Internet Law
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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,
On September 25, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced “Operation AI Comply.” According to FTC attorneys, “some marketers can’t resist taking advantage of that by using the language of AI and technology to try to make it seem like their products or services deliver all the answers.”
As part of Operation AI Comply, the FTC announced five cases exposing allleged AI-related deception.
First, the FTC announced four settlements involving allegedly deceptive claims about AI-driven services, three of which are purported business opportunity scams that claim to use AI to help people earn more money, faster. The agency also announced a settlement involving a company that purportedly offered a generative AI tool that let people create what the FTC alleges to be fake consumer reviews.
- DoNotPay: An FTC complaint claims U.K.-based DoNotPay told people its online subscription service acts as “the world’s first robot lawyer” and an “AI lawyer” by using a chatbot to prepare “ironclad” documents for the U.S. legal system. The complaint says DoNotPay told small businesses its service could check their websites for law violations and help them avoid significant legal fees. According to the complaint, DoNotPay’s service did not live up to the hype. The FTC welcomes comments on a proposed settlement between FTC and DoNotPay, which requires DoNotPay to stop allegedly misleading people, pay $193,000, and tell certain subscribers about the case.
- Ascend Ecom: An FTC complaint filed in California alleges a group of companies and their officers used deceptive earnings claims to convince people to invest in “risk free” business opportunities supposedly powered by AI.
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.