New York City is poised to strengthen local enforcement of autorenewal and subscription programs, largely mirroring and operationalizing requirements already imposed under New York’s autorenewal law.

On April 8, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), led by Commissioner Samuel Levine, published a proposed “Click-to-Cancel” rule that would require any business offering autorenewal programs to New York City consumers, regardless of where the business itself is located, to make canceling subscription services as easy as enrollment.

Continue Reading New York City Proposes Strict Click-to-Cancel Subscription Requirements

Join us as we offer a sneak peek into select chapters from the newly released 14th edition of Venable’s Advertising Law Tool Kit, which helps marketing teams navigate their organization’s legal risk. Want more? Click here to download the entire Tool Kit.

Commercial email marketing poses private litigation risks and regulatory hurdles that should be considered before launching any campaign to ensure compliance. The Federal Trade Commission Act requires truthful and non-misleading advertising, and the Federal CAN-SPAM Act prohibits false or deceptive email headers (which are generally defined as the sending domain names and “from” lines) and subject lines, requires opt-out options, and mandates identification of commercial emails as advertising.

Under the FTC Act, the overall impression of the advertisement must not be misleading. Any claims made in the email must be supported with appropriate evidence, and if any of the claims require disclosures, they must always be clear and conspicuous.

Under the CAN-SPAM Act, although no prior consent is required to send marketing emails, organizations must not send emails to recipients who have opted out of said communications. Historically, litigation has focused on CAN-SPAM’s requirement that advertisers not use false or misleading header information, such as domain names and routing information, “from,” “to”, and “reply to” lines, or deceptive subject lines as to the content of the email. Nonetheless, commercial emails are also required to identify the message as an advertisement, include the advertiser’s postal address, and notify recipients about how to opt out of future communications.

CAN-SPAM was passed to establish nationwide uniformity for commercial advertisements in emails, states may regulate commercial emails with a narrow exception: laws that target material fraud or deception. In other words, if the law is not regulating traditionally tortious or wrongful conduct, the state may not regulate it.

Even so, various states have adopted email marketing laws or “anti-spam” statutes of their own. For example, California passed California Business and Professions Code § 17529.5. Certain requirements, such as the prohibition on commercial emails sent without consent, are preempted, but others are not. For example, Section 17529.5 prohibits e-mails containing third-party domain names used without permission, misrepresented header information, and misleading subject lines. Companies are experiencing an increase in lawsuits brought under California’s § 17529.5. Plaintiffs are alleging that the following practices violate Section 17529.5A: (1) any third party’s domain name appearing in any part of the routing information, such as the hidden, technical header; (2) header information that does not expressly identify the name of the sender; or (3) proxy registered domains.

Though California courts have curtailed some of these suits as preempted by CAN-SPAM, private plaintiffs continue to bring such actions. Violations are punishable by up to $1,000 per email. Similarly, plaintiffs are filing lawsuits under Washington’s email marketing statute, challenging any advertising claims made in email subject lines and seeking hundreds of thousands if not millions in penalties for these alleged violations.

Consider the following when engaging in email marketing:

  • The email communication must clearly indicate if the email is for commercial purposes.
  • The overall impression of claims made in the email must not be misleading, and all claims must be truthful and substantiated.
  • Include the full business name, valid physical address, and opt-out mechanism.
  • Promptly remove unsubscribers within 10 business days of their opt-out request.
  • Use accurate business information when registering domain names.
  • Use subject lines that accurately reflect the contents of the email.
  • Do not use misleading sender names or false identities.
  • Do not make false, unsubstantiated, or potentially misleading claims in the email body or subject line.

To learn more about email marketing, download the 14th edition of our Advertising Law Tool Kit. For more insights into advertising law, bookmark our All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter.

After the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the plaintiffs’ bar has found a new hook for challenges affecting retailers. The litigation risk is landing not just on importers seeking refunds from the government, but on retailers, marketplaces, and service providers that passed tariff costs through to consumers. Unfortunately, this means that many companies affected by the tariffs in the first instance will now be hit by another target.

On February 20, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, invalidating a broad swath of tariffs imposed in 2025. (Watch a recording of this webinar to learn more.) IEEPA-based tariffs were terminated shortly after the decision, and the ruling created significant refund exposure. Critically, the Court did not address how refunds should be handled. That last point is the opening plaintiffs’ lawyers are using.

Continue Reading IEEPA Tariffs Invalidated: Rising Class Action Risk for Consumer Pricing

From one-click checkouts to autofilled payment fields, the modern payment experience is built on convenience. Consumers have come to expect that apps, websites, and even their mobile devices will seamlessly store and deploy their payment credentials with minimal friction. But beneath this ease lies a growing legal tension, particularly in subscriptions and automatic renewals programs, where sales and marketing laws require clear disclosures before obtaining the consumer’s billing information.

ROSCA Compliance and Subscription Disclosure Timing

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) lawsuit against Uber Technologies illustrates how this tension plays out in practice. The case focuses on Uber’s “Uber One” subscription program and how subscription enrollment is embedded within an app ecosystem where users have already stored payment credentials for one-off transactions. Under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), material subscription terms must be disclosed before obtaining consumers’ billing information.

Continue Reading Stored Payment Credentials and ROSCA: Lessons from the FTC’s Uber Case

Last week, a federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled on Uber’s motion to dismiss a case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging deceptive practices in connection with its Uber One subscription program. The complaint alleged violations of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) and deceptive advertising and marketing misrepresentations in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and numerous state laws.

FTC Uber Lawsuit and ROSCA Claims

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to only two discrete aspects of the complaint. First, it dismissed the FTC’s subclaim challenging Uber’s “$0 delivery fee” representation, holding that the statement was not misleading as a matter of law because it was expressly limited to “eligible” orders and therefore would not lead a reasonable consumer to believe all orders qualified.

Continue Reading FTC v. Uber: California Court Allows Claims against Uber One Subscription to Proceed

On March 13, the Trump administration issued an executive order (EO), “Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to be Made in America,” aimed at ensuring products advertised as “Made in America” or “Made in USA” are actually made in the United States.

The EO directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prioritize enforcement of unfair or deceptive “Made in America” or “Made in the USA” or any similar U.S.-origin claims and to consider proposing regulations that would require online marketplaces to establish procedures for verifying country-of-origin claims.   

Additionally, the EO requires agencies with oversight of country-of-origin labeling, in consultation with the FTC, to consider promulgating regulations that promote voluntary country-of-origin labeling for products made or manufactured in the U.S.

Continue Reading FTC Targets “Made in USA” Claims Under New Executive Order

Join us as we offer a sneak peek into select chapters from the newly released 14th edition of Venable’s Advertising Law Tool Kit, which helps marketing teams navigate their organization’s legal risk. Want more? Click here to download the entire Tool Kit.

Advertising Claims Substantiation

Objective advertising claims must be supported by prior substantiation. These claims—whether express or implied—generally concern measurable or otherwise verifiable attributes of a dietary supplement, food, device, or cosmetic. When an advertisement includes such claims, marketers must have a “reasonable basis” for them. As a general guideline, a reasonable basis means possessing the level and type of substantiation that experts in the relevant field would consider adequate to support the claim. Extra caution is required for health-related claims, including structure/function claims, or other assertions that consumers cannot readily assess for themselves (such as statements that a product “supports normal cholesterol levels”) which must be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. The amount and type of evidence needed will depend on the nature of the claim and what experts in the field would deem appropriate. This is a flexible standard and does not necessarily require a product-specific clinical study

Continue Reading Inside the Ad Law Tool Kit: Advertising Claim Substantiation

On March 20, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the administrative adjudication of deceptive advertising claims by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) violates the constitutional separation of powers, which grants exclusive judicial authority to Article III courts. Without deciding on the merits of the FTC’s deceptive advertising argument, the court concluded in Intuit v. FTC that the FTC must argue its claims in federal court, not in front of an in-house administrative law judge (ALJ).

FTC Administrative Adjudication Faces Constitutional Limits

This case extends the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Jarkesy, which held unconstitutional the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) use of ALJs to adjudicate securities fraud claims. Although the Intuit court’s ruling is limited to deceptive advertising cases, Jarkesy and Intuit raise significant doubt as to the FTC’s ability to issue administrative cease-and-desist orders under the FTC Act.

Continue Reading Intuit v. FTC Reshapes Deceptive Advertising Enforcement Authority

On March 12, Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group hosted its 12th Advertising Law Symposium in Washington, DC, bringing together in-house counsel, marketing executives, and industry professionals to examine the legal and regulatory landscape facing advertisers. The panels focused on a range of the latest topics in advertising law, including FTC enforcement priorities, pricing transparency, artificial intelligence, class action trends, and more.

In case you were unable to attend, here are some key themes that emerged from the day’s discussions.

Continue Reading Event in Review | 12th Advertising Law Symposium

Last week another court used McKesson and Loper Bright to limit requirements under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Following the Fifth Circuit decision we discussed earlier this month, a federal court in Maryland held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacks the authority to require businesses to obtain prior express written consent to send autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts under the TCPA.

In Bradley v. DentalPlans et al., the district court cited recent case law from the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits that has curtailed the FCC’s ability to interpret the TCPA’s “prior express consent” requirement.

FCC Authority Challenged in TCPA Interpretation

The court also noted recent case law in which the Fourth Circuit emphasized that that an agency must be delegated clear authority to both implement and interpret the statute at issue. Aligning with the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Maryland court determined that Congress has only required prior express consent, and the FCC could not take a more expansive interpretation and impose a prior express written consent requirement.

Continue Reading TCPA Decision Weakens FCC Written Consent Requirement for Telemarketing