Legislature has empowered the [Agency] to issue an order requiring the violator to cease and desist from the violation. There is no authority for the [Agency] to issue an order requiring that [Luskin’s] not engage in other violations.” Under CPA section 13-406(a), “[t]he Attorney General may seek an injunction to prohibit a person who has engaged or is engaging in a violation of this title from continuing or engaging in the violation.” The Agency “has the power to prohibit not only continued use of past advertisements but also future acts that involve the same violation or unlawful practice.” Luskin’s, 338 Md. at 198, 657 A.2d 788; see also Consumer Publishing, 304 Md. at 739-40, 772-74, 501 A.2d 48; Consumer Protection Div. v. Outdoor World Corp., 91 Md. App. 275, 290, 603 A.2d 1376 (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 327 Md. 523, 610 A.2d 796
holding that cafa exceptions are nonjurisdictional because they require federal courtsalthough they have jurisdiction  to decline to exercise jurisdiction when cafas threshold requirements are met holding that an agencys decision is to be set aside only if it is arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law  holding that the evidence must be sufficient to support the agencys findings of fact and that the agencys inferences from those facts must be reasonable holding that the court had discretion to allow substitution of plaintiffs to satisfy diversity jurisdiction requirements in order to give the court jurisdiction where no jurisdiction existed when the complaint was filed holding it was not beyond the agencys jurisdiction to set requirements for companys notices sent in the future to inform recipients that they have won prizes