Christopher L. Boone

Subscribe to Christopher L. Boone's Posts

Chris Boone focuses his practice on regulatory issues related to payment processing, blockchain, advertising and marketing, transportation, and telecommunications. Chris provides counsel on regulatory compliance, contract negotiations, and general business matters. He also regularly assists clients in responding to federal and state investigative inquiries, demands, and complaints from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), state attorneys general, and other federal and state authorities.

Contact:Read more about Christopher L. Boone

One of the questions that remains uncertain among looming federal and state “junk fee” and “drip pricing” bans in 2024 concerns the impact these rules will have on credit card surcharges. Surcharges are added to sale transactions by some retailers when the buyer uses a credit card to make a purchase. Is this a mandatory fee that must be incorporated in the total price under the new laws? Or does the consumer’s choice to use a credit card to pay make the convenience of paying by credit card an optional service or feature that need not be included in the advertised price?

We may need to wait for further clarification from regulators or a lawsuit to know how junk fee bans impact surcharging, but understanding the possible arguments and pitfalls may help you decide how you will address this question in the short-term. Contact us if you need guidance or advice on these junk fee bans or surcharge rules.Continue Reading Drip Pricing, Surcharging, and the Push for “Total Price” Disclosures

On February 11, 2024, a new law went into effect in New York, establishing important limits and rules for surcharging. Enacted in December 2023, the new statute has a price disclosure component, detailing how surcharge prices are communicated, and a surcharge price cap component. The law also imposes a $500 civil penalty for each violation, and it can be enforced by municipalities and local governments.

Surcharge Price Disclosure: First, the law provides that any seller imposing a surcharge must “clearly and conspicuously post the total price for using a credit card in such transaction, inclusive of [the] surcharge[.]” This means that the final sales price of any such transaction cannot be greater than the posted price. It would not be sufficient to include a credit card surcharge warning on a price tag or menu, or on a sign by the register.

Surcharge Price Cap: Second, the law provides that any such surcharge may not exceed the amount of the surcharge charged to the business by the credit card company for such credit card use.Continue Reading New York Implements a New Surcharge Law: What the Changes Mean for Shoppers and Businesses

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it has reached a settlement with the bankrupt crypto company Voyager over the company’s alleged deceptive crypto marketing practices. Specifically, the FTC’s complaint alleges that from at least 2018 until its declaration of bankruptcy in July 2022, Voyager enticed consumers with promises that their deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and were “safe.” However, consumers’ deposits with Voyager were not eligible for FDIC insurance and were not protected in the event that Voyager failed.

The FDIC only insures deposits held by insured banks or savings associations, and only up to certain limits. Voyager, however, is not a chartered bank or savings association. While Voyager’s bank partner was FDIC-insured, FDIC deposit insurance protects deposits only in the event of the insured institution’s failure, not the failure of a non-bank partner in the event of that company’s failure. According to the FTC, Voyager’s false assurance lured customers into entrusting their funds to the company, resulting in significant losses for those affected by the company’s bankruptcy in July 2022.Continue Reading FTC Settles with Bankrupt Crypto Company, but Pursues CEO for Deceptive FDIC Claims

On June 16, 2023, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released an update to its Supervisory Guidance on Multiple Re-Presentment NSF Fees (FIL-40-2022) (the “Guidance”), to provide additional guidance for supervised institutions on the consumer compliance risks associated with assessing multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees for the re-presentment of unpaid transactions. This alert discusses the potential risks the FDIC identified and outlines the risk mitigation practices that supervised institutions can implement to mitigate risks when processing multiple re-presentment NSF fees.

Although the Guidance’s applicability is limited to FDIC supervised institutions, the information provided on potential risks and mitigation practices should be taken into consideration by any financial institutions or merchants that assess multiple re-presentment NSF fees in connection with billing consumers.Continue Reading FDIC Releases Revised Supervisory Guidance on Multiple Re-Presentment NSF Fees

On Monday the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a cease-and-desist order to Kim Kardashian for failing to disclose that she received $250,000 to promote EthereumMax’s digital tokens, “EMAX tokens,” on social media.

The SEC considers the EMAX token to be an investment contract, a type of security under the SEC’s jurisdiction. EMAX tokens are available for public trading on cryptocurrency exchanges, and the SEC found that purchasers would have had a reasonable expectation of profits from their investment in EMAX tokens as a result of the efforts of the company behind the token.Continue Reading Keeping Up with Disclosures: SEC Punishes Kim Kardashian for Crypto Promotion

In June, New York enacted a ticket transparency law seeking to make sweeping changes to how ticket prices are communicated to consumers and eliminate deceptive ticket pricing practices. The law will go into effect on August 29, 2022, leaving little time for ticket platforms, resellers, and entertainment venues to make necessary changes to their ticket selling practices and checkout flows.

The law requires ticket sellers, resellers, online ticket platforms, and entertainment venues that facilitate the sale of tickets to disclose the total cost of a ticket, including all fees that must be paid to purchase the ticket.

Significantly, this disclosure of the total cost to purchase must be displayed in the ticket listing prior to the ticket being selected for purchase. Disclosure of the total price only in the final steps of the checkout process will not be sufficient under the new law. Ticket sellers must also clearly and conspicuously state how much of the ticket price represents a service charge or other fee.Continue Reading Ticket Platforms, Beware: New York Axes Hidden Fees for Concerts and Entertainment Events

In its much-anticipated cryptocurrency executive order issued earlier this month, the Biden administration called for a coordinated interagency approach to the regulation of digital assets and to the study of their potential risks.

A significant part of this effort focuses on the nation’s primary consumer protection agencies, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Historically, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) have played the primary roles in regulating digital assets, with the FTC and CFPB largely taking a wait-and-see approach. But this has left open a regulatory gap for crypto activities that do not involve a security or a commodity derivative.Continue Reading Biden Tasks Consumer Protection Agencies with Stepping Up Cryptocurrency Oversight

A class action lawsuit filed against Kim Kardashian, Floyd Mayweather, and former professional basketball player Paul Pierce earlier this month underscores the need for celebrity endorsers to take care when they approach any endorsement activity in the cryptocurrency space.

The lawsuit alleges that the celebrities collaborated with Ethereum Max, a company offering ERC-20 cryptocurrency tokens (EMAX Tokens), and its executives to engage in a “pump-and-dump” scheme promoting investments in the company’s tokens. The complaint alleges that the three celebrity influencers misleadingly promoted EMAX Tokens to potential investors, touting the ability of investors to make significant returns due to the favorable “tokenomics” of the EMAX Tokens, when in fact the tokens were practically worthless. The class action alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, aiding and abetting, and unjust enrichment/restitution.

According to the complaint, EthereumMax’s entire business model relies on marketing and promotional activities, and the celebrity promoters received EMAX Tokens and/or other compensation in return for promoting the tokens. (EthereumMax “has no connection” to Ether, the second-largest cryptocurrency, the lawsuit said, adding that its branding appears to be an effort to mislead investors into believing the token is part of the Ethereum network.) The promotional activities at issue included, among other things, making social media posts, wearing EMAX-branded shirts, and promoting the cryptocurrency at a conference.Continue Reading “Are You Guys Into Crypto????”: Celebrities Promoting Cryptocurrencies Become Class Action Targets

Game developers and platform providers are increasingly integrating non-fungible tokens (NFTs), virtual currencies, and digital marketplaces into their games and platforms, creating seamless, novel, and interactive experiences. While the industry has moved ahead quickly, federal and state regulators are taking a much closer look at how these technologies fit within existing legal frameworks.

In a recent webinar, partner Ellen Berge and associate Chris Boone of Venable’s Advertising Law and Payments groups explored the latest regulatory developments and addressed how to spot and avoid compliance and regulatory risks associated with NFTs, virtual currencies, and other platform-based monetization mechanics. We received insightful questions from members of the audience, which our lawyers answer below.Continue Reading You Asked, We Answered: NFTs and Virtual Currency in Games: Compliance Issues and Legal Risks

Last week the FTC announced it had settled with mobile advertising platform Tapjoy regarding allegations that it failed to provide in-game rewards that users were promised for completing advertising offers. Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter also issued a Joint Statement on the settlement, criticizing mobile app “gatekeepers” for excessive “rent extraction” from mobile gaming apps, which they believe has forced developers to adopt alternative – and often harmful – means of generating revenue, such as loyalty offers and loot boxes. The settlement, and particularly the separate concurrence written by Democratic Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Slaughter, highlights the increased scrutiny over the entire mobile gaming ecosystem and the various businesses that operate within it.

Tapjoy operates a mobile advertising platform, acting as a middleman between advertisers, gamers, and game developers. The platform integrates “offers” into mobile games, promising users in-game currency and other rewards for completing the offers and promising developers a percentage of Tapjoy’s advertising revenue. Advertisers pay Tapjoy for each consumer who is induced to complete an offer, which often requires users to submit personal information or spend money, for example, by purchasing a product, enrolling in a continuity program, or completing a survey. Other offer requirements may include downloading an additional app or watching a short video.Continue Reading FTC Cracks Down on Mobile Gaming Middlemen Offering In-Game Rewards and Offers