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.
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.
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,
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.