that rental costs have spiked 30-40% in some markets where these tools dominate.

Emerging Patterns in Class Action Settlements

"Subscription trap" class actions generated over $180 million in settlements during 2024. Defendants included fitness apps, meal delivery services, and software companies. The common thread? Making cancellation absurdly difficult compared to signup. Sign up with two clicks online, but cancel only by calling during business hours and enduring a 20-minute retention pitch.

Courts now routinely approve settlements requiring "same-medium cancellation." Signed up via the website? You can cancel via the website. No phone calls required. No "account specialists" to convince. Just a cancel button that actually works.

Illinois' biometric privacy law (BIPA) continues generating massive settlements. Snapchat paid $35 million in February 2024 for collecting facial geometry data through its filters without proper consent. White Castle paid $9.4 million in July 2024 after requiring employees to clock in using fingerprint scanners—without the legally required disclosures and consent forms. These cases demonstrate that even routine collection of fingerprints or facial data carries substantial liability under state biometric privacy laws.

Author: Michelle Granton;

Source: skeletonkeyorganizing.com

Data breach litigation has evolved beyond arguing whether breaches happened. Courts now scrutinize whether companies maintained reasonable security before breaches occurred. Recent settlements require specific security implementations: mandatory multi-factor authentication, encryption protocols meeting defined standards, and regular third-party security audits. Companies can't just offer credit monitoring anymore—they must fix the underlying security deficiencies.

Deceptive Advertising Crackdowns: Industries Under Scrutiny

Health and wellness companies received over forty warning letters from the FTC in 2024. Products claiming to treat diabetes, reverse Alzheimer's disease, or cure opioid addiction drew particular attention. Warning letters represent the first step—companies that ignored them faced enforcement actions. One supplement manufacturer paid $4.2 million after claiming its product could replace insulin for Type 2 diabetes management. The company had zero clinical trials, just customer testimonials and a study on a completely different supplement.

Tech companies selling VPNs encountered enforcement for overpromising security. Several providers advertised "military-grade encryption" and "complete anonymity" while maintaining connection logs that undermined these promises. One VPN claimed it had been "audited and verified" by an independent security firm. Investigation revealed the firm had reviewed only marketing materials—not the actual VPN infrastructure. Settlements required honest disclosures about what data gets logged and real-world limitations of VPN technology.

Buy-now-pay-later companies faced scrutiny for understating true costs. Apps showing "$25 every two weeks" made the total cost and effective interest rates less obvious than traditional lending disclosures require. Some providers claimed their services "build credit" without explaining that they don't report payments to credit bureaus—rendering the credit-building claim meaningless. New disclosure requirements force these providers to show total payment amounts and all fees upfront, before consumers commit to installment plans.

Author: Michelle Granton;

Source: skeletonkeyorganizing.com

Subscription services across every industry—streaming video, software, meal kits—received enforcement attention for obstacles to cancellation. The FTC proposed a "click-to-cancel" rule in March 2024 requiring cancellation to be as simple as signup. Industry groups fought the rule, and it remained unfinalized by year-end. But enforcement proceeded anyway against companies requiring phone calls, multiple verification steps, or mandatory retention conversations to cancel subscriptions that started with two clicks.

Recent Deceptive Advertising Enforcement by Industry

How Unfair Practice Enforcement Trends Are Shifting in 2024–2025

"Dark patterns" now encompasses far more than obvious trickery. Enforcement targets subtle interface manipulations: countdown timers manufacturing urgency ("Only 3 hours left at this price!"), pre-checked boxes for add-on purchases, confusing double-negative phrasing in consent screens, and comparison charts visually designed to push expensive options.

The FTC's updated endorsement guidance addresses AI-generated content directly. Companies must disclose when customer reviews come from AI rather than real purchasers. Influencer personas that are partially or fully synthetic require clear labeling. Incentivized testimonials need disclosure explaining the incentive. Several enforcement actions in late 2024 hit companies that generated thousands of fake reviews using language models. Penalties exceeded $1 million per company—and that's just administrative penalties before any civil litigation.

"Shrinkflation"—reducing product sizes while maintaining prices—entered regulatory crosshairs after consumer complaints spiked. Shrinkflation isn't automatically illegal. Enforcement focuses on deceptive presentation: packaging redesigned to hide size reductions, maintaining "family size" labels after cutting contents by 25%, or advertising products as "new and improved" when the main change is less product per package.

Data privacy enforcement has merged with consumer protection mandates. The FTC increasingly frames inadequate data security as an unfair practice harming consumers, not merely a privacy lapse. This approach matters because it allows broader remedies and higher penalties. Companies experiencing breaches after ignoring known vulnerabilities now face enforcement framed around unfair practices—expanding potential liability beyond traditional privacy violations.

Consumer protection law evolves where business innovation outpaces transparency.

— Lina M. Khan, Chair, Federal Trade Commission

Junk fees became a coordinated priority across federal agencies. The FTC, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Transportation Department launched parallel actions targeting mandatory fees disclosed late in purchase processes. Hotels, concert ticket sellers, car rental companies, and airlines faced enforcement for "drip pricing"—advertising attractive base prices then adding mandatory fees at checkout. Proposed rules requiring all-in pricing upfront faced industry litigation delaying implementation, but enforcement proceeded case-by-case.

Environmental marketing claims face substantially stricter scrutiny. The FTC's updated Green Guides (late 2024) establish tougher substantiation standards for recyclability, compostability, carbon offsets, and general "eco-friendly" claims. Technically true but misleading claims no longer pass muster. Products aren't "recyclable" if fewer than 60% of consumers can actually recycle them through available municipal programs. "Carbon neutral" claims require specific, verifiable offset purchases—not vague commitments to future reductions.

What These Consumer Protection Updates Mean for Your Rights

Author: Michelle Granton;

Source: skeletonkeyorganizing.com

If you paid for TurboTax, made unwanted Fortnite purchases, or struggled to cancel subscription services, check your eligibility for refunds. The FTC maintains a searchable refund database at ftc.gov/refunds. Search by company name and claim period. Some settlements automatically refund affected consumers using purchase records. Others require filing claims within specific deadlines—typically 60-120 days after settlement announcements.

State protections often exceed federal baselines significantly. California's automatic renewal law requires clear affirmative consent before charging renewal payments and bans cancellation processes that force you to speak with retention specialists. New York's consumer protection statute allows private lawsuits for actual damages plus $50 per violation—creating strong incentives for companies to resolve problems quickly. Check your state attorney general's website for local protections potentially stronger than federal law.

Statutes of limitations for consumer violations vary dramatically. Federal FTC enforcement typically reaches back three years. State laws range from one year (Tennessee) to six years (Maine). Some states pause limitation periods during ongoing violations—the clock doesn't start until companies stop the deceptive practice. This timing matters when deciding whether to file complaints or join class actions for older purchases.

Documentation dramatically strengthens consumer protection claims. Screenshot advertised terms. Save email confirmations. Keep chat transcripts with customer service. Retain credit card statements showing unauthorized charges. When companies change terms or pricing, capture before-and-after comparisons. Many successful enforcement actions started with consumers who systematically documented experiences rather than relying on memory months later.

Filing complaints triggers investigations even without immediate individual resolution. The FTC's complaint database identifies patterns informing enforcement priorities. One complaint rarely produces action. When hundreds report similar experiences, investigations launch. State attorneys general coordinate with federal agencies, so filing with both increases visibility. Effective complaints include specifics: exact dates, precise amounts, word-for-word advertisement language, and steps you took trying to resolve issues directly.

Tracking Federal vs. State Consumer Protection Priorities

The FTC pursues nationwide patterns affecting millions, while state attorneys general can tackle regional issues or test novel legal theories. This creates complementary enforcement: federal agencies handle massive platforms and cross-border commerce; states address local businesses and emerging issues federal agencies haven't prioritized yet.

Federal vs. State Consumer Protection Focus Comparison

Federal-state coordination has increased through information-sharing agreements and joint task forces. The National Association of Attorneys General runs working groups on data privacy, antitrust, and consumer fraud that coordinate multi-state investigations and share resources. This collaboration means companies can't escape accountability by arguing state enforcers lack jurisdiction over interstate commerce or that federal law should preempt state regulations.

Author: Michelle Granton;

Source: skeletonkeyorganizing.com

Preemption battles continuously shape consumer protection boundaries. Industries routinely argue federal regulations should block stricter state laws—particularly regarding labeling, advertising, and product safety. Courts generally reject broad preemption arguments for consumer protection, allowing states to maintain higher standards. California's Proposition 65 warnings survived repeated preemption challenges and influenced national product formulations despite industry opposition.

Private rights of action vary dramatically by state. California, New York, and Massachusetts allow consumers to sue directly for violations, with attorney fee provisions incentivizing representation. Texas and Florida restrict most consumer protection enforcement to government agencies. This determines whether class actions can proceed and whether individual consumers can find lawyers for smaller-value claims.

Frequently Asked Questions About Consumer Protection Enforcement

Enforcement throughout 2024 shows regulators have expanded focus well beyond traditional false advertising. Interface design, algorithmic decision-making, and subtle psychological manipulation all face scrutiny now. Companies can't hide behind technically accurate disclosures buried in terms of service or presented through confusing interfaces anymore.

These enforcement actions create stronger protections and clearer remedies for consumers—but you need to engage actively. Check refund program eligibility. Document problems systematically. File complaints with appropriate agencies. Individual frustrations transform into enforcement priorities when enough consumers report them.

The convergence of federal enforcement, state actions, and increased international cooperation means companies face accountability from multiple directions simultaneously. Businesses prioritizing compliance and transparent communication avoid the substantial penalties and reputation damage enforcement creates. Companies treating consumer protection as an afterthought? Expect continued regulatory attention and costly settlements throughout 2025.