D.C. Scam and Fraud Laws: Where to Report, Your Right to Sue (2026)

The District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) lets some scam victims sue, but only on its terms. A "consumer" who was hit by an unlawful trade practice can sue in D.C. Superior Court, and the statute lists treble damages or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney's fees and an injunction. The catch is the defendant: the CPPA is aimed at a "merchant" and a "trade practice," and whether an anonymous impostor or a romance or investment scammer fits those words is a question the text alone does not answer.

The law also changed one week before this guide was written. D.C. Law 26-187 rewrote large parts of the CPPA effective September 26, 2026, but its rewrite of the complaint and private-lawsuit section, 28-3905, applies only once its cost is included in an approved budget and financial plan. For a complaint, the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (OAG) runs a free mediation service, and the District makes it a crime, punishable by up to 10 years when $1,000 or more is taken, for anyone to financially exploit a person 65 or older or a vulnerable adult.

Information last verified on October 2, 2026. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This guide covers District of Columbia law: the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (D.C. Code chapter 28-39), District complaint offices, protections for older and vulnerable adults, and District rules on immigration service providers, door-to-door sales and telemarketers. Federal refund and reporting rights are summarized briefly and covered in our national guides. Out of scope: criminal defense, and the law of Maryland, Virginia or any state (if the scammer or business is elsewhere, that state's law may also matter).

First steps if you were scammed in D.C.

Call the bank, card issuer, payment app, wire company or crypto exchange that moved your money right away. That company is usually the only one that can stop or reverse a payment, and your federal rights depend on how you paid. Our guide on how to get money back after a scam goes through each payment method, and the Zelle and payment app guide covers app transfers.

Then report it. The federal channels, including the FTC and the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, are listed in where to report a scam. The District offices below are in addition to those, not instead of them. If the scammer got your personal information, see D.C. identity theft laws.

Where to report a scam in D.C.

The OAG describes the service this way:

"Consumer and Tenant Response (CTR) mediates consumer and tenant complaints when the consumer is a DC resident, or when the business or landlord is located or headquartered in the District of Columbia. This is a free service. CTR helps consumers contact the business and work to resolve the dispute, without going to court. CTR does not offer individual legal representation."

The office says the online complaint portal is its preferred method. If you want to give a tip rather than file a complaint, the OAG lists consumer.protection.tips@dc.gov. Its portal page says you can call the hotline "and leave a message in your preferred language." By mail, the OAG's Office of Consumer Protection is at 441 4th Street NW, Washington, DC 20001.

Mediation works best against a real business with a name and an address. It cannot make an anonymous scammer answer, and it is not a refund claim. For money that has already left your account, the payment company is still the first call.

DISB also keeps a scam tracker of reported schemes. DISB notes that the tracker "is not updated in real-time," so a scam missing from it may still be a scam.

D.C.'s consumer protection law: can you sue?

Often, if you are a "consumer" and the other side is a "merchant." The private right to sue is in D.C. Code section 28-3905(k)(1)(A):

"A consumer may bring an action seeking relief from the use of a trade practice in violation of a law of the District."

Who counts as a consumer

The definition in section 28-3901(a)(2) decides who can use that sentence:

"'Consumer' means: (A) When used as a noun, a person who, other than for purposes of resale, does or would purchase, lease (as lessee), or receive consumer goods or services, including as a co-obligor or surety, or does or would otherwise provide the economic demand for a trade practice, or who donates money or goods to a charitable purpose or other non-profit organization"

That covers someone who paid for a product or service that turned out to be a fraud, and someone tricked into giving to a fake charity. It is less clear for a victim who simply sent money to an impostor without buying anything.

Who you can sue

The CPPA's ban, in section 28-3904, is on merchants: "It shall be a violation of this chapter for any merchant to engage in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive trade practice, whether or not any consumer is in fact misled, deceived, or damaged thereby."

A "merchant" under section 28-3901(a)(3) is a person who "in the ordinary course of business" sells, leases, supplies or transfers consumer goods or services, or supplies the goods or services that are the subject of a trade practice. The statute adds that a person "need not have a contractual relationship with the consumer to qualify as a merchant." The District government and its employees acting in their official duties are not merchants. Section 28-3904(c) also makes it a violation for a person, "whether or not a merchant," to aid and knowingly or recklessly abet a merchant's unfair, deceptive, abusive or unlawful trade practice.

So the CPPA fits a scam run through a business: a fake contractor, a bogus online store, a misleading subscription. Whether it reaches a one-time individual scammer, or an investment or romance scam that involves no consumer good or service, is a question for a D.C. lawyer and the case law, which this guide has not reviewed.

Others who can sue

The same subsection lets a nonprofit organization sue on behalf of itself or its members, and lets a public interest organization sue "on behalf of the interests of a consumer or a class of consumers" if the consumer or class could sue themselves. A court can dismiss a public interest organization's case if it "does not have sufficient nexus" to the consumers it represents. An organization bringing such a case must notify the OAG within 10 days of filing.

What you can recover

Section 28-3905(k)(2) lists the remedies:

"Any claim under this chapter shall be brought in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and may recover or obtain the following remedies: (A)(i) Treble damages, or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, payable to the consumer; ... (B) Reasonable attorney's fees; (C) Punitive damages; (D) An injunction against the use of the unlawful trade practice; (E) In representative actions, additional relief as may be necessary to restore to the consumer money or property ... (F) Any other relief which the court determines proper."

Three points about that list. The $1,500-per-violation figure is the minimum on the damages line, and it can matter when your loss was small. The statute says a claim "may" recover these remedies; whether attorney's fees must be awarded to a consumer who wins, and what a consumer must prove to get punitive damages, depend on court decisions this guide has not reviewed. And one practice is treated differently: for a violation of section 28-3904(kk), the consumer "may recover or obtain actual damages," which do not include "dignitary damages, including pain and suffering."

Is there a notice requirement or deadline?

We did not find a pre-suit notice requirement in section 28-3905(k). The CPPA section we read also sets no filing deadline of its own. The District's general limitation statute, D.C. Code section 12-301, sets 3 years for an action "for which a limitation is not otherwise specially prescribed" and 1 year "for a statutory penalty or forfeiture." The D.C. Court of Appeals has said the 3-year residual period applies to CPPA claims (Murray v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 953 A.2d 308 (D.C. 2008)). When the clock starts for a fraud you discovered later is a question we have not verified. Talk to a lawyer well before a year has passed if you can.

One rule can help. Under section 28-3905(a), filing a complaint with the Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection "shall toll the periods for limitation of time for bringing an action as set out in section 12-301 until the complaint has been resolved through an administrative order, consent decree, or dismissal." That department is a different office from the OAG, and we have not verified whether an OAG complaint has the same effect.

The 2026 rewrite

D.C. Law 26-187, the Enhancing Consumer Protection Procedures Amendment Act of 2026, took effect on September 26, 2026, after the Mayor's approval and a 60-day period of congressional review. Its title says it is meant "to clarify that unlawful and abusive trade practices are prohibited," "to prohibit retaliation for consumer complaints and aiding and abetting prohibited trade practices," "to expressly authorize asset freezes as injunctive relief," and "to set mandatory minimum penalties for violations ... in Attorney General actions."

This guide describes the current text. Section 6 of the law delays its rewrite of section 28-3905 until the cost is included in an approved budget and financial plan, so the treble-or-$1,500 damages line quoted above is still the one in force. When that rewrite applies, the enacted text raises the minimum to $3,000 per violation, adjusted for inflation, and says a prevailing consumer "shall also recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs." The law does not say whether its rewritten definitions and practices apply to a scam that happened before September 26, 2026. If your loss happened earlier, ask a lawyer which version governs. The mandatory minimum penalties apply in the Attorney General's own cases; they are not money a victim collects.

The honest limit

A CPPA case needs a defendant you can identify, serve and collect from. That often works against a District business, a contractor or a seller with a real address. It usually does not work against someone who called from a spoofed number, used a fake name, or moved the money overseas or into crypto, and a judgment does not help if nobody can be found to pay it. Our guide on when a lawyer helps after a scam covers how to tell the difference.

Protections for older and vulnerable adults in D.C.

Financial exploitation is a crime, whoever commits it. Under D.C. Code section 22-933.01(a), a person is guilty of financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult or elderly person if the person intentionally and knowingly:

"(1) Uses deception, intimidation, or undue influence to obtain the property, including money, of a vulnerable adult or elderly person ..., or (3) Violates any provision of law proscribing theft, extortion, forgery, fraud, or identity theft against the vulnerable adult or elderly person, so long as the offense was undertaken to obtain the property"

The statute does not require a caregiver or a position of trust, so it can reach a stranger who scams an older person. Under section 22-932, an "elderly person" is 65 or older, and a "vulnerable adult" is someone 18 or older whose physical or mental limitations substantially impair their ability to provide for their daily needs or safeguard their property or legal interests. The accused has a defense if they knew or reasonably believed the victim was not an elderly person or vulnerable adult.

Penalties and restitution. Under section 22-936.01(a), when the property is worth $1,000 or more, the penalty is up to 10 years in prison, a fine, or both; when it has some lesser value, up to 180 days. A person with two or more prior convictions faces up to 15 years. The statute says the person "shall make restitution, before the payment of any fines or civil penalties." Separately, section 22-3601 says a person who commits listed offenses against someone 65 or older, including theft, fraud, identity theft and financial exploitation, "may be punished" by up to 1 1/2 times the usual maximum fine and term.

The Attorney General's civil case. Section 22-937 lets the Attorney General sue a person who has violated, or intends to violate, the exploitation law, and seek an injunction, restitution and civil penalties of not more than $10,000 per violation. Only the Attorney General can bring that case. The civil penalties are enforcement penalties, not money paid to the victim. We did not find a separate private lawsuit with special remedies for victims in these sections, but we have not confirmed that none exists.

Who must report. D.C. Code section 7-1903(a)(1) requires listed professionals, including a "bank manager, financial manager, or social worker," police officers and licensed health professionals, to "immediately report" when their work gives them substantial cause to believe an adult needs protective services because of abuse, neglect or exploitation. Anyone else "may voluntarily report." Call the Adult Protective Services hotline at (202) 541-3950.

No bank-hold law found. The reporting statute says nothing about holding or delaying a transaction, and we did not find a District law that gives banks that power. A 2019 Council bill on financial exploitation of seniors and vulnerable adults, B23-0186, shows no action after a March 2020 hearing notice in the Council's legislative records. If you are worried about a parent's account, telling the bank directly that you suspect a scam still matters, because its managers have a duty to report. See also our guide to elder fraud.

D.C. scam laws on the books

Crypto ATMs (virtual currency kiosks)

We did not find a District statute written for crypto kiosks, such as daily transaction limits, required warnings or scam refunds. Our search could not cover every pending Council bill, so this may change. The District's money transmitter law, D.C. Code section 26-1002(a), says "no person shall engage in the business of money transmission without obtaining a license" from the District's banking regulator, subject to listed exemptions. DISB warns residents about "Bitcoin ATMs" and says "Crypto was the currency of choice by scammers, amounting to $6,781,705 in losses to District residents in 2023." Report kiosk scams to DISB at 202.727.8000 or to the OAG at 202-442-9828.

The Attorney General has also gone to court. On September 8, 2025, the OAG sued crypto ATM operator Athena Bitcoin, Inc., alleging violations of the CPPA and the District's financial exploitation law. According to the OAG's press release, the lawsuit alleges Athena charged "fees of up to 26% per transaction without clearly disclosing them" and had a refund policy that "either outright denies scam victims refunds or arbitrarily caps them," and that, based on the company's own records for its first five months, the median victim age was 71 and the median amount lost per scam transaction was $8,000. These are allegations in a lawsuit, not court findings, and we have not checked the case's current status. For how these scams work, see crypto and investment scams.

Notarios and immigration service providers

D.C. Code section 28-5302(a) bars an immigration service provider from providing "legal representation for an immigration matter" and from collecting "any fees or other compensation for an immigration service that has not yet been performed." It also bars translating "notary public" into Spanish as "notario" or "notario publico." A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine, or both (section 28-5304(a)), and under section 28-5304(b) it is also an unlawful trade practice under the CPPA. See our guide to notario fraud.

Door-to-door sales

Under D.C. Code section 28-3811(b), "the buyer has the right to cancel a home solicitation sale until midnight of the third business day after the day on which the buyer signs an agreement or offer to purchase which complies with this section," except in a narrow emergency case where the buyer signs a written waiver. Two District rules go further than a bare three days: until the seller complies with the section, "the buyer may cancel the home solicitation sale by notifying the seller in any manner and by any means," and the seller must refund within 10 days of a cancellation. The rule covers sales made at or near the buyer's residence.

Telemarketers

Under D.C. Code section 22-3226.02(a), "No person shall transact any business as a telephone solicitor without first having obtained a certificate of registration from the Mayor." The same chapter addresses deceptive and abusive telemarketing. A caller pressing you to pay by phone is worth checking against that rule before you send anything.

Suing a scammer or a business in D.C.

Small claims. Under D.C. Code section 11-1321, the Superior Court's Small Claims and Conciliation Branch has exclusive jurisdiction over actions "only for the recovery of money, if the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000, exclusive of interest, attorney fees, protest fees, and costs." That is the usual place for a modest claim against a business or person you can identify and serve.

Deadlines. As explained above, D.C. Code section 12-301 sets several limitation periods, including 3 years for claims without a specific period and 1 year for a statutory penalty. The D.C. Court of Appeals has applied the 3-year period to CPPA claims (Murray v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 2008). We have not verified which period governs a common-law fraud claim, or how D.C. treats a fraud discovered later. Our D.C. statute of limitations guide covers other civil deadlines.

Who you can reach. Lawsuits work against people and businesses with a name, an address and assets. A scammer hiding behind a fake identity, a spoofed caller ID or an overseas account is usually not reachable through a District court. In that case, the payment company, a fast report to law enforcement and protecting your identity are where your effort pays off. If a debt collector is now chasing you over a debt the scam created, see D.C. debt collection laws.

Related guides

• Scams and fraud: your rights and where to start
• How to get money back after a scam
• Where to report a scam
• Elder fraud
• Crypto and investment scams
• Government impersonation scams
• When a lawyer helps after a scam
• D.C. identity theft laws
• D.C. debt collection laws
• D.C. statute of limitations

Last updated: October 2, 2026.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, contact your payment company, the District office named above, or a lawyer licensed in the District of Columbia.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue a scammer in D.C.?

Possibly, if you are a consumer under the CPPA (someone who bought, leased or received consumer goods or services, or donated to a charity) and the scammer is a merchant you can identify and serve. D.C. Code section 28-3905(k) allows that suit, but an anonymous or overseas scammer is usually not reachable through a District court.

Does the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act allow treble damages?

Section 28-3905(k)(2) lists treble damages or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, payable to the consumer, plus punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and an injunction. Only a consumer suing a merchant over a trade practice can use it, and one listed practice, section 28-3904(kk), is limited to actual damages.

Are attorney's fees guaranteed if I win a CPPA case?

We cannot say that. Section 28-3905(k)(2) says a claim may recover reasonable attorney's fees, and whether a court must award them is a case-law question this guide has not reviewed.

How long do I have to sue under the D.C. CPPA?

The CPPA sets no deadline of its own, and the D.C. Court of Appeals has said the 3-year residual period in D.C. Code section 12-301 applies to CPPA claims (Murray v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 2008). When the clock starts for a fraud discovered later has not been verified here, so act quickly and ask a D.C. lawyer.

Did the D.C. consumer protection law change in 2026?

Yes. D.C. Law 26-187 took effect on September 26, 2026, adding abusive trade practices, bans on retaliation and on aiding and abetting, asset freezes and minimum penalties in Attorney General cases. Its rewrite of the private-lawsuit section applies only once its cost is funded in an approved budget, and the law does not say whether it reaches conduct before September 26, 2026.

Where do I report a scam in Washington, D.C.?

File with the OAG's Consumer and Tenant Response team through its online portal, at 202-442-9828 or at consumer.protection@dc.gov. It mediates for free but does not represent individuals. Report financial-company problems to DISB at (202) 727-8000.

Who do I call if an older person in D.C. is being scammed?

Call D.C. Adult Protective Services at (202) 541-3950, available 24 hours a day. Bank managers and financial managers are required to report suspected exploitation under D.C. Code section 7-1903.

Is elder financial exploitation a crime in D.C.?

Yes. D.C. Code section 22-933.01 covers anyone who uses deception, intimidation or undue influence, or commits theft or fraud, to take property from a person 65 or older or a vulnerable adult. The penalty is up to 10 years when the property is worth $1,000 or more.

Can a D.C. bank freeze a transaction if it suspects elder fraud?

We did not find a District law giving banks that power. The reporting statute, section 7-1903, requires bank managers to report suspected exploitation but says nothing about holding a transaction.

Does D.C. regulate crypto ATMs?

We did not find a District statute written for crypto kiosks. Money transmitters need a license under section 26-1002, DISB warns about Bitcoin ATM scams, and the OAG sued kiosk operator Athena Bitcoin in September 2025; those claims are allegations.

What is the small claims limit in D.C.?

The Superior Court's Small Claims and Conciliation Branch hears money claims up to $10,000, not counting interest, attorney fees, protest fees and costs (D.C. Code section 11-1321).