Hunton Retail Law Resource

Newly formed “public interest organizations” have increasingly been using an expansive consumer protection statute in the District of Columbia as a basis for claims against merchants across the country for unfair or deceptive trade practices.  These claims recently have been directed at businesses—both small and large—who are selling online and shipping into the District of Columbia. Businesses selling goods into the District of Columbia (physically or virtually) should be aware of potential claims initiated by public interest groups that may be pursued against them under the CPPA.  

Under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”), it is a violation for merchants to commit unlawful trade practices in the District of Columbia regardless of whether a consumer is in fact misled, deceived, or damaged by the unlawful practice.  D.C. Stat. § 28-3904. The term “unlawful trade practice” is subject to interpretation and arguably very broad, making the statute particularly risky for merchants. Importantly, the CPPA allows public interest organizations on behalf of the general public, to bring an action against a merchant for violation of trade practice laws in the District of Columbia. § 26-3905(k)(1)(C). In other words, a “public interest organization” can bring a claim under CCPA without even having a named consumer plaintiff.  

Public interest groups (e.g., not-for-profit entities registered in DC) have statutory standing to bring action under the CPPA if the group is (1) organized and operating, at least in part, on behalf of consumers; (2) the consumer or class of consumers could bring suit in their own right; and (3) the public interest organization has a sufficient nexus to the interests of the consumer or consumer class in order to be able to adequately represent those interests.  Animal League Defense Fund v. Hormel, 258 A.3d 174, 183 (D.C. Ct. App. 2021).  In Hormel, the Animal League Defense Fund’s stated mission is to “protect the lives and advance the interest of animals,” which the court found was of a sufficient nexus to bring a lawsuit against defendants for alleged deceptive marketing that their deli meat was “natural” when the meat was factory-farmed.  Id. at 179–80.   

Since the Hormel decision, dozens of claims have been brought by public interest groups against merchants whose products have been sold to consumers in the District of Columbia for deceptive price comparison claims. See e.g., Inst. for Truth in Mktg., Inc. v. Biovea, LLC, 2026-CAB-003183 (D.C. Super. Ct. May 11, 2026) (alleging deceptive price comparison claims); Inst. for Truth in Mktg., Inc. v. G&G Distributors, 2026-CAB-002510 (D.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 16, 2026) (alleging deceptive price comparison claims); Animal Outlook v. Aldi Inc., 2026-CAB-001840 (D.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 20, 2026) (alleging deceptive marketing and advertising practices regarding animal welfare); Plastic Pollution Coal. v. Just Goods, Inc., 2025-CAB-004854 (D.C. Super. Ct. July 25, 2025) (alleging false and deceptive advertising as to sustainable packaging); Inst. for Truth in Mktg., Inc. v. Windy City Novelties, Inc., 2025-CAB-000757 (D.C. Super. Ct. Feb. 7, 2025) (alleging deceptive price comparison claims); Inst. for Truth in Mktg., Inc. v. Poptimization, Inc., 2024-CAB-004802 (D.C. Super. Ct. July 31, 2024) (alleging deceptive price comparisons claim); Inst. for Truth in Mktg., Inc. v. Pro Boxing Supplies, Inc., 2024-CAB-004584 (D.C. Super. Ct. July 22, 2024) (alleging deceptive price comparisons claim); Inst. for Truth in Mktg., Inc. v. Beauty Bridge LLC, 2024-CAB-004447 (D.C. Super. Ct. July 15, 2024) (alleging deceptive price comparisons claim); Nat’l Ass’n Consumer Advocs., Inc. v. Gemini Trust Co., 2024-CAB-003999 (D.C. Super. Ct. June 26, 2024) (alleging deceptive advertising representations for cryptocurrency trading platform); Inst. for Truth in Mktg., Inc. v. Home-Sew, Inc., 2024-CAB-002588 (D.C. Super. Ct. April 25, 2024) (alleging deceptive price comparisons claim).  

While the majority of lawsuits brought by public interest groups have settled relatively quickly, a few are actively being litigated. See e.g., Animal Outlook v. Aldi Inc., 2026-CAB-001840 (D.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 20, 2026) (alleging deceptive marketing and advertising practices regarding animal welfare); Corp. Accountability Lab et al. v. Aqua Star (USA), Corp., 2026-CAB-001574 (D.C. Super. Ct. Mar. 10, 2026) (alleging deceptive marketing representations for shrimp products); Nat’l Ass’n Consumer Advocs., Inc. v. Gemini Trust Co., 2024-CAB-003999 (D.C. Super. Ct. June 26, 2024) (alleging deceptive advertising representations for cryptocurrency trading platform). The CPPA carries monetary penalties of treble damages or a $1,500 fine for each violation, whichever is greater. § 26-3905(k)(2)(A)(i). 

The CPPA’s lenient standing requirement may be a catalyst for increased legal action resting on a broad and fluid set of allegations of unfair or deceptive trade practices. We expect public interest groups to continue to bring CPPA claims in D.C. Superior Court against businesses alleging deceptive price comparison, marketing, and advertising claims.