WA, bipartisan coalition secure $700 million Google settlement over app store monopoly

A federal court today approved a $700 million settlement in a multistate antitrust lawsuit against Google. The lawsuit challenged Google's control over Android app distribution and in-app payments. The approval of the settlement ends a five-year case and gives relief to consumers nationwide who were affected by Google's actions.

About $13 million of the total settlement will be refunded to Washington consumers, about 2.4 million of whom would be eligible. Most of the settlement funds will go directly to people who made purchases on Google Play between August 2016 and September 2023. Most recipients won't need to fill out a claim form and will receive their payments through PayPal or Venmo.

If consumers don't have access to PayPal or Venmo, they can file a claim through a separate process to receive their payment. Additional information about the lawsuit and settlement is available on the settlement website.

“When giant companies gain an illegal stranglehold on a market, we take action and deliver relief for consumers,” Attorney General Nick Brown said. “Fighting monopolies is one of our office’s core responsibilities, and I’m proud that millions of Washingtonians will now get refunds because of our litigation.”

The settlement forces Google to change its business practices. For at least five years, app developers may use alternate payment systems, inform customers about lower prices outside Google's billing system, and list their apps on competing stores without fear of retaliation. Android users can download apps from outside the Play Store for at least seven years.

In 2021, Washington joined a bipartisan group of attorneys general who sued Google for illegally dominating Android app distribution and for charging consumers up to 30% per transaction.

Read more...

Washington sues to protect personal information of millions of drivers

Attorney General Nick Brown joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general and the state of Pennsylvania today in filing two lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s demand for states to turn over records containing the sensitive personal information of 17 million drivers who hold commercial driver’s licenses. 

The Trump administration has threatened to terminate more than $10 million in federal funding to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) if the states refuse this illegal order.

The coalition filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which is an administration of the DOT, and AAMVA, as well as an additional related lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

The lawsuits claim the DOT, FMCSA and DHS are violating multiple federal privacy laws by secretly setting up their own database with records extorted from AAMVA, with no guardrails on the use or sharing of drivers’ Social Security numbers and other personal information, and no notice to the public.

“When Washingtonians provide information to our state, they rightfully expect it will be kept confidential and secure, and used for the reasons the government told them,” said Brown. “The federal government is violating privacy laws to serve a political agenda.”

More information here

Read more...

Washington challenges Trump administration rule that will make it more difficult and expensive to obtain health insurance through the ACA

Attorney General Nick Brown today joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general and the Governor of Pennsylvania in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge a federal rule that illegally undermines the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and will make health insurance more expensive and harder to obtain for millions of Americans.

The lawsuit seeks to block provisions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2027 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters, a federal rule that sets standards for health plans offered in 2027. 

Among other harmful changes, the rule expands eligibility for catastrophic health insurance plans that are ineligible for health insurance premium tax credits, offer only limited coverage, and can leave consumers facing significantly higher out-of-pocket costs than standard ACA plans.

The rule also allows catastrophic and bronze plans to exceed ACA limits on maximum annual out-of-pocket costs, increasing the amount of money that consumers would need to pay for care.

It also attempts to reinstate several provisions that a federal court recently found to be unlawful. 

The coalition argues these and other provisions unlawfully undermine the ACA’s goal of expanding access to affordable healthcare by increasing costs, reducing enrollment, and shifting financial burdens onto consumers, states, and healthcare providers.

“Washingtonians deserve high-quality, affordable health insurance,” said Brown.

“The Trump administration’s own analysis shows this rule will cause millions to lose their health insurance. Many more will be pushed into low-quality plans that come with massive out-of-pocket costs. We are going to court to protect healthcare for thousands of Washingtonians.”

Congress enacted the ACA to expand access to affordable health insurance. The following year, our state established the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, building a stable, competitive individual market for health and dental insurance and enabling people to access subsidies to make coverage more affordable, leading to a drop in the state’s uninsured rate from 14.2 percent in 2011 to 4.8 percent in 2023. 

Currently, nearly 250,000 Washingtonians get their health insurance through the Washington Health Benefit Exchange. Under this final rule, their health insurance will become more expensive.

The coalition previously challenged the Trump administration’s similar 2025 ACA Marketplace rule. 

Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held a hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in that case, with a final decision expected at a later date. In related litigation, last month a federal court vacated several provisions of the administration’s 2025 rule — including provisions at issue in this case — after finding that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

The administration’s new rule setting standards for 2027 health plans, which is the subject of this lawsuit, brings back many of the same provisions and adds new changes that further undermine the ACA.

HHS estimates the new rule will cause two million people to lose coverage in 2027 alone and a total of five million by 2030.

Joining Brown in today’s lawsuit are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

Read the complaint.

Read more...

AG Brown-led coalition blocks federal cuts to school mental health grants

WA Attorney General Nick Brown

A U.S. District Court judge granted a temporary restraining order on Monday that blocks the U.S. Department of Education from unlawfully terminating congressionally approved school-based mental health grants.

The order in the case led by Attorney General Nick Brown and a coalition of 14 state attorneys general comes just days before the Department of Education would have begun terminating up to nine grants providing critical mental health services to Washington public school students at the end of July. 

Terminating the grants would have resulted in the projected loss of $20 million in mental health services to Washington elementary and secondary school students over the remaining life of the grants.

“We have now beaten back multiple attempts by this administration to illegally gut funding for mental health in our schools,” Brown said. “This program was a promise to America’s youth that their needs would be supported, and we won’t let the President break it.”

In the wake of devastating school shootings, members of Congress from both parties came together to appropriate $1 billion to permanently bring 14,000 mental health professionals into U.S. schools most in need, especially in low-income and rural communities. 

The programs have been an incredible success. In their first year, the programs provided mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 elementary and secondary students nationwide. Sampled projects showed real results: a 50% reduction in suicide risk at high-need schools, decreases in absenteeism and behavioral issues, and increases in positive student-staff engagement.

But over the past 15 months, the Department of Education has interfered with these goals by adding funding uncertainty and roadblocks that make it harder for grantees in Washington and the other coalition states to plan and perform their grant projects. 

In April 2025, the department notified these grantees that their grants would be discontinued for allegedly conflicting with the Trump administration's new priorities. The department later revealed the grants had been targeted for their perceived support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Washington has gone to court repeatedly to fight for these mental health grants and has won six favorable rulings against the administration so far. In July 2025, Brown led the coalition in filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the department over the discontinuation of the grants. 

In December 2025, the coalition secured an order declaring the department’s discontinuations were unlawful and requiring it to make new continuation decisions. The court also issued a permanent injunction that prohibited the department from implementing the discontinuations “through any means.”

The department claimed it planned to review the grants at the six-month mark and then make additional funding determinations. But instead, the department targeted the grants protected by the original injunction and announced they plan to terminate the grants altogether.

Brown and the coalition filed a second lawsuit in July 2026 to obtain a new injunction that prevents these terminations that were scheduled to begin on July 31 from taking place.

The temporary restraining order prevents the department from terminating the mental health grants using new priorities or without providing statutory procedural protections such as first working with the grantee to resolve any issues. The order will expire on August 24. In the meantime, the court is expected to schedule a hearing on a preliminary injunction, which would provide longer-term protection for grantees if ordered.

Brown is joined in this suit by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

Read the order.

Read more...

AG’s office secures $1.6 million for Washington homeowners who were charged illegal fees by Hayden Homes

The Washington State Attorney General’s Office has agreed to an assurance of discontinuance with the homebuilder Hayden Homes and its nonprofit partner First Story, requiring them to stop adding illegal private transfer fees to properties and to pay back Washington homeowners who paid the fees. This settlement concludes the office’s investigation and avoids litigation.

The agreement between the AG’s office and Hayden Homes requires Hayden Homes to pay $1.6 million in restitution to homeowners who paid the fee, which includes full refunds plus interest. Hayden Homes must also cease the use of these covenants and remove existing covenants from all other properties they have built or sold in Washington.

Full statement here

Read more...

AG Brown leads multistate opposition to Postal Service’s attempt to undermine voting rights

Attorney General Nick Brown co-led a multistate coalition of 24 attorneys general in filing a formal comment letter today opposing the Postal Service’s attempt to aid the President’s efforts to seize control of elections and restrict mail-in voting through a proposed rule, and asking the Postal Service to withdraw the proposed rule.

 

“The Constitution is clear: states control elections, not the President. This proposed rule is illegal and dangerous,” Brown said. “We will continue to protect the rights of eligible Washington voters to have their voices heard in our democracy.”

On March 31, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to establish a national list of eligible voters and directing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), an independent federal agency, to transmit mail ballots only to those on the list. 

In the order, the President threatened states and elections officials with criminal prosecution and the loss of federal funding if they do not comply with his demands.

A federal judge struck down that executive order last week in a lawsuit co-led by Brown’s office, with the order applying to 24 states total. 

On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled in a separate case that the proposed rule violated a settlement between the USPS and the NAACP. 

Nevertheless, the USPS has so far not rescinded its proposed rule to implement Trump’s illegal executive order. 

Under the proposed rule, USPS would create a centralized list of voter information and would refuse to deliver ballots to any eligible voter who is not on that list, essentially giving the federal government control over elections conducted by mail.

State and federal law entitle all eligible voters to cast ballots and have their votes counted in state and federal elections. Voters of all parties, in all states, and of every background utilize mail-in voting—including the President himself. 

This week’s Supreme Court decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee reaffirmed states’ authority to administer their elections, like permitting voters to cast ballots by mail.

Washington’s safe and secure vote-by-mail system was originally championed with bipartisan support and is popular with voters because of how it improves access to democracy.

This is not the President’s first failed executive order attacking elections. Last year, Brown successfully co-led a lawsuit with Oregon challenging a previous attempt by President Trump to undermine mail voting. A federal judge in Seattle found that the President exceeded his authority and that his actions violated the separation of powers.

Attorney General Brown co-leads this formal comment letter with the attorneys general of California, Massachusetts, and Nevada, and they are joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Read more...

AG Brown blocks Trump administration’s election power grab

A U.S. District Court judge has blocked President Trump’s unlawful Executive Order that tried to interfere with states’ constitutional authority to administer elections. 

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by 23 attorneys general and one governor and co-led by Attorney General Nick Brown that challenged the administration’s attempt to restrict voting to individuals on lists pre-authorized by the federal government and voting-by-mail to lists maintained by the U.S. Postal Service. 

The ruling is a major victory for election integrity, the states’ rights to administer elections, and people’s right to vote via the U.S. Mail.

“The President’s attempt to seize control of our elections by selectively refusing to deliver mail-in ballots was unconstitutional and dangerous­—and the court was right to strike it down,” said Brown.

“We will continue to defend the right of eligible Washington voters to participate in our democracy.”

On March 31, 2026, President Trump signed an Executive Order purporting to develop lists of eligible voters in each state and directing the U.S. Postal Service, an independent federal agency, to develop its own such list and transmit mail ballots only for those on the list. 

The Executive Order also threatened states and elections officials with criminal prosecution and the loss of federal funding if they do not comply with his demands.

In their lawsuit challenging the unlawful Executive Order, the States argued that the Order would require them to act contrary to their own election laws, voter roll procedures, and vote-by-mail systems. 

The U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to administer elections, not the President. The States also argued that Trump’s executive order would not have allowed sufficient time to upend election administration procedures before the November election, leaving voters confused and in doubt of the security of state election systems.

The court’s decision declares key sections of the March 2026 executive order unconstitutional and blocked the Trump Administration from implementing or enforcing the provisions for the November general election.

The judge said the Administration is prohibited from doing anything to take control states’ voter rolls and is barred from investigating state election systems based on the unconstitutional provisions in the executive order.

The order also bars the Postal Service from “refusing to transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from voters registered in Plaintiff States to elections officials in Plaintiff States.” 

The ruling came just one day after Postmaster General David Steiner testified at a Senate hearing that under a proposed rule the Postal Service will not deliver mail-in ballots in any state that refused to turn its voter rolls over to the Trump Administration but reaffirmed the Postal Service follow court orders governing voting by mail.

In addition to Brown, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, and Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford lead the lawsuit. Joining them are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and the Governor of Pennsylvania.

Read the order.

Read more...

AG Brown leads states’ brief opposing increased oil and gas development in Alaska’s Coastal Plain

Tundra swans in the Skagit Valley
Photo by Wayne Pridemore

Attorney General Nick Brown led a coalition with 13 other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief supporting three lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s decision to authorize an oil and gas program that would maximize development of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Washington’s brief argues that expansive, maximalist oil and gas development in an area previously untouched by industrial development will harm our states’ migratory birds and increase greenhouse gas emissions that worsen the devastating impacts of climate change in our states.

The coalition states argue that the Bureau of Land Management’s rushed and incomplete environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Secretary of Interior’s failure to comply with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (Refuge Act) illegally ignored more environmentally protective alternatives and disregarded legally required standards for public participation and transparency.

“Once again, this administration is breaking the law to prop up the fossil fuel industry, with no regard for the costs to our natural world,” said Attorney General Nick Brown. “The interests of oil and gas are not above the interests of the American people and our extraordinary ecology.”

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is our nation’s largest refuge. The Coastal Plain is a 1.6-million-acre national treasure at the heart of the refuge that provides habitat to hundreds of species, including threatened polar bears and caribou. 

Millions of migratory birds spend the summer on the Coastal Plain breeding and feeding before migrating southward across North America, including Washington, travelling upwards of 3,000 miles. 

For example, Tundra swans cross the continent to winter on the Atlantic coast. Brant, Pacific loons, and yellow-billed loons from the refuge winter primarily along the Pacific coast of North America.

AG Brown is joined on this brief by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Read more...

AG Brown defeats Trump’s attack on wind energy

These turbines are part of the Combine Hills wind power project located west of Walla Walla, Washington. Photo: John Harrison.

Attorney General Nick Brown and a multistate coalition won a final victory Monday in their lawsuit challenging the federal government’s unlawful order to freeze all federal permitting for wind energy projects when the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dismissed the Trump administration’s appeal.

“Wind energy is an essential option for delivering clean energy jobs and cheaper, cleaner power to Washingtonians as we transition from dirtier, more expensive fuels,” said Brown.

“Once again, we’ve defeated one of the Trump administration’s harmful and illegal attacks on Washington’s economy.”

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memo that indefinitely halted all federal approvals necessary for the development of offshore and onshore wind energy projects pending federal review. 

The coalition filed a lawsuit challenging those actions and in December 2025, a federal judge ruled that they were arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. The federal government appealed that ruling but subsequently decided to drop that appeal. On Monday, the court entered a judgement dismissing the appeal and cementing the states’ victory.

Wind energy is a homegrown source of reliable, affordable energy that supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, creates billions of dollars in economic activity and tax payments, and supplies more than 10% of the country’s electricity.

The indefinite halt on project approvals threatened Washington’s ability to meet its greenhouse gas emissions requirements and renewable energy commitments. It also threatened an increasingly important part of Washington’s economy.

Washington has enacted multiple state laws encouraging the deployment of affordable, clean renewable energy like that from wind.

Wind power is the second largest contributor to Washington’s renewable energy generation after hydroelectric power. In 2024, Washington generated 8,421 thousand Megawatt hours from wind power alone, enhancing Washington’s energy security and economic stability.

The coalition argued that federal agencies’ actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act and other federal laws because the agencies, among other things, provided no reasoned explanation for categorically and indefinitely halting all wind energy approvals. 

The lawsuit also argued that the abrupt halt on all permitting violated numerous federal statutes that prescribe specific procedures and timelines for federal permitting and approvals—procedures the administration wholly disregarded in stopping wind energy development altogether.

Brown was joined in this lawsuit, which was led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York, by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Rhode Island.

Read more...

Washington state Supreme Court affirms $25M judgment against Facebook for campaign finance violations

Public Disclosure Commission investigation led to Attorney General’s lawsuit

The Washington state Supreme Court issued a ruling today upholding both a 2022 King County Superior Court ruling that Meta, parent company of Facebook, violated state campaign finance law on dozens of occasions and a judgment ordering $24.6 million in fines plus attorney’s fees.

The penalty is believed to be the largest ever imposed for campaign finance violations in United States history.

“Washington state law requires all commercial advertisers – from Mom-and-Pop print shops to the largest companies in the world – to promptly disclose information related to the purchase of political advertisements,” said Executive Director Peter Frey Lavallee. “The state Supreme Court has affirmed that Meta must follow the law.”

The Washington state Court of Appeals previously affirmed the judgment in December 2024. Meta appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court.

Meta asked the court to consider both the company’s liability for the violations and the size of the penalty. The majority of the court affirmed the previous courts’ rulings that Meta is liable for the violations of state law. The court was divided in three even parts on the issue of the penalty, resulting in the original court’s judgment being affirmed.

The PDC investigation began after the agency received complaints against Facebook. Agency staff presented its initial findings to the five-member Commission, which voted to refer the matter to the Washington state Attorney General’s Office. 

The AGO filed a lawsuit with broader allegations beyond the PDC complaints against Facebook in 2020.

Two years later, the King County Superior Court awarded $8,220,000 in civil penalties and $3.5 million in attorney fees and costs, then tripled both figures per state law, because Meta’s violations of state campaign finance requirements were found to be intentional. Current Commission Vice Chair Douglass North was the presiding judge in the original case, prior to his appointment to the PDC.

Commercial advertisers – businesses that sell political advertising – are required by Washington public disclosure law to make information about those ads and their purchasers available for the public to inspect upon request. The lawsuit argued that Facebook sold hundreds of ads to Washington state political committees without making required information available.

Read more...

GS Labs settlement provides $1M in restitution for Washingtonians regarding COVID-19 testing

Washingtonians will receive nearly $1 million in restitution through a bipartisan multistate settlement with GS Labs resolving claims that the company, which ran COVID-19 testing sites, overcharged patients and failed to deliver timely test results.

The 18-state coalition, co-led by Washington, investigated a number of problems with GS Labs’ nationwide testing practices from 2020 through 2022, including that: 

• GS Labs intentionally advertised inflated “cash prices” for COVID-19 tests, sometimes as high as $380 per test or nearly $1,000 for multi-panel tests, that were used to justify overcharging patients with insurance coverage. And while GS Labs offered a “discount” from these “cash prices” to actual cash-paying patients, almost 30,000 patients still paid much more than market rate for their COVID-19 tests.
• For hundreds of thousands of patients, GS Labs guaranteed test results within three days and failed to deliver on its promise, sometimes taking a week or longer to get test results to patients.
• Despite advertising that patients with insurance would have no out-of-pocket costs, the company charged administrative fees as high as $49 per test to about 70,000 patients.

“During the height of the pandemic, GS Labs unfairly profited off of Washingtonians just trying to get tested for COVID-19,” Attorney General Nick Brown said.

“This is another great example of how our office vigorously enforces Washington’s consumer protection laws to protect people from deceptive business practices.”

Under the terms of today’s settlement, GS Labs will pay a total of $3.6 million in restitution to patients in the 18 plaintiff states. That includes $1.8 million for cash-paying patients who were overcharged for tests, $1.75 million for patients who were charged administrative fees, and about $34,000 for cash-paying patients who did not receive test results within three days.

In Washington, more than $987,000 will be available to compensate state residents who were harmed by the company’s testing practices. More than 11,000 people in Washington are expected to qualify for restitution, in amounts ranging from $5 for people who were improperly charged administrative fees to $200 for people who paid for a COVID test out of pocket.

Eligibility

The settlement creates an online restitution mechanism that will be funded and administered by GS Labs, with oversight by the multistate coalition. Eligible consumers include out-of-pocket paying consumers who paid more than the market rate for testing, consumers who paid for test results that were not delivered within the advertised turn-around time, and consumers who paid administrative fees to GS Labs.

To determine one’s eligibility and, if applicable, to receive a restitution payment, consumers must complete a brief verification process, which is available here

Read more...

Attorney General's office can help you resolve business or product disputes

Having a problem with a business or product? 

Our Consumer Resource Center helps consumers and businesses resolve disputes without going to court. 

In 2025, the center fielded well over 40,000 consumer calls and complaints, and our informal complaint resolution process returned more than $12 million in value to Washington consumers this year. 

File a complaint here #NCPW2026

Read more...

Homeaglow home cleaning platform must cease deceptive and predatory practices under consent decree with AG’s Office

The Attorney General’s Office has agreed to a consent decree with home cleaning platform Homeaglow and its two founders, requiring them to cease deceptive practices uncovered by investigators.

Homeaglow, which also does business as Dazzling Cleaning, had been enticing consumers with a $19 cleaning fee, but in actuality that deal roped Washington consumers into hundreds of dollars in costs due to their predatory membership program featuring an exorbitant cancellation fee.

Under the consent decree, Homeaglow and its owners must be honest and transparent about their introductory offers, the terms of their membership, and their customer reviews. 

As part of the settlement, any Washingtonian who is a Homeaglow ForeverClean member can cancel their membership at no charge even if they are still in the first six months of the membership. 

Those consumers can easily cancel by clicking here or by emailing the company at NoticeofSettlement@wa-settlement-homeaglow.com and entering “Cancel ForeverClean” in the subject line. If any Washington consumers have difficulty cancelling, they should contact the Attorney General’s Office by filing a complaint here.

Homeaglow is a platform that matches home cleaners with interested customers. They entice customers by offering a first cleaning at a low price. However, unbeknownst to them, when customers signed up for the first cleaning, they were also signing up for a $59 per month membership program that buys the customers nothing except the opportunity to sign up for future cleanings. Customers had to continue paying for this program for six months or pay hundreds of dollars in cancellation fees.

Homeaglow did not disclose the terms of this program clearly or conspicuously during the signup process. Instead, they filled their site with a countdown clock and an indicator showing how many “vouchers” for low-cost cleanings remained in the customer’s area. Both of these tools were designed to create a sense of urgency in customers and are completely fake.

One Washington customer signed up for a $79 cleaning on Homeaglow. After that cleaning, she was automatically enrolled in the membership program and charged a monthly fee, which did not purchase her any additional cleanings.

Once she realized she was being charged, she cancelled the membership and was charged a cancellation fee of $358.50. In total, the customer paid Homeaglow $600.75 for a single cleaning advertised at $79.

Homeaglow also deceived customers about its reviews. Until recently, Homeaglow advertised a 5-star rating based on 6,406 reviews from TrustPilot, a third-party review website. In fact, Homeaglow has a 1.3-star rating on TrustPilot. TrustPilot sent a cease-and-desist letter to Homeaglow in 2025 accusing them of fabricating reviews and removed 4,000 apparently fake reviews from their platform. The Better Business Bureau has received over 3,300 complaints about Homeaglow in the past three years.

Unfair and deceptive practices like these violate Washington’s Consumer Protection Act.

The consent decree requires Homeaglow and its two Texas-based owners to reform their practices. Specifically, it requires:

• Homeaglow cannot misrepresent customer reviews or suppress negative reviews.
• If Homeaglow or its owners advertise an introductory offer or discount voucher (e.g., “Get clean for $19”), they also must disclose the membership and its terms. Homeaglow must not misrepresent these offers.
• Homeaglow and its owners must clearly and conspicuously disclose the terms of the membership during enrollment and obtain express informed consent from consumers before charging them for membership. They must also provide a simple mechanism to cancel the membership.

All current members can cancel without paying the early termination fee.

Homeaglow is permanently held to these terms, and the owners are held to them for 10 years.

Read the consent decree.

Read more...

Purdue/Sackler opioid settlement takes effect, delivering $105.6 million to Washington state and local governments

Attorney General Nick Brown announced that a $7.4 billion multistate settlement reached with Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, and its owners, the Sackler family, has become legally effective.

The settlement will deliver $105.6 million split between Washington state and 125 cities and counties, with most coming over the next three years. The state will receive 50% and the local governments will receive shares of the rest, based on previously agreed percentages.

The settlement caps nearly a decade of work by attorneys general from across the country in pursuing investigations and litigation over Purdue’s and the Sacklers’ role in fueling the opioid crisis. The AGs launched a multistate investigation of Purdue in 2016, and Washington sued Purdue in 2017.

“The powerful opioids that Purdue and the Sacklers so aggressively marketed stole the lives of loved ones across Washington, devastating families,” Brown said.

“Now, through the persistence by our office and AGs across the country, the profits accumulated by the Sacklers and Purdue will pay for treatment centers, support first responders, and help communities across our state rebuild from the opioid crisis.”

After Purdue filed bankruptcy in September 2019 in light of massive litigation against the company, the attorneys general have taken a lead role in the bankruptcy proceedings, including negotiating a new settlement after the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 invalidated provisions in a prior settlement.

Fifty-five attorneys general representing all eligible U.S. states and territories previously signed onto the settlement. It resolves litigation against Purdue and the Sacklers for producing and aggressively marketing opioids in the United States, fueling the largest drug crisis in the country’s history.

The settlement permanently bars the Sacklers from selling opioids in the U.S. and delivers funds for addiction treatment, prevention, and recovery to communities across the country over the next 15 years.

Most settlement funds will be distributed in the first three years. The Sacklers are paying more than $1.5 billion today, followed by approximately an additional $500 million in May 2027, $500 million in May 2028, and $400 million in May 2029. Additionally, Purdue is paying approximately $900 million today.

With this settlement, Washington has now secured a total of more than $1.3 billion in opioid settlement funds.

The settlement also means that Purdue’s manufacturing operations transfer effective today to Knoa Pharma LLC, which will be overseen by a board of directors who had no connection to Purdue. The settlement prevents Knoa from marketing opioids and provides for an independent monitor to ensure it provides these medicines in the safest possible manner that limits the risk of diversion.

The settlement also requires Purdue and the Sacklers to make public more than 30 million documents related to their opioid business.

Read more...

AG Brown sues Albertsons, Safeway, and Haggen for deceptive ‘buy one get one free’ deals

 

The corporate owner of Safeway, Albertsons, and Haggen grocery stores has overcharged Washington consumers in more than 3 million transactions over a five-year period through deceptive “buy one get one free” deals, Attorney General Nick Brown argues in a new consumer protection lawsuit filed today.

 

Boise-based Albertsons Companies, one of the largest grocery store chains in the country, owns and operates all Safeway, Albertsons, and Haggen grocery stores in Washington, totaling 225 retail grocery stores across the state.

 

The grocery stores entice consumers through “buy one get one free” (BOGO) promotions on staples such as bread, cereal, fresh produce, and olive oil. According to the complaint filed in King County Superior Court, the stores artificially hike prices of products slated for the supposed specials in the weeks or months leading up to a “buy one get one free” promotion, overcharging customers who purchase in the interim. Then they lower the prices within about 30 days after the deal is over. The net result is that consumers think they’re getting a second item free, but in practice, they’re just paying an inflated price for the first item.

 

For example, a Gig Harbor Albertsons hiked the price of a bottle of olive oil to $10.99 for the BOGO promotion from $6.99 a week earlier, an increase of 57%. After the “buy one get one free” deal ended, the store dropped the price back down to $6.99.

 

“We’re not going to stand for people getting fleeced by these deceptive practices,” Brown said.

“That’s why we’ve filed this case. We want to make sure we’re protecting people’s pocketbooks, and we all know that affordability is a major issue these days. We’ve got to push back when companies are misleading their customers.”

 

From October 2019 to May 2024, the defendants overcharged Washington consumers on more than 3 million transactions, the lawsuit says. The stores brought in as much as $19.7 million by attracting consumers into their stores with these deceptive deals.

 

This is not the first time the defendants have been accused of unfair and deceptive BOGO promotions in stores in the Pacific Northwest. Albertsons paid $107 million to settle a 2016 class action lawsuit related to misleading “buy one get one free” deals in Oregon stores. The companies also settled a proposed class action case filed in 2023 in federal court related to deceptive BOGO promotions in Washington stores.

 

The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) alleges the defendants violated the state’s Consumer Protection Act by:

•     Engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices by artificially increasing the pre-BOGO price of items and then lowering the price shortly after the promotion ends
•     Misrepresenting prices and thereby engaging in an unfair method of competition

Brown is asking the court to rule that the stores’ conduct violates state law, stop the defendants’ use of unfair and deceptive BOGO promotions, provide restitution to Washington consumers, and pay civil penalties for each violation of state law as well as pre-judgment interest.

Assistant Attorneys General Bob Hyde and Shana Emile and Paralegals Judy Lim and Michelle Paules are handling the case for Washington.

 

A copy of the complaint is available here. 

Read more...

Court order requires FEMA to restore funds to state infrastructure programs

Attorney General Nick Brown and a multistate coalition today secured a court order requiring the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to take concrete steps to reverse the termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program (BRIC).

In Washington, about two dozen BRIC projects totaling more than $150 million have been in limbo due to the federal government’s actions.

"The judge's order in this case was unequivocal: FEMA must restore the BRIC program. Communities across Washington are counting on these dollars for vital disaster mitigation projects,” Brown said.

“We will keep fighting to make sure FEMA stops wasting time and carries out the program as Congress intended.”

More information here

Read more...

AG Brown announces settlements in ongoing drug price-fixing conspiracy case

Washingtonians who paid for certain generic prescription drugs in the U.S. between May 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, could be eligible for money

Attorney General Nick Brown and a coalition of 48 states and territories today announced they have won $17.85 million in settlements with Lannett Company, Inc. (“Lannett”) and Bausch Health US, LLC and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (“Bausch”), to resolve allegations that both companies engaged in widespread, long-running conspiracies to artificially inflate and manipulate prices, reduce competition, and unreasonably restrain trade with regard to numerous generic prescription drugs.

These agreements are part of a larger antitrust enforcement action against dozens of companies that conspired to manipulate drug prices. 

As a result of this conspiracy, consumers had to pay more than 10 times as much for some drugs, ranging from antibiotic ointment to cancer treatments.

As part of today’s agreements, Lannett and Bausch have agreed to cooperate in the ongoing multistate litigations against 30 corporate defendants and 25 individual executives. Both companies have further agreed to make internal reforms to ensure fair competition and compliance with antitrust laws.

“It’s hard to imagine more despicable corporate behavior than conspiring to raise the price of medicine for people who need it,” Brown said.

“We will continue holding these wrongdoers accountable and secure restitution for Washington consumers and businesses.”

Washingtonians who purchased one or more of the generic prescription drugs at issue in the states’ cases between May 2009 and December 2019 may be eligible for compensation. Impacted customers can call 1-866-290-0182 (Toll-Free), email info@AGGenericDrugs.com or visit www.AGGenericDrugs.comto determine their eligibility.

Washington and Idaho were the only states in the coalition which also secured restitution for businesses impacted by this conspiracy. 

Read more...

New report details successful elimination of sexual assault kit backlog

From the Office of the Attorney General

Almost a year after Washington state finally eliminated its backlog of untested sexual assault kits, the Attorney General’s Office has released the latest report from the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE) Best Practices Advisory Group detailing how the backlog was addressed and making further policy recommendations to support victims and survivors.

The SAFE Advisory Group was established by the Legislature in 2015 when there was a backlog of more than 10,000 kits. At that time, Washington faced significant challenges with inventorying, tracking, and testing sexual assault kits, and lacked up-to-date information on the status of related investigations.

Over the past decade, SAFE members have helped the state make significant improvements in the handling of sexual assault investigations. The Attorney General’s Office administers the group, which includes survivors, legislators, community-based advocates, law enforcement, prosecutors, and medical providers.

The last of those kits in the backlog was tested in January 2025 by the Washington State Patrol. 

As a result of this effort, at least 22 cases have been solved, a number that is expected to grow, and thousands of DNA profiles have been uploaded to the national database to help assist with investigations.

More information here

Read more...

AG’s office provides instructions for Washingtonians eligible for payments from $700 million Google settlement

Attorney General Nick Brown announced that new instructions are available to help eligible consumers receive payment from a $700 million settlement the AG’s office and a coalition of 52 other attorneys general reached with Google in 2023. 

The coalition sued Google for monopolistic conduct in the operation of the Google Play store, alleging that Google unlawfully maintained a monopoly over mobile app distribution and in-app payment processing for Android devices and used its monopoly power to charge consumers as much as 30 percent in fees for purchasing apps and making in-app purchases.

“Washington will always stand up to corporate monopolies to protect consumers and entrepreneurs from unfair practices,” said Brown. “No one is above the law. We are proud to deliver this money for Washingtonians and encourage anyone eligible for this settlement to make sure you get what you deserve.”

The majority of the settlement funds will be distributed to consumers who made purchases on the Google Play Store between August 2016 and September 2023 and were harmed by Google’s anticompetitive conduct. 

A court has already preliminarily approved the settlement and has set a hearing to consider whether to give it final approval in April 2026.

More information here

Read more...

Washington will receive about $66 million from Philip Morris through a new tobacco-related settlement

Antique Advertising

Washington will receive about $66 million from Philip Morris to resolve lingering disputes between the company and the state related to the landmark multibillion-dollar tobacco settlement reached in 1998.

The agreement with Philip Morris follows another one reached in April of this year between the state and other tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. Under that settlement, the state received over $277 million from R.J. Reynolds and the other manufacturers to resolve similar disputes.

Washington and 45 other states entered into the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with major tobacco makers in 1998. The settlement imposed major restrictions on the industry’s advertising and marketing, including prohibiting tobacco advertising targeting people younger than 18.

As part of the master settlement, participating tobacco manufacturers pay billions each year to states that reached resolutions with them. Former Attorney General Christine Gregoire played a lead role negotiating the settlement, under which Washington has received roughly $3.8 billion over the years. These payments continue as long as people buy tobacco products from those companies. In exchange, the states agree not to pursue additional suits for health-related damages.

“That 1998 agreement with tobacco companies continues to be a shining example of holding companies accountable for putting profits over people’s health,” Attorney General Nick Brown said. “I’m grateful to our team for negotiating these latest settlements for the benefit of our entire state.”

The disputes at issue in the recent settlements with Philip Morris and the other tobacco makers concern one part of the master settlement with regard to enforcing laws against tobacco companies that did not join the MSA. Disputes and arbitrations over this provision have dragged on for years. Some of the money that Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and the other participating tobacco companies owed to the state was held in an account while the disputes continued.

This year, the manufacturers and the state have agreed that it’s better to reach a resolution and avoid further expense and uncertainty. The money that was held is being released and divided between the state of Washington and the tobacco makers, including this recent settlement with Philip Morris.

The agreement with Philip Morris resolves disputes through the year 2015. Washington and Philip Morris have agreed to arbitrate disputes related to subsequent years.

Assistant Attorneys General S. Todd Sipe and Eric Mentzer and Paralegals Diane Hoosier and Christine Truong worked on the settlement for Washington state.

A copy of the settlement with Philip Morris is available here.

Read more...