5 Consumer Protection Cases to Watch in 2025
Consumer protection is gaining traction with several high-stakes class actions that could set significant legal precedents. These cases span diverse industries and highlight ongoing battles over deceptive pricing practices, predatory lending, false advertising. and greenwashing.
This surge is fueled by a wave of recent legislative and regulatory actions aimed at curbing unfair business practices. Laws like California’s Honest Pricing Law (SB 478), which went into effect in July 2024, prohibit hidden fees for goods and services, while also inspiring similar proposals in states like New York.
At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission's Junk Fees Rule went into effect on May 12, which helps hold companies accountable for deceptive practices in live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries. As enforcement efforts increase, the following five cases highlight important shifts in consumer protection law and why attorneys should stay informed about these developments and how they could influence future litigation.
Here are 5 consumer protection cases to watch in 2025.
1. Walker vs. Nestlé
Key issue: Misrepresentation of ethical sourcing and labor practices.
- Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
- Causes of action: California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
- Case number 3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB
Nestlé faces allegations of misleading consumers about the ethical sourcing of its cocoa products. Plaintiffs claim the company marketed its chocolate as sustainably produced and free from unethical labor practices, all while benefiting from a supply chain linked to child labor, forced labor, and deforestation in West Africa.
The complaint points to a significant gap between Nestlé’s sustainability claims and the realities of its operations, which, according to plaintiffs, deceived consumers seeking ethically produced goods.
Why this case matters: Corporate accountability for global supply chains could see a turning point with this case. A victory for the plaintiffs would put pressure on companies to be more strict in self-regulating in this area and incentivize other private litigants to bring more cases, leading to an uptick in ethics-washing litigation.
2. Luna et al. v. University of Southern California
Key Issue: Misrepresentation of online education programs.
- Jurisdiction: Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
- Causes of action: Fraudulent misrepresentation, violations of California’s False Advertising Law (FAL) and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
- Case number: 23-STCV0-09981
The lawsuit accuses USC of misrepresenting its online Master of Social Work (MSW) program. Plaintiffs argue the university marketed the online program as offering the same quality and benefits as its on-campus counterpart, including access to faculty, academic rigor, and field opportunities, while charging the same high price. Plaintiffs also allege that USC targeted minority students with their advertising in a discriminatory manner.
However, the program allegedly fell short by relying on outsourced instruction, providing limited resources, and failing to deliver the promised career opportunities. Many students report feeling misled, left with significant debt, a subpar education, and without good job prospects in the social work field.
Why this case matters: The case raises important questions about transparency in the growing online education industry. If successful, it could result in more litigation in this area and more efforts by other higher education institutions to avoid falsely advertising their online programs.
For students, this case highlights the importance of holding universities accountable for delivering on their promises, particularly when tuition costs often rival those of traditional in-person programs.
3. FTC v. Amazon
Key Issue: Deceptive enrollment tactics for Amazon Prime.
- Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- Causes of action: Violations of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act (prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices).
- Case number: 2:23-cv-00932-JHC
The FTC alleges Amazon used manipulative design tactics, often referred to as “dark patterns,” to enroll consumers in Amazon Prime without their informed consent. The complaint highlights a system that made it simple to sign up but complicated to cancel, resulting in unauthorized charges for millions of consumers. The FTC contends these practices violated federal consumer protection laws by prioritizing profit over user clarity.
Why this case matters: A ruling in this case could redefine how digital platforms design subscription services. The lawsuit brings national attention to the problem of dark patterns and deceptive design, with huge potential implications for how online businesses interact with their customers.
If the FTC succeeds, it would set a precedent for requiring online interfaces to prioritize transparency and user-friendliness as industry standards.
4. District of Columbia v. StubHub
Key Issue: Hidden fees and deceptive ticket pricing.
- Jurisdiction: Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
- Causes of action: Violations of the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA).
- Case number: 2024-CAB-004794
The District of Columbia’s Attorney General is taking StubHub to court over its use of hidden fees. The complaint alleges that StubHub displays artificially low ticket prices to lure consumers in but later adds mandatory fees during checkout, substantially inflating the total cost.
The lawsuit also accuses StubHub of using digital design tricks to obscure these fees, further misleading customers.
Why this case matters: Tackling hidden fees in the digital marketplace is at the heart of this case. A favorable outcome would result in companies avoiding this practice and being more transparent with pricing. This case has implications for industries far beyond ticketing, including travel and e-commerce, where similar pricing practices have long frustrated consumers.
5. Dib et al. v. Apple Inc.
Key Issue: Misleading carbon neutral claims about the Apple Watch Series 9, Apple Watch Ultra 2, and Apple Watch SE
- Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Causes of action: Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and common law fraud.
- Case number: 5:25-cv-02043
This federal class action alleges that Apple misled environmentally conscious consumers by advertising its Apple Watch Series 9, Ultra 2, and SE as carbon neutral. According to the complaint, Apple marketed the watches’ environmental credentials across global campaigns, featuring green leaf logos, packaging, and declarations that the product would have zero climate impact.
The plaintiffs argue these claims are deceptive and scientifically unverifiable. They allege Apple’s marketing relies on opaque carbon offset schemes that don’t eliminate emissions, but rather shift responsibility onto third-party projects of questionable effectiveness. The suit contends that Apple's actual production processes continue to generate carbon emissions, and that the company has misrepresented both the emissions generated and the impact of its offsets.
Why this case matters: This lawsuit is one of the first class actions to take direct aim at greenwashing under consumer protection laws and may serve as a blueprint for similar suits in other industries. If successful, it could redefine the boundaries of sustainability marketing and force major companies to back up environmental claims with transparent, independently verifiable data and signal the end of vague or misleading carbon offset language in advertising.
Read more about this case: Apple's Carbon Offsets Questioned in Greenwashing Lawsuit
Turn Insight Into Impact
These cases reflect some of the key consumer protection challenges in 2025, and attorneys should track their developments to stay ahead.
But identifying legal trends is just the start: connecting them to actionable legal strategies to enforce accountability and hold corporations accountable is what turns insight into action.
At Darrow, we uncover consumer protection violations at scale, including deceptive pricing, fraudulent advertising, predatory subscription practices, discriminatory marketing, and greenwashing. We partner with top-tier attorneys to litigate class action lawsuits.
Our Legal Intelligence Platform scans a multitude of public data sources, including online databases, websites, social media, videos, and review sites to detect common complaints or occurrences that might indicate deceptive practices.
Our tech recognizes these patterns and clusters similarities together, allowing our legal experts to identify if a violation has occurred across a range of legal domains.
Once we’ve detected a violation, we continue working with our partners throughout the entire litigation process. We find, vet and match plaintiffs for each case while our in-house legal team supports our partners to build compelling, evidence-backed consumer protection cases.
From the Darrow team: We’re building something new for legal professionals. No switching tools, no wasted hours. Just a better way to practice law.
This might interest you:
Partner With Darrow to Grow Your Practice
