- within Consumer Protection topic(s)
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law the "Fostering Affordability and Integrity Through Reasonable Business Practices Act" (the FAIR Business Practices Act or the Act), effective 60 days after enactment. The FAIR Business Practices Act, for the first time in 45 years, substantially updates New York's core consumer protection statute, General Business Law (GBL) § 349, by expanding the New York Attorney General's (NYAG) enforcement authority. Specifically, the Act now allows the NYAG to challenge "unfair" and "abusive" acts or practices and eliminates a "consumer-oriented" limitation on NYAG enforcement actions.
Unfair and Abusive Acts or Practices
The FAIR Business Practices Act expands the scope of prohibited conduct to include "unfair" and "abusive" acts or practices, alongside the existing prohibition on deceptive conduct. In doing so, it borrows federal concepts, the Federal Trade Commission's unfairness framework, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act's abusive standard.
Under the Act, an act or practice is "unfair" when it causes or is likely to cause "substantial injury" that is not reasonably avoidable and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. The Act ties the definition of "substantial injury" to the term as used in the Federal Trade Commission Act.
The FAIR Business Practices Act defines an act or practice as "abusive" when it materially interferes with a person's ability to understand a term or condition of a product or service, or when it takes unreasonable advantage of (1) a person's lack of understanding of material risks, costs, or conditions of a product or service, (2) a person's inability to protect their interests in selecting or using a product or service, or (3) a person's reasonable reliance on another to act in the relying person's interests. Together, these new "unfair" and "abusive" standards are designed to allow the NYAG to bring cases when alleged harm does not fit neatly into deception. The NYAG provided the following examples of what it considers to be "unfair" or "abusive":
- Student loan servicers that steer borrowers into the most expensive repayment plans
- Car dealers that refuse to return a customer's photo ID until a deal is finalized and charge for add-on warranties that the customer did not actually purchase
- Nursing homes that routinely sue relatives of deceased residents for their unpaid bills, despite not having any basis for liability
- Companies that take advantage of consumers with limited English proficiency and the use of obscure pricing information and fees
- Debt collectors that collect and refuse to return a senior's Social Security benefits, even though those benefits are exempt from debt collection
- Health insurance companies that present customers with long lists of in-network doctors who, in reality, do not accept the insurance
In several places, the Act clarifies the NYAG's new enforcement authority while imposing some limitations on companies' exposure. First, the Act provides that only the NYAG may enforce the "unfair" and "abusive" prohibitions, while the private right of action under GBL § 349 remains limited to deceptive acts or practices. Second, the Act makes clear that the NYAG may bring an action or a proceeding and may seek injunctive relief and restitution, including for out-of-state victims where appropriate. Third, the Act preserves a compliance defense for conduct that is subject to and complies with federal agency rules and regulations. Finally, for companies in the crosshairs of an investigation, the Act continues to require advance notice and a short opportunity to respond before the NYAG commences an action or proceeding, unless the NYAG seeks preliminary relief.
Eliminates "Consumer-Oriented" Doctrine
Before the FAIR Business Practices Act, courts interpreted GBL § 349 to cover only "consumer-oriented" conduct, meaning the challenged conduct must have had a broad impact on consumers at large rather than being confined to a private, one-off contractual or business dispute. The Act expressly abrogates this "consumer-oriented" limitation in actions brought by the NYAG. In practical terms, this removes a common motion-to-dismiss argument under GBL § 349, thereby expanding the range of cases that the NYAG may pursue.
Additionally, the Act makes clear that the victims of unfair, abusive, or deceptive acts and practices often include businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other market participants, not just consumers. Accordingly, the Act expands the NYAG's consumer protection duty to explicitly include "protecting businesses and non-profits as well as individuals." This change broadens the range of matters that could draw NYAG scrutiny, including practices affecting small businesses, vendors, contractors, franchisees, nonprofits, associations, and other actors. For companies, that means conduct in business-to-business channels — including standardized terms, onboarding and billing practices, and payment and servicing conduct — may now sit more squarely within the NYAG's consumer protection purview.
Growing Role of States in Competition and Consumer Protection Enforcement
New York's enactment of the FAIR Business Practices Act fits within a broader shift in antitrust and consumer protection enforcement. On the antitrust side, states have pushed for earlier visibility into transactions, including through state-level merger notification requirements adopted in jurisdictions such as Washington and Colorado, and state enforcers are taking a more active role in merger challenges and negotiated settlements. On the consumer protection side, states have become more aggressive in their efforts to police "junk fees" and auto-renewal subscriptions, data privacy and cybersecurity issues, and the marketing and use of emerging technologies such as AI, often stepping in where federal priorities, resources, or legal authorities are in flux. The FAIR Business Practices Act gives the NYAG a new enforcement tool and signals that companies doing business in the state should plan for a more active, coordinated, and fast-moving state enforcement environment.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
