eCommerce
On May 19, 2025, President Donald Trump signed into law the Take It Down Act (S.146). The federal legislation criminalizes the publication of non-consensual intimate imagery and AI-generated pornography. It comes following approximately forty states already enacting legislation targeting online abuse.
What are the Take It Down Act’s Requirements?
The federal Take It Down Act creates civil and criminal penalties for knowingly publishing or threatening to share non-consensual intimate imagery and computer-generated intimate images that depict real, identifiable individuals. If the victim is an adult, violators face up to two years in prison. If a minor, up to three years.
Social media platforms, online forums, hosting services and other tech companies that facilitate user-generated content are required to remove covered content within forty-eight hours of request and implement reasonable measures to ensure that the unlawful content cannot be posted again.
Consent to create an image will not be a defense.
Exempt from prosecution are good faith disclosures or those made for lawful purposes, such as legal proceedings, reporting unlawful conduct, law enforcement investigations and medical treatment.
What Online Platforms are Covered Under the Take It Down Act?
Covered Platforms include any website, online service, application, or mobile app that that serves the public and either: (i) provides a forum for user-generated content (e.g., videos, images, messages, games, or audio), or (ii) in the ordinary course of business, regularly publishes, curates,
In March 2025, 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 Act is designed to expand and strengthen consumer and small business protections, in part, by amending New York’s General Business Law §349 to also cover “unfair” and “abusive” practices, rather than just “deceptive” practices. Many other states have already enacted UDAP statutes. The bill may foreshadow what is to come from numerous state consumer protection enforcers as federal consumer protection enforcement is being rolled back and policy under the current administration remains uncertain.
As drafted, the program bill would provide the New York Attorney General and private plaintiffs the ability to seek enhanced civil penalties and restitution in amounts significantly more than available statutory damages pursuant to New York General Business Law Section 349. The FAIR Act would significantly increase statutory damages available under GBL §349 from $50 to $1,000, and permit recovery of actual and punitive damages. Penalties for unfair, deceptive or abusive practices could potentially include penalties of up to $5,000, per violation. Knowing or willful violations could result in penalties totaling the greater of $15,000 or three times the amount of restitution, per violation. Prevailing plaintiffs in private actions would also be permitted to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.
In New England Country Foods, LLC v. VanLaw Food Products, Inc., the California Supreme Court recently held that California Civil Code section 1668 prohibits contractual limitation of liability clauses that limit liability for harm caused by intentional misconduct.
In pertinent part, Section 1668 provides:
“All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law.”
Manufacturer VanLaw was sued by a barbecue sauce company that it provided manufacturing services on behalf of, for for allegedly trying to copy its barbecue sauce and sell it to Trader Joe’s. New England Country Foods’ claims sounded both in contract and tort. In response, VanLaw argued that a contract between the parties limited damages for injuries caused by intentional actions and were therefore against public policy.
In response, the plaintiff asserted that the contractual limitation of liability provision was not enforceable pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1668 because it it permitted the defendant to engaged in intentional tortious conduct with impunity.
The applicable limitation on damages clause stated, in pertinent part:
“In no event will either party be liable for any loss of profits, loss of business, interruption of business, or for any indirect,
On May 9, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission voted to defer the compliance deadline for the amended Negative Option Rule (“Click-to-Cancel”) Rule by sixty (60) days. The amended Rule expands the scope of the prior version to cover any goods or services involving a negative option, automatic renewal plan, free trials and subscriptions. Additionally, it imposes restrictions that in some instances are more onerous that various state automatice renewal laws.
Of note, the recent amendments to the Negative Option Rule (f/k/a “Click-to-Cancel”), which went into effect on January 19, 2025, provide that misrepresenting any material facts while offering any good or service with a negative-option feature is an unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. This applies regardless of whether the misrepresentation is related to the negative option feature, or not. This feature of the amended Negative Option Rule already became effective in January 2025. It, as well as other features of the amended Rule, are presently the subject of judicial challenge.
The rest of the amended Rule pertaining to disclosures, consent and cancellation of negative option features were to become effective May 15, 2025. However, the FTC has now deferred enforcement of these provisions through July 2025. Starting then, in the absence of judicial intervention, covered businesses will be required to be in full compliance with the amended Negative Option Rule. .
“But the Commission’s decision to defer enforcement necessarily acknowledged that compliance entailed some level of difficulty,”
On the eve prior to its effective date, the FCC’s One-to-One Consent Rule which sought to redefine the meaning of “prior express written consent” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, was postponed for one year by order of the FCC’s Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau. Just minutes thereafter, the rule was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Background
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) , in part, requires callers to possess “prior express consent” when making non-emergency telephone calls to cell phones using an automatic telephone dialing system, or artificial or prerecorded voice; and telephone calls to residential telephone lines using an artificial or prerecorded voice (with limited exceptions).
In 2012, the Federal Communications Commission established that the foregoing calls (including SMS text messages) for marketing purposes must have “prior express written consent,” defined as “an agreement, in writing, bearing the signature of the person called that clearly authorizes the seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the person called advertisements or telemarketing messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, and the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes such advertisements or telemarketing messages to be delivered.”
The Federal Communication Commission Government Affairs Bureau Postpones Effective Date of the TCPA One-to-One Consent Rule
On January 24, 2025, the FCC announced that it has postponed the effective date of the one-to-one consent rule. “By this Order,
On Friday, December 27, 2024, the Justice Department issued a final rule to address “urgent national security risks posed by access to U.S. sensitive personal and government-related data from countries of concern and covered persons.” The final rule was posted publicly and addresses “continued efforts of countries of concern to access, exploit, and weaponize Americans’ bulk sensitive personal and U.S. government-related data.”
This rule reflects the Department’s careful consideration of the comments received in response to the March 5, 2024 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) and the October 29, 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) as well as feedback from hundreds of representatives from companies and organizations and extensive consultation with dozens of other U.S. Government agencies and offices, along with engagement foreign partners.
As previewed in the ANPRM and NPRM, the final rule establishes a national-security program within the Justice Department’s National Security Division that restricts and in some instances prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in certain categories of data transactions with six “countries of concern” (including covered persons and entities subject to coercion by those countries) because such transactions pose unacceptable national-security risks of giving those countries, entities, or persons access to U.S. bulk sensitive personal data or government-related data.
The rule will become effective 90 days after publication. Certain affirmative compliance obligations will be phased in with a later effective date of 270 days after publication.
The Department also intends to continue engaging with industry and other stakeholders to determine whether any general licenses are appropriate as this program goes into effect.
On January 1, 2025, an amendment to California’s existing false advertising law will become effective. The amended legislation takes aim at deceptive digital ad representations that lead consumers to believe that they are purchsing owership rights in a product when, in fact, only a revocable license is being conveyed.
With limited exception., AB 2426 prohbitis sellers of digital goods from using terms such as “buy,” “purchase” or similar terms when the net impression thereof objectively leads a reasonable person to believe that they are purchasing an unrestrictice ownership interest. The exception to the foregoing restriction is when a seller of digital products obtains affirmative acknowledgement from the buyer of a complete list of restrictions and conditions of the license, and that access to the digital product may be unilaterally revoked by the seller (e.g., if the seller no longer has the right to license). Additionally, prior to completing the sale, the seller must provide the buyer with a hyperlink, QR code or other means of accessing the license terms and conditions, a a clear and conspicuous disclosure that purchase of the digital product merely constitutes a license.
The new legistlation defines “digital goods” broadly. The law also sets forth exclusions, such as any distribution of television, video or radio service. The new law also does not apply to specifically enumerated subscription-based services and digital goods such as those advertised for no monetary consideration.
Violation of the amended statute can result in civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. It couls also potentially exposure a violator to class action litigation pursuant to California’s UCL law.
The Federal Trade Commission is watching the healthcare lead generation industry closely.
On December 10, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has sent warning letters to 21 companies that market or generate leads for healthcare plans. The letters were sent as open enrollment season for healthcare plans is ongoing. They provide guidance and provide about deceptive or unfair claims that likely violate laws enforced by the FTC.
The letters were sent to companies that provide marketing or advertising, including lead generation, related to Affordable Care Act Marketplace health insurance and healthcare-related products, such as limited benefit plans and medical discount programs.
The purpose of FTC warning letters is to warn companies that their conduct is likely unlawful and that they can face serious legal consequences, such as a federal investigation of lawsuit, if they do not immediately stop. Overwhelmingly, companies that receive FTC warning letters take steps quickly to correct and come into compliance with applicable legal regulations.
“It is critical for consumers’ health and financial well-being that marketers of health plans be honest about the plans they and their partners are offering,” said FTC lawyer Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC has been watching this important sector closely, especially during open enrollment season, and these warning letters put companies on notice that unlawfully marketing or advertising health plans to consumers can result in serious legal consequences.”
Based on information collected by FTC staff and the agency’s enforcement experience in this area,
On October 16, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced the final FTC “Click-to-Cancel” Rule pertaining to recurring subscriptions and memberships.
The Federal Trade Commission is not the only regulatory agency that actively enacts, updates and polices legislation governing autorenewals, subscriptions and continuous service offers. For example, state attorneys general are, in some instances, more aggressive than the FTC. Some notable states with automatic renewal legislation include New York, Vermont, Colorado, Illinois, Tennessee, Virginia, Minnesota, South Carolina, Utah and California.
California’s Current Automatic Renewal Law
California’s auto renewal legislation is perhaps the most aggressive of all. In short, California’s ARL applies to contracts with consumers, defined as “any individual who seeks, acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods, services, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes.” It includes notice and cancellation requirements for free trials and automatically renewing subscription plans. It also emphasizes the provision of a simple, easy-to-use cancellation mechanism. In California, those making an automatic renewal or continuous service offer are required to present material terms in a “clear and conspicuous manner.” Businesses are also required to seek and obtain a consumer’s affirmative consent to such terms in close proximity to making these material disclosures and prior to the point of billing the consumer.
Disclosures must include, for example and without limitation, that the subscription or purchase agreement will continue until the consumer cancels, a description of the cancellation policy, that recurring charges will be charged continuously until cancellation,
As previously blogged about here, following notices of proposed rulemaking in 2022 and 2023, on August 22, 2024 the Federal Trade Commission finalized a rule that will impose monetary civil penalties false and misleading consumer reviews and testimonials. Those covered by the Final Rule, including, but not limited to, advertisers, marketers, manufacturers, brands and various intermediaries, and businesses that promote and assist such entities, should consult with an experienced FTC compliance lawyer and begin to prepare for its enforcement, immediately.
What Does the FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Cover?
The FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials formalizes the prohibition of various practices relating to the use of consumer reviews and testimonials and sets forth which practices may be considered unfair or deceptive pursuant to the FTC Act.
In short, the Final Rule is intended to foster fair competition and protect consumers’ purchasing decisions. In general, the Final Rule covers: (i) the purchase, sale or procuring of fake reviews or testimonials (for example and without limitation, a reviewer that does not exist, a reviewer that did not actually use or possess experience with the product or service, or a review that misrepresents actual experience); (ii) providing compensation or other incentives in exchange for reviews that express a particular sentiment; (iii) facilitating “insider” consumer reviews and testimonials that do not contain a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the relationship; (iv) utilizing websites that appear to be independent review websites when,
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.