With tariffs creating an atmosphere where “imported” may soon come to mean “expensive,” American businesses might be tempted to use their advertising and packaging to emphasize the American origin of their product, no matter how little of the product originates in the USA. But, considering the regulations in place and the recent attention to challenges for false advertising, it’s a good time to review the rules for making Made in the USA claims. A recent jury verdict shows the potential consequences a company may suffer for not following the rules.

Earlier this month, a California jury found a popular tea company, R. C. Bigelow, liable for damages of $2.36 million in a class action lawsuit challenging the company’s Made in the USA claim. The plaintiffs relied on the standard set forth in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Made in USA labeling rule to show that Bigelow had violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), which makes it unlawful to misrepresent the “source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.”Continue Reading Tariffs May Encourage Made in the USA Claims, but You Need to Be Careful

On April 7, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) granted a limited waiver delaying by an additional year the effective date of certain parts of the new Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) rule. Specifically, the waiver delays the effective date for the requirement that a caller treat a single reasonable revocation as revocation from all future robocalls from that party on unrelated matters, and to accept that single revocation as applying to all its business units and entities, which the agency treats as the same “party.”

The FCC’s announcement indicated that it applies only to the scope of revocation issues. The bad news for businesses sending texts and making calls? Businesses must still prepare to comply with the rest of the robocall/robotext consent requirements by April 11, 2025. The good news is that companies now have an additional year to implement systems that communicate revocations across different business units within the same company.Continue Reading FCC Approves Narrow Delay of New TCPA Revocation Rule

On March 21, a federal judge in Washington state denied Doxo Inc.’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding Doxo’s alleged deceptive advertising practices. The FTC’s complaint alleges that Doxo, a third-party online bill pay platform, violated the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). Doxo provides a third-party bill-paying platform that touts that customers can “pay and manage all [their] bills with one login.”

The FTC alleged Doxo deceived consumers by giving the false impression it was the official payment channel for consumers’ billers and failing to adequately disclose fees being charged. The complaint also alleged Doxo violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose material transaction and subscription terms and by failing to obtain informed consent from consumers before signing them up for a subscription service.Continue Reading Do You Know Who You’re Paying? FTC Lawsuit Against an Online Bill Pay Platform to Proceed

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

With the Biden-Harris administration and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan tenures now completed, we take a look back at the mountain of rulemaking carried out over the last few years. Khan’s ambitious agenda led to an avalanche of new and amended rules. All eyes will now be on Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, who is set to become the new chair, and how he will steer the agency going forward.

Under Khan’s leadership, the FTC issued major rules that attempted to regulate swaths of the U.S. economy. Some rules failed to become effective, as they faced judicial setbacks, such as the Non-Compete Rule, which was set aside by a federal court and the CARS Rule that the FTC stayed after litigation commenced. Similarly, the Negative Option Rule is in the midst of a court challenge that may halt its implementation. Meanwhile, the Unfair or Deceptive Fees Rule was substantially narrowed during the rulemaking process.Continue Reading Welcome to the New Federal Trade Commission! But First, a Look Back at FTC Rulemaking

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Illinois attorney general announced a settlement with Grubhub Inc. to resolve allegations that the company engaged in an array of unfair and deceptive practices that violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), the FTC’s new Impersonation Rule, and Illinois state consumer protection laws. The FTC announced the case as Chair Lina Khan’s tenure at the helm of the FTC comes to an end, and the case highlights many of the approaches Khan has pushed for during her reign.

The complaint alleged that Grubhub, an online food ordering and delivery platform, engaged in practices that harmed diners, delivery workers, and restaurant owners. Grubhub reportedly deceived diners by advertising low or no delivery fees but then added hefty charges at checkout. Even members of the company’s subscription program, Grubhub+, who paid $9.99 per month for “unlimited free delivery,” were charged these additional fees without proper disclosure.Continue Reading FTC and Illinois Attorney General Settle with Grubhub for Deceptive Practices

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly hosted a public meeting of the interagency “Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Business Practices.” The meeting was a continuation of an effort, initially announced by President Biden in March, to “strengthen interagency efforts to root out and stop illegal corporate behavior that hikes prices on American families through anti-competitive, unfair, deceptive, or fraudulent business practices,” according to a press release.

The August 1 meeting brought together a number of different agencies to discuss their actions to lower prices for Americans, including the FTC and the DOJ, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).Continue Reading Federal Agencies Increase Focus on Pricing Enforcement

On August 14, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a final rule aimed at protecting American consumers against fake reviews and testimonials. The rule, approved through a 5-0 vote, comes after nearly two years of rulemaking proceedings on the topic. The FTC has said customer reviews play an important role in consumer decision making, and the rule follows in the steps of related cases and notices of penalty offenses brought and issued by the FTC against the use of fake reviews, as well as guidance the FTC has published on the use of endorsements and testimonials. This final rule now provides the FTC with a potentially powerful tool to punish businesses that knowingly violate it, and to seek consumer redress for violations of the rule.

The rule, which is set to be effective 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register, addresses the following practices:  Continue Reading Façade, Fraud: FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Reviews

Robocalls may have always had some artificial flavor to them; however, the proliferation of the use of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to blur the line between human and machine interaction. On July 17, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to address the ability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to restrict and regulate robocalls made using AI. The NPRM will be finalized and adopted at the agency’s August 7 meeting and may be modified prior to that based on feedback from interested parties.

The draft NPRM comes after the FCC invited and received comments on the subject in November of 2023. Specifically, the agency sought comments on “how AI technologies can be defined in the context of robocalls and robotexts” and what steps should be taken to ensure that the FCC can advance its statutory obligation under the TCPA. Subsequently, as we’ve reported, the FCC took action aimed at unlawful AI robocalls in a recent AI robocall enforcement in response to increased election year calling activities.Continue Reading Hello, This Is AI Calling. FCC Proposes New Rules for AI Robocalls

Historically, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has touted self-regulation as integral to consumer protection. This has included encouraging industries to work with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) in developing a self-regulatory body that can promote industry-wide policies and heightened compliance. However, late last month, the FTC criticized guidance promulgated by a self-regulatory body calling into question how much the current FTC values industry self-regulation.  

In 2023, the BBB National Programs’ Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council (DSSRC), a self-regulatory agency for multilevel marketers (MLMs) and their members, released a guidance document on the use of Income Disclosure Statements (IDS). The purpose of IDS is to give prospective members information on the amount of income they can expect to earn in a business. Although these disclosures are not mandatory, if issued, they must comply with FTC regulations, as they are considered advertisements.Continue Reading Not So Fast: FTC Letter Rebukes Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council Guidance