Ad Law Insights - Legal and Regulatory Updates
FTC + state attorneys general digital marketing compliance, investigation + enforcement advocacy by FTC lawyer to Internet business community
This website is brought to you by Hinch Newman LLP and FTCDefenseLawyer.com.
On March 26, 2026, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson announced that letters had been sent to four major financial infrastructure platforms and payment providers reminding them of their obligations to their customers under the FTC Act.
The letters issued to the CEOs of PayPal, Stripe, Visa and Mastercard raise concerns about alleged publicly reported examples of financial services companies denying their customers access to services due to their political or religious views.
“Full participation in commerce and public life necessarily requires that law-abiding individuals can access, and freely participate in, our financial system,” Chairman Ferguson wrote.
“It is inconsistent with American values to deny law-abiding individuals the ability to run their legitimate businesses and feed their families because they attracted the ire of rogue American officials, overzealous activists, or, more worryingly, foreign governments seeking to control public discourse,” he continued. “That is why President Trump’s August 7, 2025, Executive Order on debanking makes clear that it is unacceptable to debank law-abiding citizens due to ‘political affiliations, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities.’”
The letters warn the companies that any act or practice to deplatform customers or deny them access to financial products or services, or to facilitate such conduct by other companies, that is inconsistent with their terms of service or a customer’s reasonable expectations may violate the FTC Act and could lead to an FTC investigation and potential enforcement action.
The FTC in recent years has brought numerous enforcement actions against payment infrastructure platforms and related entities for unfair or deceptive practices,
On April 2, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission and Maryland Attorney General today announced that an automotive group and its executives will return money to resolve allegations that they deceived consumers for years with falsely advertised low prices and unwanted add-ons that purportedly led to buyers paying thousands of dollars more for their vehicles.
Consumers that were allegedly charged a total of more than $75 million between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2025, may be eligible for redress. In addition, the auto group will pay a $3.1 million civil penalty to the Maryland Attorney General’s office. The proposed order settling the agencies’ complaint also requires the auto group to provide the total price of the car, including all mandatory fees, to consumers looking to buy or lease a vehicle.
“[The auto group] misled consumers by advertising false low car prices and then adding mandatory fees and other charges during the car buying process,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The Trump-Vance FTC is focused on ensuring that auto dealers competitors’ are transparently competing on price.”
“We filed this lawsuit because [the auto dealiership] misled Maryland car buyers into overpaying for their vehicles. This settlement puts money back in Marylanders’ pockets and puts a stop to these predatory practices,” said Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown. “Our office is committed to ensuring that every Maryland consumer who does business with a car dealership is treated fairly.”
The agencies’ joint complaint,
On March 24, 2026, FTC attorneys announced that Air AI will be banned from marketing business opportunities as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over charges the company misled entrepreneurs and small businesses with deceptive claims about business growth, earnings potential, and refund guarantees.
The FTC’s August 2025 complaint against Air AI, five related companies, and their owners alleged that, since at least February 2023, the company and its owners:
- Falsely claimed that people who purchase their services will or are likely to make substantial earnings;
- Falsely claimed that purchasers of the Air AI Access Card or licenses are protected by a refund or buy-back guarantee;
- Misrepresented the performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of their services, their refund policies, or the risk, earnings potential, or profitability of its services, in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR); and
- Failed to provide consumers with required disclosure documents and earnings claims statements, made false claims about the profitability of the investment and their refund and cancellation policies, and failed to provide refunds when consumers met the refund policy requirements, in violation of the Business Opportunity Rule.
The proposed order against Air AI includes a monetary judgment of $18 million, which will be largely suspended based on the company’s and operators’ inability to pay the full amount, requiring the operators of Air AI to pay $50,000 to the FTC for consumer relief.
Strike-through pricing is a popular marketing technique where a higher “regular” price is listed on marketing materials and crossed out immediately adjacent to a lower, “discounted” sale price. The practice is policed when “unfair or deceptive” by federal and state regulatory agencies, as well as private plaintiffs.
Marketers should consult with a strike through pricing lawyer to minimize exposure to legal regulatory action and class action claims.
FTC Deceptive Pricing Guides
Section 233.1 of the Federal Trade Commission’s Guides Against Deceptive Pricing addresses comparison pricing.
First, it addresses former price comparisons. If the former price is the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time, it provides a legitimate basis for the advertising of a price comparison. Where the former price is genuine, the bargain being advertised is a true one. If, on the other hand, the former price being advertised is not bona fide but fictitious—for example, where an artificial, inflated price was established for the purpose of enabling the subsequent offer of a large reduction—the “bargain” being advertised is a false one; the purchaser is not receiving the unusual value he expects. In such a case, the “reduced” price is, in reality, probably just the seller’s regular price.
A former price is not necessarily fictitious merely because no sales at the advertised price were made. Advertisers should consult with a strike through pricing lawyer and take care,
Marketers that utilize Made in USA claims on their websites, Amazon listings and other marketing materials should take care not to overstate the extent to which certain products are made in the United States.
In most instances, unqualified U.S.-origin claims in marketing materials – including claims products are “Made” or “Built” in the USA – likely suggest to consumers that the advertised products are “all or virtually all” made in the United States.
Depending upon the content, the Federal Trade Commission may analyze a number of different factors to determine whether a product is “all or virtually all” made in the United States, including the proportion of total manufacturing costs attributable to U.S. parts and processing, how far removed any foreign content is from the finished product, and the importance of the foreign content or processing to the product’s overall function.
The “all or virtually all” standard is codified in the Made in USA Labeling Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 323 (the “MUSA Labeling Rule”). Effective August 13, 2021, it is a violation of the MUSA Labeling Rule to label any covered product “Made in the United States,” as the MUSA Labeling Rule defines that term, unless the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
Topics
Archives
About This Blog and Hinch Newman’s Advertising + Marketing Practice
Hinch Newman LLP’s advertising and marketing practice includes two decades successfully resolving some of the highest-profile Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general digital advertising and telemarketing investigations and enforcement actions. As FTC attorneys, the firm possesses superior compliance knowledge and deep legal advocacy experience in the areas of advertising, marketing, lead generation, promotions, e-commerce, privacy and intellectual property law. It has also been selected to author the Consumer Protection Section of the prestigious American Lawyer Media International Federal Trade Commission: Law, Practice and Procedure Treatise, a comprehensive resource for developments of concern to advertisers, marketers and legal professionals that practice before the Commission. Through these advertising and marketing law updates, Hinch Newman LLP 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.