False Advertising Ruling Against Kars4Kids
UPDATE — May 22, 2026
Following last week’s ruling, Kars4Kids publicly criticized the lawsuit and stated, “We believe this case was nothing more than a lawyer-driven attempt to siphon off charitable funds for their own gain.” Kars4Kids also stated that it believes the Court’s decision is incorrect and intends to pursue appellate relief. Read Kars4Kids’ full statement here.
Our team is sharing a short video of Bruce Puterbaugh, the Orange County donor behind the case, discussing why he brought the lawsuit and what led him to donate his vehicle after hearing the advertisements for years.
Mr. Puterbaugh pursued the case for almost five years. The Court awarded him $250.
Brief video about Bruce Puterbaugh and the origins of the case.
Media assets and downloads: Media Kit Link
Original release follows below.
California Court Issues Landmark Ruling Against Kars4Kids for False Advertising and Unlawful Business Practices
Read the Ruling.
Orange County, California — May 12, 2026 – In a groundbreaking ruling with nationwide implications for charitable fundraising practices, on May 8, 2026, after a full trial on the merits in Puterbaugh v. Oorah, Inc. and Kars4Kids, Judge Apkarian of the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, found that Kars4Kids violated California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law by intentionally misleading donors through the use of a deceptive advertising jingle. This advertising has raised hundreds of millions of dollars from donors in California and nationwide over the years who thought they were helping needy children. As part of the ruling, the Court permanently enjoined Kars4Kids from using the deceptive advertising jingle on TV and radio in California.
In 2021, Bruce Puterbaugh, a California cabinet maker in his 70’s, donated a car to Kars4Kids, because he wanted to do something for poor and needy children in California. Based on the advertisement jingle that he had heard and seen “over and over,” Mr. Puterbaugh thought that the organization benefited underprivileged kids from all over the U.S., including kids in California, because the advertisement mentioned no limitations on kids based on geography, religion, or ethnicity. The ad features several children aged 8-10 repeating the jingle at least 4 times:
“1-877-Kars4Kids
K-A-R-S Kars for Kids
1-877-Kars4Kids
Donate your car today”
After making the donation, Mr. Puterbaugh discovered that the funds did not stay in California but supported a specific religious mission in the Northeast United States and in Israel. He felt taken advantage of and hired two lawyers, Anthony G. Graham of Graham & Associates LLP and Neal A. Roberts of Protectus Law, to uncover that Kars4Kids does not help needy children in California and to bring a lawsuit under the California False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws.
In the final order issued on May 8, 2026, Judge Apkarian found that:
…..“the vast majority of funds, 60%, go to Oorah, which supports Orthodox Jewish Programs in NY/NJ and in in the Middle East, and there is no geographic nexus to California. The evidence also shows that children, especially needy or underprivileged children, are not the recipients of the proceeds of the donations” ……..
“Using funds for ’gap year’ trips to Isreal for 17–18-year-olds or a $16.5 million real estate acquisition [in Israel] contradicts the ’needy child’ persona cultivated by the ad.” ……
“The name ‘Kars4Kids,’ the 8–10-year-old actors in the advertisement, and the repetitive jingle all serve to reinforce the belief that the donations are used exclusively for the benefit of children” [but that] ….
“Under cross examination the [Kars4Kids] COO, Esti Landau, admitted that the organization’s primary purpose is to help ‘Jewish kids and families throughout their lives.’” ….
“Evidence established that the organization funds ‘matchmaking’ services aimed and young adults and ‘gap year’ programs for 17- and 18-year-olds”…..
And finally, the Judge found that:
“[T]he failure to disclose that funds benefit adults and families—and that this support is contingent upon a specific religious affiliation--is a material omission. A reasonable consumer donating to a ‘kids’ charity would attach importance to the fact that their donation is actually supporting adult matchmaking and general family subsidies.”
Under the California False Advertising law (Business and Professions Code Section 17500) advertisements, even if true, can be misleading by omission if they have “a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive the public.” Based on her findings, Judge Apkarian concluded that Kars4Kids violated California’s False Advertising Law because it “disseminated public statements concerning the disposal of property--specifically vehicle donations--that were misleading by omission.” Under the law, Kars4Kids was charged with the knowledge that “California donors would reasonably assume their contributions benefit a general class of children, including those within their own state.” The Judge specifically stated that Kars4 Kids actions “constitute an actionable strategy of deception.”
The Judge also concluded that Kars4Kids violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code Section 17200) because its advertisements were fraudulent and unfair because the material omissions and failure to disclose the matchmaking, that the funds do not go to California children, that the funds do not go to needy or underprivileged children, and that the donations support those of a specific religious faith – all were deceptive. To quote the Judge:
“The evidence demonstrates that these omissions are inherently deceptive. The practice of broadcasting this jingle repeatedly is fraudulent because, by the Defendant’s own admission, the advertisements ‘say nothing,’ thereby allowing the public to rely on false assumptions created by the Defendant’s calculated silence.”
The Court rejected Kars4Kids’ argument that, as a charity, it is entitled under the First Amendment to intentionally mislead potential donors:
“The Court finds that the First Amendment does not shield the Defendant. While charities have free speech rights, the government may regulate misleading commercial speech. Fraudulent omissions in an inducement to donate property are not protected by ‘free expression.’”
The Court also rejected Kars4Kids’ argument that consumers should independently research the organization online before donating, holding that donors were deceived the moment they responded to the broadcast solicitation.
The Judge then carefully evaluated Kars4Kids program in California and noted that the advertisement has run for decades and that if the ads continue thousands of California donors will surrender valuable property and continue to be taken advantage of.
After noting the interest of the state in preventing consumer fraud, and the public interest of transparency in the “charity marketplace,” the Judge concluded:
“When a charity generates millions annually through a ‘jingle’ that conceals its primary religious and geographic focus, it creates an unfair playing field for local California charities that are honest about their missions. An injunction ensures that competition for charitable dollars is based on truth, not catchy, content-free, deceptive songs.”
The Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINED Kars4Kids from broadcasting the jingle or any variation thereof in the State of California “unless said advertisement contains an express, audible disclosure of its religious affiliation and the geographic location of its primary beneficiaries and the age of the beneficiaries, specifying whether they aim for children or families, or both. Any future advertisement must clearly and conspicuously specify the actual age range of the primary beneficiaries. [Kars4Kids] may no longer use images of prepubescent children to solicit donations that support individuals who have reached the age of majority.”
The ruling represents a major victory for charity transparency and accountability in fundraising. The Court emphasized that charitable organizations are not exempt from consumer protection laws and may be held liable when advertising creates deceptive impressions through omission rather than explicit falsehoods.
“This ruling reinforces a fundamental principle: charitable organizations cannot mislead the public to create one impression while concealing material facts from the donating public,” said Neal Roberts, Esq. “Transparency and honesty matters, and donors have a right to know exactly who their contributions are benefiting.”
The decision is expected to have significant implications for nonprofit advertising practices nationwide, particularly for organizations relying on traditional media and social media mass fundraising campaigns.
LINK TO RULING:
# # #
Media Contact:
Neal Roberts, Esq.
Protectus Law
(310) 291-2407
A separate federal class action seeking restitution for donors deceived by Kars4Kids’ advertising based on these same violations of California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law (on behalf of a California class) and Federal RICO claims (on behalf of a nation-wide class) is pending in San Francisco. (Pavel Savva et al., v. Kars4Kids Inc. and Oorah Inc., Case No. 4:25-CV-09498-YGR, N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs in that case are represented by Protectus Law and Keller Grover LLP.
LINK TO THE FEDERAL COURT COMPLAINT:
https://www.protectuslaw.com/s/kars4kids-california-false-advertising-final-judgment-5-2026.pdf
Media Contact Federal Class Action:
Eric A. Grover, Esq.
Keller Grover LLP
(415) 543-1305