Mary M. Gardner

Subscribe to Mary M. Gardner's Posts

Mary M. Gardner helps clients identify, evaluate, and prioritize their risks; implement practices to minimize, monitor, and control those risks; and find satisfactory outcomes when those risks turn into potential liabilities. Mary is a versatile counselor, litigator, and negotiator, representing companies in all aspects of risk management, including litigation, arbitration, mediation, and counseling.

Contact:Read more about Mary M. Gardner

On December 27, 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released an Order on Reconsideration and Declaratory Ruling clarifying the express consent requirements for calls placed to residential landlines under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence Act (TRACED Act).

First, a little background: The TCPA restricts a caller’s ability to place telephone calls to a residential landline using artificial or prerecorded voice messages without the prior express consent of the called party, unless exempted by statute or FCC rule or order.

Continue Reading FCC Clarifies Express Written Consent Requirement for Exempt Callers under TCPA and TRACED Act

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a press release, announcing a $100 million settlement with Vonage, an internet-based telephone service company, for alleged violations of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA). The action underscores the FTC’s continued focus on “dark patterns” and illustrates the agency’s efforts to require companies to go beyond the plain requirements of ROSCA in enforcement settlements.  

The FTC’s complaint alleged that Vonage offered free trials to business and residential customers for telephone plans. Unless the customer took affirmative action to opt out before the trial ended, Vonage would enroll the customer in an autorenewing monthly phone plan.

Continue Reading Vonage, Autorenewals, and the FTC’s Ever-Expanding Interpretation of ROSCA

The FTC’s ears must have been burning. Yesterday, just hours after we finished a webinar discussing the latest developments in the FTC’s push for more rulemaking, the FTC announced an upcoming open meeting where it will propose issuing three advanced notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).

First, the FTC will consider whether to initiate rulemaking to…

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) moved to dismiss its long-running enforcement action against Electronic Payment Solutions (EPS) pending in the District of Arizona after the Commission voted 4-0 to approve a final settlement with EPS and certain of its owners. The case against EPS, a third-party payment processor, is just the most recent example…

“Free” must mean free?

Last week, the attorneys general for all 50 states and the District of Columbia announced a settlement with Intuit, Inc., the owner of TurboTax, which will require the company to hand over $141 million to consumers as restitution for allegedly tricking consumers into paying for tax-filing services when they qualified for free tax-filing services.

Recently, we wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s legal action against Intuit for its advertisements regarding “free” tax-filing services. In that action, the FTC sought to definitively resolve that very question. As part of last week’s settlement agreement, Intuit will cease its advertising campaign promoting its “free, free, free” services in addition to paying the hefty restitution sum. The state settlement essentially ended the FTC action as well.

While the states’ investigation overlapped with the FTC’s action concerning Intuit’s alleged bait-and-switch advertising (i.e., representing the service is “free” but later requiring an upgrade to a paid version), their investigation also had another focus: “dark patterns,” which refers to a digital design feature that is intended to subtly influence a consumer’s online decisions.Continue Reading Intuit Will Pay $141 Million in State Attorneys General Settlement Over Deceptive TurboTax Advertising

At the peak of tax-filing season, when millions of consumers are still considering their method of filing, the Federal Trade Commission has set its sights on Intuit, Inc., one of the largest online tax-filing services.

On March 28, 2022, the FTC filed an administrative complaint against Intuit, alleging that the company’s marketing of TurboTax as a free tax-filing service misleads consumers because the free service applies only to some, while many end up getting hit with charges at the time of filing.

In a press release, Samuel Levine, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC, stated that Intuit’s advertising is a “bait-and-switch” tactic that a court should immediately halt to protect tax-paying consumers. The FTC simultaneously filed a complaint for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against Intuit in federal court in the Northern District of California, seeking to immediately enjoin it from advertising its tax-filing product and service, TurboTax, as free.Continue Reading “Free” Must Mean Free? FTC Seeks to Enjoin Intuit from Advertising TurboTax as a “Free” Service

A few weeks ago, we wrote an article discussing two enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission in the Central and Southern Districts of California that highlighted the risks to payment processors and financial institutions for their relationships with companies engaged in allegedly unlawful “negative option” marketing.

In both FTC v. Triangle Media Corporation et al. (the “Triangle Action”) and FTC v. Apex Capital Group, LLC (the “Apex Action”), the FTC accused the defendants of engaging in an alleged scheme to offer fake “free trials” of personal care products and dietary supplements to obtain consumers’ credit and debit card information.

Also, in both cases, the court granted the FTC’s request and recommendation that a Receiver be assigned to oversee, manage, and preserve the assets of both sets of defendants. That Receiver then sued Wells Fargo—the bank used by the defendants in both the Triangle and Apex Actions—alleging that Wells Fargo engaged in illicit activity, including, but not limited to, aiding and abetting fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent supervision, and violating the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Last week the court denied most of Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss, allowing the claims against the bank to proceed.Continue Reading Update: Judge Allows Most of Receiver’s Claims Against Wells Fargo for Involvement with Negative Option Marketers to Proceed

Last month, love was not all lost for the owner of Tinder and OKCupid when a Texas federal district court in FTC v. Match Group, Inc. granted in part the online dating service provider’s motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court agreed with Match that the FTC could not seek equitable monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act and barred two claims based on Match’s immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

To set the scene, here is a recap of the legal landscape. In recent history, the FTC under Section 13(b) brought “proper cases” directly in federal courts without needing to conduct administrative proceedings. The agency also pursued permanent injunctions and equitable monetary relief.

In the past few years, courts have become increasingly less enamored with the FTC’s interpretation of its authority under Section 13(b). The first blow was FTC v. Shire Viropharma, Inc., in which the Third Circuit concluded that under Section 13(b), the FTC cannot base claims on “long-past conduct” alone, but must affirmatively plead facts that a defendant “is violating” or “is about to violate” the law, i.e., that there is “existing or impending conduct.”Continue Reading FTC v. Match Group, Inc.: Court Gets Cold Feet on the Standard Set Forth in Shire

We frequently post about negative option marketing in this blog, but our focus has been the FTC’s enforcement actions against businesses that utilize this marketing strategy. We haven’t written as much about a different risk: payment processors and financial institutions caught in the crosshairs of a court-appointed receiver for their relationships with companies engaged in allegedly unlawful “negative option” marketing. Recently, two FTC enforcement actions in the Central and Southern Districts of California highlight these risks.

In Federal Trade Commission v. Triangle Media Corporation et al. (the “Triangle Action”), the FTC sued Triangle for engaging in an alleged scheme to offer fake “free trials” of personal care products and dietary supplements to obtain consumers’ credit and debit card information.

According to the FTC, Triangle then applied recurring charges to consumers’ cards without authorization. In a later, unrelated action, the FTC brought charges against Apex Capital Group, LLC for essentially the same activity (the “Apex Action”). In both cases, the courts granted the FTC’s request and recommendation that a receiver be assigned to oversee, manage, and preserve the assets of both sets of defendants. In an interesting turn, the same receiver, Thomas McNamara of McNamara LLP (the “Receiver”), was recommended by the FTC, and accepted by the courts, as the Receiver for Triangle’s and Apex’s assets.

Subsequently, the FTC filed an amended complaint in the Apex Action that accused Apex’s credit card payment processor, Transact Pro, of credit card laundering and chargeback manipulation in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. Both Apex and Transact Pro entered into a settlement with the FTC requiring a stipulated judgment ordering the parties to pay monetary relief.Continue Reading How Negative Option Marketing Can Risk Entangling Third-Party Banks and Payment Processors

As the rest of us prepare for the Super Bowl by buying avocados to make guacamole, installing new big-screen TVs, and donning Ram/Bengal-themed face paint, select corners of corporate America are preparing for the biggest advertising day of the year.

In 2021, companies spent approximately $485 million on ad slots during the big game, and the average cost of a 30-second commercial slot was about $5.6 million. With such high stakes, plus the intensive “Standards and Practices” review employed by the TV networks, one would assume that anything that makes the cut is above reproach. (The review board won’t even let advertisers use “Super Bowl” because it’s trademarked, which is why you often hear “the Big Game” in ads.)

However, the following examples of legal challenges to your favorite Super Bowl commercials demonstrate that the world of advertising law can be tricky to navigate, and companies that advertise simply cannot mitigate their litigation risk to zero.Continue Reading Defending Against the Blitz: Examining the Legal Issues Surrounding Super Bowl Ads