FTC

Subscribe to FTC via RSS

On March 12, Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group hosted its 12th Advertising Law Symposium in Washington, DC, bringing together in-house counsel, marketing executives, and industry professionals to examine the legal and regulatory landscape facing advertisers. The panels focused on a range of the latest topics in advertising law, including FTC enforcement priorities, pricing transparency, artificial intelligence, class action trends, and more.

In case you were unable to attend, here are some key themes that emerged from the day’s discussions.Continue Reading Event in Review | 12th Advertising Law Symposium

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…

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

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

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