
Dan Brecher
Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Dan Brecher
Date: January 26, 2026

Counsel
212-286-0747 dbrecher@sh-law.com
In 2025, New York enacted one of the most consequential updates to its consumer protection framework in decades. The Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices Act (FAIR Act) significantly expands the scope and strength of New York’s long-standing consumer protection statute, General Business Law § 349, and alters the compliance landscape for New York businesses.
While Section 349 prohibited “deceptive acts or practices,” it notably lacked explicit bans on unfair or abusive conduct. The FAIR Act closes that gap, aligning New York more closely with modern consumer protection regulations. This article addresses the changes under the FAIR Act, why they matter, and what businesses need to do going forward.
New York’s consumer protection law now covers unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices, not just deceptive ones. This expansion brings the law more in line with the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), which also prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices. The terms are defined as follows:
While Section 349 traditionally focused on consumer-oriented conduct, the amended statute clarifies that the Attorney General may bring actions to protect not only individual consumers, but also small businesses and nonprofit organizations harmed by unfair or abusive practices. Pursuant to the FAIR Act, “[a]n act or practice made unlawful by this section is actionable by the attorney general regardless of whether or not that act, or practice is consumer-oriented.”
The FAIR Act significantly strengthens the legal remedies available to both the Attorney General’s office and private individuals and small businesses. To start, the new law significantly increases the statutory damages for violations of Section §349 from $50 to $1,000. In addition to statutory damages, the law allows for the recovery of actual and punitive damages, as well as the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs by prevailing plaintiffs in private actions.
The FAIR Act also includes significant civil penalties for violations. Businesses found to have engaged in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices can incur penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. For violations that are deemed knowing or willful, the penalties are enhanced, set at the greater of $15,000 or three times the amount of restitution for each violation.
States like New York are picking up some of the important enforcement work that the currently encaptured Consumer Finance Enforcement Bureau is walking away from. The fear is that without greater state involvement, the ongoing curtailment of the CFPB’s watchdog role will have a negative impact on minority communities that are presently at greater risk of financial predation.
For businesses operating in New York, the FAIR Act raises the stakes for compliance. Traditional disclosure-based compliance strategies may no longer be sufficient. A practice that is fully disclosed can still be challenged if it is deemed unfair or abusive in substance. Accordingly, companies should reassess:
Risk assessments should focus not only on whether practices are misleading, but also on whether they could be viewed as exploitative, coercive, or unduly harmful.
The FAIR Act represents a fundamental shift in New York consumer protection law. By expanding Section 349 to cover unfair and abusive practices, broadening who is protected, and enhancing enforcement tools, the Legislature has transformed a narrow statute into a powerful regulatory tool.
For New York businesses, the FAIR Act’s broad language may lead to an uptick in enforcement, private litigation, and legal uncertainty. Terms such as “unfair” and “abusive” are inherently flexible, and their precise contours will be defined through enforcement actions and court decisions. For compliance guidance, we encourage you to contact a member of Scarinci Hollenbeck’s Corporate Transactions & Business Group.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!