On Friday, the Federal Trade Commission voted to defer the compliance deadline for the amended Negative Option Rule by 60 days. The Commission issued a statement on the new deadline.
The delay reflects the FTC’s response to various commenters who expressed concern that, “given the complexities” of these provisions, it would take a substantial
Ending speculation and uncertainty about whether new leadership at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would repeal or continue to defend the agency’s Negative Option Rule, which regulates offerings such as autorenewal of subscription services, this week the agency filed a brief at the Eighth Circuit defending the rule—something of a surprise.
We previously discussed the arguments raised by industry groups that are challenging the rule. Broadly, the challengers assert that the rule exceeds the FTC’s statutory authority, is procedurally defective, and is arbitrary and capricious. The Eighth Circuit previously denied petitioners’ request to stay the rule from taking effect pending litigation.Continue Reading FTC Files Brief Defending “Click to Cancel” Negative Option Rule
This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its long-awaited Final Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees. When the FTC released the proposed rule over a year ago, the rule covered any business that offered goods or services for sale. The Commission largely narrowed the rule’s application, which now focuses on live-event tickets and short-term lodging (defined as a hotel, motel, inn, short-term rental, vacation rental, or other place of lodging).
The Final Rule also covers third-party travel service providers, including online travel agencies and travel advisors. The FTC did not shed much light on its reasoning, but Republican Commissioner Melissa Holyoak’s concurring statement on the overly broad scope of the earlier version provides some indication of an effort to make the rule more palatable to the incoming Congress, which could repeal the rule through the Congressional Review Act.Continue Reading FTC Issues Scaled-Back Final Fee Rule Targeting Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
As we previewed last week, industry and trade groups wasted no time in filing challenges against the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Final Negative Option Rule.
The Michigan Press Association and the National Federation of Independent Businesses filed a petition challenging the rule in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, while a separate petition was filed by multiple trade associations in the Fifth Circuit. Both cases have asked federal courts of appeals to determine whether the FTC’s issuance of the rule exceeded the agency’s authority and if the FTC’s processes were arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act. The petitions also ask the courts to determine if the FTC complied with the agency’s Magnuson-Moss rulemaking requirements, claiming the rule was “unsupported by substantial evidence” and based on determinations that did not allow for consideration of “disputed material facts.”
The petitions request that the courts vacate and set aside the rule. If either petition is granted, the FTC will not be able to enforce its Negative Option Rule.
Additional challenges to the FTC’s Negative Option Rule might continue. And similar challenges against FTC rules have found success; for example, the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule was set aside and ruled unenforceable nationwide. That decision is currently on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.Continue Reading Business Groups Rush to File Federal Court Challenges to the FTC’s Negative Option “Click-to-Cancel” Rule
By a 3-2 vote, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its Final Negative Option Rule that covers negative option programs for both consumer and B2B transactions in any media, including online, telephone, print, and in-person. The rule finalizes many of the requirements we previewed last year. Commissioner Melissa Holyoak’s dissent outlines many of the issues that those challenging the legality of the rule are likely to soon raise.
Under the rule, companies selling goods or services with a negative option feature will be prohibited from:
Since July 1, when California’s “Honest Pricing Law” or “Hidden Fees Statute” became effective, the plaintiffs’ bar has filed more than a dozen complaints alleging violations of the statute. These complaints challenge alleged “junk fees” or “drip pricing” structures, including “service fees” charged by merchants through their websites, “processing fees” charged by third-party platforms, and various forms of credit card surcharges and debit card fees.
California’s Honest Pricing Law requires “Total Price” disclosures and prohibits merchants from misrepresenting the nature and purpose of any charges or fees. Under the statute, “Total Price” means that the advertised prices of goods and services must include all mandatory charges and fees other than either government-imposed taxes or fees or postage or carriage charges “reasonably or actually incurred” to ship the physical good to the consumer.Continue Reading A Variety of Fees and Surcharges Implicated in Early Cases Enforcing California’s Honest Pricing Law
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
Late last week, the California attorney general released Frequently Asked Questions regarding California’s “Honest Pricing Law” or “Hidden Fees Statute,” which will take effect July 1, 2024. The law is anticipated to have a sizeable impact, given its breadth, and will vastly change how businesses disclose the price of their goods and services to the public. When “advertising, displaying, or offering” a price, the law requires businesses to include all required fees and charges other than certain government taxes and shipping costs.
The FAQs make clear that the intent of the law is to force businesses to display a single price that includes all required fees and charges that a consumer would pay at the end of the transaction. This is similar to the Federal Trade Commission’s Proposed Rule that businesses display the “Total Price” for goods and services.Continue Reading California Releases FAQs on Complying with Impending Drip Pricing Law
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, and tune in to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show podcast, to hear an author of this chapter dive deeper into telemarketing and texting in this week’s episode.
Telephone and text message marketing poses private litigation risks and regulatory hurdles that should be considered before any campaign. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and states enforce do-not-call (DNC) laws and impose multiple other requirements regarding calling manner, disclosures, consent, opt-out, calling hour limits, caller identification, and telemarketer registration. Calls and texts made to cell phones, using certain types of dialing technology (including autodialers) and prerecorded messages (so-called robocalls), require particular attention, as much of the enforcement and litigation in this area involve texting and robocalling.Continue Reading Telemarketing and Texting: An Excerpt from the Advertising Law Tool Kit
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, and tune in to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show podcast, to hear an author of this chapter dive deeper into state AG inquiries in this week’s episode.
State attorneys general (AGs) are the chief legal officers of their states or territories and can bring actions to protect the “public interest” in almost any area of law. They represent the state government and the general public and have broad jurisdiction over everything from public corruption to consumer protection.Continue Reading State Attorney General Inquiries: An Excerpt from the Advertising Law Tool Kit