On October 8, 2026, at the request of Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the New York City Council introduced Int. No. 1105, the POWER (People and Organizations Winning Economic Relief) Act. Sponsored by Council Member Harvey D. Epstein, the bill would prohibit unfair methods of competition and unfair, deceptive, abusive, or unlawful acts or practices in or affecting business, trade, or commerce. If enacted, it could create one of the most expansive municipal consumer-protection regimes in the country. The Mamdani administration has characterized the proposal as a first-in-the-nation measure that would make New York City’s consumer and worker protections the strongest in the country.
The bill’s most consequential feature is a sweeping municipal private right of action. It would permit injured persons to sue on their own behalf, on behalf of similarly situated persons, or on behalf of the general public. Nonprofit organizations would also be authorized to bring specified claims on their own behalf, on behalf of their members, or on behalf of the general public. Its definitions and legislative findings are designed to support a broad interpretation of these prohibitions. The undefined term “unlawful” is particularly significant because it could extend the bill beyond the categories of conduct conventionally addressed by consumer-protection laws. The bill thus would significantly expand the role of private litigation in enforcing New York City’s, New York State and Federal consumer-protection and competition laws.
If enacted, the bill would subject to litigation all businesses located in New York City (except for an independently owned and operated entity that is not dominant in its field, employs four or fewer employees, and had gross revenue of less than $5 million in the preceding fiscal year) and outside New York City, and even New York State, who engage with residents of New York City through any means.
A plaintiff could seek compensatory, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The bill also authorizes actual damages and $2,500 per violation (without any overall cap on the civil penalty for multiple violations) together with reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for a prevailing plaintiff. It would eliminate reliance as a requirement for a claim and would not limit its protections to transactions involving personal, family, or household purposes or require the kind of consumer-oriented conduct ordinarily associated with New York General Business Law § 349. There is a 3-year statute of limitations which begins to run based on the plaintiff’s notice of wrongdoing. While the plaintiff has an obligation to provide the defendant with 10-business days notice of wrongdoing and an opportunity to correct the wrongdoing before filing a lawsuit, it does not appear that a defendant’s elimination of the wrongdoing is a defense to such lawsuit.
The proposal has drawn sharply contrasting reactions. The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce opposes the POWER Act as drafted, warning that it could expose small businesses to litigation over undefined standards. Its president and CEO, Jessica Walker, calls it “an opening for lawsuit mills.” The Partnership for New York City likewise warns that the proposal would invite costly litigation and lead to “fewer jobs, less investment, and higher prices.” By contrast, the American Economic Liberties Project strongly supports the legislation. Its executive director, Nidhi Hegde, argues that “[n]o enforcement agency — not a city department, not a state AG, not the federal government — has the resources to police every corporation that breaks the law.” The Legal Aid Society also supports the bill, describing it as a measure that would close longstanding gaps in existing law. (See the Manhattan Chamber’s statement, the Partnership for New York City’s statement, and the American Economic Liberties Project’s statement.)
A companion proposal, sponsored by Council Member Chi Ossé, would amend the City’s Consumer Protection Law to permit the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) to penalize “unconscionable” business practices without first completing the rulemaking process. The administration says this change would allow DCWP to respond more quickly to serious misconduct. A third measure, the Truth in Pricing Act, would simplify the City’s price-display rules.
These proposals reflect the administration’s broader consumer- and worker-protection agenda. Mayor Mamdani has directed DCWP to address hidden fees and subscription traps, while the department continues work on debt collection, pay transparency, and tip transparency. Commissioner Samuel A. A. Levine, who joined us on the Consumer Finance Monitor podcast on April 23, 2026, to discuss the department’s consumer-protection initiatives, is a central figure in this effort. The POWER Act would take that agenda a significant step further by transferring substantial enforcement responsibility from government agencies to private plaintiffs and nonprofit organizations.
The bill also raises difficult legal and policy questions. Among them: whether the City has authority to create such a broad private right of action; whether the prohibition against “unlawful” practices could permit private suits predicated on violations of other laws that do not themselves authorize private enforcement; whether plaintiffs would have standing to pursue individual, class, or public-interest claims in state or federal court; whether state-law preemption or federal jurisdictional rules would constrain the legislation; whether the $2,500-per-violation remedy is permissible in cases involving little or no actual damages; and whether arbitration agreements could be used to compel arbitration of claims under the Act, including representative claims.
The policy debate is equally important. Supporters contend that private enforcement would fill gaps left by resource-constrained agencies and give consumers, workers, tenants, and small businesses meaningful remedies. Opponents argue that the bill’s broad and undefined standards, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and limited small-business exemption could generate substantial litigation costs that ultimately are passed on to consumers.
We intend to publish additional articles, produce a webinar and podcasts about the bills in which we cover many of the issues identified above. We are already counseling several clients about the bill.