Each week, Crowell & Moring’s State Attorneys General team highlights significant actions that State AGs have taken. See our State Attorneys General page for more insights. Below are the updates from October 22-28, 2026:
Multistate
- A coalition of the Federal Trade Commission and 20 attorneys general filed a lawsuit against Dollar General Corporation, alleging the company routinely charged customers more at the register than the prices displayed on shelves, price tags, and in advertisements, costing consumers millions of dollars. The complaint alleges that thousands of Dollar General stores extracted unlawful overcharges from vulnerable shoppers, that the company received tens of thousands of consumer complaints confirming widespread harm, and that Dollar General failed to implement adequate corrective policies despite having knowledge of the problem. The FTC and participating states allege these practices violate the FTC Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and applicable state consumer protection and consumer fraud laws. The participating states are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.
Maryland
- Maryland Attorney General Brown announced a $600,000 settlement with Bridge It, Inc. (Brigit), a financial technology company that has offered an earned wage access (EWA) product called “Instant Cash” in Maryland since 2019. The Consumer Protection Division alleged that Brigit engaged in unlicensed lending and, between December 2019 and October 2023, misled consumers by failing to clearly disclose that additional fees were required to access funds instantly, represented that consumers could access advance amounts for which they may not have qualified, and prevented consumers from canceling subscriptions or recurring charges if they had an outstanding EWA advance. Under the settlement, Brigit must comply with the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Maryland’s lending laws, and Maryland’s EWA law; clearly disclose all material terms and fees; permit consumers to cancel subscription and recurring charges at any time; and pay $600,000 to the Consumer Protection Division.
Minnesota
- Minnesota Attorney General Ellison filed a consumer protection lawsuit against L’Oréal and its subsidiaries, alleging that the companies deceptively marketed chemical hair relaxer products — sold under the Dark and Lovely, Optimum, and Mizani brands — to Black women and children while concealing alleged cancer risks associated with their use. According to the complaint, L’Oréal marketed these products as safe and beneficial for decades while allegedly having specialized knowledge of the products’ composition, the toxicological profile of the chemicals involved, and epidemiological studies linking chemical hair relaxer use to increased risks of uterine, ovarian, thyroid, pancreatic, and other cancers — knowledge the company did not disclose to consumers. Attorney General Ellison alleges violations of Minnesota’s Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and False Statement in Advertising Act, and seeks civil penalties, consumer restitution, and an injunction prohibiting continued sales of the products without adequate health risk warnings.
Rhode Island
- Rhode Island Attorney General Neronha filed a lawsuit in Providence County Superior Court against Meta, alleging that the company failed to curtail fraudulent advertisements and financial scams on its platforms despite publicly representing that it employs sophisticated methods to prevent such ads. According to the complaint, Meta assisted in creating, refining, and distributing advertisements promoting fraudulent schemes — including impersonation scams, fake investment opportunities, and false Medicare and Social Security benefit offers — and allegedly used accountholder data to target consumers most likely to engage with scam advertisements, including senior citizens, while knowingly allowing an estimated 15 billion ads containing clear signs of fraud to be shown to users each day. The complaint alleges violations of Rhode Island’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, consumer restitution, civil penalties for each violation, disgorgement of unjust enrichment, and the appointment of a receiver, auditor, or monitor to ensure compliance.