Photo of Shahin O. Rothermel

Shahin O. Rothermel

Subscribe to Shahin O. Rothermel's Posts

Shahin Rothermel is an experienced counselor and defender who helps advertisers, retailers, merchants, and marketers advance their business goals while reducing legal and regulatory risks. Shahin provides clients with up-to-date, practical insights into the constantly evolving advertising, marketing, and e-commerce regulations, which allows her clients to make informed decisions. She has achieved successful resolutions, dismissals, and full walkaways in court, saving clients millions of dollars. She takes a pragmatic approach as a counselor, considering the implications of her advice for her clients' marketing campaigns and their bottom lines.

Contact:Read more about Shahin O. Rothermel

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

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…

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

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has further extended the effective date of the Revoke All consent rule from April 11, 2026 to January 31, 2027. That rule requires businesses to treat a consumer’s consent revocation request made in response to one type of text message or call as applicable to all future calls and texts from that caller on all other matters. The FCC first extended the effective date last April.

The FCC’s new extension is intended to allow more time for the FCC to take comments and consider adjustments to the rule. In particular, the FCC recently initiated a rulemaking proceeding to seek comment on ways the agency can modify the requirement that a caller must treat an opt-out request made in response to one type of call or text to be an opt-out request for all types of calls and texts. Reply comments in that proceeding are due on February 3, 2026; please let us know if you would like to prepare and file comments.

Continue Reading FCC Delays Revoke All Consent Rule for Robocalls and Text Messages Until 2027

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued warning letters to ten companies for alleged deceptive review practices, indicating its intent to step up enforcement of its relatively new Consumer Review Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 465) (“the Rule”).

The warning letters have implications for all direct-to-consumer sellers. For industries that rely heavily on consumer reviews, including dietary supplement, health and wellness, and beauty/personal care companies, the FTC’s action is particularly significant. These industries often market using consumer reviews, influencer endorsements, testimonials, and before-and-after content—practices that now carry increased regulatory risk. While the warning letters do not constitute formal findings of liability, they underscore the FTC’s readiness to pursue civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation against the recipients (an amount that will likely increase in 2026 with inflation-adjusted civil penalties).

Continue Reading FTC Signals Heightened Enforcement of New Consumer Review Rule

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

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