Jay Prapaisilp

Subscribe to Jay Prapaisilp's Posts
Contact:Read more about Jay Prapaisilp

In her remarks at this year’s ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference, Commissioner Melissa Holyoak of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) emphasized three areas where the agency is focusing its consumer protection enforcement mandate: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), Made in USA claims, and price transparency.

Holyoak didn’t comment on press reports that she will soon leave the agency to become U.S. attorney for the District of Utah, with White House staffer Ryan Baasch set to fill Holyoak’s spot.

Price Transparency and the FTC’s Unfair or Deceptive Fee Rule

Regarding price transparency and the FTC’s Unfair or Deceptive Fee Rule, Holyoak stressed that while the rule’s scope is limited to ticket sellers and short-term lodging providers, all companies and their pricing practices remain subject to the Section 5 enforcement.  Continue Reading FTC’s Melissa Holyoak Outlines Consumer Protection Focus at ANA Advertising Law Conference

Chris Mufarrige, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, spoke last week at the National Advertising Division’s Annual Conference in Washington, providing further insight into how the FTC is thinking about key issues.

Mufarrige focused his remarks on privacy and AI. He said he views the basic principles for all consumer protection to be ensuring consumers can make well-informed choices and that companies keep their promises. 

FTC’s Evolving Approach to Privacy Enforcement

Mufarrige noted that individual preferences make abstract rules governing privacy difficult to draft and administer. He criticized the Lina Khan-led FTC for its efforts to use Section 5 of the FTC Act as an omnibus privacy statute. He said the agency should instead focus enforcement on specific privacy statutes such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) and use Section 5’s unfairness authority only where economic analysis shows consumer harm. Continue Reading FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director on Privacy Rules and AI Regulation

This year’s National Advertising Division’s (NAD) Annual Conference demonstrated that the self-regulatory process remains an active venue for companies interested in challenging competitor advertising claims. Attorneys from Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group represent both advertisers and challengers at all levels of the NAD process, and this year has been particularly busy with NAD challenges. Read on for this year’s conference highlights and what to expect from NAD.

Industry Trends and Products in NAD Challenges

NAD continued to see a wide array of industries take advantage of the self-regulatory process, with the most prevalent being telecommunications, dietary supplements, cosmetics, household products, food & beverage, and infant products. Companies brought challenges against claims involving product efficacy, superiority, environmental claims, certifications, and more.Continue Reading National Advertising Division 2025 Annual Conference: Highlights and Takeaways

Last week, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum, “Addressing Misleading Direct-To-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements.” The memorandum invokes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to regulate prescription drug advertising, noting that the agency has historically required manufacturers, packers, or distributors to provide consumers with materially complete information regarding the benefits and risks of the advertised drug.

In the memorandum, Trump directs Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to take “appropriate action” to ensure transparency and accuracy in direct-to-consumer drug advertising, including increasing the amount of information that must be disclosed regarding the risks associated with the drug. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is also directed to take appropriate action to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s prescription drug advertising provisions.Continue Reading Prescription Drug Advertising Under Scrutiny: New FDA and HHS Enforcement Actions

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled President Trump’s removal of Democrat commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was unlawful. In a 2-1 decision, the panel held that the case was squarely controlled by Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor. The D.C. Circuit decision upheld the district court’s ruling in July and sets the stage for the Supreme Court to determine whether to uphold or overrule long-standing precedent regarding removal protections for “independent” executive agencies.

On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration’s request  and stayed the D.C. Circuit’s decision pending further orders from Roberts or the Supreme Court, which effectively removes Rebecca Slaughter (again) from her role as an FTC commissioner. The stay order directs Slaughter to respond to the administration’s appeal by September 15. During her brief reinstatement, Slaughter dissented from several FTC actions.Continue Reading Legal Ping-Pong: D.C. Circuit Restores, Then Supreme Court Removes, Rebecca Slaughter as FTC Commissioner

Following a recent uptick in influencer-related lawsuits, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a dismissal of a putative class action against apparel company Luli Fama. The complaint alleged that influencers had posted content promoting the company without adequately disclosing their material connections, such as payment.

Plaintiff Targets Influencer Marketing

In the case, the plaintiff alleged violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, arguing he was misled by multiple influencer posts on a social media platform because he believed those posts were unpaid endorsements when in fact Luli Fama paid those influencers for the content.Continue Reading Influencer Disclosure Lawsuits Face Setback: Eleventh Circuit Rules for Luli Fama

As influencer marketing continues to dominate social media, the legal risks are catching up. In two recent class action lawsuits, companies and their social media influencers are facing allegations of deceptive advertising. Viewed in conjunction with a string of decisions coming out of the National Advertising Division (NAD), these cases reflect a trend of increasing scrutiny around influencer promotion and the question of whether consumers are being properly informed of these partnerships.

One class action complaint filed in California federal court, Dubreu v. Celsius Holdings, Inc. et al.,involves claims against an energy drink company. The complaint also names three of the brand’s influencers as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the influencers violated federal and state law by promoting the company’s products on social media without properly disclosing that they were paid by the brand.Continue Reading Paid Partnership Problems: Uptick in Influencer Class Actions and NAD Scrutiny

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit in federal court against rideshare and delivery company Uber for allegedly deceptive subscription practices, including making it unreasonably difficult to cancel.

In the accompanying press release, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson made clear that regulatory scrutiny of negative option and continuity programs will remain a priority: “Americans are tired of getting signed up for unwanted subscriptions that seem impossible to cancel. The Trump-Vance FTC is fighting back on behalf of the American people.” The agency voted 2-0-1 to file the complaint, with Commissioner Mark R. Meador recused.Continue Reading FTC Makes Clear It Will Continue Regulating Subscription Services and Signals Enforcement Priority for Negative Option Rule in Lawsuit Against Uber

The Trump administration transformed global trade policies by implementing a series of sweeping tariffs. Advertisers should ask the following questions.

1. How can I comply with pricing and transparency laws when my costs increase?

    Tariffs are typically calculated as a percentage of a product’s value, paid by importers, and collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Although Trump now imposes a 10% across the board tariff on most countries, China’s total tariff rates can now exceed 145%. Because tariffs often increase the landed cost of imported products, companies might need to raise prices.

    When incorporating the tariffs into pricing, companies should monitor states’ tariffs announcements and state price gouging laws. (COVID-19 price increases resulted in aggressive enforcement.) Companies should follow “drip pricing” laws requiring the upfront advertised price to reflect all fees (including tariffs and surcharges). Companies should brace for class actions under California’s “Honest Pricing Law,” and challenges to “junk” fees.Continue Reading Eight Questions Advertisers Should Be Asking About Tariffs

    In one of the first settlements since the new administration took office, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a $17 million monetary judgment with Cleo AI to resolve allegations that Cleo violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA). Cleo operated a personal finance mobile app that purportedly allowed consumers to take out “instant” or same-day cash advances. The vote to authorize the settlement was 2-0.

    According to the complaint, Cleo advertised that consumers could access same-day or instant cash advances in the hundreds of dollars. The FTC alleged that when consumers attempted to use Cleo’s services, they were required to enroll in an automatically renewing subscription service where they were charged a subscription cost of $5.99 or $14.99 monthly. Only after the consumers entered in their payment information and enrolled in the subscription service did Cleo disclose to consumers the cash advance they were eligible for.Continue Reading Cleo AI Settles with FTC for $17 Million for Alleged Misleading Practices and Autorenewal Violations