Ticket Sales Enforcement Investigations Subscription Services Safety Standards FTC Unfair Trading Pricing Laws Digital Rights Payment Methods Digital Services Act Educational Regulations Fines Labeling Laws Telecommunications Business Practices Pricing Transparency Service Charges Food Safety Laws European Union Law Penalties Competition Law Administrative Penalties Chemical Bans Child Protection European Union Service Fees INFORM Consumers Act Mexico Ticket Resale Laws Fee Transparency Federal Consumer Protection Law Parking Laws Health Regulations Sanitary Facilities Online Shopping Safety Violations Enforcement Actions Eichamt Oversight Unfair Trading Practices Corporate Compliance Retail Laws Cosmetic Safety Food and Beverage Law Compliance Service Standards E-commerce Pricing Regulations Quebec Laws Gaststättenverordnung Influencer Marketing EU Law Housing Regulations Transparency Laws Product Standards International Law Transportation Safety Advertising Law Fee Disclosure AI Ethics Child Protection Laws Automotive Law Data Protection Laws Fraud Telemarketing CCPA Price Indication Regulation Price Display Banned Substances Product Safety Cryptocurrency FTC Actions Child Safety Fashion Industry Gaming Regulations Alternative Dispute Resolution Banned Chemicals FTC Rules Aviation Business Compliance Legal Issues Billing Practices E-commerce Law Ticketmaster Food Labeling Health and Safety Refund Regulations FTC Regulations Federal Trade Commission Government Oversight Parking Regulations Digital Economy Digital Services Consumer Contracts Regulations Profeco Air Travel Violations Corporate Accountability Standards
Apple’s Brazilian unit has 20 days to appeal, with regulators deeming the charger an essential accessory under the Consumer Defense Code.
