The first two months of 2025 were filled with numerous consumer protection actions by state AGs against vehicle dealers and players in the mortgage space, among others. The Democratic state AGs banded together to submit amicus briefs in two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Given the activity at the federal level, we expect states to be even more active in the coming months.

• ALASKA. Alaska Attorney General Taylor settled with a car dealership for, according to the AG, failing to include document in the advertised price of vehicles, which the AG alleged was a violation of Alaska law. The AG ordered the dealership to refund impacted consumers.
• ARKANSAS. Arkansas Attorney General Griffin sued an auto manufacturer and its subsidiary, alleging that they sold “detailed driving data” to third parties which then sold that information to insurance companies. According to AG Griffin, insurance companies then used that data to deny consumers coverage or increase their rates.
• INDIANA. Indiana Attorney General Rokita settled with four dealerships in January over the dealers’ alleged practices of: tampering with and lowering mileage on vehicle odometers; failing to inform consumers that the vehicles had “rebuilt” title brands; selling vehicles for more than the advertised price when the consumer chose to finance the vehicle; and sending prize mailings with deceptive statements, including false representations that the recipient had won a price when they had not.
• MICHIGAN. Michigan Attorney General Nessel sued a vehicle service contract provider, alleging that it deceptively advertised the features of its vehicle service contracts using language like “100% Risk Free” and “30 days money back guarantee” and “Fast 24/7 Claims Process” and “simple claims process.” AG Nessel claimed that the vehicle service contracts did not live up to the advertisements because the provider allegedly routinely denied or ignored valid claims and stopped paying claims altogether, and customers who tried to cancel their contracts were, according to the AG, denied refunds. AG Nessel sought an injunction against further deceptive practices, restitution for harmed consumers, and civil penalties.
• NEW YORK. New York Attorney General James settled with a revenue-based finance company, alleging that the company disguised loans as purchases of future revenues. Specifically, the AG claimed that the company collected fixed amounts directly from the borrowers’ bank accounts every day, and that these collections had “little connection” to the borrowers’ revenues. According to the AG, the company claimed that it would reconcile the collections with the borrowers’ revenues, but did not do so. The result, alleged the AG, were loans with interest rates that, in some cases, exceeded the usury limit by 50 times. Between debt cancellation, restitution, and other relief, the total judgment exceeded $1 billion, the largest consumer settlement ever obtained by the New York AG acting alone.
• OHIO. Ohio Attorney General Yost sued a dealership for alleged violations of the state’s trade practices law and certificate of title law, claiming that the dealership failed to transfer titles to the consumers who bought cars from the dealership, and that the dealership improperly rolled back the odometer and made misrepresentations about rebuilt salvage vehicles. The case arose from consumer complaints.
• PENNSYLVANIA. Former Pennsylvania Attorney General Henry (who has, since this action, been succeeded by AG Sunday) sued a mortgage broker and its manager over an alleged kick-back scheme in which real estate agents, according to the AG, directed potential home buyers to the brokers in exchange for sporting event tickets, dinners, and other kickbacks. The AG alleges that the broker and manager violated Pennsylvania’s trade practices law, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act, and RESPA.
• MULTIPLE STATES. State AGs across the U.S. submitted amicus briefs in lawsuits seeking to preserve the CFPB. The AGs of New York, New Jersey, DC, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, submitted amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs in lawsuits brought by the City of Baltimore and by the National Treasury Employees Union over the recent attempts by the Trump administration to dismantle the CFPB.

Join us for a webinar highlighting anticipated state AG enforcement trends on April 8, 2025 at 2:00 pm ET. Click here to learn more about Hudson Cook’s State Enforcement Practice.