Ad Law Insights - Legal and Regulatory Updates
Latest FTC and state attorneys general compliance, investigation and enforcement developments of concern to advertisers and marketers
On October 16, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced the final FTC “Click-to-Cancel” Rule pertaining to recurring subscriptions and memberships.
The Federal Trade Commission is not the only regulatory agency that actively enacts, updates and polices legislation governing autorenewals, subscriptions and continuous service offers. For example, state attorneys general are, in some instances, more aggressive than the FTC. Some notable states with automatic renewal legislation include New York, Vermont, Colorado, Illinois, Tennessee, Virginia, Minnesota, South Carolina, Utah and California.
California’s Current Automatic Renewal Law
California’s auto renewal legislation is perhaps the most aggressive of all. In short, California’s ARL applies to contracts with consumers, defined as “any individual who seeks, acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods, services, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes.” It includes notice and cancellation requirements for free trials and automatically renewing subscription plans. It also emphasizes the provision of a simple, easy-to-use cancellation mechanism. In California, those making an automatic renewal or continuous service offer are required to present material terms in a “clear and conspicuous manner.” Businesses are also required to seek and obtain a consumer’s affirmative consent to such terms in close proximity to making these material disclosures and prior to the point of billing the consumer.
Disclosures must include, for example and without limitation, that the subscription or purchase agreement will continue until the consumer cancels, a description of the cancellation policy, that recurring charges will be charged continuously until cancellation, the amount of the charges,
The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division recently participated in the G7 Competition Authorities and Policymakers Summit to discuss ways to ensure competition in artificial intelligence (AI)-related technologies, products, and applications. At the conclusion of the summit, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan and other representatives of the G7 competition authorities and government policymakers issued a Communiqué highlighting potential competition concerns in AI-related markets and identifying guiding principles to ensure fair competition across AI markets.
The Communiqué underscores the important role that competition authorities and policymakers have in addressing competitive threats. As the Communiqué outlines, concentrated market power in AI-related markets and possible collusion or improper information sharing using AI technologies require careful vigilance and vigorous and timely competition enforcement. The G7 competition authorities and policymakers reaffirmed that they are working to ensure there is open and fair competition in digital markets and AI and seeking to ensure that the benefits of AI are fully realized and widely available across society.
The summit was convened by the G7 Industry, Technology and Digital Ministerial Declaration and hosted in Rome by the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) in conjunction with Italy’s rotating G7 presidency.
The Federal Trade Commission works with counterpart agencies to promote sound antitrust, consumer protection, and data privacy enforcement and policy.
Richard B. Newman is an FTC defense lawyer at Hinch Newman LLP.
Informational purposes only. Not legal advice.
As previously blogged about here, following notices of proposed rulemaking in 2022 and 2023, on August 22, 2024 the Federal Trade Commission finalized a rule that will impose monetary civil penalties false and misleading consumer reviews and testimonials. Those covered by the Final Rule, including, but not limited to, advertisers, marketers, manufacturers, brands and various intermediaries, and businesses that promote and assist such entities, should consult with an experienced FTC compliance lawyer and begin to prepare for its enforcement, immediately.
What Does the FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Cover?
The FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials formalizes the prohibition of various practices relating to the use of consumer reviews and testimonials and sets forth which practices may be considered unfair or deceptive pursuant to the FTC Act.
In short, the Final Rule is intended to foster fair competition and protect consumers’ purchasing decisions. In general, the Final Rule covers: (i) the purchase, sale or procuring of fake reviews or testimonials (for example and without limitation, a reviewer that does not exist, a reviewer that did not actually use or possess experience with the product or service, or a review that misrepresents actual experience); (ii) providing compensation or other incentives in exchange for reviews that express a particular sentiment; (iii) facilitating “insider” consumer reviews and testimonials that do not contain a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the relationship; (iv) utilizing websites that appear to be independent review websites when,
On September 25, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced “Operation AI Comply.” According to FTC attorneys, “some marketers can’t resist taking advantage of that by using the language of AI and technology to try to make it seem like their products or services deliver all the answers.”
As part of Operation AI Comply, the FTC announced five cases exposing allleged AI-related deception.
First, the FTC announced four settlements involving allegedly deceptive claims about AI-driven services, three of which are purported business opportunity scams that claim to use AI to help people earn more money, faster. The agency also announced a settlement involving a company that purportedly offered a generative AI tool that let people create what the FTC alleges to be fake consumer reviews.
- DoNotPay: An FTC complaint claims U.K.-based DoNotPay told people its online subscription service acts as “the world’s first robot lawyer” and an “AI lawyer” by using a chatbot to prepare “ironclad” documents for the U.S. legal system. The complaint says DoNotPay told small businesses its service could check their websites for law violations and help them avoid significant legal fees. According to the complaint, DoNotPay’s service did not live up to the hype. The FTC welcomes comments on a proposed settlement between FTC and DoNotPay, which requires DoNotPay to stop allegedly misleading people, pay $193,000, and tell certain subscribers about the case.
- Ascend Ecom: An FTC complaint filed in California alleges a group of companies and their officers used deceptive earnings claims to convince people to invest in “risk free” business opportunities supposedly powered by AI.
On August 30, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the Department of Justice filed a complaint upon notification and referral from the FTC against a surveillance camera company that allegedly failed to provide reasonable security for the personal information it collected—including 150,000 live camera feeds in sensitive areas like psychiatric hospitals, women’s health clinics, elementary schools and prison cells.
According to the complaint, these alleged failures allowed a threat actor – in March 2021 – to remotely access the company’s customer camera feeds and watch consumers live, without their knowledge or consent. Despite the purported invasive security breach, the company allegedly remained unaware of the threat actor’s exploration until the threat actor self-reported the hack to the media.
According to the FTC, the vast majority of the company’s customers throughout the U.S. and abroad include small businesses spanning multiple industries, including education, government, healthcare, and hospitality. The FTC says that the compromise went beyond the company’s security cameras. According to the complaint, the threat actor also exfiltrated data about the company’s own customers, mostly businesses, including, but not limited to, names, email addresses, physical addresses, usernames and password hashes, and geolocation data for security cameras.
The company’s alleged security failures “are in stark contrast to its many public promises to keep personal and customer information safe,” according to the FTC.
According to the complaint, the company’s own privacy policy claimed that the company “take[s] customer privacy seriously,” and “[w]e will use best-in-class data security tools and best practices to keep your data safe and protect [the company’s] products from unauthorized access.”
The FTC also states that the company’s publicly promised that it was HIPAA certified or compliant and that it followed the EU-U.S.
Topics
Archives
About This Blog and Hinch Newman’s Advertising + Marketing Practice
Hinch Newman LLP’s advertising and marketing practice includes successfully resolving some of the highest-profile Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general digital advertising and telemarketing investigations and enforcement actions. The firm possesses superior knowledge and deep legal experience in the areas of advertising, marketing, lead generation, promotions, e-commerce, privacy and intellectual property law. Through these advertising and marketing law updates, Hinch Newman provides commentary, news and analysis on issues and trends concerning developments of interest to digital marketers, including FTC and state attorneys general advertising compliance, civil investigative demands (CIDs), and administrative/judicial process. This blog is sponsored by Hinch Newman LLP.