Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
On January 5, 2025, NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, joined by Attorney General Letitia James, City Council Member Julie Menin, and DCWP Commissioner Sam Levine, announced that it has signed two executive orders: to combat businesses’ deceptive use of junk fees and crackdown on subscription tricks and traps that that drain money from New Yorkers and make essential goods and services less affordable.
Following the signing, DCWP will begin outreach to businesses to ensure compliance with city law and signal immediate consequences. Contact an experienced New York DCWP (DCA) defense lawyer if you have been contacted by the NY DCWP or the NY Office of the Attorney General relating your billing practices.
“New Yorkers deserve to know exactly what they are paying, how much it will cost, and whether they are signing up for an ongoing charge — before a single dollar leaves their account. Instead, too many people are hit with hidden fees and blindsided by subscription traps they never knowingly agreed to and cannot easily escape,” said Mayor Mamdani. “In the midst of an affordability crisis that is already pushing working New Yorkers out of their city, these deceptive practices put even more strain on household budgets. This executive order restores what should have always been the case: transparency in pricing, accountability for companies, and full compliance with the law.”
“New Yorkers are paying too much for everyday services because of hidden, unexpected junk fees and illegal subscriptions traps.
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.
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.
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.
Effective July 31, 2025, the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act governs the manner by which the personal data of Minnesota residents is handled.
Who Does the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act Apply To?
The MCDPA applies to entities doing business in Minnesota or produce products or services that are targeted to residents of Minnesota, and that satisfy one or more of the following threshold:
- Dduring a calendar year, controls or processes personal data of 100,000 consumers or more, excluding personal data controlled or processed solely for the purpose of completing a payment transaction; or
- derives over 25 percent of gross revenue from the sale of personal data and processes or controls personal data of 25,000 consumers or more.
What is a “Controller” and What are a Controller’s Obligations?
A “Controller” means the natural or legal person which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data.
The MCDPA obligates controllers to provide consumers with a clear and accessible privacy notice that sets forth the categories of personal data being processed and the purposes for that the data will be processed for. The privacy notice must also set forth the categories of personal data sold or shared with third-parties, identify the third-parties, explain how consumers may exercise their privacy rights, set forth the controller’s contact information, and describe the controller’s personal data retention policy. Notably, controllers are expressly restricted to the collection of personal data that is “adequate,
On June 16, 2025 the Federal Trade Commission announced that U.K.-based payment processor, Paddle.com Market Limited, and its subsidiary, Paddle.com, Inc., will pay $5 million and be permanently banned from processing payments for tech-support telemarketers. The foregoing is in settlemetn of a Federal Trade Commission action alleging that Paddle abused the U.S. credit-card system and enabled deceptive foreign operators to access it, costing consumers millions of dollars.
According to the complaint, the FTC alleged that Paddle and its subsidiary processed payments for deceptive tech-support schemes that targeted U.S. consumers including older adults.
“Paddle provided foreign-based tech-support schemes with access to the U.S. payment system, allowing these companies to harm consumers,” said FTC lawyer Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will hold accountable payment companies that knowingly facilitate payments for scammers or look the other way when faced with red flags about their clients’ conduct.”
The complaint charges that: (i) Paddle allegedly opened merchant accounts claiming to be a “merchant of record” or software “reseller,” then allegedly used these accounts to process card payments on behalf of numerous, unrelated third-party merchants; (ii) Paddle allegedly enabled overseas schemes to access the credit card system and collect payments from U.S. consumers, and to allegedly evade detection by merchant banks and card networks; (iii) Paddle allegedly facilitated schemes, like Restoro-Reimage, that allegedly used fake virus alerts and pop-up messages to impersonate familiar brands,
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.
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.