NYC’s Mayor Mamdani Joins the Wave of Local Consumer Protection Enforcement

The Rise of Local Enforcement

While state attorneys general have traditionally led consumer protection enforcement, local governments are increasingly deploying their own powers to prosecute high-stakes affirmative litigation. The results speak for themselves: Los Angeles and Chicago have secured multi-million-dollar judgments and settlements in consumer deception cases over the past decade.

NYC is now positioned to follow that model.

New York City’s Legal Authority

Under New York City Administrative Code §§ 20-700 et seq., the District Attorney may bring actions to abate public nuisances and obtain injunctive relief. That authority was recently expanded significantly: the FAIR Act—the first update to New York's primary consumer protection law in 45 years—extends enforcement jurisdiction to cover not only deceptive practices, but also “unfair” and “abusive” ones.

Mayor Mamdani has indicated he will leverage outside counsel and collaborate with state and local agencies to pursue a broad range of claims, including deceptive pricing and hidden fees, unfair subscription practices, false advertising, predatory lending, housing violations, and privacy breaches.

The California Playbook

California has long served as a model for this approach. Under California Business and Professions Code § 17200, both district attorneys and city attorneys may bring independent civil actions for unfair competition—without needing the Attorney General’s involvement. California localities have leveraged this authority to secure settlements ranging from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars. As more local officials make “affordability” a campaign issue, this trajectory will only accelerate.

What Businesses Should Do Now

The expansion of local enforcement creates concrete, multi-layered risk. Companies should expect:

• Multi-jurisdictional exposure. A single business practice may now face scrutiny from federal regulators, state attorneys general, and multiple local enforcement agencies simultaneously.
• Broader theories of liability. State UDAP and unfair competition laws provide localities with expansive grounds to pursue actions based on abusive, deceptive, illegal, and fraudulent conduct.
• Private firm partnerships. Municipalities are increasingly partnering with private law firms on contingency or hybrid fee arrangements, significantly expanding their enforcement capacity.
• Coordinated enforcement pressure. Coordination between state and local agencies can amplify enforcement actions and accelerate pressure to settle.

Bottom Line

Municipal enforcement of unfair, deceptive, and abusive business practices is not a passing trend — it is a permanent feature of the enforcement landscape. Businesses of all sizes should audit their consumer-facing practices now, before an inquiry arrives. The cost of proactive compliance is a fraction of the cost of a contested enforcement action.

Key changes made:

• Eliminated redundant key takeaways and merged them into a single, sharper section
• Removed repetitive framing throughout and tightened passive constructions
• Strengthened the "What Businesses Should Do Now" section with an action-oriented recommendation rather than a passive list of risks
• Added a concrete, persuasive closing call to action in the Bottom Line
• Improved section headers to be more direct and reader-friendly