Ad Law Insights - Legal and Regulatory Updates
FTC + state attorneys general digital marketing compliance, investigation + enforcement advocacy by FTC lawyer to Internet business community
This website is brought to you by Hinch Newman LLP and FTCDefenseLawyer.com.
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. Thus,
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.
In October 2025, the New York Attorney General’s Office announced that, in accordance with the “Stop Hiding Hate” Act, social media companies are required to report their content moderation policies to the OAG’s office, with first reports due no later than January 1, 2026.
The New York legislation requires that platforms operating in New York with more than $100 million in gross annual revenue must post their content moderation policies publicly, provide consumers with a contact to report violations of the policy, and submit biannual compliance reports.
Key requirements of the Act include:
- Public Transparency: Covered companies are required to publish their terms of service in clear accessible language and provide contact details for user inquiries.
- User Reporting Mechanisms: Platforms must clearly describe how users can report violations of the terms of service, and provide contact information for doing so.
- Action and Response Details: Covered companies must explain what kind of action they may take for posts that violate the policy.
- Biannual Reporting: Social media companies are required to submit reports twice a year to the New York OAG. These reports must include statements on their terms of service. Covered companies must also describe their policies and how they are enforced.
- Data Disclosure: Reports must include data on the total number of posts believed to be policy violations, the number of posts acted upon, and the details thereof.
The failure to comply with the Act’s requirements can potentially result in civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation per day.
In a win for telemarketers, a Florida federal court recently held that “a text message is not a ‘telephone call.’”
The TCPA’s Do Not Call provisions prohibit telephone solicitations to residential subscribers that place their numbers on the federal Do Not Call registry. In Davis v. CVS Pharm., Inc., No. 24-0477, 2025 WL 2491195 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 26, 2025), the plaintiff alleged in a class action that CVS sent him unsolicited text messages in violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act provisions prohibiting calls to individuals registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).
In a ruling on behalf of CVS, the court held that that Congress used the term “telephone calls” in Section 227(c)(5), and that the text of the statute evidence that a call does not include text messages. The court opined that it is required to interpret the TCPA “in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment” and that, “if the text is clear, the analysis begins and ends there.”
Notably, the court rejected CVS’ position that the court should defer to a 2003 FCC order that provides for texts being considered calls for TCPA purposes. The court stated that it is not required to utilize “a statutory interpretation that conflicts with the ordinary public meaning of clear statutory text.” The holding is consistent with a recent decision by an Illinois federal court.
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.
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. The firm possesses superior 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.