Group Files Scores of Lawsuits under DC Law and Citing CPSC Rules

An organization formed this year and called Consumer Advocacy Institute, as of October 2 and since mid-August, had filed more than 120 lawsuits under Washington, DC law, most alleging violations of CPSC requirements. Issues included child-resistant (CR) packaging for button/coin batteries, CR packaging for haircare or dietary products, CR mechanisms on multipurpose lighters, and throat-lodging protections for teethers/rattles. PSL did not review all the cases but did find a few with non-CPSC issues like fiber-count claims for linen or socks.

The DC law is the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The complaints ask the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to enjoin sales, levy monetary penalties including punitive, require payment of court costs, and take any other needed actions. Under the DC law, selling products that violate federal safety requirements is unfair and deceptive, a framing echoed in many states.

The method of generating cases seems to be buying products online and having them delivered to Washington. Then assessments occur such as CR testing by Great Lakes Marketing Research, which supplied a 2019 contractor report to CPSC about button battery packaging (bit.ly/4hq8Epx).

PSL had a preliminary conversation with the plaintiff lawyer listed in the complaints, who said he would ask if he could answer media questions. However, as of PSL press time, he had not responded to a follow-up call a week later.

IRS and Delaware databases show Consumer Advocacy Institute is a 501(c)(4) public interest nonprofit formed in March 2026. Delaware lists the registered agent as National Registered Agents, Inc., a subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer.

Various documents give a DC phone number and a physical address in an office-sharing space at the Willard Hotel complex in the city. An email address for the attorney has the domain consumeradvocacyinstitute.org. A website with that domain solicits lawsuits and offers $10,000 to fund research on unfair and deceptive consumer practices. It does not describe financing or leadership/membership/staffing. The WHOIS registration contact is Domains By Proxy of Arizona. Another website, consumeradvocacyinstitute.com, is just a landing page but has the same WHOIS contact.

These are not Section 24 cases, which would have been in federal court. Section 24 of the CPSA allows such suits by states or private parties and requires informing CPSC.

Nonetheless, CPSC knows of the activity, if only because PSL sought the agency's reaction and any other feedback. CPSC had not yet given such input as of press time.

Meanwhile, CPSA Section 25(a) is a savings clause, which allows allegations of violating CPSC requirements outside federal court and under common or state laws.

Section 26 addresses CPSC preemption of state and other activity, but Consumer Advocacy Institute is citing CPSC mandates versus seeking alternate compliance.