The Enhancing Consumer Protection Procedures Amendment Act of 2025 would substantially revise the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) and related enforcement statutes. The bill expands and clarifies key definitions, including “consumer,” “merchant,” and “unfair, deceptive, abusive, or unlawful trade practice,” and expressly brings charitable solicitations and infant formula pricing within the CPPA’s scope. It also directs courts and agencies to interpret the CPPA in a consumer-favorable way, including giving weight to FTC and CFPB guidance, and establishes a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for actions brought under the chapter.
A major focus of the bill is strengthening enforcement tools for the Attorney General and the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection. It authorizes broader investigative powers such as interrogatories, subpoenas, sworn testimony, and document production; allows service by mail, email, or other reasonably calculated methods; permits asset freezes, receiverships, and dissolution in injunction actions; and adds provisions for costs, attorneys’ fees, and mandatory minimum penalties in certain enforcement contexts. The bill also creates or expands summary suspension authority for licenses, allows cease-and-desist orders when conduct may cause immediate and irreparable harm, and clarifies that confidentiality agreements may still allow sharing with law enforcement agencies.
The bill also expands consumer remedies and private enforcement. It increases available damages, including treble damages or a per-violation dollar amount adjusted for inflation, authorizes punitive damages and injunctive relief, and provides for recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs by prevailing consumers. It further prohibits retaliation against consumers who complain, sue, or assist investigations, and makes it unlawful to aid and abet prohibited trade practices. In addition, it updates the vulnerable-adult abuse statute to clarify that injunctive relief may include affirmative action.
Overall sentiment appears strongly supportive of the bill’s consumer-protection goals. The only recorded vote in the provided history was unanimous at first reading, 12-0, suggesting broad agreement that the District should give regulators and consumers stronger tools against deceptive, abusive, and unlawful business practices. The bill’s structure and language indicate a policy preference for aggressive enforcement and expanded remedies rather than a narrow procedural update.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the breadth of enforcement authority and the size of the new remedies. Businesses and regulated entities may object to expanded definitions of merchant and abusive trade practice, summary license suspension without a hearing in some circumstances, asset freezes, mandatory fees and penalties, and the ability to use interrogatories and subpoenas more aggressively. Consumer advocates, by contrast, are likely to support these provisions as necessary to deter misconduct, improve compliance, and make enforcement more effective, especially for vulnerable consumers and in fast-moving markets such as infant formula and charitable solicitation.
The bill would amend multiple provisions of D.C. consumer protection and vulnerable-adult enforcement law, primarily Chapter 39 of Title 28 and related Attorney General authority statutes. It expands the legal scope of prohibited conduct, increases civil and administrative remedies, and gives the Attorney General and the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection more powerful investigative and enforcement tools. It also modifies the Criminal Abuse and Neglect of Vulnerable Adults Act to allow affirmative injunctive relief, and it updates procedural rules for subpoenas, interrogatories, service, confidentiality, and judicial remedies.
The available voting history shows strong support: the bill passed first reading unanimously, 12-0. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the text reflects a clear pro-consumer enforcement approach, suggesting the measure is framed as a strengthening and modernization of consumer protections rather than a controversial policy reversal. The overall sentiment appears favorable among lawmakers, with emphasis on deterrence, compliance, and consumer redress.
Likely contention would come from merchants, nonprofits, and other regulated entities that may view the bill as expanding liability and enforcement discretion too far. Specific flashpoints include the broadened definition of merchant, inclusion of charitable solicitations, the new prohibition on aiding and abetting trade practices, summary suspension of licenses, asset freezes and receiverships, and enhanced fee-shifting and penalty provisions. Consumer advocates and enforcement officials are likely to support these changes as necessary to address deceptive, abusive, and hard-to-detect practices and to protect vulnerable consumers more effectively.