California Secures Court Victory as Trump Administration Drops Appeal Over HUD Funding Restrictions

OAKLAND, Calif. — California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday announced a legal victory in a multistate challenge to federal housing policy after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of a court order blocking proposed funding restrictions on a key homelessness program.

The decision leaves in place a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which halted changes by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to its Continuum of Care grant program. The program is the federal government’s primary source of funding for housing and services for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Bonta, joined by a coalition of 19 attorneys general and two governors, filed the lawsuit in November 2025, arguing that the proposed restrictions would unlawfully limit how grant funds could be used and undermine services for vulnerable populations. The court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the changes, a decision the administration later sought unsuccessfully to overturn.

In February 2026, federal officials moved to dissolve the injunction, but the district court denied the request. The administration then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which declined to allow the restrictions to take effect while the case proceeded. The administration has now abandoned that appeal.

“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance.”

The lawsuit challenges several proposed changes to the Continuum of Care program, including efforts to reduce the amount of funding available for permanent housing and to impose conditions affecting how service providers address gender identity and diversity. The states also argued the restrictions would disadvantage programs serving individuals with mental health conditions and substance use disorders.

According to the coalition, those measures conflict with congressional intent and prior federal guidance governing the program.

With the appeal withdrawn, the injunction will remain in effect as the case moves toward summary judgment, leaving the contested funding rules on hold for now.

California Officials Warn of Misleading E-Bike Sales, Rising Safety Risks

OAKLAND, Calif. — California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a group of local prosecutors issued a statewide consumer alert Monday warning that many electric two-wheeled vehicles marketed as e-bikes may actually be illegal to operate without proper licensing.

Joined by district attorneys from Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties, Bonta cautioned that vehicles exceeding state speed and power limits fall outside California’s legal definition of an e-bike and may instead qualify as mopeds or motorcycles, subject to stricter regulations.

“Sometimes, what looks like an e-bike or is marketed as an e-bike is not a bike at all,” Bonta said, citing a rise in safety incidents involving high-speed electric vehicles on streets, sidewalks, and public trails.

Under California law, electric bicycles are limited to three classifications: pedal-assisted bikes that top out at 20 miles per hour, throttle-assisted bikes also capped at 20 mph, and higher-speed pedal-assisted models that cannot exceed 28 mph. Vehicles that surpass those thresholds, lack operable pedals, or use motors above 750 watts may require registration with the Department of Motor Vehicles and a valid driver’s license to operate.

Officials warned that modifying an e-bike to exceed legal limits could not only increase safety risks but also expose riders to criminal penalties if they lack proper licensing.

The alert comes amid growing concerns about injuries linked to e-bike use. Studies from the University of California, San Francisco and the University of California, San Diego found that e-bike injuries have surged in recent years, particularly among minors. One study reported that injuries nearly doubled annually between 2017 and 2022, while another found a 300% increase in injuries among riders under 18 in San Diego County from 2019 to 2023.

Local prosecutors said some retailers are misrepresenting high-powered electric vehicles as e-bikes, potentially misleading consumers about legal requirements and safety risks. Selling or advertising such vehicles as e-bikes when they do not meet state standards may violate California law.

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins said the issue is both a consumer protection and public safety concern. “Many retailers are marketing and selling two-wheeled vehicles as ‘e-bikes’ when they do not qualify,” she said, urging buyers—especially parents—to verify that products meet legal definitions.

Officials also emphasized that while Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes can be used by riders of all ages, higher-speed Class 3 models are restricted to riders 16 and older and require helmet use.

Authorities urged parents to carefully evaluate purchases for their children and warned that some school districts have already implemented restrictions on high-powered electric bikes on campus.

The alert is part of a broader effort by state and local officials to address safety concerns as the popularity of electric bicycles continues to grow across California.

California Scores Key Court Victory in Price-fixing Case Against Amazon

OAKLAND, Calif. — California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday announced a significant legal victory in the state’s ongoing lawsuit against Amazon, as a court rejected a key element of the company’s defense in a price-fixing case.

The San Francisco Superior Court denied Amazon’s motion for summary judgment on one of its central crossclaims, a ruling that allows the state’s case to proceed and signals that California’s antitrust laws may apply to the company’s pricing practices.

Bonta described the decision as a major setback for Amazon’s legal strategy. “This victory is a key update in this case and sends a clear message to current and future behemoth corporations: The California Department of Justice will not allow consumers to be cheated,” he said in a statement.

The lawsuit, filed in 2022, alleges that Amazon engaged in anticompetitive conduct by imposing pricing restrictions on third-party sellers, effectively preventing them from offering lower prices on competing platforms. According to the complaint, those practices suppressed competition and led to higher prices for consumers both on Amazon and across the broader online retail market.

As part of its defense, Amazon argued that its policies were lawful and promoted competition. However, the court rejected arguments tied to the company’s enforcement mechanisms, including its removal of “Add to Cart” and “Buy Now” options for products that do not comply with its pricing rules.

State officials contend that such practices penalize sellers who attempt to offer lower prices elsewhere, including on competing platforms like Walmart, Target, and eBay, or even on their own websites. Merchants who fail to comply risk reduced visibility on Amazon or removal from the platform altogether.

Prosecutors argue that these restrictions artificially stabilize prices at higher levels by limiting competition among online retailers.

The case is scheduled to move forward, with a hearing on the state’s request for a preliminary injunction set for July 23, 2026. A trial is currently slated to begin on January 19, 2027.

Amazon, which has an estimated 200 million Prime members in the United States, remains the dominant force in online retail. State officials allege the company has leveraged that market position to enforce pricing agreements that reinforce its dominance and limit competition.

Bonta said his office will continue to pursue the case. “Consumers and small businesses deserve justice,” he said, “and we look forward to holding Amazon fully accountable at trial.”