Internet Law
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,
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.
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,
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.
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.