Jay Prapaisilp

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

Last week another court used McKesson and Loper Bright to limit requirements under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Following the Fifth Circuit decision we discussed earlier this month, a federal court in Maryland held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lacks the authority to require businesses to obtain prior express written consent to send autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts under the TCPA.

In Bradley v. DentalPlans et al., the district court cited recent case law from the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits that has curtailed the FCC’s ability to interpret the TCPA’s “prior express consent” requirement.

FCC Authority Challenged in TCPA Interpretation

The court also noted recent case law in which the Fourth Circuit emphasized that that an agency must be delegated clear authority to both implement and interpret the statute at issue. Aligning with the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the Maryland court determined that Congress has only required prior express consent, and the FCC could not take a more expansive interpretation and impose a prior express written consent requirement.Continue Reading TCPA Decision Weakens FCC Written Consent Requirement for Telemarketing

Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Telephone Customer Protection Act (TCPA) permits businesses to obtain only prior express consent rather than prior express written consent for autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts. This holding expressly rejects the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the TCPA’s consent requirement first promulgated in 2012.

In Bradford v. Sovereign Pest Control, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant, refusing to apply a stricter consent standard to telemarketing texts than to non-telemarketing or informational messages. In the case, the court rejected the FCC’s long-standing regulation that interpreted the TCPA to require prior express written consent for telemarketing messages, holding that because the TCPA’s statutory text does not distinguish between telemarketing and non-telemarketing/informational messages, courts should not apply a stricter consent standard for telemarketing messages.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Limits TCPA Prior Express Written Consent Requirements

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit in federal court against JustAnswer LLC and its CEO, arising from the company’s subscription program. According to the complaint, JustAnswer operates an online platform that engages “experts” where consumers can ask questions through online chats or phone calls about various subject areas.

The complaint alleges JustAnswer advertised a nominal fee for consumers to join the platform and receive an answer to their question (often $1 or $5). However, the FTC alleged that after the customer agreed to the nominal charge, JustAnswer simultaneously enrolled customers in an autorenewing subscription and charged them a much larger monthly fee ($28–$125) and continued to automatically charge consumers every month until the consumer canceled the subscription.Continue Reading FTC Lawsuit Targets JustAnswer for Alleged ROSCA and Subscription Disclosure Violations

Last month, two association groups, the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), submitted a Petition for Renewed Click to Cancel Rulemaking attempting to restart the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rulemaking process. The petition asks the FTC to revive the rulemaking process by reopening the Rule Concerning Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Plans, often referred to as the “Click-to-Cancel” rule.

In July, a federal appeals court vacated the Click-to-Cancel rule, holding that it exceeded the scope of the FTC’s authority, was not promulgated in accordance with necessary rulemaking procedures, and was overly broad.Continue Reading Industry Groups Urge FTC to Revive Click-to-Cancel Rulemaking on Subscription and Negative Option Plans

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection issued 13 warning letters to rental housing management software providers focused on the display of the total advertised price of their properties. According to the FTC, the software providers do not allow rental property managers and owners to advertise a total monthly rental price that includes all mandatory fees. This in turn prevents consumers from obtaining complete pricing information on those property owner websites and platforms.

The FTC noted that such practices may be in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts and practices, as well as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which makes it unlawful to use false, fraudulent, or fictitious statements or representations to obtain, attempt to obtain, cause the disclosure of, or attempt to cause the disclosure of customer information of a financial institution. Violations are subject to civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.Continue Reading FTC Begins Rulemaking on Unfair Rental Housing Fees After Issuing Warning Letters

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