Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
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.
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,
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.
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,
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.