New York attorney general Leticia James is the latest state-level actor to respond to the Trump administration’s efforts to shrink federal consumer protection agencies. James has championed the FAIR Business Practices Act, a bill introduced in the New York state legislature aimed at expanding the New York consumer protection statutes to include unfair and abusive practices.

According to James, the FAIR Business Practices Act would “close loopholes” in New York’s current consumer protection scheme and enhance the enforcement capabilities of the Office of the Attorney General. If enacted, the bill would enable the attorney general to pursue civil penalties and restitution for violations of the act, such as:

Continue Reading New York Seeks to Beef up Consumer Protection Framework

In recent years, businesses have faced an onslaught of consumer class actions challenging sustainability initiatives, environmental commitments, and ethical sourcing language. In our view, these lawsuits frequently rely on dubious injury allegations because they challenge company-wide statements without properly connecting those statements to the value of any specific product purchased by plaintiff. After all, federal courts have limited jurisdiction, requiring a plaintiff to plausibly allege, with facts, an actual injury flowing from defendant’s conduct. Some courts are increasingly taking a harder look at pleadings to determine whether a plaintiff can plausibly allege that a company’s environmental or ethical visions, goals, or policies actually affect the value of the company’s product. In the most recent example, a federal court in Florida concluded that the answer to that question, at least with respect to Lululemon’s “Be Planet” campaign, was no.

Continue Reading Pleading an Injury in Consumer Class Actions: Is It Enough to Just Say So?

In January the Eleventh Circuit vacated the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) one-to-one consent rule, finding that the agency exceeded its statutory authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The latest development is that on February 19, 2025, the National Consumers League and some small business owners filed a motion to intervene in the case so that they can ask for a full rehearing of that decision. The intervenors argue that because “the panel’s decision ignored both the purpose of the TCPA (to stop unwanted calls), and the FCC’s determination that the Rule was necessary to accomplish that purpose,” they should be allowed to intervene to “reduce the costly burden of unwanted telemarketing calls.” They argue that because of “the change in presidential administration, the FCC is no longer defending the Rule and is unlikely to seek rehearing of that decision” and thus “without government defense of the Rule, the interests of Proposed Intervenors in seeing the Rule in place will no longer be protected at all—much less adequately.”

Join us as we spotlight select chapters of Venable’s popular Advertising Law Tool Kit, which helps marketing teams navigate their organization’s legal risk. 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 practice involves compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, notably the Federal Trade Commission Act and the CAN-SPAM Act.

These laws mandate truthful, non-misleading advertising, accurate sender and subject line information, clear opt-out mechanisms, and identification of emails as advertisements. Claims in emails must be supported by evidence, with required disclosures presented clearly.

While CAN-SPAM preempts most state laws, some states impose additional restrictions, such as prohibiting unauthorized use of third-party domain names and misleading header information. Violations can result in significant fines, up to $1,000 per email.

To learn more about email marketing, download the 13th 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.

We’ve written previously about the Trump administration’s effort to increase his influence over independent agencies such as the FTC and to review regulations promulgated by these agencies. The White House is also reportedly directing agencies, including the FTC, to prepare for reductions in force. But, given these developments, what will the FTC under Chairman Ferguson prioritize for the Bureau of Consumer Protection? Some clues and some speculation follow.

On February 26, Chairman Ferguson announced the creation of a task force including staff from the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Economics, and the Office of Policy Planning to focus on protecting consumers in their role as workers, which are similar to previously proposed efforts under the prior administration. The directive to the FTC staff identifies conduct that should be part of the effort, including:

  • Deceptive job advertising
  • Deceptive business opportunities
  • Misleading franchise offerings
  • Job scams
Continue Reading Some Hints About and Clues to the FTC’s Consumer Protection Priorities

Last week, a security services company and several trade groups filed their merits brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit challenging the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) newly adopted Negative Option Rule, also called Click-to-Cancel. The rule introduces a host of requirements for companies selling goods or services with a negative option feature in both consumer and B2B transactions, as we outlined last year. Notably, a negative option seller must make cancellation as simple as signing up, including providing an easy online cancellation method if consumers signed up online.

The rule went partially into effect on January 14, 2025, with the prohibition on misrepresentations of material facts relating to the promotion or offering for sale of any good or service with a negative option. The remainder of the rule covering consent and cancellation requirements takes effect in May 2025.

The court previously denied petitioners’ request to stay the rule from taking effect pending litigation.

Continue Reading FTC’s “Click-to-Cancel” Rule Challenged by Industry in the Eighth Circuit

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under new chair Brendan Carr has issued an enforcement advisory addressing complaints that radio stations are coercing musical artists to perform for free at station events by threatening to reduce their airplay if they refuse.

The advisory warns that arrangements requiring performers to play at broadcast station events in exchange for airplay, particularly when coupled with threats of reduced airplay for non-compliance, could violate the FCC’s payola rules. These rules prohibit broadcasters from making programming decisions based on receiving anything of value without on-air disclosure of such consideration. A band’s coerced free performance could constitute such consideration and, if not disclosed during subsequent airplay, would violate payola policies.

The FCC characterized these practices as “covert manipulation of radio airplay,” noting that “[w]hen payola causes stations to broadcast programming based on their financial interests at the expense of community responsiveness, the practice is inconsistent with localism.” While commercial stations can negotiate increased airplay in exchange for event appearances, any agreement for free performances must be disclosed to listeners each time the artist’s songs are played.

Continue Reading FCC Enforcement Advisory Issued Regarding Payola and the Sponsorship Identification Requirements

Last week, President Trump issued two executive orders aimed squarely at upending the long-accepted authority and independence of certain federal agencies. The first order, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, derides “so-called independent regulatory agencies” that traditionally promulgate rules and regulations without requiring preclearance by the president.

The order declares such actions to be unaccountable to the American people and contrary to the Trump administration’s position that all executive power must be supervised and controlled by the president. Relatedly, the order declares that the opinions of the president and the attorney general are the only authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch, without exception.

The order requires all executive agencies to submit all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which sits within the Executive Office of the President, before publication in the Federal Register. Notably, the order carves out the Federal Reserve, perhaps indicating the administration is cognizant of the potential ramifications for the broader economy if the Federal Reserve’s independence were to come into question.

Continue Reading New Executive Orders Declare “So-Called” Independent Agencies No Longer Independent

Join us as we spotlight select chapters of Venable’s popular Advertising Law Tool Kit, which helps marketing teams navigate their organization’s legal risk. Click here to download the entire Tool Kit.

Brands operating websites or apps for cause-related marketing and charitable fundraising are increasingly regulated as charitable fundraising platforms under state laws. Historically, regulation focused on “commercial coventurers” conducting “charitable sales promotions.”

However, amendments now extend strict rules to online platforms engaging in activities like donation programs and free action campaigns. Brands may need to register, file annual reports, and obtain written charity consent. Funds must often be held in separate accounts and transferred promptly, and tax receipts must be issued within five days. Campaigns must verify charities’ “good standing,” ensure clear disclosures, and adhere to donation accounting rules.

Additionally, advertising must include material disclosures. Given evolving regulations, early planning, compliance with state-specific laws, and accurate disclosures are essential for successful campaigns.

To learn more about charitable fundraising platforms, download the 13th 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.

With much of the administrative state in turmoil, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) appears to be holding steady and continuing to litigate its current cases.

We previously discussed the FTC’s lawsuit against Grand Canyon University (GCU) and its president, in particular the court’s granting of GCU’s motion to dismiss, finding that the FTC could not bring claims against GCU because it was a nonprofit organization and not a “person, partnership, or corporation” within the FTC’s jurisdiction.

The court held that the FTC could bring claims against GCU only if it could establish that GCU was a “corporation,” which the act defines as either organized to carry on business for the profit of its “members” or organized to carry on business for its “own” profit. The court found the FTC had not pleaded facts to satisfy this burden, but gave the FTC leave to amend its complaint.

Continue Reading FTC Forges Ahead in Court Battle on FTC Act’s Scope Over Nonprofit Institutions (And Loses)