Advertising & Marketing
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 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 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,
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.