A recent wave of lawsuits filed in Washington, D.C., represents the latest attempt by consumer advocacy groups to use state consumer protection laws to pursue manufacturers, importers, distributors, and online sellers of consumer products for alleged violations of product safety laws. Consumer Advocacy Institute (“CAI”), a consumer advocacy group formed in March 2026, has used the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) to file more than 200 lawsuits in D.C. Superior Court. These so-called private attorney general lawsuits provide an alternate route for enforcement alongside actions by federal agencies such as the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). They can also have the effect of drawing additional attention and scrutiny from those agencies.

In these lawsuits, consumer advocacy groups typically argue that the CPPA allows them to sue on behalf of themselves, as tester organizations, and on behalf of D.C. consumers, even if there has been no CPSC or FDA recall, administrative action, or federal court case. The lawsuits generally seek broad remedies including injunctions to stop sales, damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief.

The lawsuits have focused on technical compliance issues common to many consumer products, including requirements for children’s products, packaging, and labeling. The common theory is that selling a product in D.C. that allegedly fails to comply with an applicable federal requirement can itself give rise to liability under the CPPA. The complaints appear to follow a common pattern, asserting violations of several CPPA provisions in each case. These include claims for failing to disclose a material fact when the omission tends to mislead; offering for sale or distributing a consumer product that does not meet an applicable safety standard without the required certificate or good-faith reliance required by the Consumer Product Safety Act[1]; and selling consumer goods in a condition or manner inconsistent with federal law.

The complaints also follow a repeatable litigation model. A product is allegedly purchased online, shipped to D.C., and then reviewed or tested for noncompliance. Many of these suits do not involve the kinds of injuries typically alleged in traditional product liability cases. CAI typically alleges that it purchased the product in D.C. to test it. It then sues as a nonprofit tester organization on behalf of itself, D.C. consumers, and the general public. The claimed harm is often the sale or offer for sale of an allegedly noncompliant product in D.C.

For businesses facing these claims, the initial defense strategy should address procedural issues and the court’s authority to hear the case before turning to the substance of the allegations. Depending on the facts, defendants may wish to evaluate whether the case can be moved from D.C. Superior Court to federal court, a process known as removal, based on the parties’ citizenship or other grounds. That question may be especially significant when the consumer group appears to be acting as a tester plaintiff, meaning that it purchased a product to identify an alleged violation and file suit rather than to use the product as an ordinary consumer.

Although D.C. courts have recognized tester organizations’ standing to bring suit under the CPPA, federal case law is developing on whether a plaintiff who purchases a product solely to generate litigation, with no intention of using it in the ordinary course, has suffered a sufficiently concrete injury. These issues are worth evaluating early. In the right case, a defendant may have grounds to move to dismiss based on the absence of such an injury.

Companies may also have substantial defenses to the underlying claims. Even if a case remains in D.C. Superior Court, companies should closely assess whether the complaint adequately alleges a violation of the applicable regulations. Depending on the product and the allegations, important questions may include whether the plaintiff’s testing methods match the applicable regulations, whether the company relied in good faith on a representation by a manufacturer or distributor, and whether the alleged omission is material, as the plaintiff claims.

The recent D.C. filings are a reminder that product safety enforcement can take several forms. Regulatory knowledge and litigation experience with the CPPA are important tools for defending these lawsuits. Because private litigation can also attract government scrutiny, companies should address these suits promptly and strategically, with an eye toward reducing the risk of additional enforcement action.

[1] 15 U.S.C. § 2063(a)(1).