New York City’s consumer regulator has long been part of the local compliance backdrop. It now deserves sustained, strategic attention. The appointment of Samuel Levine, formerly the director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection (during the Biden administration), as commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) signals a shift in how the City is likely to use its existing consumer protection authority.
Recent mayoral executive orders further signal that DCWP will devote additional attention to the review of fee disclosures (often characterized by regulators as “hidden junk fees”) and subscription models, including through monitoring, investigation, and, where deemed appropriate, enforcement under existing city law. DCWP’s role in shaping expectations for pricing, disclosures, and marketplace conduct will now become more consequential for companies that operate in New York City or reach its consumers.
Why This Development Matters
Enforcement risk today is not confined to Washington or state capitals. It increasingly arises from jurisdictions with dense consumer activity and meaningful statutory tools. New York City is one of the largest such markets in the country. National brands, fintech platforms, lenders, subscription businesses, and service providers interact daily with millions of New York City consumers. Regulatory decisions made at the city level can therefore drive operational changes that extend well beyond municipal boundaries.
DCWP’s statutory authority has not expanded. What has changed is the likelihood that its tools will be applied with greater deliberation and focus, particularly in areas where consumer understanding, pricing presentation, and digital business practices intersect.
Who Is Samuel Levine—and Why Does His Appointment Matter?
Samuel Levine is best known as the former director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, where he oversaw the agency’s consumer enforcement program across advertising, pricing, privacy, and unfair or deceptive practices. In that role, Levine was closely associated with national debates over fees, subscription practices, and the treatment of consumers in increasingly complex digital markets.
That experience matters in a municipal context. DCWP now has a commissioner who has spent years evaluating consumer harm, enforcement boundaries, and the application of statutory standards to modern business models. While DCWP’s authority remains grounded in New York City law, leadership with this background is likely to influence how issues are identified, framed, and prioritized.
DCWP’s Authority—Significant but Bounded
DCWP enforces New York City’s Consumer Protection Law, which prohibits deceptive and unconscionable trade practices in connection with consumer goods and services, including debt collection activity. The agency licenses tens of thousands of businesses and may investigate, impose penalties, require changes to business practices, and pursue enforcement actions under the City Administrative Code.
At the same time, DCWP is not a federal UDAAP regulator. It does not apply an “abusive” standard, and it does not enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Act or the FTC Act. Its authority is municipal and defined by the New York City Administrative Code rather than federal consumer protection statutes. That distinction is central to risk assessment. DCWP’s power is real and enforceable, but it is not open-ended. Understanding where those lines sit informs compliance planning, enforcement response, and litigation posture.
How Leadership Changes the Practical Risk Profile
Leadership shapes not only enforcement outcomes, but enforcement selection. Under current leadership, DCWP is likely to focus more consistently on:
Pricing transparency and fee presentation, including incremental or add-on charges
Digital consumer experiences, including disclosures, consent flows, and making cancellation reasonably accessible, particularly where subscription or recurring charges are utilized
The use of automated and AI-driven tools in consumer-facing functions, including marketing, pricing, customer service, and collections, where alleged opacity or error can create deceptive or unconscionable outcomes under existing city standards
Increased attention to fee disclosures and subscription mechanics following recent mayoral directives, particularly where consumer understanding or transparency may be questioned under city law
Whether business practices are reasonable under the City’s standards for deception and unconscionability
Matters where local conduct overlaps with broader regulatory or enforcement interests
This could also mean an increase in enforcement volume, as well as a higher-impact use of the agency’s authority.
What Businesses Should Do Now
For most companies, the principal risk is not limited to penalties. It includes uncertainty, remediation costs, and scrutiny arising from new municipal priorities, such as hidden fee task force activity and subscription deception investigations that New York City has expressly directed DCWP to undertake.. Businesses with New York City exposure should consider several practical steps:
Map New York City touchpoints across marketing, pricing, subscriptions, servicing, debt collection, and payments
Avoid assuming federal compliance alone resolves local risk
Evaluate disclosures and fee practices through the lens of the City’s consumer protection standards, not just federal law
Prepare for potential engagement by ensuring governance, documentation, and internal controls can be clearly explained
DCWP is under new leadership. For companies operating in New York City, particularly those with national or digital business models, the City belongs on the national compliance radar.
Related Articles
New York Broadens Attorney General Authority and Embraces Enforcement-Driven Regulation.
Untangling Junk Fees and Surcharges: Navigating the Patchwork of Pricing Transparency Laws
State Attorney General Investigations: What Consumer Financial Services Companies Need to Know
A Primer on State Consumer Financial Regulation: What Businesses Need to Know Now
The Biden/Chopra CFPB’s 2025 Guidance Compendium: A Last Gasp or Lasting Legacy?
/Passle/5ca769f7abdfe80aa08edc04/SearchServiceImages/2026-02-18-13-39-17-963-6995c10529367800ecef2a11.jpg)
/Passle/5ca769f7abdfe80aa08edc04/SearchServiceImages/2026-01-05-19-20-06-462-695c0ee6274a2eaabbabd008.jpg)