The conversation covers the state attorneys general and California’s new consumer agency step up enforcement on junk fees, surcharges, and auto-renewals as federal agencies pull back; the FTC lands a deceptive-advertising settlement against bill-pay firm doxo and opens a comment window on “personalized pricing”; the CFPB’s revised open banking proposal reaches the White House while its permanent-director fight stretches into the fall; and a federal court refuses to let the DOJ walk away from a redlining consent order. Each topic is explored in detail, providing insights into the impact on compliance programs and regulatory obligations.
Key Takeaways
- The state attorneys general and California’s new consumer agency step up enforcement on junk fees, surcharges, and auto-renewals as federal agencies pull back
- The FTC lands a deceptive-advertising settlement against bill-pay firm doxo
- The CFPB’s revised open banking proposal reaches the White House while its permanent-director fight stretches into the fall
- A federal court refuses to let the DOJ walk away from a redlining consent order
- On the Radar: opens a comment window on “personalized pricing”
Chapters
- 1:11: State-Level Enforcement Takes Center Stage
- 5:22: Significant Stat: #23.8 Million from Grubhub
- 6:10: FTC Settlements and Compliance Implications
- 8:10: CFPB Open Banking Developments and Regulatory Uncertainty
- 10:23: Fair Lending and Judicial Oversight
- 11:54: On the Radar: Personalized Pricing Under FTC Scrutiny
- 13:18: Regulatory Roundup Recap + Closing
Show Notes:
- For the full article: https://performline.com/blog-post/regulatory-compliance-roundup-08-26-26/
- Connect with Ashley Cianci on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashley-cianci/
- Subscribe to PerformLine to stay connected to resources and updates: https://lp.performline.com/subscribe-to-performline
Subscribe to COMPLY: The Marketing Compliance Podcast
About COMPLY: The Marketing Compliance Podcast
The state of marketing compliance and regulation is evolving faster than ever. On the COMPLY Podcast, we sit down with the biggest names in marketing, compliance, regulations, and innovation as they share their playbooks to help you take your compliance practice to the next level.
This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; consult your own compliance or legal counsel.
Episode Transcript:
Ashley Cianci :
Hey there, COMPLY Podcast listeners, and welcome to this week’s episode. I’m Ashley Cianci and this is the audio edition of the PerformLine Regulatory Compliance Roundup, where we pull the regulatory news that actually matters for your marketing, cut the noise, and talk through why each story matters for your compliance program. Today I’m walking through the August edition of the Roundup, story by story. And if there’s one theme tying this whole month together, it’s this: the action has moved to the states.
Last month, we kept coming back to the idea that a quieter federal posture doesn’t mean less risk. It just means the pressure shows up somewhere else. Well, this month that somewhere else is the state attorneys general, and they were busy. We’ve also got a sharp FTC settlement that lands right in the middle of marketing compliance, the CFPB’s open banking rule taking a real step forward, a fair lending ruling that came from a courtroom instead of a regulator, and a new FTC move on personalized pricing to keep on your radar.
So grab your coffee and let’s get into it. And a quick note before I do, everything I’m covering is in the full written roundup on our blog at performline.com with all the source links, and you can subscribe there to get it the day it drops.
All right, story number one, and it’s a big theme of the month. The states are stepping into the federal vacuum, and they did it with a real wave of enforcement. Let me start with California, because California set the tone.
In a July 23rd post, Secretary Rohit Chopra’s Business and Consumer Services Agency, that’s the BCSA, which oversees the DFPI, the Department of Real Estate and the Department of Consumer Affairs, named as one of its top priorities cracking down on what it called harmful and corrupt practices that wrongfully raise consumer costs. And they were specific about what that means: dishonest pricing, inflated or hidden fees, and undisclosed kickbacks.
Chopra pledged to coordinate with other states as federal agencies step back, invited consumers and whistleblowers to submit tips, and said the agency would concentrate its audit and inspection resources on the highest risk entities. So that’s not just rhetoric, that’s an agency telling you how it plans to operate. And then other states put exactly that posture into action. Three settlements I want you to know about.
First, Colorado. On July 29th, Attorney General Phil Weiser settled with a rent payment processor called Dumoso over a 3.25% card fee. They called it a certified funds fee that exceeded Colorado’s 2% cap on surcharges. Dumoso agreed to cap fees at 2%, end its fee-sharing arrangements with properties, and provide a cost-free payment option and pay $100,000. Then, still in Colorado, and this is the one subscription marketers should really sit up for.
On August 20th, Wiser settled with Cobblestone Car Wash under Colorado’s automatic renewal law. The AEG alleged Cobblestone failed to provide required disclosures, notices, receipts, and cancellation options. More than 30,000 Coloradians got hit with rate increases without notice. Cobblestone agreed to pay $1.35 million in restitution to over 70,000 consumers. And this is the purchase circle to offer one-step online cancellation.
One step. That’s the standard states keep pushing toward. Canceling has to be as easy as signing up. And third, Minnesota. On August 7th, Attorney General Keith Ellison settled with a fintech called Unlock Partnership Solutions for $944,000. And the allegation here is really interesting. Unlock offer what it called home equity agreements, marketed as not loans with no interest.
The AEG said they were actually disguised high-cost mortgage loans functioning as unlicensed lending. Unlock agreed to comply with Minnesota’s Mortgage Originator and Service or Licensing Act. So that’s a state regulator looking past what a product is called and going after what it actually does. And on top of all of that, Louisiana’s new debit card surcharge ban took effect on August 1st. We flagged this one as coming in our last edition.
It’s prohibiting retailers from surcharging customers who pay by debit card. And it carries both a private right of action and AG enforcement. So why does all this matter? And here’s my take. For financial services marketers, the compliance center of gravity has clearly shifted to the states. And notice the exposure spans fees, pricing, and subscription mechanics all at once. There’s a real through line across every one of these actions, mandatory or poorly disclosed fees.
Surge charges that blow past a cap, and auto renewal flows that don’t clearly disclose, remind, and let people cancel easily. All of it’s getting treated as an unfair or deceptive practice, often with restitution and private rights of action attached. And with California’s BCSA explicitly organizing to coordinate across states, I’d expect more parallel multi-state activity, not just one-off cases. So the practical move is the one we keep landing on: Map your fee disclosures, surcharge practices, cancellation flows against the strictest applicable state standard, and then apply that everywhere. Don’t try to thread 50 needles.
Okay, before I move on, here’s this edition’s significant stat, and it’s a big number: more than $23.8 million.
That’s what the FTC announced on August 12th, it’s distributing to 640,000 diners and delivery drivers who were harmed by Grubhub’s deceptive advertising. This traces back to a December 2024 stipulated order that resolved allegations from the FTC and the Illinois Attorney General that Grubhub misrepresented delivery costs and fees to diners, and inflated potential earning claims to its drivers. And notably that order also requires at least annual notice of continued subscriptions and an easy cancellation option. So even this one has a negative option thread running through it, just like the state cases. $23.8 million going back to more than half a million people.
All right, story number two: the FTC cracked down on deceptive digital advertising, and this settlement is worth your attention because it’s not some niche product role. It’s about paid search fees and subscriptions all at once. On August 17th, the FTC announced a $2.1 million settlement with the online bill payment firm Doxo and its two co-founders. Here’s what the FTC alleged they did. Doxo ran misleading search text ads that impersonated consumers’ actual billers. So picture searching for your electric company or your auto lender, and an ad comes up that looks like the official payment page, but it actually links to Doxo instead. Then the FTC said that they added undisclosed fees on top and enrolled people in recurring charges without their express informed consent. The proposed order bars Doxo from misrepresenting its affiliation with billers. From misrepresenting the fees consumers will pay and from charging consumers without express informed consent. And this comes after a May 2026 federal court ruling that Doxo had violated ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers Competence Act. The commission approved the order two to zero. Why this matters, and I think this is one of the most directly applicable stories we’ve covered in a while. This sits right in the middle of marketing compliance. And the three lessons I would pul
Number one, search and display ads that imply an affiliation you don’t actually have are squarely in scope. Your brand and identity claims and paid media get scrutinized just like any other representation.
Number two, mandatory fees have to be disclosed clearly and upfront, which notice is the exact same message as those state junk fees cases.
And then number three, recurring charges require express informed consent and an easy way out. The same negative option principle driving all that state auto renewal enforcement. So if you advertise in paid search or you run any kind of recurring billing offer, take this fact pattern and hold your own ad copy, your fee disclosures, and your enrollment and cancellation flow up against it.
All right, story number three: The CFPB’s open banking rule is moving again and its leadership situation is still very much unresolved. So on the rule, the open banking framework we’ve been tracking for a while took a concrete step forward. Around August 6th, the CFPB sent its revised section 1033 Personal Financial Data Rights proposal. Formally they’re calling it the personal financial data rights reconsideration, to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. And that’s significant because sending something to OIRA is typically one of the last steps before a proposal publishes for public comment. So this could drop soon. The reporting suggests the reconsidered proposal is expected to reverse the original rules fee prohibition, meaning it would let banks charge fintechs and other third parties for data access. And a revisit who qualifies as an authorized third party along with the data security and consumer authorization standards. And on leadership, it’s still up in the air.
Brian Johnson, that’s Trump’s nominee for permanent CFPB director and current Capital One executive, had his Senate banking committee hearing on July 23rd. But as of right now, he’s not been confirmed, and a full floor vote is expected sometime in the fall. Meanwhile, the Bureau’s reduction in force litigation is still frozen under that July 10th stay, which holds until 60 days after the Senate acts on Johnson, or until January 3rd, 2027, if it doesn’t act at all.
So why it matters?
Open banking touches nearly every financial institution and every fintech. So the mechanics of a reconsidered section one zero three three really do matter to almost everyone listening. If this publishes the way it’s expected to, two questions jump out. One, can banks charge for data access? Because that would reshape the whole economics of data sharing across the ecosystem. And two, how do authorized third party security and consumer authorization standards get redrawn? Once that proposal drops, the public comment window is your moment to weigh in. So be ready. And zoom out. With the Bureau’s permanent leadership and its ultimate size still unsettled, you’re looking at continued federal uncertainty layered right on top of that very active state environment we opened with.
Story number four is a fair lending story, and I love this one because it’s a good reminder that regulators aren’t the only ones who enforce the rules. Sometimes it’s the courts. On August third, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey rejected the DOJ’s motion to terminate a redlining consent order against Lakeland Bank, which is now part of Provident Bank. And that order resolved allegations of discriminatory redlining in and around Newark, and it requires the bank to open a branch in a historically excluded neighborhood and to invest roughly $12 million in home loan subsidies plus community outreach. The DOJ has actually asked to end the order. This followed a 2025 executive order directing agencies to roll back the disparate impact-based enforcement. And the court said no. It declined to let them walk away from it. So why this matters, and this is a really useful reminder that a lighter federal enforcement appetite does not automatically erase existing obligations.
Consent orders are court supervised, and as this ruling shows, they don’t just dissolve because enforcement priorities shifted at the agency level. So when you put this next to the CFPB’s Regulation B changes at the federal level and the continued state level fair lending enforcement we’ve talked about from places like New York CFS and California’s DFPI, what you get is an environment where federal, state, and judicial fair lending pressures are not moving in lockstep. My advice keep your fair lending program calibrated to the strictest of those three, not the most lenient, because the most lenient one might not have the final say.
And that brings me to our On The Radar item, the thing that isn’t final yet, but you should be watching this month. It’s personalized pricing. On August 19th, the FTC issued a proposed enforcement policy statement on personalized pricing. And that’s the practice of using a consumer’s personal data, think browsing history, location, purchase patterns, to set an individualized price based on what the company estimates you’re willing to pay. Now, the FTC was candid that it doesn’t have the authority to ban the practice outright. But the statement signals the agency will use its Section 5 authority against personalized pricing practices that are deceptive, unfair, or inadequately disclosed. And they opened a 30-day public comment period that runs through September 18th.
Why it’s on the radar: data-driven and dynamic pricing has quietly become really common in financial services marketing, personalized rate and offer targeting, segment-based promotions, that whole world. And this tells you the FTC is watching how it’s disclosed. Even though they’re not banning it, it, deceptive, unfair, or inadequately disclosed, is a broad Section 5 net. And that comment window through September 18th is your moment to weigh in before the policy firms up. So now’s a good time to look hard at how your pricing and offer personalization is actually represented to consumers, and ask whether your disclosures would hold up under an unfairness or deceptive lens.
And that’s this edition of the regulatory roundup. Quick recap: the states are where the action is right now. California’s BCSA is organizing to coordinate, and Colorado, Minnesota, and Louisiana all moved on fees, surcharges, and auto-renewals. The FTC’s Doxo settlement is a marketing compliance clinic on search ads, fees, and subscription consent. The CFPB’s open banking rule is at the White House and could publish soon, while its leadership stays unsettled. And a court refused to let a redlining order be dropped, so existing obligations still bind. And the FTC’s new personalized pricing statement is open for comment through September 18th.
If any of these hit home for your program, the full written roundup with every source link so you can go deeper is on our blog at performline.com. And I’d really encourage you to subscribe so you never miss an edition. You can also follow PerformLine on LinkedIn for news and content in between editions. And if there’s a story you think we should be covering or you’ve got feedback on this audio format, I want to hear it. Reach out at preformline.com or connect with me on LinkedIn. Thanks so much for listening, and I’ll see you at the next roundup.
PerformLine 
