top of page
Baby's Room

Ley de Procedimientos de Protección al Consumidor (CPPA), Washington DC

Understanding CPPA Actions

The Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) of Washington D.C. is a powerful tool designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices. If you believe you have been misled, defrauded, or otherwise harmed by a business in D.C., the CPPA offers a pathway for seeking justice. This article provides an overview of the CPPA, the types of actions it covers, the necessary elements for a successful claim, potential outcomes, and some prominent cases that illustrate its application.

Causes of Action under the CPPA

The CPPA allows consumers to bring actions against businesses for a wide range of unfair or deceptive practices. Some common causes of action under the CPPA include:

  1. False Advertising: Claims involving misleading advertisements or promotional materials that deceive consumers about the nature, quality, or price of goods or services.

  2. Defective Products: Cases where consumers have purchased products that are defective or not as represented.

  3. Bait and Switch: Situations where businesses lure customers with promises of low prices or special deals that are not actually available.

  4. Hidden Fees: Instances where businesses fail to disclose additional charges, leading to unexpected costs for consumers.

  5. Data Privacy Violations: Claims related to the unauthorized collection, use, or sharing of personal information.

Elements of a CPPA Claim

To succeed in a CPPA claim, plaintiffs generally need to establish the following elements:

  1. Consumer Transaction: The plaintiff must have engaged in a transaction for goods or services intended for personal, family, or household use.

  2. Unfair or Deceptive Practice: The defendant must have engaged in an act or practice that is unfair or deceptive.

  3. Causation: The plaintiff must show that the unfair or deceptive practice caused harm or injury.

  4. Damages: The plaintiff must demonstrate actual damages or harm resulting from the defendant's conduct.

Potential Outcomes

Successful CPPA claims can lead to various remedies, including:

  1. Monetary Damages: Compensation for actual losses suffered by the consumer, which can include the cost of the product or service, repair costs, and other related expenses.

  2. Injunctive Relief: Court orders requiring the defendant to stop engaging in the unfair or deceptive practice.

  3. Attorney's Fees: The CPPA allows for the recovery of attorney's fees, making it easier for consumers to pursue legal action.

  4. Punitive Damages: In cases involving particularly egregious conduct, the court may award punitive damages to punish the defendant and deter future violations.

Prominent CPPA Cases

Here ar3e several most recent and ongoing cases that illustrate the application of the CPPA in protecting consumers in Washington D.C. and, by extention, nationally:

​

1. Chem. Toxin Working Grp. Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson (Litigated by Poulsen Law, Oliver Zhang Law, and Kaplan Fox)

  • Summary: In March 2023, the Chemical Toxin Working Group filed a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, alleging that the company falsely advertised its baby products as phthalates-free. The lawsuit alleges that baby shampoo, wash, soap, and wipes contain phthalates.

  • Citation: Chem. Toxin Working Grp. Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2023, No. 1:22-cv-1259-RCL) 2023 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 50953.

​​

2. District of Columbia v. DoorDash, Inc.

  • Summary: The D.C. Attorney General filed a lawsuit against DoorDash for misleading consumers about how tips were allocated to delivery workers. The case involved allegations against DoorDash regarding its payment model for delivery drivers, where tips from customers were used to subsidize DoorDash's payments to the drivers.

  • Citation: District of Columbia v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 2019 CA 006698 B (D.C. Super. Ct. 2019).

​​

3. District of Columbia v. Juul Labs, Inc.

  • Summary: The District of Columbia sued Juul Labs for marketing e-cigarettes to minors and failing to verify customer ages, contributing to the youth vaping epidemic. The case is ongoing.

  • Citation: District of Columbia v. Juul Labs, Inc., No. 2019 CA 007795 B (D.C. Super. Ct. 2019).

​​

4. District of Columbia v. Marriott International, Inc.

  • Summary: Marriott was sued for using "drip pricing" in its hotel bookings, where low advertised rates were followed by hidden fees. The case is still pending.

  • Citation: District of Columbia v. Marriott International, Inc., No. 2019 CA 003802 B (D.C. Super. Ct. 2019).

​​

5. District of Columbia v. Facebook, Inc.

  • Summary: Following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the D.C. Attorney General sued Facebook for failing to protect user data and allowing unauthorized third-party access.

  • Material Facts

  • Facebook collects and maintains users' personal data and online activity.

  • Facebook allowed third party developers to access users' data without consent.

  • 340,000+ D.C. residents' data was collected by an app and sold to Cambridge Analytica.

  • Facebook made representations to users about protecting their privacy.

  • Facebook failed to disclose and notify users regarding improper data access.

  • Controlling Law

  • The controlling law is the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), D.C. Code §§ 28-3901 to 28-3913, specifically §§ 28-3904(e), (f), and (f-1) prohibiting unfair and deceptive trade practices.

  • Court Rationale

  • The court has specific personal jurisdiction over Facebook because its website functions as a "storefront" in D.C. through transactions with D.C. users, and Facebook's conduct had an effect in D.C. by collecting 340,000+ residents' data. This satisfies the Due Process Clause and D.C. Long-Arm Statute.

  • The D.C. OAG stated valid CPPA claims because its allegations could lead a reasonable consumer to find Facebook's statements misleading under §§ 28-3904(e), (f), and (f-1).

  • The case will not be stayed because the issues are distinct from the MDL and FTC matters, and staying the case could unduly prejudice the D.C. OAG.

  • Procedural Outcome

  • The court denied Facebook's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court also denied Facebook's motion to stay the case pending the MDL proceeding and FTC investigation.

  • Citation: District of Columbia v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2018 CA 008715 B (D.C. Super. Ct. 2018).

Conclusion

The Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) is a vital legal framework for protecting consumer rights in Washington D.C. It empowers individuals to challenge unfair and deceptive business practices and seek redress through the courts.

bottom of page