Penalty Amount
$152,000
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser announced a $152,000 settlement with smoke shop owners Sahansila Karki and Gokul Tiwari for selling kratom products that exceeded the legal potency limit and failed to meet labeling and packaging requirements. The settlement requires compliance with the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and the Daniel Bregger Act, product testing, documentation of purchases, and payment of $152,000, with an additional $500,000 due if the terms are violated.
Karki and Tiwari agreed to fully comply with the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Daniel Bregger Act, test all kratom products sold in Colorado to ensure compliance with applicable laws, document all kratom product purchases from third parties with invoices and receipts, and pay $152,000 to the state. If they violate the settlement terms, they must pay an additional $500,000.
In-house legal teams should review vendor and supplier agreements for kratom or other regulated products to ensure they include robust representations and warranties that products comply with all applicable laws, including state-specific potency limits and labeling requirements. They should also verify that contracts contain indemnification clauses protecting the company from regulatory fines and penalties, and require vendors to provide certificates of analysis or other testing documentation. Additionally, companies should include audit rights to confirm compliance and consider adding provisions that allow termination for regulatory violations.
Entity
Sahansila Karki and Gokul Tiwari
Industry
RetailOfficial Press Release
https://coag.gov/press-releases/colorado-smoke-shop-owners-to-pay-152000-for-selling-illegal-kratom-products/
2026.09.14 Million Smoke Fully Executed AOD 1
https://coag.gov/app/uploads/2026/09/2026.09.14-Million-Smoke-Fully-Executed-AOD-1.pdf
Colorado Attorney General Enforcement Page
https://coag.gov/
"Sahansila Karki and Gokul Tiwari"
"Pay $152,000 to the state."
"Fully comply with the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Daniel Bregger Act."
"sold kratom products in excess of the legal potency limit"
"failed to ensure the kratom products adhered to labeling and packaging requirements"
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser joined a coalition of 12 attorneys general in settling a lawsuit against Paramount Skydance Corporation over its merger with Warner Bros. Discovery, which the states alleged would harm competition by lowering film output and raising prices. The settlement includes a five-year commitment to increase film output, a $1.5 billion investment in domestic production, a $47.5 million worker fund, and an independent monitor. This is an antitrust/competition enforcement action, not a privacy enforcement action, despite the extraction schema's privacy focus.
$30K
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser announced a settlement with Sares Regis Group, a Denver-metro property management company, after an investigation found it told prospective tenants that rental subsidies and housing vouchers were not accepted at its properties, in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Under the settlement, the company must adopt written source-of-income policies, train leasing employees, submit a compliance report to the AG's office, and refrain from misrepresenting its voucher acceptance, and it pays $30,000 to the Housing Rights Initiative. Note: this is a fair-housing enforcement action, not a privacy matter, so no privacy violation taxonomy categories apply.
$694.0M
Colorado and 40 other states entered into a settlement with Credit Acceptance Corporation (CAC), one of the nation's largest subprime auto lenders, resolving allegations that CAC originated car loans it knew or should have known consumers could not afford and that it failed to reasonably prevent dealers in its network from deceptively 'packing' Vehicle Service Contract and GAP add-on products into CAC-financed purchases. The settlement provides $694 million in cash and debt relief to consumers plus an additional $15 million to the attorneys general, and imposes injunctive reforms including loan 'off ramps,' enhanced pre-purchase and pre-loan disclosures, dealer monitoring, and a seven-year price cap at 109% of retail book value. Note: this is a consumer-lending enforcement action, not a data privacy matter; the 'dark_patterns' category is the closest available fit for the deceptive add-on sales allegations.
$150K
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser announced a settlement with Corporate Certificates, LLC and FL UCC Statement Service, LLC resolving allegations that the companies mailed marketing materials to Colorado businesses designed to look like official government invoices, without the statutorily required disclaimers and with purported deadlines implying a legal duty. Under the stipulated consent judgment, the companies will pay $150,000 in refunds and fees and permanently cease all operations in Colorado. The companies had ignored prior warning notices and stopped operating in Colorado in August 2025 after the AG obtained a preliminary injunction.
$300K
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser announced a settlement with Avail Property Management Inc. and PK Management, LLC resolving allegations that the companies denied prospective tenants housing based on criminal history information prohibited under Colorado's Rental Application Fairness Act, including arrests, deferred judgments, and convictions older than five years (some more than 20 years old). The companies, which managed nearly 4,000 rental units across Colorado, relied on a third-party background screening service despite legal prohibitions. Under the settlement, they must change screening practices, review vendor recommendations rather than relying on them automatically, submit to two years of compliance reporting, and pay $300,000.
Attorney General Weiser joined a coalition of attorneys general in suing to block new unlawful conditions on Title X funding imposed by HHS, which would penalize states and providers that refuse to abandon nondiscrimination initiatives or conform to the administration's ideological vision of family planning. The lawsuit argues the conditions conflict with federal law, violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and are unconstitutionally vague.