Richard Newman
On July 2, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the companies that operate the Hopper travel apps have agreed to pay $35 million and will be prohibited from purportedly deceiving consumers about fees to settle the Federal Trade Commission’s allegations that they unfairly charged consumers hidden fees and misrepresented the total prices consumers would pay and the benefits of the companies’ VIP Support and Price Freeze services.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that despite its “no hidden fees” promises, Canadian company Hopper Inc. and its subsidiary Hopper (USA) Inc., unfairly charged users without their consent for “Tip” and VIP Support fees that the company claimed were optional yet were hidden and pre-selected for consumers.
“Hopper deceived consumers by showing them a total price that did not include hidden, pre-selected fees,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The Commission will continue to use all available tools to promote price transparency and to combat unfair and deceptive pricing, billing and cancellation practices.”
Hopper allows consumers to search and book airfares, lodging and rental cars primarily through its apps. Until mid-2023, when consumers were ready to purchase their booking, they saw a screen with the “total price” and a Swipe to Book button that allegedly failed to adequately disclose that the company would add charges for Tip and VIP Support fees, according to the complaint. These “optional” fees were pre-selected and hidden on an app screen that only appeared if the consumer scrolled down,
The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comment on a petition from X Corp., formerly known as Twitter, to set aside or modify its 2022 settlement order with the agency.
According to the federal regulatory agency, in its petition to the FTC, X Corp. cited several reasons why it believes that the order should either be set aside or modified so that it terminates at the end of 2026. The petition argues:
- The order was imposed on a company that no longer exists, that every individual responsible for the underlying failures has left the company and that X Corp. has since built a world-class privacy and data-protection program;
- The order no longer serves any valid regulatory purpose, imposing millions of dollars in needless costs to address obligations and protections already required by domestic and international privacy regimes and industry-recognized frameworks that X Corp. follows;
- Setting aside the order safeguards First Amendment values; and
- Setting aside or modifying the order is critical to advancing American leadership in artificial intelligence.
The public will have 30 days, until July 2, 2026, to submit comments on the petition.
Richard B. Newman is a social media lawyer at Hinch Newman LLP.
Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. This article is not intended to and should not be construed as legal advice. May be considered attorney advertising.
On May 19, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that at its request, a federal judge ordered a payment processing company, and its operators to pay $6.5 million in sanctions for allegedly violating a 2015 federal court order designed to prevent the company from enabling consumer fraud. On May 13, 2026, the U.S. District Court in Nevada entered the order finding that the payment processor, along with executives in civil contempt for multiple alleged violations of the 2015 order. The court determined the defendants violated multiple core provisions of the 2015 federal court order by allegedly facilitating fraud on behalf of several scammers.
“It is a Commission priority to root out fraud in the payments system,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “I am pleased the court held [the payment processor], [and the executives] accountable for violating the requirements of the order they agreed to in 2015. As the court concluded, [the payment processor] and its executives assisted and facilitated scammers in avoiding fraud and risk monitoring programs and failed to conduct the 2015 order’s required underwriting. The court’s order should send a strong signal that the Commission will enforce its orders and continue to prioritize rooting out fraud from the American payment system.”
The court found the defendants unlawfully processed hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions for merchants that were on Mastercard’s Member Alert To Control High-risk merchants (MATCH) list.
The court also concluded the defendants:
- Assisted and facilitated two groups of merchants in avoiding fraud and risk monitoring programs,
In 2026, the Center for Industry Self-Regulations launched the Institute for Responsible Influence. The aim of the agency is to offer an interactive certification program designed “to elevate transparency, strengthen accountability, empower creators, and foster trusted brand partnerships within creator marketing.”
The Institute trains training influencers and offers resources to assist with complying with the FTC’s Endorsement Guides and Review Rule, and other advertising legal regulations, including a certification program. The Institute shall offers a database of certified influencers for brands.
Enrollment and training have begun.
Those that complete the program receive the Institute for Responsible Influence Certification Seal and are subject to ongoing monitoring. They are also included in a searchable database so that brands can connect.
Brands and influencers with questions may contact the author to discuss the certification program.
Richard B. Newman is an FTC advertising practices attorney at Hinch Newman LLP.
Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. This article is not intended to and should not be construed as legal advice. May be considered attorney advertising.
California’s new Business and BCSA is intended to strengthen oversight, improving coordination across departments, and modernize California’s consumer protection framework amid growing threats from weakened federal enforcement.
Chopra previously served as Director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and as a Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, where he led major efforts to crack down on junk fees, corporate misconduct, and unfair practices harming consumers and small businesses. The new agency, which was established by Governor Newsom through a government reorganization last year will bring together a broad range of licensing, enforcement and other functions that ensure fair competition and treatment for consumers and businesses across a number of sectors of California’s economy.
The agency officially launches July 1, 2026.
“While federal agencies are making life more expensive and enriching special interests, California will be firing on all cylinders to make sure markets aren’t rigged against families and small businesses,” said Rohit Chopra. “By bringing together dozens of boards, bureaus, and departments under one roof, California’s new agency will work to protect the public in health care,
On May 4, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it will prohibit data broker Kochava and its subsidiary from selling, sharing or disclosing sensitive location data without consumers’ affirmative express consent to settle allegations the companies sold location data from hundreds of millions of mobile devices that could be used to trace the movements of individuals.
The FTC sued Idaho-based Kochava in August 2022 alleging that its collection, use and disclosure of precise location data invaded consumers’ privacy by revealing their movements, including visits to sensitive locations such as health facilities and places of worship. According to the author, the FTC alleged that because consumers were unaware of and did not consent to this data sharing, consumers had no way of avoiding the harm resulting from its collection and disclosure.
Under the proposed order resolving the FTC’s litigation, Kochava and its subsidiary, Collective Data Solutions (CDS), which has purportedly taken over Kochava’s data broker business, will be prohibited from selling, licensing, transferring, sharing or disclosing sensitive location data in any products or services unless they obtain a consumer’s affirmative express consent and the data is used to provide a service directly requested by the consumer.
The subsidiary and Kochava (if Kochava sells or uses precise location data) also are required to:
- Establish and implement a sensitive location data program to develop a comprehensive list of sensitive locations to prevent the sale, transfer or disclosure of sensitive location data;
On April 21, 2026, the New York Attorney General’s office announced that it has sued Coinbase Financial Markets, Inc. (Coinbase) and Gemini, Titan LLC (Gemini) for allegedly illegally running gambling operations in New York through “their so-called ‘prediction market’ platforms.”
According to a New York Attorney General subpoena defense lawyer, allegations include that “both Coinbase and Gemini offer users the ability to bet on events, including sports, entertainment, and elections, in violation of New York laws.” As set forth in the announcement, “an investigation by the Office of the Attorney General found that Coinbase and Gemini are running prediction markets that constitute illegal, unlicensed gambling operations.” The announcement goes on to allege that “these illegal operations expose New Yorkers – including those under the legal gambling age of 21 – to serious financial and personal risk
The NY OAG is seeking court orders requiring Coinbase and Gemini to pay fines, forfeit illegal profits, and pay restitution to customers.
“Gambling by another name is still gambling, and it is not exempt from regulation under our state laws and Constitution,” said Attorney General James. “Gemini and Coinbase’s so-called prediction markets are just illegal gambling operations, exposing young people to addictive platforms that lack the necessary guardrails. My office is taking action to protect New Yorkers and stop these platforms from violating the law.”
Prediction markets allow users to bet money on the outcome of a wide range of future events,
On April 14, 2026, the FTC accounced that the operators of a multilevel marketing (MLM) company will be permanently prohibited from making deceptive earnings claims to resolve Federal Trade Commission allegations that the company deceived consumers into believing that they could earn profits from the venture when the vast majority of participants made little or no money.
In its complaint, the FTC alleged that the company, its CEO, and its President used deceptive earnings claims to attract new participants called “Forever Business Owners” (FBOs), most of whom allegedly made no money or even lost money. The company and its operators purportedly claimed participants could make money by selling its health and wellness products either in person or online through the company’s website and by recruiting new participants who would do the same.
“Today’s complaint alleges that [the company] deceived prospective workers with false and unsubstantiated earnings claims. [The company] misled workers with promises of substantial income that, in reality, bore little to no resemblance to what participants actually earned,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Deceptive earnings claims do not just mislead workers—they divert workers away from genuine, income-generating jobs. The FTC will not hesitate to take action against companies that deceive workers with claims of false earnings that they know few, if any, will achieve.”
Through in-person meetings and conferences, internet and social media posts and videos, and print materials, the company used images of luxury cars and giant checks,
On April 9, 2026, the Federal Trade Commission announced that StubHub, the nation’s largest ticket exchange and resale ticket provider, will pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company violated the FTC Act and the agency’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees by allegedly deceptively advertising ticket prices on its website without clearly and conspicuously disclosing up-front how much consumers actually would pay, including all mandatory fees.
“The Commission’s Fees Rule makes it very clear that the total price of live-event tickets must be disclosed up-front to enable consumers to make fully informed purchasing decisions,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Price transparency is essential to a free and competitive marketplace. Today’s settlement underscores the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that consumers pay the price they are promised.”
The FTC’s action against StubHub Holdings, Inc., follows a warning letter the agency sent the online ticket platform in May 2025 alleging that multiple prices displayed on its website appeared to be in violation of the Fees Rule. Under the Unfair or Deceptive Fees (aka Junk Fees) Rule, which took effect on May 12, 2025, it is an unfair and deceptive practice for any business to offer, display, or advertise the price of a live-event ticket without clearly, conspicuously, and most prominently disclosing the total price, which the Rule defines as “the maximum total of all fees or charges a consumer must pay for any good(s) or service(s) and any mandatory ancillary good or service.”
Misrepresenting prices also violates the FTC Act.
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.
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 FTC compliance knowledge and more than 20 years of FTC defense 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.