Governor Hochul Signs New Legislation To Protect Consumers And Keep Money In New Yorkers’ Pockets

Governor Kathy Hochul today signed new legislation as part of the FY26 Enacted Budget that will protect consumers across New York and fight back against scams or exploitative practices. From simplifying the process of canceling recurring online subscriptions to cracking down on overdraft fees that target low-income consumers, these new laws will help New Yorkers fight back against unfair corporate practices.

“This budget is all about affordability – lowering costs and helping New Yorkers with the rising cost of living,” Governor Hochul said. “But our tax cuts, credits and rebates won’t be much help if bad actors are able to scam or mislead New Yorkers. These new laws are about fairness, transparency, and accountability and will help consumers save money and spend it wisely.”

Easier Cancellation For Online Subscriptions

Subscription services are a part of daily life but canceling them is often needlessly complicated. The FY26 budget includes legislation requiring businesses to notify consumers of upcoming renewals and price changes as well as provide clear instructions on how to cancel subscriptions. Under this legislation, cancellation processes must be simple, transparent, and fair – ensuring that it is just as easy to cancel a subscription as it was to sign up.

Standardized Online Retail Returns and Refunds

Consumers are increasingly shopping online and navigating a sea of varying return windows, restocking fees, refund formats, shipping practices and more. New Yorkers, particularly during the holiday season, know how hard it is to juggle various return policies that affect when they can send back a gift or exchange clothing that didn’t fit.

With e-commerce sales rising and returns accounting for billions of dollars annually, New Yorkers deserve stronger consumer protections. The FY26 Budget includes legislation to require online retail sellers to post return and refund policies in a way that is easily accessible for consumers.

Oversight Over “Buy Now, Pay Later” Loans

“Buy Now, Pay Later” loans are increasingly popular but pose risks to consumers, including overextension, inconsistent credit reporting, data exploitation, and excessive fees. These concerns highlight the need for stronger oversight in this rapidly growing financial sector.

The FY26 Budget includes legislation to establish a licensing and supervision framework for Buy Now Pay Later providers. This legislation will introduce safeguards, such as disclosure requirements, dispute resolution standards, limits on all charges and fees, and data privacy protections to ensure consumers are better protected when using these financial products.

Shed Light on “Surveillance Pricing”

As consumers spend more of their time and money online, they’re also sharing more information like browsing behavior, location, and purchase history with the companies they interact with.Today’s technology means corporations are able to collect mountains of personal data, feed it into algorithms, and generate a price that’s individual to a consumer. This practice, which the FTC has dubbed surveillance pricing, means a company could be charging you and your neighbor different prices for the same product, based on your individual willingness to pay. This practice is opaque and strips consumers of their ability to comparison shop and plan for the price of goods and services.

The FY26 Budget includes first-in-the-nation legislation that requires businesses to disclose clearly to consumers when a price was set by an algorithm using their personal data, subject to certain exceptions.

Stronger Protections Against Unfair Overdraft Fees

Overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees disproportionately harm low- and moderate-income New Yorkers. In January 2025, Governor Hochul announced the Department of Financial Services proposed regulations to eliminate the most exploitative and deceptive banking fees, cap overdraft fees, strengthen customer communications, and establish stricter transaction processing requirements. These regulations will protect consumers and foster accessible and affordable banking services for all New Yorkers.

Related articles

Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history



New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.

"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.

A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.

"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.

The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”

Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.

"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."

"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."

"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.

Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.

“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”