Consumer Protection
AI-generated advertisements are a double-edged sword. Digital marketers should be properly advised on risks related to such use in conjunction with advertising campaigns.
For example, the growing use of artificial intelligence in advertising has recently resulted in New York State enacting a new law that carries clear compliance obligations and monetary penalties for advertisers that fail to comply.
On December 11, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed S.8420-A/A.8887-B, a first-of-its-kind legislation. The new law requires transparency in digital and social advertising. In short, the new law requires a “conspicuous disclosure” when an advertisement includes a “synthetic performer” in a commercial advertisement.
What is a “Synthetic Performer”?
As set forth by the statute, a “synthetic performer” means a digitally created asset created, reproduced, or modified by computer, using generative artificial intelligence or a software algorithm, that is intended to create the impression that the asset is engaging in an audiovisual and/or visual performance of a human performer who is not recognizable as any identifiable natural performer.
What are the Disclosure Requirements Under the New Law?
Any person, firm, corporation, or association (or their agents or employees) engaged in the business of dealing in any property or service who for any commercial purpose produces or creates an advertisement before the public in New York respecting any such property or service, in any medium or media in which such advertisement appears, shall “conspicuously” disclose in such advertisement that a synthetic performer is in such advertisement,
As previously covered here and here, in March 2025 the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York introduced the Fostering Affordability and Integrity Through Reasonable (“FAIR”) Business Practices Act in the State Senate and State Assembly. The proposed legislation is intended to revise Article 22-A of New York’s General Business Law.
The FAIR Business Practices Act passed the State Legislature in June 2025.
On December 20, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul officially announced the signing of the historic consumer protection law. The legislation expands and strengthens New York’s primary consumer protection law, GBL §349, for the first time in 45 years. The new law now protects New Yorkers from unfair, abusive, and deceptive business practices.
“The FAIR Business Practices Act will help us tackle rising costs and protect working families and small businesses,” said Attorney General James. “I am proud to have worked alongside Senator Comrie and Assemblymember Lasher to update our most important consumer protection law for the first time in 45 years to stop predatory lenders, abusive debt collectors, dishonest mortgage servicers, and so much more. At a time when the federal government is abandoning working people and raising the cost of living, this law will help us stop companies from taking advantage of New Yorkers. I thank Governor Hochul, Senate Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins, and Assembly Speaker Heastie for their leadership and look forward to working together to make our state more affordable.”
“I commend the Governor and Attorney General James for advancing the FAIR Business Practices Act,
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;
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.
In October 2025, the New York Attorney General’s Office announced that, in accordance with the “Stop Hiding Hate” Act, social media companies are required to report their content moderation policies to the OAG’s office, with first reports due no later than January 1, 2026.
The New York legislation requires that platforms operating in New York with more than $100 million in gross annual revenue must post their content moderation policies publicly, provide consumers with a contact to report violations of the policy, and submit biannual compliance reports.
Key requirements of the Act include:
- Public Transparency: Covered companies are required to publish their terms of service in clear accessible language and provide contact details for user inquiries.
- User Reporting Mechanisms: Platforms must clearly describe how users can report violations of the terms of service, and provide contact information for doing so.
- Action and Response Details: Covered companies must explain what kind of action they may take for posts that violate the policy.
- Biannual Reporting: Social media companies are required to submit reports twice a year to the New York OAG. These reports must include statements on their terms of service. Covered companies must also describe their policies and how they are enforced.
- Data Disclosure: Reports must include data on the total number of posts believed to be policy violations, the number of posts acted upon, and the details thereof.
The failure to comply with the Act’s requirements can potentially result in civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation per day.
In a win for telemarketers, a Florida federal court recently held that “a text message is not a ‘telephone call.’”
The TCPA’s Do Not Call provisions prohibit telephone solicitations to residential subscribers that place their numbers on the federal Do Not Call registry. In Davis v. CVS Pharm., Inc., No. 24-0477, 2025 WL 2491195 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025), the plaintiff alleged in a class action that CVS sent him unsolicited text messages in violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act provisions prohibiting calls to individuals registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).
In a ruling on behalf of CVS, the court held that that Congress used the term “telephone calls” in Section 227(c)(5), and that the text of the statute evidence that a call does not include text messages. The court opined that it is required to interpret the TCPA “in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment” and that, “if the text is clear, the analysis begins and ends there.”
Notably, the court rejected CVS’ position that the court should defer to a 2003 FCC order that provides for texts being considered calls for TCPA purposes. The court stated that it is not required to utilize “a statutory interpretation that conflicts with the ordinary public meaning of clear statutory text.” The holding is consistent with a recent decision by an Illinois federal court.
On July 29, 2025 the Massachusetts Attorney General released updated business guidance on the new “junk fee” rules. Business must comply by September 2, 2025. The updated guidance and webinar is designed to helpbusinesses operating in Massachusetts comply with the regulations. Beginning September 2, 2025 these regulations become enforceable and businesses must come into compliance.
What is the Massachusetts AG’s “Junk Fee” Rule Designed to Do?
Promulgated earlier in 2025, the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General’s “junk fee” regulations help consumers understand the total cost of a product or service upfront, avoid unnecessary charges and easily cancel unwanted costs that may be optional, waivable, or unwanted, including costs related to trial and subscription offers. Additionally, by increasing price transparency and helping consumers to more easily compare prices while shopping, the regulations level the playing field for businesses.
“Junk fees” are hidden, surprise, or unnecessary costs that increase the total price of a product beyond the advertised price. B usinesses often do not disclose such fees, only disclose them at the end of a transaction, or disclose them after consumers have provided their personal billing information. Similarly, some businesses have engaged in practices related to trial offers, subscriptions, and automatic and recurring charges to conceal the total cost and nature of a product or service, while making it difficult for consumers to cancel or opt-out of such features.
The AGO’s regulations make clear that hidden “junk fees” and related practices violate the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.
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.