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 December 3, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has given final approval to an order against a telemedicine company and its principals, requiring them to stop the alleged deceptive advertising of weight-loss programs and to stop the alleged use of deceptive and unfair billing and cancellation practices.
In its July 2025 complaint, the FTC alleged that the company and certain individuals associated therewith “exploited skyrocketing interest in prescription glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist (GLP-1) weight-loss drugs like and Ozempic.” FTC lawyers also alleged they sold weight-loss programs with undisclosed costs and membership commitments, made unsubstantiated claims about the weight loss achieved by their clients, used fake testimonials, and unfairly distorted consumer reviews.
According to the FTC, the firm and its principals also allegedly failed to process cancellation and refund requests in a timely manner and failed to obtain express informed consent before charging consumers or making recurring debits, according to the complaint.
The final order requires the foregoing parties to pay $150,000, which is expected to be used to provide refunds to consumers.
The final order also:
- prohibits them from misrepresenting the cost of telehealth services;
- requires competent and reliable evidence to support claims about the average or typical results users will achieve;
- prohibits misrepresentations that reviews are truthful or from real consumers, and requires disclosure of any unexpected material connection with endorsers or reviewers;
- prohibits manipulation of reviews;
- requires them to obtain informed consent before billing consumers and authorization to use any electronic fund transfer;
The Federal Trade Commission and National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs set forth their enforcement priorities during the 2025 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference,
Not surprisingly, the FTC set forth a bread-and-butter enforcement agency. It includes, without limitation, protecting children (Children’s Online Protection Act (16 C.F.R. § 312); enforcing Made in USA (U.S. Origin Claims) (Made in USA Labeling Rule – 16 C.F.R. § 323); enforcing subscriptions, negative options and automatic trial programs (Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act), Dark Patterns and Click-to-Cancel); Enforcing the FTC Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees”); enforcing target advertising and surveillance marketing techniques; enforcing influencers, consumer reviews and endorsements (The Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule: Questions and Answers – 16 CFR Part 465); and enforcing the use of AI (for example and without limitation, exaggerating the capabilities of AI features).
Consult with an experienced ecommerce attorney to discuss the implementation of preventative compliance measures or if you are the subject of a regulatory investigation of enforcement action.
Other areas which are reasonably certain to receive increase regulatory investigation and enforcement attention include but are not limited to, data privacy, Telephone Sale Rule, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, state unfair and deceptive business practices,
Additional key highlights and takeaways for discussion with a qualified ecommerce attorney include the use of health claims, green claims, and social media IP rights and takedown procedures,
Contact the author for more information.
Richard B.
In November 2025, the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney announced a $750,000 settlement with a collectibles company regarding its “negative option features” and other business practices.
According to an Office of Attorney General investigation that involved more than 200 consumer complaints, it was determined that the company allegedly advertised collectibles and engaged in sales that resulted in consumers not realizing they were enrolled in subscription services — a practice referred to as a negative option feature.
Consumers then had short windows to return goods they were charged for as part of the subscription plan, according to the PA OAG.
Under the settlement terms, the company agreed to pay $750,000 to allegedly harmed consumers, end subscription plans and collections efforts with nearly 200,000 customers, and revise its business and advertising practices.
“Negative option features are a breach of state consumer laws as they are deceptive practices designed to enroll consumers into future purchases,” the Attorney General said. “This settlement will make many consumers whole while requiring the company to change its practices and refrain from negative option features. When buying any products, be sure to read the terms and conditions thoroughly before committing to that purchase.”
According to the OAG, the company advertises and sells collectible merchandise, mostly collectible coins, via direct mail, over the phone, through print advertisements, and through the company website.
Originally, it was alleged that the company was in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
Advertisers and manufactures that utilize unqualified “Made in USA” claim in conjunction with their advertising, marketing, markings, packaging and labeling are at increased risk of private or regulatory scrutiny relating thereto. See the Essential Guide to Made in USA Advertising written by Made in USA lawyer Richard Newman for more information.
For purposes of this article, the issue is whether it is unlawful to make an unqualified “Made in USA” claim for products made from recycled materials. For example, an unqualified “Made in the USA” claim for a product made from minerals and metals recycled in the United States.
The investment of significant time and resources into collecting recyclable material, delivering it to refiners in the United States, and then processing to a purity level of almost 100% may not be enough, alone, to assign a new and different origin to recycled material.
Notable is a prior Federal Trade Commission advisory opinion on the issue that references consumer perception testing on U.S.-origin claims. It found that 57% of Americans – almost 3 in 5 – agree that “Made in America” means that all parts of a product, including any natural resources it contains, originated in the United States. The survey also found that 33% of consumers think 100% of a product must originate in a country for that product to be called “Made” in the USA.
According to the FTC, a product made from minerals and metals made from recycled materials often contain raw materials of unknown origin.
As previously covered here, in 2023, the Federal Trade Commission filed its first “review hijacking” case in which a marketer purported repurposes reviews of another product on behalf of a new product.
According to the FTC complaint, the defendant asked Amazon to create numerous variation relationships for its supplement products with different formulations. The company began selling two new products and requested that Amazon combine the new products in a variation relationship with three of its established products, all with different formulations, according to the FTC.
The FTC alleged that by manipulating product pages, the company misrepresented the reviews, the number of Amazon reviews and the average star ratings of some products, and that some of them were number one best sellers or had earned an Amazon Choice badge.
Most recently, the National Advertising Division considered a case where the challenger alleged that the respondent purportedly utilized Amazon and TikTok consumer reviews for a health supplement product in order to promote a different health supplement product.
According to the NAD, the products were “substantially different” and that it was improper for their reviews to be merged. Respondent was advised to implement remedial action, including, contacting the platform providers to remove illegitimate reviews.
Consult an FTC compliance lawyer to discuss how this decision may potentially impact your advertising practices, including, without limitation, the interpretation of the meaning of “substantially different.”
Richard B.
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.