Photo of Leonard L. Gordon

Leonard L. Gordon

Subscribe to Leonard L. Gordon's Posts

Len Gordon, chair of Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group, is a skilled litigator who leverages his significant experience working for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help protect his clients’ interests and guide their business activity. Len regularly represents companies and individuals in investigations and litigation with the FTC, state attorneys general, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Len also represents clients in business-to-business and class action litigation involving both consumer protection and antitrust issues. He also counsels clients on antitrust, advertising, and marketing compliance issues.

Contact:Read more about Leonard L. Gordon

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it is sending warning letters to 97 auto dealership groups nationwide, reminding them that the price they advertise to consumers must reflect the total price consumers will be required to pay for the vehicle—including all mandatory fees but excluding taxes.

According to the FTC, advertising a price that does not include all required fees or other mandatory costs may constitute a deceptive practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The agency stated that transparent pricing is a current enforcement priority to ensure that the marketplace “functions efficiently and competitors are transparently competing on price.”

The letters encourage dealerships to review their advertising and pricing practices to ensure that advertised prices match the actual prices charged to consumers. The FTC also stated that it will continue monitoring the marketplace and may take additional enforcement action where appropriate.

Continue Reading FTC Warns Auto Dealers: Advertised Vehicle Prices Must Include Mandatory Fees

On Wednesday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a call for comments in response to its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Negative Option Marketing Practices.

The call for comments comes after the Eighth Circuit struck the FTC’s previous amended Negative Option Rule because the FTC did not issue a preliminary analysis of the benefits…

Want an edge in today’s marketplace? Get up to speed on the latest advertising laws and regulations by downloading Venable’s newest Advertising Law Tool Kit, authored by some of the most experienced attorneys in the industry. The 14th edition of this easy-to-use guide is packed with checklists and fresh insights on everything from claim…

This month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an investigation into major grocery chains’ use of chemical pesticides on produce labeled “organic” by the manufacturer. Paxton’s  office expressed concern that the grocery chains may be deceiving consumers who base their purchasing decision on the belief that organic produce has not been treated with pesticides.

Texas AG Investigation into Organic Produce

Before labeling produce as certified “organic,” a manufacturer must comply with regulations issued by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), including limits on synthetic substances and pesticides. Central to the investigation is Produce Maxx, a chlorine-based pesticide commonly used in grocery stores. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permits Produce Maxx to be sprayed on produce and considers it safe to consume, the USDA requires certified “organic” produce to have chlorine pesticides rinsed off before consumption.

Continue Reading Texas Attorney General Probes Pesticide Use on “Organic” Produce at Grocery Chains

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 week, an Eleventh Circuit panel unanimously upheld a federal district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning advertising and disclosure practices related to a national fuel card program. The decision affirms the FTC’s authority to seek and obtain broad injunctive relief for unfair or deceptive acts and practices, particularly where fee disclosures and consent mechanisms are found to be inadequate.

In its opinion, the three-judge panel rejected a number of arguments challenging the scope of the district court’s relief and confirmed that forward-looking injunctive measures were appropriate given the record before it. The panel affirmed summary judgment on all five counts of the FTC’s complaint against the company and on four of five counts asserted against its chief executive officer.

The ruling may bring to a close more than seven years of litigation, spanning multiple changes in FTC leadership and enforcement priorities, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, which narrowed the agency’s ability to obtain monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.

Continue Reading FTC Wins Eleventh Circuit Ruling Over Hidden Fees and Deceptive Marketing

New York City’s consumer regulator has long been part of the local compliance backdrop. It now deserves sustained, strategic attention. The appointment of Samuel Levine, formerly the director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection (during the Biden administration), as commissioner of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) signals a shift in how the City is likely to use its existing consumer protection authority.

Recent mayoral executive orders further signal that DCWP will devote additional attention to the review of fee disclosures (often characterized by regulators as “hidden junk fees”) and subscription models, including through monitoring, investigation, and, where deemed appropriate, enforcement under existing city law. DCWP’s role in shaping expectations for pricing, disclosures, and marketplace conduct will now become more consequential for companies that operate in New York City or reach its consumers.

Continue Reading Why New York City’s Consumer Regulator Belongs on National Compliance Radar

In a rare course correction, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has reopened and vacated its 2024 consent order against Rytr LLC, a generative AI-powered company. The unusual move reflects a significant strategic reset of how federal regulators will approach AI technology, especially when alleged harms are hypothetical rather than concrete.

In 2024, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against Rytr, a company that sold an AI-powered writing assistant service that could generate testimonials and customer reviews. The FTC alleged that the AI-powered tool could generate reviews and testimonials that were not related to the user’s actual inputs or experience, and such reviews could therefore be deceptive.

The FTC challenged the conduct as unfair under Section 5, and as providing the means and instrumentalities for others to make deceptive statements. The final consent order was entered in December 2024, and it included a categorical ban on Rytr from providing any AI-powered service dedicated to consumer reviews or testimonials. Commissioner, now chairman, Andrew Ferguson, dissented from the votes issuing the complaint and approving the settlement.

Continue Reading The FTC Walks Back Its Rytr Enforcement Action, Signaling a Shift in Federal AI Regulation

New York has amended its General Business Law to move beyond a deception-based consumer protection standard and authorize enforcement against unfair and abusive practices, giving the Attorney General materially broader discretion to shape marketplace conduct. The new framework resembles federal UDAAP enforcement in that it relies less on detailed statutory rules and more on evolving enforcement judgments about what constitutes “fair” conduct.

In announcing the amendments to New York GBL § 349 contained in the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act, Attorney General Letitia James pointed to lending and debt collection practices, fee structures, billing mechanics that complicate understanding, contract terms viewed as exploitative, student loan servicers, car dealers, nursing homes, health insurance companies, and impacts on vulnerable or limited-English-proficient consumers. The statute also expressly recognizes potential harm to small businesses and nonprofits, extending potential exposure beyond traditional consumer relationships.

Continue Reading New York Broadens Attorney General Authority and Embraces Enforcement-Driven Regulation

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