Attorney General
Here's a look at documents from state attorneys general
Featured Stories
N.J. A.G. Platkin, Division on Civil Rights File Lawsuit Against Clark Township for Discriminatory Policing Practices
TRENTON, New Jersey, Jan. 16 -- New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
AG Platkin, Division on Civil Rights File Lawsuit Against Clark Township for Discriminatory Policing Practices
Clark Township Allegedly Used Police Department to Harass and Intimidate Black and Other Non-White Motorists to Keep Them Out of Clark
*
Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) announced today that they have filed a complaint in New Jersey Superior Court alleging that Clark Township and the Clark Police Department
... Show Full Article
TRENTON, New Jersey, Jan. 16 -- New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
AG Platkin, Division on Civil Rights File Lawsuit Against Clark Township for Discriminatory Policing Practices
Clark Township Allegedly Used Police Department to Harass and Intimidate Black and Other Non-White Motorists to Keep Them Out of Clark
*
Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the Division on Civil Rights (DCR) announced today that they have filed a complaint in New Jersey Superior Court alleging that Clark Township and the Clark Police Department(CPD) systematically discriminated against and harassed Black and other non-white motorists in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and the New Jersey Constitution.
The complaint is based on an investigation conducted by DCR that focused on the time period from 2015 through the end of the Union County Prosecutor's Office's (UCPO) supersession of CPD's operations in March 2025. The investigation found that Clark Township and CPD instituted a variety of discriminatory policing practices at the behest of the longtime former Mayor of Clark, Salvatore Bonaccorso, and CPD leadership.
The complaint explains that, prior to UCPO's supersession of CPD's operations in July 2020, leadership in Clark Township and CPD leadership expressly instructed officers to keep Black people out of Clark and directed officers to engage in policing practices that were designed to accomplish exactly that. The complaint alleges that former Mayor Bonaccorso directed CPD leadership to engage in discriminatory policing to "keep chasing the spooks out of town," using a racial slur to refer to Black people. And CPD then implemented a variety of practices designed to achieve that outcome.
"Elected officials and law enforcement leaders must treat every single person, no matter their race or national origin, with dignity and respect. That's the bare minimum. But for many years before the Union County Prosecutor's Office took over operations in 2020, leadership in Clark Township and the Clark Police Department completely and utterly failed to meet that basic obligation," said Attorney General Platkin. "Through overt racial animus and discriminatory policing practices, Clark violated New Jersey's civil rights laws and the New Jersey Constitution. While we have already taken substantial steps to address these issues, today's complaint gives voice to the many New Jerseyans who have suffered discrimination in Clark and will ensure that Clark's leadership never allows it to happen again."
The complaint filed today is the latest step in ongoing efforts to address allegations of misconduct in Clark Township and CPD. In July 2020, the Union County Prosecutor's Office (UCPO) assumed control via supersession of the police department's operations, which continued until March 2025. In November 2023, the Office of the Attorney General released a public report following UCPO's and the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability's (OPIA) investigation into alleged criminal and administrative misconduct by township and CPD leadership. That report referred allegations of bias in policing to DCR. And in March 2025, after supersession concluded, Attorney General Platkin established a state law enforcement monitorship of CPD, which is led by the Department of Law and Public Safety's Office of Policing Strategy and Innovation.
The complaint alleges through detailed expert statistical analysis that Black and Hispanic drivers were stopped and searched at far higher rates than white drivers prior to UCPO's supersession. While some of these racial disparities--driven by ingrained policing practices--persisted to some extent even after UCPO's supersession of CPD in 2020, the data from 2020 to 2024 do reveal some notable changes and improvements in policing practices that coincide with the reduction of some of these racial disparities.
The complaint explains that, at the behest of former Mayor Bonaccorso and CPD leadership, CPD established and enforced a variety of policing practices that resulted in discriminatory policing and harassment. They established and enforced quotas for motor vehicle enforcement actions. And in connection with that quota system and the directive from Township leadership to keep Black motorists out of Clark, CPD leadership implemented at least three practices that resulted in discriminatory policing and harassment: (1) focusing motor vehicle enforcement on roadways connecting Clark to the Garden State Parkway and to neighboring Rahway and Linden, which have much larger Black and Hispanic populations; (2) prioritizing the policing of low-level administrative and equipment violations over moving violations more directly related to traffic safety; and (3) using false allegations concerning the odor of marijuana as a basis to search vehicles.
"New Jersey has some of the nation's strongest civil rights laws, but for years leadership in Clark brazenly violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and violated individuals' Constitutional rights," said DCR Director Yolanda N. Melville. "We cannot and will not allow the repugnant behavior of public officials in Clark Township and the unlawful practices that the Clark Police Department engaged in for years."
The complaint offers detailed expert statistical analysis demonstrating that CPD policed Black and other non-white motorists very differently than they policed white motorists.
Among other things, while Black and Hispanic residents make up less than 11% of Clark's population, CPD's vehicle stop data from 2015 to 2020 indicate that, of the stops for which the driver's race was recorded, over 37% of the drivers stopped by CPD were Black or Hispanic, and over 53% of the drivers stopped by CPD outside of Clark's boundaries were Black or Hispanic.
CPD's vehicle search data also reflect substantial statistical disparities: from 2015 to 2020, of stops for which the driver's race was recorded, CPD searched Black and Hispanic drivers, respectively, at rates 3.7 times and 2.2 times higher than white drivers.
Ultimately, the complaint alleges that Clark and CPD subjected Black motorists and other motorists perceived as non-white to disproportionate motor vehicle enforcement when compared to white motorists in violation of the LAD. The LAD makes it unlawful for a place of public accommodation or its employees to discriminate against any person based on actual or perceived race, color, national origin, or other protected characteristics. The LAD also prohibits certain practices and policies that disproportionately affect individuals of one race, color, national origin, or other protected characteristics.
The complaint alleges that Clark's and CPD's discriminatory conduct was aided and abetted by leadership within the Township with oversight and management responsibilities over CPD, including former Clark Mayor Bonaccorso, former Chief of Police Pedro Matos, and Police Director Patrick Grady, all named defendants in the complaint.
The State seeks, among other things, an injunction stopping Clark Township and the Clark Police Department from "from discriminating against individuals based on their actual or perceived race, color, ancestry, national origin, or nationality in violation the LAD"; the monitoring of Clark and CPD by the Division on Civil Rights; and that Clark and CPD pay damages to victims of their discriminatory policing practices and policies.
***
DCR is represented in this matter by Deputy Attorneys General Shefali Saxena, Michelle Kostyack, Surinder Aggarwal, and Nancy Trasande under the supervision of Assistant Attorney General Mayur P. Saxena and Deputy Director Sara M. Gregory of the Division of Law's Affirmative Civil Enforcement Practice Group. DCR's investigation was conducted by Deputy Associate Director Danielle Thorne, Legal Specialists Katrina Tattoli, Lilly Hecht, Jerry Santer, Investigators Jason Arce and Shay Kostin, and Honors Attorney Samantha Seltzer, under the supervision of Associate Director Malcolm Peyton-Cook.
***
Anyone with information about discrimination by Clark Police Department can contact DCR's Affirmative Enforcement Unit at AffirmativeEnforcement@njcivilrights.gov.
The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) is the state agency responsible for preventing and eliminating discrimination and bias-based harassment in employment, housing, and places of public accommodation (e.g., places open to the public like courts, schools, businesses, hospitals). DCR enforces the LAD, the New Jersey Family Leave Act, and the Fair Chance in Housing Act.
To find out more information or to file a complaint, visit www.njcivilrights.gov.
View Complaint (https://www.njoag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-0115_Clark-Complaint-with-CIS.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.njoag.gov/ag-platkin-division-on-civil-rights-file-lawsuit-against-clark-township-for-discriminatory-policing-practices/
Mo. A.G. Hanaway Files Suit Against Pharmacy Benefit Managers For Insulin Pricing Scheme
JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri, Jan. 16 -- Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
Missouri Attorney General Hanaway Files Suit Against Pharmacy Benefit Managers For Insulin Pricing Scheme
Today, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced that her Office has filed suit against 19 Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) companies and drug manufacturers operating in Missouri. For years, PBMs and manufacturers have manipulated Missouri's health care markets, resulting in skyrocketing prices of life-sustaining insulin medication.
"At a time
... Show Full Article
JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri, Jan. 16 -- Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
Missouri Attorney General Hanaway Files Suit Against Pharmacy Benefit Managers For Insulin Pricing Scheme
Today, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced that her Office has filed suit against 19 Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) companies and drug manufacturers operating in Missouri. For years, PBMs and manufacturers have manipulated Missouri's health care markets, resulting in skyrocketing prices of life-sustaining insulin medication.
"At a timewhen health care costs continue to soar, we are taking a stand against insulin price manipulation and fraud," said Attorney General Hanaway. "It is quite clear that the health care administration conglomerates do not want the prices for diabetes medications to go down, choosing profit over affordable health care for people at risk. Missourians deserve a fair and just marketplace and we demand nothing less."
As a direct result of the Insulin Pricing Scheme, the prices uninsured Missouri residents with diabetes pay for the at-issue life-sustaining drugs have increased rapidly over the past fifteen years. In Missouri, nearly 450,000 Missouri residents are uninsured, and approximately 18 percent of those uninsured Missouri residents are diabetic. Notably, manufacturers published prices in Missouri of $300-$400 for the same at-issue drugs that were sold in other countries for less than the equivalent of $5 USD. Missouri diabetics rely on the PBMs to achieve the lowest prices for insulin and to construct formularies designed to improve their health and lower costs, only to be deceived with artificially inflated list prices.
"Access to life-sustaining insulin should not be restricted by radical pricing practices that disproportionately harm families," said Interim Deputy Attorney General Jeremiah Morgan, "PBMs have found a way to game the system for their mutual benefit--the Insulin Pricing Scheme, and consumers have said 'enough.'"
The petition, filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court, details how certain PBMs knowingly engaged in a conspiracy and violated Section 301.210, RSMo, and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), which prohibits deceptive and unfair business practices. The suit names 19 defendants, including PBMs and manufacturing defendants:
* Evernorth Health, INC. (Formerly Express Scripts Holding Company) (located in St. Louis County);
* Express Scripts, Inc. (located in St. Louis County);
* Express Scripts Administrators, LLC;
* ESI Mail Pharmacy Service, Inc. (located in St. Louis County);
* Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. (located in St. Louis County);
* Medco Health Solutions, Inc.;
* CVS Health Corporation;
* CVS Pharmacy, Inc.;
* Caremark Rx, LLC;
* CaremarkPCS Health, LLC;
* Caremark, LLC;
* UnitedHealth Group, Inc.;
* Optum, Inc.;
* OptumRx, Inc.;
* OptumInsight Life Sciences, Inc.;
* OptumInsight, Inc.
* Eli Lilly and Company;
* Novo Nordisk Inc.; and
* Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC.
Together, these health care administration conglomerates make virtually all of the diabetes medications available in Missouri. The PBMs are solely responsible for the price of almost every single vial of insulin sold in Missouri and across the United States. In the US, 1 in 4 diabetics can no longer afford their diabetes medication and are forced to ration and skip doses, as a direct result of the Insulin Pricing Scheme.
The Attorney General's Office is asking the Court to take the following actions to protect Missouri consumers and enforce state law:
* Declare this Insulin Pricing Scheme Unlawful: The lawsuit seeks a court order to determine that Defendants have unlawfully received a financial windfall and have violated, and are violating, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and Missouri common law by committing deceptive and/or unfair practices against Missouri consumers, by being unjustly enriched, and by conspiring to commit unlawful acts.
* End Predatory Behavior: Grant comprehensive injunctive relief and permanently enjoin Defendants from engaging in the above described unfair and deceptive acts and practices.
* Require PBMs Pay What is Owed: The suit calls for defendants to pay all restitution, damages, disgorgement, and other relief that may be owed to Missouri consumers affected by Defendants' unlawful acts and practices.
If successful, this action will hold Pharmacy Benefit Managers and manufacturers accountable, require financial restitution, and send a clear message to other businesses: If you deceive Missouri consumers, you will face the full force of the law.
To view the full petition, click here (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/ago.us20.list-manage.com/track/click?u=55bd24fd8f5e7d3dc227d1072&id=663306f69f&e=db9c683b19__;!!EErPFA7f--AJOw!FC8XrQ3-3-POpcm_sV_WoiUceodnUSuG9WGQwit72ZnUS27mbFWgwjW2S7ZOMYiye9WOm9hRsXIO2yYqzzL8QEEC$).
* * *
Original text here: https://ago.mo.gov/missouri-attorney-general-hanaway-files-suit-against-pharmacy-benefit-managers-for-insulin-pricing-scheme/
Friday Court Hearing on S.D. A.G. Jackley's Injunction on Abortion Deceptive Advertising Postponed Over State's Objection
PIERRE, South Dakota, Jan. 16 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release:
* * *
Friday Court Hearing on Attorney General Jackley's Injunction On Abortion Deceptive Advertising Postponed Over State's Objection
Friday's scheduled court hearing on South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley's motion to stop Mayday Health from deceptively advertising the sale of abortion pills and abortion services in South Dakota has been postponed at the request of Mayday Health.
The State objected to the postponement, arguing that the deceptive advertisements remain harmful
... Show Full Article
PIERRE, South Dakota, Jan. 16 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release:
* * *
Friday Court Hearing on Attorney General Jackley's Injunction On Abortion Deceptive Advertising Postponed Over State's Objection
Friday's scheduled court hearing on South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley's motion to stop Mayday Health from deceptively advertising the sale of abortion pills and abortion services in South Dakota has been postponed at the request of Mayday Health.
The State objected to the postponement, arguing that the deceptive advertisements remain harmfulto women and need to be immediately taken down.
The date and time of the rescheduled hearing has not yet been set. The hearing will be held at the Hughes County Courthouse in Pierre.
For more information, contact Tony Mangan at 605-773-6878.
* * *
Original text here: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Media/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=2989
Del. A.G. Jennings: Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration From Defunding Medical and Public Health Research
DOVER, Delaware, Jan. 16 -- Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings issued the following statement on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
Appeals court blocks Trump Administration from defunding medical and public health research
Attorney General Kathy Jennings today issued the following statement after the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling permanently preventing the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from implementing a policy that would cut billions of dollars in funds that support
... Show Full Article
DOVER, Delaware, Jan. 16 -- Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings issued the following statement on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
Appeals court blocks Trump Administration from defunding medical and public health research
Attorney General Kathy Jennings today issued the following statement after the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling permanently preventing the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from implementing a policy that would cut billions of dollars in funds that supportcutting-edge medical and public health research at universities and research institutions across the country, regardless of whether their state joined the lawsuit:
* * *
"It continues to be beyond both belief and reason that this Administration is trying to gut life-saving medical and public health research. Fortunately, the Court has affirmed what we already knew: these proposed cuts are illegal. The groundbreaking work from these sectors is a crown jewel of both Delaware and America at large, and I will continue to fight tooth and nail to protect it."
* * *
The ruling protects critical funds that facilitate biomedical research, like lab, faculty, infrastructure, and utility costs. Without them, the lifesaving and life-changing medical research in which the United States - and Delaware, in particular - has long been a leader, could be compromised. Most NIH-funded research occurs outside of the federal government in institutions such as public and private universities and colleges. The NIH's proposed reduction of funds would hit those institutions especially hard: the University of Delaware, for example, would lose out on approximately $12 million that it needs to support its research programs. The loss of these funds would immediately impact and undermine the University of Delaware's ability to support critical research, meet essential obligations associated with maintaining its research facilities, and support clinical trials in Delaware. Delaware State University would also stand to lose $1.4 million from the NIH cut, which would impact biomedical research programs into Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, breast cancer, and AI-assisted analysis of medical imaging.
On February 10, 2025, less than six hours after AG Jennings and a coalition of 21 other attorneys general filed their lawsuit against the Administration, a judge in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts issued a temporary restraining order against NIH, barring its attempts to cut the critical research funding. The court subsequently issued a permanent injunction preventing the Trump Administration from implementing its policy restrictions on this important category of funding. The Trump Administration appealed that ruling to the First Circuit. The First Circuit's recent ruling denied that appeal, allowing the permanent injunction and invalidation of the Trump Administration's policy restrictions to stand.
NIH is the primary source of federal funding for medical research in the United States. Medical research funding by NIH grants have led to innumerable scientific breakthroughs, including the discovery of treatment for cancers of all types and the first sequencing of DNA. Additionally, dozens of NIH-supported scientists have earned Nobel Prizes for their groundbreaking scientific work.
Joining Delaware in filing the lawsuit, which was led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Illinois and Michigan, were the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.
* * *
Original text here: https://news.delaware.gov/2026/01/15/appeals-court-blocks-trump-administration-from-defunding-medical-and-public-health-research/
Ariz. A.G. Mayes Announces Investigation Into X's AI Chatbot
PHOENIX, Arizona, Jan. 16 -- Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI Chatbot
Attorney General Kris Mayes today announced that the Arizona Attorney General's Office has opened an investigation into reports that X's artificial intelligence chatbot, known as Grok, has been used to generate and distribute potentially illegal and harmful content, including child sexual abuse imagery.
Recent reporting has raised serious concerns that the chatbot may have been used to create non-consensual
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, Jan. 16 -- Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
Attorney General Mayes Announces Investigation into X's AI Chatbot
Attorney General Kris Mayes today announced that the Arizona Attorney General's Office has opened an investigation into reports that X's artificial intelligence chatbot, known as Grok, has been used to generate and distribute potentially illegal and harmful content, including child sexual abuse imagery.
Recent reporting has raised serious concerns that the chatbot may have been used to create non-consensualand exploitative images. Attorney General Mayes said the allegations warrant immediate scrutiny.
"These reports are deeply disturbing," said Attorney General Mayes. "Artificial intelligence should never be used to exploit or harm people, especially children. Technology companies do not get a free pass to create powerful artificial intelligence tools and then look the other way when those programs are used to create child sexual abuse material. My office is opening an investigation to determine whether Arizona law has been violated."
Attorney General Mayes is calling on any Arizonans who believe they were victimized or harmed by X's AI chatbot, including through the creation or distribution of non-consensual or illegal AI-generated images, to contact the Arizona Attorney General's Office.
"Technology companies cannot turn a blind eye when their products are used to cause real-world harm," Attorney General Mayes said. "If you believe you were targeted or victimized, we want to hear from you."
If any Arizonans believe they were harmed by Elon Musk's Grok chatbot, they should file a complaint with the Attorney General's Office here (https://azag.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=cc1fad182b6d6f8b1e352e206&id=11fd7150fb&e=9153ff6c96).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayes-announces-investigation-xs-ai-chatbot
Senate Committee Approves Three Bills Sponsored by S.D. A.G. Jackley
PIERRE, South Dakota, Jan. 16 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
Senate Committee Approves Three Bills Sponsored by Attorney General Jackley
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley thanks the State Senate Judiciary Committee for passing three of his legislative bills during a hearing Thursday (today) at the State Capitol.
"I appreciate the good discussion with committee members on the three bills, and I look forward to continued discussion as the bills move through the legislative process," said Attorney General Jackley.
Committee
... Show Full Article
PIERRE, South Dakota, Jan. 16 -- South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
Senate Committee Approves Three Bills Sponsored by Attorney General Jackley
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley thanks the State Senate Judiciary Committee for passing three of his legislative bills during a hearing Thursday (today) at the State Capitol.
"I appreciate the good discussion with committee members on the three bills, and I look forward to continued discussion as the bills move through the legislative process," said Attorney General Jackley.
Committeemembers approved:
SB 41: Revise a provision related to criminal invasions of privacy, prohibit the creation and distribution of digitally fabricated material of an identifiable individual, and provide penalties therefor.
SB 42: Enhance the penalties for ingestion, possession, possession with intent to deliver, and delivery of a controlled substance in a state correctional facility.
SB 43: Address search and seizure provisions applicable to digital currency.
The bills now move to the full Senate floor for further consideration.
Three other Attorney General-sponsored bills will be heard by the State Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
* * *
Original text here: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/Media/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?id=2990
N.J. A.G. Platkin: Apple Inc. Agrees to Pay $150,000 and Change Its Business Practices to Resolve Allegations of Widespread Pricing Violations in Stores Throughout New Jersey
TRENTON, New Jersey, Jan. 16 -- New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
AG Platkin: Apple Inc. Agrees to Pay $150,000 and Change Its Business Practices to Resolve Allegations of Widespread Pricing Violations in Stores Throughout New Jersey
Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced today that Apple Inc. ("Apple") has agreed to pay a $150,000 civil penalty and change its business practices to resolve allegations of widespread merchandise pricing violations in Apple stores throughout the state.
The allegations stem from the Division
... Show Full Article
TRENTON, New Jersey, Jan. 16 -- New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin issued the following news release on Jan. 15, 2026:
* * *
AG Platkin: Apple Inc. Agrees to Pay $150,000 and Change Its Business Practices to Resolve Allegations of Widespread Pricing Violations in Stores Throughout New Jersey
Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced today that Apple Inc. ("Apple") has agreed to pay a $150,000 civil penalty and change its business practices to resolve allegations of widespread merchandise pricing violations in Apple stores throughout the state.
The allegations stem from the Divisionof Consumer Affairs' ("Division") reinspection of 11 Apple stores subject to a 2017 consent order requiring Apple to install continuously available pricing information for iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, Apple Watches, and other electronic devices displayed on tables in stores throughout the state. Apple entered into the 2017 consent order to resolve allegations that the company's in-store digital pricing system - which provides price information for electronic devices through apps and notifications launched from the devices themselves - violated consumer protection laws requiring prices to be plainly marked with a stamp, label, or sign on or near the merchandise.
In every store the Division reinspected, investigators found numerous display tables that lacked pricing information required by the 2017 consent order. Additionally, in every store, investigators found items - including charging cables, protective cases, and audio devices - being offered for sale without a selling price on or near the item, as required by the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA"), specifically the Merchandise Pricing Act. Several stores also failed to conspicuously post their refund policies, also required by the CFA.
"At a time when prices are skyrocketing, consumers deserve to know what they're paying for products on the shelves. Once again, Apple has violated the law by failing to display the prices for products in their retail stores--keeping consumers in the dark," said Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin. "It's bad enough when companies violate the law once. It's even worse when they are held accountable for violating consumers' rights and then engage in the same unlawful conduct again. There is no excuse for Apple's repeated misconduct here, and consumers deserve better. We'll stand up for them every time."
The $150,000 civil penalty is the Division's largest-ever settlement under the Merchandise Pricing Act. The penalty assessed against Apple is memorialized in a consent order that also requires Apple to change its business practices by, among other things:
* not advertising, offering for sale, or selling merchandise in Apple stores unless the total selling price of the merchandise is: (a) plainly marked by a stamp, tag, label, or sign affixed to the merchandise; (b) apparent on the screen of the device itself upon limited interaction; or (c) located in close proximity to where the consumer finds the merchandise, so that consumers can independently know the price while looking at the merchandise without the need to interact with a salesperson;
* not requiring consumers to interact with an electronic device to determine the selling price of merchandise in Apple stores unless: (a) the total selling price is apparent upon limited interaction with the device; and (b) the total selling price is displayed clearly and conspicuously; and
* clearly and conspicuously posting refund policies for all merchandise in at least one of the following locations: attached to the merchandise itself; affixed to each cash register or point of sale; in a place where it is clearly visible to the buyer from the cash register; or posted at each store entrance used by the public.
The reinspections were conducted by Investigators Brian Penn, Roger Hines, and Murat Botas, under the supervision of Chief Investigator Edward George.
The State was represented in the matter by Deputy Attorneys General Sara J. Koste and Cathleen O'Donnell under the supervision of Deputy Attorney General/Assistant Section Chief Chanel Van Dyke and Deputy Attorney General/Section Chief Jesse J. Sierant of the Consumer Fraud Prosecution Section within the Division of Law.
Consumers who believe they have been cheated or scammed by a business, or suspect any other form of consumer abuse, can file an online complaint with the State Division of Consumer Affairs or by calling 1-800-242-5846 (toll free within New Jersey) or 973-504-6200.
Consent Order (http://www.njoag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2026-0115_Apple-Inc-Consent-Order.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.njoag.gov/ag-platkin-apple-inc-agrees-to-pay-150000-and-change-its-business-practices-to-resolve-allegations-of-widespread-pricing-violations-in-stores-throughout-new-jersey/
