FTC, CFPB, State AG & Consumer Protection Enforcement
| Agency | Authority | What They Regulate |
|---|---|---|
| FTC (Federal Trade Commission) | Section 5 FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) - unfair or deceptive practices | Advertising, marketing, consumer fraud, data security, privacy, anti-competitive conduct (most consumer-facing businesses) |
| CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) | Dodd-Frank UDAAP (unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices) | Financial products/services: mortgages, credit cards, debt collection, payday loans, student loans, auto loans |
| DOJ Consumer Protection Branch | Various federal consumer protection statutes | Consumer fraud, telemarketing fraud, civil enforcement of criminal statutes |
| State | Primary Statute | Enforcer |
|---|---|---|
| California | Unfair Competition Law (UCL) - Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; False Advertising Law (FAL) - § 17500; CLRA - Civ. Code § 1750 | Attorney General, District Attorneys, City Attorneys; private right of action |
| New York | General Business Law § 349 (deceptive practices); Executive Law § 63(12) (AG authority) | Attorney General; private right of action |
| Texas | Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) - Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41 et seq. | Attorney General; private right of action |
| All 50 states | "Little FTC Acts" - unfair/deceptive practices statutes | State Attorney General + private enforcement (varies by state) |
Regulatory enforcement can result in:
Private UDAP lawsuits (state law) can result in:
Citing regulatory violations is most effective when:
| Violation Type | Evidence To Collect |
|---|---|
| Deceptive advertising | Screenshots of ads, marketing emails, product pages; proof of purchase; actual product vs advertised; third-party reviews/complaints showing pattern |
| Hidden fees / drip pricing | Screenshots of pricing at each stage (cart, checkout, final charge); credit card statements showing final charge; terms of service / fee disclosures (or lack thereof) |
| Dark patterns / subscription traps | Screenshots of sign-up flow vs cancellation flow; documentation of barriers to cancellation; recorded calls with customer service; terms showing auto-renewal buried in fine print |
| Data privacy violations | Privacy policy (showing promises made); evidence of data breach or unauthorized sharing; account settings showing lack of privacy controls |
| Debt collection harassment | Call recordings/logs (dates, times, frequency); voicemails; letters; evidence of contact after cease-and-desist; threats documented |
Structure your demand to:
FTC Complaint (ReportFraud.ftc.gov):
CFPB Complaint (consumerfinance.gov/complaint):
State Attorney General:
In addition to regulatory complaints, consider:
When receiving demand letter citing regulatory violations:
Immediate steps:
| Response | When To Use |
|---|---|
| Quick settlement | Claim has merit; cost to settle individual ($500-$5k) far less than regulatory risk; want to avoid CFPB complaint |
| Cure + settlement | Practice was problematic; fix going forward (change terms, improve disclosures); settle past harm for nominal amount + agree to cure |
| Substantive response | Claim lacks merit; explain why practice is lawful, provide citations; offer refund of purchase price but reject liability |
| Ignore / minimal response | Frivolous claim; customer clearly wrong; low regulatory risk (practice obviously legal, no pattern of complaints) |
If customer files CFPB/FTC/AG complaint:
CFPB complaints:
FTC complaints:
State AG complaints:
To reduce regulatory risk:
If internal review reveals systemic violation:
Effective strategy:
Avoid:
Many states allow private lawsuits for unfair/deceptive practices:
| State | Statute | Remedies |
|---|---|---|
| California | Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL) | Restitution, injunction; no damages but attorney fees available |
| Massachusetts | Gen. Laws ch. 93A | Actual damages × 2 or 3 (if willful); attorney fees |
| New York | Gen. Bus. Law § 349 | Actual damages (up to $1,000 for knowing violation); attorney fees |
| Texas | DTPA (Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41) | Actual damages; treble if intentional; attorney fees |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. § 501.201 (FDUTPA) | Actual damages; attorney fees; declaratory/injunctive relief |
UDAP violations often support class actions:
Individual consumer settlement typically:
Company perspective:
FTC complaints:
CFPB complaints:
State AG complaints:
I represent both consumers pursuing UDAP claims and businesses facing regulatory investigations. I handle FTC/CFPB matters, state AG enforcement, and private unfair competition litigation.
Book a call to discuss your consumer protection matter or regulatory compliance issue. I'll assess your situation and recommend strategy.
Email: owner@terms.law
When businesses engage in deceptive practices, consumer fraud, or regulatory violations, the threat of complaints to enforcement agencies can be powerful settlement leverage. Regulatory agencies like the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), state Attorneys General, and industry-specific regulators have authority to investigate complaints, impose penalties, and mandate corrective action. While regulatory complaints don't directly compensate you, the prospect of government investigation often motivates businesses to settle private disputes quickly. Strategic use of regulatory leverage requires understanding which agencies have jurisdiction, what violations they prioritize, and how to coordinate with your civil claims.
Businesses fear regulatory scrutiny because it can result in investigations, subpoenas for internal documents, civil penalties, consent orders requiring business changes, and public enforcement actions that damage reputation. Even if your individual complaint doesn't trigger enforcement, it creates a record that contributes to pattern recognition when multiple consumers report similar problems. Mentioning potential regulatory complaints in demand letters often accelerates settlement because businesses prefer resolving individual disputes quietly rather than attracting government attention. The leverage is particularly strong when the business's conduct clearly violates regulations or when they've faced prior enforcement.
For maximum leverage, coordinate regulatory complaints with your civil demand or lawsuit. Your demand letter can state: "If this matter is not resolved within [X] days, I intend to file complaints with [FTC/CFPB/State AG] regarding [specific violations]." This gives the business a window to settle before attracting regulatory attention. If the business ignores your demand, follow through by filing the regulatory complaint. In some cases, regulatory investigations uncover evidence that strengthens your civil case. Be aware that some regulatory proceedings may create public records, and settling with the business doesn't prevent agency enforcement. The combination of civil litigation risk and regulatory scrutiny often produces faster, more favorable settlements.