Richard Newman
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.
On February 10, 2026, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection announced that it filed filing a lawsuit against a national publicly-traded self-storage company that operates approximately 60 locations across New York City.
According to DCWP, after reviewing more than 100 complaints the agency’s investigation found that the company “consistently fails to provide the quality of services it advertises and uses predatory practices that exploit consumers and violate NYC’s Consumer Protection Law.” To address the company’s alleged illegal bait-and-switch scheme, DCWP is seeking to hold the company accountable for its alleged misconduct in New York by pursuing restitution for aggrieved consumers and civil penalties for thousands of violations of City law.
This is the first lawsuit DCWP is bringing against a self-storage company.
“This lawsuit aims to shut down [the company’s] deceptive bait-and-switch scheme, recover full restitution for consumers, and send a clear message to the self-storage industry that exploiting New Yorkers comes with serious consequences,” said Commissioner and DCWP attorney Sam Levine. “This Fee Free February and every month, false advertisements, hidden late fees, other and predatory practices are on our radar. The era of exploiting New Yorkers is over.”
“For too long, self-storage companies like Extra Space have used deceptive tactics to lure New Yorkers in with low introductory rates, only to jack up prices and hit them with hidden fees. This kind of behavior drains consumers’ wallets and undermines affordability in our city,”
As previously covered here and here, the Federal Trade Commission has recently warned businesses to comply with the FTC Consumer Review Rule.
On December 22, 2025, the FTC announced that it sent warning letters to alert a number of companies of potential violations of the Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (the “Consumer Review Rule”). The letters warn of potential violations of the agency’s Rule, which prohibits certain deceptive or unfair conduct related to the use of product reviews in advertising and marketing.
These letters confirm, for example, that companies violating the Consumer Reviews Rule may be subject to FTC enforcement actions, civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation, consumer redress and other remedial measures. Consult with a FTC CID lawyer for how the FTC Consumer Review Rule may impact you or your business.
The Consumer Reviews Rule prohibits reviews and testimonials that misrepresent whether a reviewer’s experience was positive or negative, or whether the reviewer used the product or service at all. It also prohibits businesses from conditioning compensation or other incentives on reviewers expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative, or from failing to disclose when reviews are written by company insiders or their immediate relatives. The Rule contains additional provisions relating to company-controlled review websites, suppressing certain reviews, and misusing indicators of social media influence like the number of followers or views.
To focus of this article by a leading FTC Consumer Review Rule lawyer is on the FTC Consumer Review Rule prohibition on “insider consumer reviews and consumer testimonials” (16 CFR 465.5).
The FTC’s Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials went into effect on October 21, 2024 and addresses deceptive and unfair conduct involving consumer reviews and testimonials. You can also review the FTC’s other guidance on reviews and testimonials, including FAQs relating to the agency’s Endorsement Guides.
Here are 10 things that marketers must be aware of concerning the Rule in order to avoid liability exposure, including the initiation of regulatory investigations. Consult with an FTC review and testimonial rule lawyer if you or your company have received an access letter, a civil investigative demand (CID) or if you are interested in discussing the implementation of preventative compliance measures.
- The Rule authorizes courts to impose civil penalties for knowing violations and is important because fake, false or otherwise deceptive reviews and testimonials have, according to the agency, polluted the marketplace. There is no private right of action under the Rule.
- There is a difference between a consumer review and a testimonial. A consumer review is a consumer’s evaluation, or a purported consumer’s evaluation, of a product, service, or business that is submitted to and published on a website or platform dedicated in whole or in part to receiving and displaying such evaluations. So, consumer reviews could appear, for example, on a site dedicated to consumer reviews or on product pages of retailer websites. A testimonial, one type of endorsement, is an advertising message that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions,
On January 27, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Defendants behind a wide-ranging operation, including its co-CEOs, are permanently banned from marketing and selling business opportunities and credit repair programs as part of an FTC settlement to resolve allegations that their purported scheme cost consumers nearly $50 million. As part of the settlement, the company’s CEOs also will be required to liquidate millions of dollars’ worth of assets, including a multimillion-dollar house in order to provide consumer redress.
“On day one, the Trump-Vance FTC reprioritized combatting fraud that harms American markets. Today’s successful resolution demonstrates that the Commission is focused on protecting our markets from dishonest actors,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The FTC sued the company in February 2025, alleging that consumers were deceived by false promises of significant income. The company allegedly offered numerous business opportunities, which failed to deliver promised results while costing consumers significant financial losses. The amended complaint also alleges that consumers had trouble reaching customer support.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit were CEOs, the Operations Manager, the company and its related entities, and a relief defendant. The FTC previously approved, and the court entered, a stipulated order settling its charges against one of the foregoing individuals in August 2025.
That order bans him from marketing or selling business opportunities, engaging in credit repair activities, and making misleading earning claims or assisting others in doing the same.
On January 23, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that, at its request, a U.S. district court in Florida temporarily stopped the operations of numerous companies and individuals that the FTC alleges caused tens of millions of dollars in harm through the purported deceptive marketing of health care plans.
As alleged in the FTC’s complaint seeking injunction relief, Top Healthcare Options Insurance Agency, Inc. and 11 related defendants operate a deceptive telemarketing scheme that takes advantage of consumers looking for comprehensive health insurance. They often target consumers shopping for comprehensive health insurance plans on the Internet, according to the FTC. In reality, the FTC alleges, the plans the defendants sell are not comprehensive health insurance or equivalent to such plans, do not provide the promised coverage, and leave the buyers unprotected from, at times, crushing medical costs.
“Health insurance is one of the most important and costly purchases consumers buy for themselves and their families,” said FTC lawyer Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Whether shopping for groceries or healthcare, affordability is front-and-center right now in consumers’ decision-making process. This makes ensuring they have all the information necessary to make informed choices even more important.”
The FTC alleges consumers are misled into entering personal information on websites that appear as if they offer comprehensive health insurance by promoting plans such as “Affordable Care Act Plans,” “Obamacare Health Insurance Carriers,” and “2024 Obama Care Plans.” The websites,
On December 31, 2025, the FTC announced that a federal judge approved an order requiring Disney to pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company allowed personal data to be collected from children who viewed child-directed videos on YouTube without notifying parents or obtaining their consent as required by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule).
A complaint, filed in September by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, alleged that Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. and Disney Entertainment Operations LLC (Disney) violated the COPPA Rule by failing to properly label some videos that it uploaded to YouTube as “Made for Kids” (MFK). The complaint alleged that by mislabeling these videos, Disney allowed for the collection, through YouTube, of personal data from children under 13 who viewed child-directed videos and use of that data for targeted advertising to children.
Under the settlement order finalized by a federal judge last week, Disney is required to:
- Pay a $10 million civil penalty for violating the COPPA Rule;
- Comply with the COPPA Rule, including by notifying parents before collecting personal information from children under 13 and obtaining verifiable parental consent for collection and use of that data; and
- Establish and implement a program to review whether videos posted to YouTube should be designated as MFK—unless YouTube implements age assurance technologies that can determine the age, age range,
On June 13, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission requested a federal court to hold the operators of a payment processing operation in contempt for alleged systematic violations of a 2015 order with the agency over allegations they illegally processed credit card payments. In a motion filed in federal court, the FTC alleged that the processor, along with its operators, CEO and Chief Technology and Security Officer, flouted their obligations under a 2015 order. The FTC asked the court to impose at least $52.9 million in compensatory relief for consumers, modify the 2015 order to permanently ban the individuals from the payment processing business, and appoint a receiver to ensure that the company and its operators comply with the 2015 order’s requirements.
The FTC alleged that the company violated numerous provisions of the 2015 order while processing for companies expressly prohibited by the order. This includes a group of merchants that have separately been indicted for crimes related to this processing, according to the FTC.
“[The company] and its operators flagrantly violated an FTC order requiring reasonable steps to prevent and detect fraud,” said FTC lawyer Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We will not hesitate to hold accountable companies that ignore red flags and distort the honest functioning of the U.S. payment system.”
The FTC alleges that the company and its operators alleged violations include:
- Processing hundreds of millions of dollars in payments for at least three clients on Mastercard’s Member Alert To Control High (MATCH) list,
On January 13, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it sued a specialized advice website operator and its CEO, alleging the online service deceives people seeking expert advice into enrolling in a monthly recurring subscription without obtaining consumers’ affirmative consent.
The FTC alleges that the company and its founder and CEO falsely claim that consumers can “join” the service and get access to expert advice for as little as $1 or $5. But when consumers sign up to use the service, the company actually enrolls them in a recurring monthly subscription costing anywhere from $28 to $125 and immediately charges them this fee, as well as the $1 or $5 join fee, according to the FTC. The complaint alleges that the company continues to charge the subscription fee every month until the consumer cancels their subscription.
“[The company’s] misleading pricing tactics obscured the true price of its services, preventing consumers from making an informed choice on whether [the company’s] services were worth it to them,” said FTC lawyer Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC is focused on ensuring that online sellers transparently price their services.”
While the company provides limited information about the required monthly subscription on its website, it does not disclose the terms clearly and conspicuously as required by the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), according to the complaint. As a result, consumers have provided their credit card information to the company without affirmatively consenting to enroll in an ongoing monthly subscription and pay the monthly fee,
On January 6, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has launched a refund claims process for some consumers who were charged for a subscription to the anonymous messaging app NGL without their authorization.
In July 2024, the Federal Trade Commission and Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office alleged that NGL and two of its co-founders engaged in a host of law violations related to their anonymous messaging app, including unfairly marketing the service to children and teens. The agencies charged NGL and its co-founders with sending bogus messages that appeared to come from real people and tricked users into signing up for paid subscriptions to NGL Pro by falsely claiming that doing so would reveal the identity of the senders of messages.
The complaint also alleged that the company encouraged users to purchase a paid version of the app to learn the identity of the people who sent them anonymous messages, however after consumers upgraded they did not actually learn the senders’ identities.
NGL and its co-founders also allegedly failed to obtain consent for recurring charges. The order settling the agencies’ complaint banned the defendants from marketing anonymous messaging apps to kids and teens under 18 and required them to pay $4.5 million to provide refunds to impacted users.
According to an FTC compliance attorney, the FTC is using that money to provide payments to customers who meet the following requirements:
- paid for NGL Pro between January 2022 and July 2024;
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.