On Tuesday, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will vote on whether to create a new Consumer Fairness and Public Protection Unit aimed at combating scams, junk fees and predatory business practices. Without question, that goal is a worthy one. But beneath the surface, this proposal raises a fundamental question: what do we gain by duplicating work that is already being done and done well?
The truth is, San Diego County already has a consumer protection watchdog. It is called the District Attorney’s Office.
For decades, the District Attorney’s Economic Crimes Division and Consumer Protection Unit, established in 1971, has been committed to investigating and prosecuting violations under California’s Unfair Competition Law and related consumer protection statutes. This is not a new or untested function. It is a long-standing, highly-specialized operation with deep expertise.
That unit is responsible for addressing a wide range of illegal conduct targeting San Diegans including fraudulent and deceptive practices, elder financial abuse, identity theft, investment schemes, embezzlement, real estate fraud and the sale of dangerous or counterfeit goods. It also handles complex cases involving computer intrusion and environmental crimes. These are serious matters that require trained prosecutors and coordinated enforcement.
The District Attorney’s office has a proven track record. Just last year, working with a statewide network of prosecutors, it secured $13.8 million in consumer protection judgments. That is real accountability and real results for San Diegans.
The existing Consumer Protection Unit already receives complaints directly from victims, regulatory agencies, law enforcement and even Board of Supervisors’ offices.
There is an established trust between consumers, the business community and the elected District Attorney. This trust cannot be replicated by a unit housed under county counsel, which ultimately answers to five politicians with wide-ranging priorities that change every time a new supervisor is elected. The District Attorney’s singular focus is public safety regardless of who holds that office. Consumer protection should never be subject to shifting political priorities. Yet that is exactly what this proposal would do.
Even more concerning, this proposal was developed without meaningful collaboration with the very office that has spent decades building expertise in this space. That raises serious questions about whether this is about strengthening enforcement or simply creating a political talking point.
There is also no clear data demonstrating the need to invest $30 million into a new office to perform work that is already being done. At a time when the county has had to pull millions from its reserves to cover its expenses, that should give taxpayers pause.
Supporters argue that more enforcement is needed. That may be true. But the answer is not to create a duplicate effort within the county.
If there are gaps, the county should pursue the most effective and efficient solution. That means leveraging the expertise, infrastructure, and proven success of the District Attorney’s Consumer Protection Unit. Adding resources to that existing unit would expand enforcement without creating duplication, confusion, or unnecessary bureaucracy.
Creating a new entity risks splitting authority, blurring accountability and introducing politics into decisions that should be guided by law and evidence. It also risks undermining a system that is already working.
With the Board of Supervisors set to vote on Tuesday, the choice is clear. San Diego does not need a new agency to enforce consumer protection laws. Instead, it should provide more support for the one it has.
Source: https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2026/03/23/san-diego-doesnt-need-another-consumer-watchdog/
