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.
The use of subscriptions models in the digital advertising marketplace has become ubiquitous. So have legal regulatory investigation and enforcement of such ecommerce practices.
It is paramount for those that utilize such models consult with an eCommerce attorney to be informed of the legal implications of subscription-based services, including automatic renewals, trial offers and continuity plans.
Federal ARL Legal Regulations
At the federal level, the Federal Trade Commission enforces, without limitation, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”). ROSCA compliance is an FTC investigation and enforcement priority. To date, the FTC has initiated approximately 50 ROSCA actions. The largest ROSCA settlement to date is $2.5 billion.
ROSCA prohibits any post-transaction third party seller (a seller who markets goods or services online through an initial merchant after a consumer has initiated a transaction with that merchant) from charging any financial account in an Internet transaction unless it has disclosed clearly all material terms of the transaction and obtained the consumer’s express informed consent to the charge.
“Clear and conspicuous” disclosures are the centerpiece of ROSCA. “All material terms” must be adequately disclosed prior to obtaining the consumer’s billing information. Additionally, a consumer’s expressed informed consent my be obtained prior to charging the consumer’s credit card, debit card, bank account or other financial account for products or services through such transaction. And, a “simple mechanism” for a consumer to stop recurring charges must be provided.
ROSCA violations are aggressively enforced by the FTC or state attorneys general as unfair and deceptive acts and practices.
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,
The Federal Trade Commission’s initial findings from its surveillance pricing market study revealed that details like a person’s precise location or browser history can be frequently used to target individual consumers with different prices for the same goods and services.
The staff perspective is based on an examination of documents obtained by FTC staff’s 6(b) orders sent to several companies in July aiming to better understand the “shadowy market that third-party intermediaries use to set individualized prices for products and services based on consumers’ characteristics and behaviors, like location, demographics, browsing patterns and shopping history.”
Staff found that consumer behaviors ranging from mouse movements on a webpage to the type of products that consumers leave unpurchased in an online shopping cart can be tracked and used by retailers to tailor consumer pricing.
“Initial staff findings show that retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services—from a person’s location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC should continue to investigate surveillance pricing practices because Americans deserve to know how their private data is being used to set the prices they pay and whether firms are charging different people different prices for the same good or service.”
The FTC’s study of the 6(b) documents is still ongoing. The staff perspective is based on an initial analysis of documents provided by Mastercard,
On Friday, December 27, 2024, the Justice Department issued a final rule to address “urgent national security risks posed by access to U.S. sensitive personal and government-related data from countries of concern and covered persons.” The final rule was posted publicly and addresses “continued efforts of countries of concern to access, exploit, and weaponize Americans’ bulk sensitive personal and U.S. government-related data.”
This rule reflects the Department’s careful consideration of the comments received in response to the March 5, 2024 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) and the October 29, 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) as well as feedback from hundreds of representatives from companies and organizations and extensive consultation with dozens of other U.S. Government agencies and offices, along with engagement foreign partners.
As previewed in the ANPRM and NPRM, the final rule establishes a national-security program within the Justice Department’s National Security Division that restricts and in some instances prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in certain categories of data transactions with six “countries of concern” (including covered persons and entities subject to coercion by those countries) because such transactions pose unacceptable national-security risks of giving those countries, entities, or persons access to U.S. bulk sensitive personal data or government-related data.
The rule will become effective 90 days after publication. Certain affirmative compliance obligations will be phased in with a later effective date of 270 days after publication.
The Department also intends to continue engaging with industry and other stakeholders to determine whether any general licenses are appropriate as this program goes into effect.
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.
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.