Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cppa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates push to strengthen DC consumer law; industry seeks clarifications
Summary
Advocates, legal aid groups and regulators told the Committee on Public Works and Operations that updates to the District's Consumer Protection Procedures Act are needed to close enforcement gaps and curb deceptive digital practices. Industry witnesses urged careful drafting to avoid conflicts with existing debt‑collection rules.
Councilmember Brianne Nadeau opened a committee hearing on Oct. 22 to consider the Enhancing Consumer Protection Procedures Amendment Act of 2025, describing it as an effort to modernize the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) and give local enforcers stronger tools. "Today, we will consider the 3 bills I just mentioned…Enhancing Consumer Protection Procedures Amendment Act of 2025," she said at the start of the hearing.
Consumer advocates and legal services attorneys urged the council to pass the bill. Jennifer Joseph, supervising attorney at Legal Aid DC, testified that the changes would make the CPPA easier to use in foreclosure-defense and other consumer cases: "Legal Aid DC strongly supports the enhancing consumer protection procedures amendment act of 2025," she said. She and other witnesses backed clearer definitions of "merchant," higher statutory damages and new authority for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection (DLCP) to investigate and stop unfair or abusive trade practices.
Experts told the committee the bill would respond to modern, digital harms. Erin Witte, director of consumer protection at the Consumer Federation of America, said the act would extend the CPPA to services that do not involve a monetary payment and fill gaps left by weakening federal enforcement. Sam Levine, a former FTC bureau chief, said clarifying CPPA coverage for "free" online services and adding minimum penalties would improve deterrence.
Industry groups and trade representatives said they support most transparency measures but want careful drafting to avoid unintended conflicts. Donald Maurice, outside counsel for the Receivables Management Association International, said his members fear the bill’s expanded "merchant" definition could overlap with debt‑collection statutes and urged narrower language. Several witnesses recommended aligning the bill’s procedures with how DLCP and OAG actually operate, and DLCP testified with proposed technical revisions to match agency processes and indexing of fines to inflation.
Why it matters: Advocates say the district needs clearer rules and stiffer remedies to protect residents from deceptive online practices, while some businesses fear new exposures and conflicting rules. OAG told the committee that additions such as an explicit ban on "abusive" practices and better subpoena tools would make investigations faster and more effective.
What’s next: Agencies urged the council to preserve DLCP and OAG discretion and to include technical edits (for example, to appeal processes and indexing of fines). The committee has invited additional drafting revisions from agencies for consideration before any markup vote.
