State AG news: Consumer Protection, settlements, federal regulation (September 18-23, 2026). Each week, Crowell & Moring's State Attorneys General team highlights significant actions that State AGs have taken. See our State Attorneys General page for more insights. Below are the updates from September 18-23, 2026: Multistate * A bipartisan coalition of 41 attorneys general announced a $694 million settlement with Credit Acceptance Corporation (CAC), one of the nation's largest subprime auto lenders. CAC allegedly provided loans it knew or should have known that consumers could not afford and allowed unlawful "packing" of Vehicle Service Contracts (VSC) and Guaranteed Asset Protection (GAP) products onto consumer auto loans. The settlement provides $60 million in cash restitution for consumers who received particularly risky loans, $388 million in debt relief for consumers whose vehicles were repossessed, and $246 million in debt relief to allow consumers to keep their vehicles, plus $15 million paid to the states. CAC will also be required to provide pre-loan risk disclosures, institute a seven-year vehicle price cap of 109% of retail book value, implement off-ramps for quickly failing loans, and establish enhanced dealer monitoring. * A coalition of 24 attorneys general obtained a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration from accessing the Commercial Driver License Information System - a database of 17 million drivers' records containing sensitive personal information like social security numbers. The lawsuit alleges that the Department of Transportation demanded access to the database or it would terminate $10 million in federal funding from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 and in circumvention of the Administrative Procedures Act. The injunction will block database access as the case is litigated. * A coalition of 23 attorneys general won a motion for summary judgment permanently blocking the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from terminating Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for lawful permanent residents and from imposing retroactive financial penalties on states that missed a deadline the administration had set for terminating benefits. The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon held that the USDA's guidance restricting SNAP eligibility for lawful permanent residents had no basis in law and that the retroactive compliance deadline was arbitrary and capricious. * A coalition of 24 attorneys general filed a comment letter opposing a proposed rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) titled "Medicaid Program; Amending the Indirect Hold Harmless Threshold of Health Care-Related Taxes", which the coalition argues could jeopardize federal Medicaid funding and improperly interfere with state regulation of health insurers and Affordable Care Act health exchanges. The letter argues that the proposal exceeds statutory authority under the Social Security Act, Public Law No. 119-21, and the McCarran-Ferguson Act and that it would alter how states can collect certain taxes, fees, and payments. * A coalition of 20 attorneys general sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio asking the federal government to address security loopholes that allow counterfeit GLP-1 drugs to enter the U.S. market. The letter alleges that counterfeit drugs are being manufactured using active pharmaceutical ingredients sourced from Chinese facilities potentially connected to fentanyl production and asks the Secretary to share any available federal intelligence on foreign GLP-1 and peptide supply chains and their ties to fentanyl-linked entities, identify warning signs for state attorneys general, and establish improved mechanisms for state-federal information sharing. * Acting Attorney General Mills announced a settlement with Payless Used Car Sales, LLC resolving allegations that the used car dealership violated Alaska's motor vehicle dealer fee statute by not including document fees on its website. Alaska law requires all dealer fees be advertised in the price of vehicles. Under the settlement, which is subject to court approval, consumers who were charged the hidden fee are eligible for $100 payments, with the State estimating total restitution to exceed $500,000 to more than 5,000 affected consumers. Massachusetts * Attorney General Campbell secured a $440,000 settlement with JSC Transportation Services, Inc. resolving allegations that JSC colluded with competitor Beacon Mobility Corporation to allocate school bus transportation contracts and thereby raise prices. The settlement, an assurance of discontinuance under the Massachusetts Antitrust Act and Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, would distribute settlement funds to affected municipalities and require JSC to maintain an antitrust compliance program, notify the attorney general of any future acquisitions of transportation companies for five years, and notify the attorney general if a competitor attempts to allocate contracts, fix prices, rig bids, or share competitively sensitive information in the Massachusetts student transportation market. This settlement follows a July 2026 $2.4 million assurance of discontinuance the attorney general reached with Beacon for its role in the same collusion scheme. Washington * Washington Attorney General Brown and the Federal Trade Commission announced a joint settlement against multi-level marketing company Amway Corp. and two of its largest affiliates, resolving allegations of unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleged that Amway and its affiliates misrepresented participants' earnings potential, pressuring them to buy products they did not want and would have trouble selling, and alleged that Amway told participants to report false sales. The proposed order requires changes to company practices and imposes a $225 million fine, the largest monetary recovery from an FTC action against an MLM, which will mainly go toward consumers harmed by Amway and its affiliates.

Amway and affiliates agree to $225 million settlement over earnings and recruiting claims. September 18, 2026 Amway Corp. and two affiliated groups have agreed to pay $225 million to resolve allegations that people recruited into the multilevel marketing business were misled about potential earnings and pressured to buy products and training that could cost more than they earned. The Federal Trade Commission and Washington state announced the action September 17 against Amway, World Wide Group, L.L.C. (WWG) and Leadership Team Development Inc. (LTD). According to the FTC, the monetary relief represents the largest recovery the agency has ever obtained in an action against a multilevel marketing company. Nearly all of the $225 million is expected to provide redress to Amway Independent Business Owners, or IBOs, recruited through WWG and LTD who lost money. The companies neither admit nor deny the allegations under the stipulated order, except as specifically stated in the order for jurisdictional purposes. Regulators say some recruits were promised substantial income. Amway sells nutritional supplements, energy drinks, beauty products, household products and other goods through a direct-selling structure. Participants, known as IBOs, can sell Amway products and recruit additional people into the business. But the FTC and Washington complaint alleges that prospective and existing IBOs received misleading messages about how much money they were likely to make. According to regulators, some participants were told they were likely to earn substantial income exceeding $40,000 annually or could eventually replace the income from a full-time job or retire early. The complaint alleges that most people who joined Amway through WWG or LTD after 2020 instead spent more on Amway products and training than they received from Amway. FTC says participants were pressured to buy products. Regulators also challenged the role that IBOs' own purchases played in the business. According to the complaint, WWG and LTD taught participants to purchase set amounts of Amway products every month, regardless of whether they actually wanted the products or could resell them to customers. The FTC alleges that recruits were then encouraged to bring additional people into the organization and teach them to follow similar purchasing practices. The complaint further alleges that Amway sold more than three-quarters of its U.S. products in recent years to its own IBOs rather than outside customers. Regulators contend that many participants eventually stopped pursuing the business after discovering that monthly product expenses could exceed the bonuses they received. Complaint alleges some IBOs were told to report sales that didn't happen. Another part of the government's case concerns how customer sales were recorded. The FTC and Washington allege that IBOs were instructed to report Amway products as sold even when no genuine customer sale had occurred. According to the complaint, that could make the business appear more focused on retail sales to customers rather than purchases by participants within the organization. The government's allegations also extend to training sold through WWG and LTD. Regulators say those organizations marketed training and support services as important to succeeding with Amway while leaders could receive income connected to those training systems. Settlement would require 70% of product volume to come from customer sales. It would substantially change how Amway's compensation system treats product purchases. Under the order, at least 70% of an IBO's monthly product volume would have to come from qualifying sales to eligible customers. Compensation to participants and their uplines would be reduced when that requirement isn't satisfied. The order also establishes detailed requirements for documenting customer sales, including reporting certain offline sales promptly and providing customers with receipts. Amway would be required to terminate participants who fake customer sales or teach other IBOs to do so. New IBOs would get their first year of training free. The order also addresses the training programs sold to Amway participants. Amway would have to require approved providers such as WWG and LTD not to charge new IBOs for training or services during their first year. Participants would also have to receive required training before they could begin recruiting other IBOs. The proposed order calls for Amway's sales records to undergo regular audits by an independent outside auditor. Together, the provisions are designed to place greater emphasis on documented sales to actual customers rather than product purchases made by people participating in the business opportunity. Most of the $225 million is expected to go to IBOs who lost money. Nearly all of the monetary judgment will be used to provide redress to IBOs recruited by WWG and LTD who lost money, according to the FTC. However, affected participants shouldn't assume they need to submit a claim immediately. The agency says information about its redress program for the case will be provided later. Former and current IBOs who believe they could be affected may want to preserve account statements, records of product purchases, training expenses, bonus payments and other documentation while waiting for additional instructions. The FTC's official Amway case page is the safest place to watch for updates about the case and any future refund process. The settlement still requires court approval. The FTC and Washington filed the complaint and stipulated proposed final order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the action. The FTC notes that filing a complaint means the Commission has reason to believe the defendants violated or are about to violate the law and that bringing the action is in the public interest; it isn't itself a judicial finding that every allegation is true. Stipulated final orders carry the force of law once approved and signed by a federal district court judge. For people considering any multilevel marketing or direct-selling opportunity, the case also provides a useful financial reminder: compare realistic earnings with the complete cost of participating, including required or strongly encouraged product purchases, training, events and other recurring expenses, rather than evaluating the opportunity solely on advertised income examples.