D.C.’s Expansive Consumer Protection Law Gets Broader: Why Businesses Should Pay Attention

Businesses serving D.C. consumers — including through online sales — already face broad exposure under the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA). The statute reaches pricing, advertising, marketing, and product-safety practices, and gives qualifying public-interest organizations a path to court broader than that available under many state consumer-protection laws. Recent amendments expand that exposure and may make some claims easier to prove.

Under the CPPA, qualifying public-interest organizations can pursue representative injunctive claims without showing their own Article III injury, identifying a consumer with an out-of-pocket loss, or satisfying class-certification requirements, provided they have a “sufficient nexus” to the consumers’ interests. D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(1)(D); Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Hormel Foods Corp., 258 A.3d 174 (D.C. 2021). The “sufficient nexus” requirement has been construed broadly: consumer protection need not be the organization’s primary mission, provided its purposes and activities sufficiently connect it to the consumer interests at issue. This private litigation risk supplements the potential for enforcement by the D.C. Office of the Attorney General (OAG). A recent wave of lawsuits filed by the Consumer Advocacy Institute (CAI) underscores the broad reach of the CPPA.¹

The Enhancing Consumer Protection Procedures Amendment Act of 2026 (the Act), passed unanimously on June 2, 2026, and effective September 26, 2026, broadens this statute’s framework. It expands the businesses and conduct potentially covered and lowers the burden of proving intentional deception. For businesses serving consumers in the District of Columbia, the changes warrant review before a demand or complaint arrives. Key changes include:

1. Lowering the burden of proof required for CPPA claims based on intentional misrepresentations or omissions
   
2. Expressly requiring that merchants use “all-in pricing”
3. Clarifying and expanding the definition of “merchant” to include businesses offering free goods or services and certain businesses involved in consumer transactions without a direct contractual relationship with the consumer
4. Expressly extending the CPPA to cover charitable donations and solicitations
5. Prohibiting “abusive” trade practices and directing courts to consider relevant interpretations by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and federal courts
6. Expressly directing courts to give due consideration and weight to interpretative guidance, including the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Green Guides

The implications for businesses are discussed below.

Lowered Burden of Proof

First, the Act defines the burden of proof for CPPA claims: D.C. Code § 28-3901(f) provides that “[i]n any action brought under this chapter, the burden of proof shall be by the preponderance of the evidence, unless otherwise specified in this chapter.” 

The amendment eliminates the higher evidentiary burden previously applicable to CPPA claims based on intentional misrepresentations or omissions. The D.C. Court of Appeals had distinguished those claims, which required clear and convincing evidence, from claims based on unintentional misrepresentations or omissions, which required proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See District of Columbia v. Facebook, Inc., 340 A.3d 1, 9 (D.C. 2025). The change matters in both OAG enforcement actions and private litigation: in cases where this amendment applies, plaintiffs alleging intentional deception no longer face that heightened proof requirement.

“All-in Pricing”

The Act expressly requires “all-in pricing” by prohibiting advertising, displaying, or offering a price for a good or service that excludes mandatory fees or charges. The exceptions are taxes or fees imposed by a government on the transaction and postage or carriage charges reasonably and actually incurred to ship a physical good to the consumer. See D.C. Code § 28-3904(a)(12). The committee report explains that the provision codifies pricing protections that OAG had already enforced through CPPA actions.

Businesses should review the price consumers first see — not just the final checkout total — to ensure that mandatory service, processing, handling, and similar charges are included, subject to the statutory exceptions. Advertising, booking pages, subscription offers, and third-party sales channels should be assessed together. Disclosing a mandatory fee only later in the transaction may not cure an advertised price that excludes it.

Expanding the Definition of Merchant 

The Act expands the definition of “merchant” to include businesses that offer goods or services for free. See D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(3). For example, a service marketed as “free” may be funded by data collection or other monetization. Businesses should not assume that the absence of a purchase price places their consumer-facing representations outside the CPPA.

The amended definition also makes clear that a “merchant” need not have a contractual relationship with the consumer, may include businesses providing goods or services to or on behalf of another merchant in connection with a consumer transaction, and includes merchants’ successors and assigns. Id. Businesses operating behind the consumer-facing seller should therefore assess their own potential exposure rather than assume that only the contracting seller can be sued. The successors-and-assigns provision also warrants attention in acquisition diligence and transactions involving consumer obligations because it subjects successors and assigns to the same claims and defenses consumers had against the predecessor merchant. These changes broaden the potential defendant pool; they do not explain suits against merchants already selling directly to consumers, which could have been brought under the prior framework.

Charitable Donations and Solicitations 

The Act expressly brings charitable donations and solicitations within the CPPA by amending the definitions of “consumer,” “merchant,” “trade practice,” and “goods and services.” D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(2)-(3), (6)-(7). Persons involved in conducting or executing charitable solicitations are expressly included as merchants. These changes expose misleading fundraising representations — including statements about how donations will be used — to CPPA enforcement and private claims. Charitable organizations and businesses participating in fundraising campaigns should review statements about beneficiaries, the amount or proportion of proceeds donated, and how funds will be used. Consumer-protection review should extend to charitable promotions rather than stop at conventional product advertising.

“Abusive” Trade Practices

The Act adds “abusive” trade practices to the CPPA’s general prohibition and expressly prohibits materially interfering with a consumer’s ability to review or understand a term or condition of a consumer contract, agreement, or transaction. It also prohibits taking unreasonable advantage of specified circumstances, including a consumer’s lack of understanding of material risks, costs, or conditions and reasonable reliance on a merchant purporting to act in the consumer’s interest. See D.C. Code § 28-3904(a)(29)-(30). Courts must give due consideration and weight to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and federal-court interpretations of “abusive act or practice” under the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. Id. § 28-3901(d)(3).

For businesses, the focus is not limited to whether a statement is literally true. The way material terms are presented and the circumstances in which consumers make decisions may also draw scrutiny. Businesses should review contract disclosures and transaction flows to assess whether they impede consumers’ understanding of material terms or take unreasonable advantage of the circumstances specified in the statute.

Interpretative Guidance and the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides

The Act expressly directs courts to give “due consideration and weight” to Federal Trade Commission interpretative guidance, including the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides), 16 C.F.R. Part 260. D.C. Code § 28-3901(d)(2). This supplements the CPPA’s existing directive to consider FTC and federal-court interpretations of unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

The Green Guides explain how marketers can avoid deceptive environmental claims and provide examples addressing particular claims and qualifications. The amendment gives both plaintiffs and defendants an express statutory basis for invoking relevant FTC guidance in environmental-marketing disputes. Businesses should evaluate the overall impression of claims about environmental benefits, recyclability, or sustainability, together with their substantiation and qualifications, rather than assume that a narrowly accurate statement or a qualification elsewhere will resolve the risk.

 *          *          *

Not every CPPA claim is new. But this already accessible litigation vehicle now reaches additional conduct and potential defendants, with a lower evidentiary burden for intentional-deception claims. Businesses offering goods or services to consumers in the District of Columbia should prioritize review of how these new amendments affect their practices: Do advertised prices include mandatory charges? Are product, safety, and environmental representations supported and consistent with applicable requirements? Do free offerings, intermediary roles, charitable promotions, or acquired consumer obligations create exposure that existing compliance reviews overlook?

Our firm has extensive experience advising on and litigating matters under the CPPA and other consumer protection and product-safety laws, including matters involving pricing, advertising, and regulatory compliance. We help businesses assess how these overlapping requirements affect their practices and respond when claims arise. To discuss the amendments, a targeted compliance review, or a CPPA demand or complaint, please contact any of the authors of this Advisory or your usual firm contact.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2026 All Rights Reserved. This Advisory is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.