Client Alert: “Power” to the New York City People?: A UDAAP Legislation with Teeth
New York City is on the verge of altering the legal landscape concerning unfair, deceptive, abusive acts and practices (proverbially known as UDAAP) claims;[1] all to the benefit of consumers and businesses abiding by the law, and a warning to businesses (think bank accounts, credit cards, cryptocurrency, used motor vehicles, solar energy systems, certain app/web-based services etc.), based on a certain number of employees and gross revenue, skirting the law.
On Oct. 6, 2026, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani introduced the “Power Act” in the New York City Council via Chairman Harvey Epstein of the Council’s Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection. This bill,[2] straightforwardly set forth in “Section I” concerning its “Legislative Finding,”[3] is a direct attack on New York State’s (not City’s) UDAAP statute, General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349, and a hat tip to other states with true UDAAP laws such as New Jersey.[4]
What New York City’s “Power Act” Does
While the Power Act does many things,[5] in short, it strengthens a “private right of action” (leveling the playing field so that a consumer, like a business, can hire a private attorney who can recover “reasonable attorney fees” as opposed to the consumer paying out of pocket[6]), vastly increases the statutory damages (in addition to actual damages) available to consumers otherwise available under GBL § 349(h), mandates (“shall”[7]) a court awarding “reasonable attorney fees” as opposed to it being discretionary (“may”[8]) and gives a potentially violating business an initial opportunity (with certain exceptions) to do right by the consumer prior to litigation.[9]
Why New York State’s GBL § 349 Isn’t a True UDAAP and How the “Power Act” Changes That in New York City
GBL § 349 is not a true UDAAP statute as the ability to bring cases based on “unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices” is limited to the New York State Attorney General (“NYAG”) whereas consumers hiring private attorneys can only bring cases based solely on a “deceptive act or deceptive practice.”[10] In other words, cases premised on unfair or abusive conduct are unavailable for private rights of action. In addition, private rights of action as opposed to cases brought by the NYAG require pleading so-called “consumer-oriented conduct”[11] (a phrase absent from GBL § 349). Moreover, many potential UDAAP claims may be high dollar amounts for the consumer but could be throwing good money after bad if the consumer must hire a private attorney (for example, suppose fraud involving a consumer’s purchase of a $30,000 used car. Without recouping “reasonable attorney fees,” how would a consumer hire an attorney if they are going to have to pay a lot of [or more than] the $30,000 to litigate the case?). By contrast, the Power Act is a true UDAAP statute,[12] permitting consumers to hire the private attorney of their choice (most likely without having to pay their fees or plead 'consumer-oriented conduct'”[13]),and providing statutory damages that amount to real money for a violating business.
About the Authors
Benjamin J. Wolf is counsel in Whiteford's New York City and Fairfield offices. He focuses on consumer class action, business litigation and estate planning, and he has testified before the New York City Council on New York's consumer fraud statute. Benjamin has spoken on GBL § 349 and the New York FAIR Act at the New York City Bar's Consumer Financial Law Institute and is a member of the National Association of Consumer Advocates. Reach him at bwolf@whitefordlaw.com or (646) 492-5219.
Joseph K. Jones is senior counsel in Whiteford's New York City and Fairfield offices. His consumer class action and estate planning practice draws on more than two decades of experience in finance, corporate strategy and capital raising. Joseph has served as president and CEO of investment and financial services companies and as treasurer of a mortgage-lending association, experience that informs his consumer class action work. Reach him at jjones@whitefordlaw.com or (646) 492-5216.
Sources and Authorities
[1] This is independent of other potential causes of action such as 15 U.S.C. § 1666 et seq., the Fair Credit Billing Act; 15 U.S.C. § 1693, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act; Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”); 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq., the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; New York’s Health Club Services Act, GBL § 620 et seq.; New York’s Home Improvement Contracts Act, GBL § 770 et seq. or common law claims such as breach of contract.[2] Amending Title 22 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, adding Chapter 15. See § 22-1501 et seq.
[3] “While the ‘Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act’, chapter 94 for the laws of 2026, strengthened section 349 of the General Business Law, New York, unlike other states, still does not provide a private right of action for claims alleging unfair and abusive acts or practices.”
[4] “For example, New Jersey provides for a private right of action for all claims under its Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), including unconscionable and abusive commercial practices. See N.J. CFA §§ 56:8-2, 56:8-19.”
[5] Including rights for “nonprofits” to commence UDAAP cases. See § 22-1501.
[6] See GBL § 349(h); § 22-1503(a).
[7] See § 22-1503(a).
[8] See GBL § 349(h).
[9] See § 22-1503(e).
[10] See GBL § 349(b)(1), (h).
[11] See Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 85 N.Y.2d 20, 25-27 (1995); see also § 22-1503(e).
[12] See § 22-1502.
[13] See § 22-1503(e).
The information contained here is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion and should not be acted upon without consulting an attorney. Counsel should not be selected based on advertising materials, and we recommend that you conduct further investigation when seeking legal representation.