The Roundup: States Surge on AG Enforcement, FTC Cracks Down on Deceptive Ads, CFPB’s Open Banking Rule Advances, and a Redlining Order Survives
Welcome to the PerformLine Regulatory Compliance Roundup, home of the latest news, articles, and reports from our industry, curated for you. Let’s get into it.
In this edition: 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.
Do you want to be the first to know when the Regulatory Roundup is released? Subscribe to never miss an email and follow us on LinkedIn for even more updates on marketing compliance.
States Step Into the Federal Vacuum With a Summer Wave of AG Enforcement
The theme we flagged last edition, a quieter federal posture paired with an active, multi-state enforcement environment, played out in force this month. As the CFPB continues its deregulatory retreat, state attorneys general and state agencies filled the gap with a run of consumer-finance actions touching junk fees, surcharges, and automatic renewals.
California set the tone. In a July 23 post, Secretary Rohit Chopra’s Business and Consumer Services Agency (BCSA)—which oversees the DFPI, the Department of Real Estate, and the Department of Consumer Affairs—named as a top priority cracking down on “harmful and corrupt practices” that wrongfully raise consumer costs, calling out dishonest pricing, inflated or hidden fees, and undisclosed kickbacks. Chopra pledged to coordinate with other states as federal agencies step back, invited consumer and whistleblower tips, and said the agency would focus its audit and inspection resources on the highest-risk entities.
Other states put that posture into action. On July 29, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser settled with rent-payment processor Domuso over a 3.25% card “Certified Funds Fee” that exceeded Colorado’s 2% surcharge cap; Domuso agreed to cap fees at 2%, end fee-sharing arrangements with properties, provide a cost-free payment option, and pay $100,000. On August 20, Weiser settled with Cobblestone Car Wash under Colorado’s automatic-renewal law, alleging the company failed to provide required disclosures, notices, receipts, and cancellation options, with more than 30,000 Coloradans hit by undisclosed rate increases; Cobblestone agreed to pay $1,353,465 in restitution to over 70,000 consumers and to offer one-step online cancellation. And on August 7, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison settled with fintech Unlock Partnership Solutions for $944,626, alleging its “home equity agreements” were disguised high-cost mortgage loans marketed as “not loans” with “no interest” while functioning as unlicensed lending; Unlock agreed to comply with Minnesota’s Mortgage Originator and Servicer Licensing Act. Meanwhile, Louisiana’s new debit-card surcharge ban took effect August 1, prohibiting retailers from surcharging debit-card payers and carrying both a private right of action and AG enforcement. Consumer Finance Monitor
Why It Matters: For financial services marketers, the compliance center of gravity has clearly shifted to the states—and the exposure spans fees, pricing, and subscription mechanics all at once. These actions share a through-line: mandatory or poorly disclosed fees, surcharges that exceed a cap, and auto-renewal flows that don’t clearly disclose, remind, and allow easy cancellation are being treated as unfair or deceptive practices, often with restitution and private rights of action attached. With California’s BCSA explicitly organizing to coordinate across states, expect more parallel, multi-state activity rather than one-off cases. The practical move is the same one we keep landing on: map your fee disclosures, surcharge practices, and cancellation flows against the strictest applicable state standard and apply it everywhere.
Significant Stat:
$2.38 million
The amount the FTC announced on August 12 that it is distributing to 640,038 diners and delivery drivers harmed by Grubhub’s deceptive advertising. The payments stem from a December 2024 stipulated order resolving FTC and Illinois Attorney General allegations that Grubhub misrepresented delivery costs and fees to diners and inflated potential-earnings claims to drivers; the order also requires at least annual notice of continued subscriptions and an easy cancellation option.
The FTC Cracks Down on Deceptive Digital Advertising With a doxo Settlement
On August 17, the FTC announced a $2.1 million settlement with online bill-payment firm doxo and its two co-founders over deceptive digital advertising and billing practices. The FTC alleged that doxo ran misleading search-text ads that impersonated consumers’ actual billers — for example, an ad that appeared to belong to a utility or lender but linked to doxo instead — then added undisclosed fees and enrolled consumers in recurring charges without their express informed consent. The proposed order bars doxo from misrepresenting its affiliation with billers, misrepresenting the fees consumers will pay, and charging consumers without express informed consent. The settlement follows a May 2026 federal court ruling that doxo had violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), and the Commission approved the order 2-0. Federal Trade Commission
Why It Matters: This one sits right in the middle of marketing compliance — it’s about paid search creative, fee disclosure, and subscription consent, not a niche product rule. Three lessons stand out. First, search and display ads that imply an affiliation you don’t have are squarely in scope; brand and identity claims in paid media get scrutinized like any other representation. Second, mandatory fees have to be disclosed clearly and up front, echoing the state junk-fee actions above. Third, recurring charges require express informed consent and an easy way out—the same negative-option principles driving state auto-renewal enforcement. If you advertise in paid search or run any recurring-billing offer, audit your ad copy, your fee disclosures, and your enrollment-and-cancellation flow against this fact pattern.
➤ Monitor your marketing and advertising claims across every channel with PerformLine’s Brand Monitoring
CFPB’s Open Banking Rule Advances as Its Leadership Fight Drags Into the Fall
The open banking rule we’ve tracked in recent editions took a concrete step forward. Around August 6, the CFPB sent its revised Section 1033 personal financial data rights proposal, formally a “Personal Financial Data Rights Reconsideration” rulemaking, to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review, typically one of the last steps before a proposal publishes for public comment. Reporting indicates the reconsidered proposal is expected to reverse the original rule’s fee prohibition and allow banks to charge fintechs and other third parties for data access, and to revisit who qualifies as an authorized third party along with data-security and consumer-authorization standards.
On the leadership front, the picture is still unresolved. Brian Johnson, Trump’s nominee for permanent director and a current Capital One executive, had his Senate Banking Committee hearing on July 23, but as of this writing he has not been confirmed, with a full floor vote anticipated in the fall. The Bureau’s reduction-in-force litigation remains frozen under the July 10 stay, which holds until 60 days after the Senate acts on Johnson (or until January 3, 2027 if it doesn’t). Consumer Finance Monitor
Why It Matters: Open banking touches nearly every financial institution and fintech, so the mechanics of a reconsidered Section 1033 matter to almost everyone reading this. If the proposal publishes as expected, two questions jump out: whether banks can charge for data access, which would reshape the economics of data sharing across the ecosystem; and how “authorized third party,” security, and consumer-authorization standards get redrawn. Once the proposal drops, the public comment window is your moment to weigh in. And with the Bureau’s permanent leadership and ultimate size still unsettled, plan for continued federal uncertainty layered on top of the active state environment above.
A Redlining Consent Order Survives the DOJ’s Move to End It
Fair lending got a notable data point this month, and it came from a court rather than a regulator. On August 3, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey rejected the DOJ’s motion to terminate a redlining consent order against Lakeland Bank, now part of Provident Bank. The order—which resolved allegations of discriminatory redlining in and around Newark—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 had sought to end the order following a 2025 executive order directing agencies to roll back disparate-impact-based enforcement; the court declined to let it walk away. Banking Dive
Why It Matters: This is a useful reminder that a lighter federal enforcement appetite doesn’t automatically erase existing obligations. Consent orders are court-supervised, and as this ruling shows, they don’t just dissolve because enforcement priorities have shifted. Combined with the CFPB’s Regulation B changes at the federal level and continued state-level fair-lending enforcement from the likes of New York’s DFS and California’s DFPI, lenders are operating in an environment where federal, state, and judicial fair-lending pressure don’t move in lockstep. Keep your fair-lending program calibrated to the strictest of those, not the most lenient.
On the Radar: The FTC Turns Its Attention to “Personalized Pricing”
On August 19, the FTC issued a proposed enforcement policy statement on “personalized pricing”—the practice of using a consumer’s personal data, such as browsing history, location, or purchase patterns, to set individualized prices based on estimated willingness to pay. The statement acknowledges the FTC does not have authority to ban the practice outright but signals that the agency will use its Section 5 authority against personalized-pricing practices that are deceptive, unfair, or inadequately disclosed. The FTC opened a 30-day public comment period running through September 18. Federal Trade Commission
Why It Matters: Data-driven and dynamic pricing has quietly become common in financial services marketing—from personalized rate and offer targeting to segment-based promotions; and this signals the FTC is watching how it’s disclosed. Even though the agency isn’t banning it, “deceptive, unfair, or inadequately disclosed” is a broad Section 5 net, and the comment window through September 18 is the moment to weigh in before the policy firms up. Now is a good time to review how your pricing and offer personalization is represented to consumers and whether your disclosures would hold up under an unfairness or deception lens.
➤ Monitor your product and advertising claims across every channel with PerformLine’s Omni-Channel Monitoring
That’s it for this edition of the Regulatory Roundup. Have questions, tips, or feedback? Reach out to us at performline.com or connect with us on LinkedIn.
