Consumer Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Operation Robocall Phase 1 is Delivering Results:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Credit Discrimination?

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

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

The Legal Bits: Federal and State Laws Banning Credit Discrimination

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

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

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

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

Report It!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta announced a $1,550,000 settlement with website publisher Healthline Media LLC, resolving allegations that its use of online tracking technology on its health information website violated the CCPA by failing to allow customers to opt-out of targeted advertising and sharing data with third parties without CCPA-mandated privacy protections — including data suggesting that a person may have a serious health condition. In June 2024, Attorney General Bonta and Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto announced a $500,000 settlement with Tilting Point Media LLC resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA and federal law by collecting and sharing children’s data without parental consent in their popular mobile app game “SpongeBob: Krusty Cook-Off.”  In February 2024, Attorney General Bonta announced a settlement with DoorDash, resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA and COPPA by selling California customers’ personal information without providing notice or an opportunity to opt out of that sale. In August 2022, the Attorney General announced a settlement with Sephora resolving allegations that it failed to disclose to consumers that it was selling their personal information and failed to process opt-out requests via user-enabled global privacy controls in violation of the CCPA. 

For more information about the CCPA, visit oag.ca.gov/ccpa. To report a violation of the CCPA to the Attorney General, consumers can submit a complaint online at oag.ca.gov/report.

A copy of the complaint is available here. A copy of the judgment is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the proposed judgment can be found here. 

ANTITRUST AND YOU:

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

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

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

California’s Law

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

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

Monitoring Your Credit Report 

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

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

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

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

If You Find Medical Debt on Your Credit Report 

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

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

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, and New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced that they have secured $5.1 million and injunctive terms from educational technology company Illuminate Education, Inc. (Illuminate) for failing to protect students’ data. In 2021, Illuminate experienced a data breach that exposed the information of millions of students, including California students across 49 school districts. The breached data included sensitive personal and medical information, such as student name, race, whether the student received special education services or reasonable accommodations, and coded medical conditions. Of the three million California students impacted by the breach, more than 434,000 had sensitive information stolen. As part of the three separate settlements with the states, Illuminate has agreed to pay California $3.25 million in civil penalties and has agreed to comply with requirements to strengthen its data security practices.  

“Illuminate failed to appropriately safeguard the data of school children, resulting in a data breach that compromised the sensitive data of students nationwide, including more than 434,000 California students. Our investigation revealed a troubling pattern of security deficiencies that should have never happened for a company charged with protecting data about kids,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Today’s settlement should send a clear message to tech companies, especially those in the education space: California law imposes heightened obligations for companies to secure children’s’ information. I am grateful to Attorney General James and Attorney General Tong for their partnership in investigating companies that fail to safeguard our residents’ data. Data security concerns know no borders, and as today’s settlements showcase, neither should state collaboration.”

“Technology is everywhere in schools today, and Connecticut’s Student Data Privacy Law requires strict security to protect children’s information. Illuminate failed to implement basic safeguards, and exposed the personal information of millions of students, including thousands here in Connecticut," said Attorney General Wiliam Tong. "This action—Connecticut’s first ever under the Student Data Privacy Law—holds Illuminate accountable and sends a strong message to education technology companies that they must take privacy obligations seriously."

“Students, parents, and teachers should be able to trust that their schools’ online platforms are safe and secure,” said Attorney General Letitia James. “Illuminate violated that trust and did not take basic steps to protect students’ data. Today’s settlements will ensure that Illuminate protects students’ data in classrooms across the country. My office will continue to use every tool at our disposal to protect children online.”   

In December 2021, a hacker accessed Illuminate’s network using the credentials of a former employee who had left the company years earlier. The hacker then created new credentials to enable future access to Illuminate’s network and data and spent several days stealing and deleting student data. 

The investigation by the California Department of Justice determined that Illuminate failed to carry out basic security procedures to protect students’ information. First, Illuminate failed to terminate the login credentials of former employees, resulting in the credentials of a former employee with a high level of access to Illuminate’s systems remaining active after his departure from the company. Second, Illuminate did not monitor and alert for suspicious logins and activity. Third, Illuminate did not secure its back up databases separately from its active databases. As a result, the backup databases were compromised when the attacker compromised the active database, negating the purpose of maintaining a backup. Moreover, Illuminate made false and misleading statements in its Privacy Policy, including stating that it took steps to prevent unauthorized access and disclosure of information and that its measures “meet or exceed the requirements of applicable federal and state law," when that was not the case. Illuminate also deceptively advertised that it was a signatory of the Future of Privacy Forum’s “Student Privacy Pledge,” but was later dropped from the list of signatories as a result of the breach.  

As a result of today’s settlements, Illuminate must pay a total of $5.1 million to the states, including $3.25 million to California. In addition, as part of California’s settlement, subject to court approval, Illuminate has agreed to:

• Implement appropriate access control and account management, including terminating the credentials of former employees and conducting audits to check that all valid credentials belong only to current employees.
• Implement appropriate real-time monitoring and alerts for suspicious access and activity.
• Implement appropriate safeguards to protect backup databases, such as not storing backup databases within the same network segment as original databases.
• Inform California DOJ of breaches involving student data.
• Provide reminders to school districts that they should perform a review of the student data stored by Illuminate on the school’s behalf, including reminders related to retention and deletion of student data.

Today’s settlement marks DOJ’s first enforcement action involving California’s K-12 Pupil Online Personal Information Protection Act (KOPIPA), which requires operators of online services used for K-12 school purposes to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect student data.  

Attorney General Bonta is committed to ensuring business follow the law when it comes to consumers' data — including children’s data: 

Last month, Attorney General Bonta secured a $530,000 settlement with streaming service Sling TV resolving allegations that the company failed to provide an easy-to-use method for consumers to stop the sale of their personal information and failed to provide sufficient privacy protections for children. In 2024, Attorney General Bonta secured a $6.75 million settlement with Blackbaud, a South Carolina-based software company, for violating consumer protection and privacy laws related to its unlawful data security practices. Blackbaud’s failure to implement reasonable data security led to a data breach in 2020. Also last year, Attorney General Bonta and Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto, announced a $500,000 settlement with Tilting Point Media resolving allegations that the company violated the state and federal privacy laws by collecting and sharing children’s data without parental consent in their popular mobile app game “SpongeBob: Krusty Cook-Off.”

A copy of the complaint can be found here. A copy of the final judgment can be found here. 

Lawsuit challenges new rule that could exclude employers that the President doesn’t like

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today co-led a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing a lawsuit challenging new U.S. Department of Education regulations that could exclude people with federal student loans from Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility based on whether their employers engage in actions that the Trump Administration deems to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” The rule threatens PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in important and legal activities, such as providing legal services to immigrants, providing gender-affirming care to minors, participating in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, or engaging in civil protest and the right to assembly. As of 2024, more than 81,000 Californians have received over $6 billion in PSLF forgiveness. Last month, Attorney General Bonta led a multistate coalition in sending a letter to the Department opposing a proposed version of the rule. In the lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the attorneys general ask the court to declare the now final rule unlawful, vacate it, and bar the Department from enforcing or implementing it. 

“Millions of Americans shaped their lives, made long-term career decisions, and took on deep financial burdens based on the promise that, if they dedicated their lives to public service and made student loan payments for 10 years, their government would support them. Now, the Trump Administration is pulling the rug from under hardworking Americans who absolutely deserve what they were promised,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is a Bush-era, bipartisan-backed effort that encourages generations of young people to build careers in public service. Make no mistake: This is the latest example of the Trump Administration’s weaponization of the federal government to go after people it does not agree with, all the while betraying and eroding the very institutions that uphold our democracy. We’ll see the President in court.”

In 2007, a bipartisan Congress under the Bush Administration created PSLF to encourage college graduates to work in the public sector, where salaries are often lower than at for-profit companies. The PSLF program enables public servants who work in eligible government and nonprofit roles to have their qualifying federal student loans forgiven after 10 years of qualifying service and payments. It helps public service employers recruit and retain skilled workers who might otherwise be forced to turn to private sector employment to afford to pay their student loans. Many California state employees are eligible for, actively pursuing, or have already benefited from PSLF as a means of managing the significant student debt that they incurred in preparing for skilled public service careers.

The U.S. Department of Education’s rule would enable the Secretary of Education to unilaterally disqualify employers from PSLF if she deems them to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” The vagueness of the rule could empower the Trump Administration to target politically disfavored conduct and may threaten PSLF eligibility for organizations that are engaged in longstanding and legal activities. The rule creates uncertainty as to who is an eligible employer and will deter student borrowers from entering public service. The resulting uncertainty of the rule will undercut the state’s ability to recruit and retain skilled employees.  

This rule is the latest attempt by the Trump Administration to harness the power of the federal government to target conduct and entities, states, and individuals it does not like — many of whom are at the forefront of critical sectors, processes, and programs that serve to uphold democratic norms. Within the last 10 months, the Trump Administration has used its power to:

•  Prosecute people it views as political enemies;
•  Threaten media that criticizes President Trump;
•  Go after law firms that represent people who President Trump perceives as enemies (here, here, and here); and
•  Target critical transportation, homeland security, and public safety and victim services funding for states engaging in conduct it doesn’t like. 

In the complaint filed today, the attorneys general argue the Department’s rule is contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as the Higher Education Act defines eligible employers to include government agencies and 501(c)(3) non-profits with no exceptions and provides no grant of discretion to the Secretary of Education to determine otherwise. The attorneys general also argue the rule is arbitrary and capricious under the APA, as the rule fails to set out clear standards for when a government or nonprofit organization has a “substantial illegal purpose,” including by failing to define key elements of the inquiry, failing to describe the evidence ED may use to make such a determination, and failing to set out clear procedures to provide notice and due process to employers found to exist for a substantially illegal purpose.

Attorney General Bonta is co-leading today's lawsuit alongside the attorneys general of Colorado, Massachusetts, and New York. They are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

A copy of the complaint can be found here.

Sling TV confused and misdirected consumers seeking to exercise their right to stop the sale of their personal information 

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today secured a settlement with Sling TV LLC and Dish Media Sales LLC (Sling TV), a streaming service, resolving allegations that the company violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to provide an easy-to-use method for consumers to stop the sale of their personal information and by failing to provide sufficient privacy protections for children. The investigation and proposed settlement arise from the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigative sweep announced in January 2024, which focused on the compliance of streaming services and connected TVs with CCPA’s right to opt-out. Under the proposed settlement, Sling TV has agreed to pay $530,000 in CCPA civil penalties and implement changes to ensure the CCPA opt-out is easy for consumers to execute, requires minimal steps, and considers the way the business interacts with consumers. The settlement, subject to court approval, also requires the company to provide parents with clear disclosures and tools to minimize collection and use of their children’s data. 

“Californians have critical privacy rights. Our investigative sweep looked at all the different ways consumers should be able to stop the sale of their data when using streaming services,” said Attorney General Bonta “We take privacy rights seriously and Sling TV was not providing consumers an easy way to opt-out of the sale of their personal data as required. My office is committed to the continued enforcement of the CCPA — every Californian has the right to their online privacy, especially in the comfort of their living room.”  

Sling TV is an internet-based live TV service that offers both a paid subscription and a free, ad-supported streaming service. Unlike traditional television, where advertising is based on the content of the programming, Sling TV uses its internet-based platform to deliver highly targeted advertising, using detailed consumer data such as age, gender, location, and income to personalize ads for viewers, often without their awareness.   

In 2024, DOJ identified Sling TV as a target in its investigative sweep, because of Sling TV’s confusing and hard-to-find methods to opt-out of the sale and sharing of personal information. Sling TV combined cookie preferences with the CCPA opt-out, even though to truly opt-out, turning off cookies was insufficient. Consumers had to look for an embedded link to a webform and click through confirmation steps to complete their request. Even logged-in customers, where Sling TV knew the identity of the customer, had to fill out a webform with their name, address, email, and phone number — information already known to Sling TV. Additionally, Sling TV did not provide methods to opt-out within its apps on various living-room devices. Nor did they offer kids profiles that would reduce the use of targeted advertising when children are watching or otherwise obtain affirmative “opt-in” authorization when minors under the age of 16 were likely watching.  

Under the settlement Sling TV must: 

• Stop directing consumers seeking to implement their CCPA out-out rights to cookie preferences.
• Stop requiring logged-in customers to fill out a webform with information already available to the business, which adds unnecessary steps and could deter consumers from exercising their opt-out rights. 
• Provide an opt-out mechanism within the Sling TV app on various living-room devices, so consumers accessing Sling TV on various devices do not need to go to Sling TV’s website to opt-out.
• Allow parents to designate one or more user profiles as a “kid’s profile” that defaults off the sale and sharing of personal information and targeted advertising.
• Provide parents with clear disclosures and tools to protect their children’s privacy. 

The CCPA is a landmark law that secures increased privacy rights for California consumers, such as the right to know how businesses collect, share, and disclose their personal information. Businesses that are subject to the CCPA have specific responsibilities, including responding to consumer requests to exercise these rights and giving consumers certain notices explaining their privacy practices. 

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

Today’s settlement represents the fifth settlement under the CCPA: 

In July 2025, Attorney General Bonta announced a $1,550,000 settlement with website publisher Healthline Media LLC, resolving allegations that its use of online tracking technology on its health information website violated the CCPA by failing to allow customers to opt-out of targeted advertising and sharing data with third parties without CCPA-mandated privacy protections — including data suggesting that a person may have a serious health condition. In June 2024, Attorney General Bonta and Los Angeles City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto announced a $500,000 settlement with Tilting Point Media LLC resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA and federal law by collecting and sharing children’s data without parental consent in their popular mobile app game “SpongeBob: Krusty Cook-Off.”  In February 2024, Attorney General Bonta announced a settlement with DoorDash, resolving allegations that the company violated the CCPA and CalOPPA, by selling California customers’ personal information without providing notice or an opportunity to opt out of that sale.  In August 2022, the Attorney General announced a settlement with Sephora resolving allegations that it failed to disclose to consumers that it was selling their personal information and failed to process opt-out requests via user-enabled global privacy controls in violation of the CCPA. 

For more information about the CCPA, visit oag.ca.gov/ccpa. To report a violation of the CCPA to the Attorney General, consumers can submit a complaint online at oag.ca.gov/report.

A copy of the complaint can be found here. A copy of the final judgment can be found here. 

Federal law invoked by Trump Administration, IEEPA, makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or even “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.”  

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Governor Gavin Newsom today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump, opposing the Trump Administration’s persistent efforts to impose illegal tariffs that have sent shockwaves and uncertainty through global economies, markets, and consumers. In the brief, Attorney General Bonta argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the President has used as a vehicle to levy the tariffs in question, does not delegate any authority to the President to impose tariffs. Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. President Trump’s illegal tariffs are causing uncertainty and unpredictability, which is bad for business, bad for the economy, and as the fourth largest economy in the world, bad for California. In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. 

“President Trump’s illegal tariffs impact businesses, consumers, and states across the nation — and they are illegal. Any attempt by the Trump Administration to interpret IEEPA as giving it the power to impose tariffs is a feat of mental gymnastics,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “No matter how you spin it, no matter what definitions the Administration reaches for, 2 + 2 does not equal 10. Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes — if Congress had intended to grant the President such extraordinary authority, it would have said so. Today, California asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

“Trump’s illegal tariffs are punishing American families and small businesses. It’s not policy or business acumen — it’s betrayal and grift. Americans are struggling to put food on their tables, and Trump’s response is to send $20 billion in taxpayer money to Argentina and leave our farmers and ranchers out to dry," said Governor Gavin Newsom. "While Trump continues to play political games and make shady deals for his own benefit, California will keep fighting on your behalf. We urge the court to stand firm against authoritarianism and uphold the rule of law that it is sworn to protect.”

Since February 2025, President Trump has issued an unprecedented and chaotic series of executive orders imposing tariffs, ranging from 10% to 145% on nearly every trading partner of the United States. California is the fourth-largest economy in the world and the largest importer of goods among the 50 states. The illegal tariffs imposed by President Trump using IEEPA threaten to devastate California’s economy, depriving it of $25 billion and more than 64,000 jobs. 

Instead of invoking any of the Tariff or Trade Acts as authority for his unilateral overhaul of our nation’s tariff system, the President invoked IEEPA, a federal statute enacted in 1977 that allows the President to take certain specified actions in response to a declared national emergency resulting from an unusual and extraordinary foreign threat. In the nearly fifty years since its enactment, no President has ever before invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs because IEEPA does not reference the power to tax or tariff at all.   

Moreover, every time that Congress has delegated tariff authority to the President, it has referred explicitly to tariffs, using terms like “duties” or “tariffs.” IEEPA makes no mention of “tariffs,” “duties,” or any similar term, such as “customs,” “taxes,” or “imposts.” IEEPA includes the phrase “regulate . . . importation,” which the Administration has taken to mean impose tariffs — despite the Administration’s inability to point to a single other statute in the entirety of the U.S. Code where “regulate” has been understood to bestow such power to the President. 

BACKGROUND:

Attorney General Bonta is committed to challenging the illegal tariffs that threaten California jobs, businesses, and consumers — tariffs that have sent shockwaves through financial markets, businesses, and consumers in every corner of the globe. The California Department of Justice has challenged President Trump’s illegal tariffs on all fronts:

In April, Attorney General Bonta and Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s unlawful use of power to impose tariffs without the consent of Congress. In June, a judge granted California's request for dismissal to allow the state to appeal its case challenging the Trump Administration’s illegal tariffs after the Administration asked that the case be transferred to the Court of International Trade — a motion that California opposed. The dismissal kept the case in California and allowed California to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. California’s case has been held in abeyance by the Ninth Circuit pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of these cases. For more information on California’s case, please see here.

Other states and entities nationwide have filed lawsuits of their own. Attorney General Bonta has filed an amicus brief in the Court of International Trade in Oregon v. Trump as well as in the D.C. Circuit in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, cases challenging President Trump’s illegal imposition of tariffs.

Attorney General Bonta has hosted roundtable discussions in San Francisco and Los Angeles for business leaders on the front lines of the tariff war to discuss the impacts of tariffs on industries across California. 

A copy of the brief is available here.

 Bill adds warning labels to social media platforms

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda) today issued the following statements in response to Governor Gavin Newsom signing into law Assembly Bill 56 (AB 56), legislation that aims to protect children and teens from risks posed by social media.

“People across the nation — including myself — have become increasingly concerned with Big Tech’s failure to protect children who interact with its products. Today, California makes clear that we will not sit and wait for companies to decide to prioritize children’s well-being over their profits,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta. “By adding warning labels to social media platforms, AB 56 gives California a new tool to protect our children. I thank Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan for introducing this legislation and look forward to continuing the vital work of ensuring social media platform use does not harm our kids.” 

"While I'm grateful Governor Newsom signed AB 56, our work isn't finished. California's children deserve both transparency about social media's harms and accountability when platforms cause damage," said Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. "I'll continue working with Attorney General Bonta and my colleagues to ensure comprehensive protections become law. Our children's mental health crisis demands nothing less."

AB 56 requires social media companies to periodically display a warning label on their platforms when used by children and teens. The warning label advises that social media is associated with significant mental health harms and has not been proven safe for young users.  It must be clearly displayed upon the user’s initial access of the platform in a given day, again after the user has reached three hours of cumulative active use that day, and thereafter at least once per hour of active use.  

Last year, former U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on Congress to require a surgeon general’s warning on social media platforms. Attorney General Bonta, joined by a bipartisan coalition of 42 attorneys general, supported this proposal and argued that mandating a surgeon general’s warning on algorithm-driven social media platforms could help address the growing youth mental health crisis and protect future generations of Americans. 

A growing body of research links young people’s use of social media platforms to a variety of serious harms, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Adolescents who spend more than three hours per day on social media face double the risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes. Social media companies are aware of this, yet do not share this information with consumers. California’s own ongoing lawsuits against Meta and TikTok claim that the social media giants intentionally design their platforms to addict young people to their mental and physical detriment for the sake of profits.