Consumer Protection

Subscribe to Consumer Protection

New York attorney general Leticia James is the latest state-level actor to respond to the Trump administration’s efforts to shrink federal consumer protection agencies. James has championed the FAIR Business Practices Act, a bill introduced in the New York state legislature aimed at expanding the New York consumer protection statutes to include unfair and abusive practices.

According to James, the FAIR Business Practices Act would “close loopholes” in New York’s current consumer protection scheme and enhance the enforcement capabilities of the Office of the Attorney General. If enacted, the bill would enable the attorney general to pursue civil penalties and restitution for violations of the act, such as:Continue Reading New York Seeks to Beef up Consumer Protection Framework

In January the Eleventh Circuit vacated the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) one-to-one consent rule, finding that the agency exceeded its statutory authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The latest development is that on February 19, 2025, the National Consumers League and some small business owners filed a motion to intervene in the case…

Join us as we spotlight select chapters of Venable’s popular Advertising Law Tool Kit, which helps marketing teams navigate their organization’s legal risk. Click here to download the entire Tool Kit.

Commercial email marketing poses private litigation risks and regulatory hurdles that should be considered before launching any campaign to ensure compliance. The…

We’ve written previously about the Trump administration’s effort to increase his influence over independent agencies such as the FTC and to review regulations promulgated by these agencies. The White House is also reportedly directing agencies, including the FTC, to prepare for reductions in force. But, given these developments, what will the FTC under Chairman Ferguson prioritize for the Bureau of Consumer Protection? Some clues and some speculation follow.

On February 26, Chairman Ferguson announced the creation of a task force including staff from the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Competition, Bureau of Economics, and the Office of Policy Planning to focus on protecting consumers in their role as workers, which are similar to previously proposed efforts under the prior administration. The directive to the FTC staff identifies conduct that should be part of the effort, including:

  • Deceptive job advertising
  • Deceptive business opportunities
  • Misleading franchise offerings
  • Job scams

Continue Reading Some Hints About and Clues to the FTC’s Consumer Protection Priorities

Last week, a security services company and several trade groups filed their merits brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit challenging the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) newly adopted Negative Option Rule, also called Click-to-Cancel. The rule introduces a host of requirements for companies selling goods or services with a negative option feature in both consumer and B2B transactions, as we outlined last year. Notably, a negative option seller must make cancellation as simple as signing up, including providing an easy online cancellation method if consumers signed up online.

The rule went partially into effect on January 14, 2025, with the prohibition on misrepresentations of material facts relating to the promotion or offering for sale of any good or service with a negative option. The remainder of the rule covering consent and cancellation requirements takes effect in May 2025.

The court previously denied petitioners’ request to stay the rule from taking effect pending litigation.Continue Reading FTC’s “Click-to-Cancel” Rule Challenged by Industry in the Eighth Circuit

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Combatting Auto Retail Scams (CARS) rule. Industry groups had challenged the rule, arguing that:

  • The FTC violated Section 18(b) of the FTC Act by failing to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) before promulgating the CARS rule.
  • The FTC arbitrarily and capriciously failed to articulate a reasoned basis for the rule.
  • The FTC’s cost-benefit analysis was arbitrary and capricious.

The decision highlights the Fifth Circuit’s hostility to the “Administrative State” and the two different rulemaking schemes under which the FTC operates.Continue Reading The Fifth Circuit Slams the Brakes and Vacates FTC CARS Rule

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the New York attorney general announced a settlement with Handy Technologies, Inc. to resolve allegations that the company engaged in an array of unfair and deceptive practices that violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and New York advertising laws. This settlement is yet another indication of the FTC’s continued emphasis on protecting workers’ rights, an emphasis that may continue under a new administration.

The complaint alleged that Handy, a gig-economy platform that connects workers with home cleaning and handyman services, misled workers by advertising inflated earnings claims and failing to clearly disclose fees and fines that withheld millions of dollars from workers’ pay.Continue Reading FTC and New York Attorney General Settle with Handy for Deceptive Practices

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Illinois attorney general announced a settlement with Grubhub Inc. to resolve allegations that the company engaged in an array of unfair and deceptive practices that violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), the FTC’s new Impersonation Rule, and Illinois state consumer protection laws. The FTC announced the case as Chair Lina Khan’s tenure at the helm of the FTC comes to an end, and the case highlights many of the approaches Khan has pushed for during her reign.

The complaint alleged that Grubhub, an online food ordering and delivery platform, engaged in practices that harmed diners, delivery workers, and restaurant owners. Grubhub reportedly deceived diners by advertising low or no delivery fees but then added hefty charges at checkout. Even members of the company’s subscription program, Grubhub+, who paid $9.99 per month for “unlimited free delivery,” were charged these additional fees without proper disclosure.Continue Reading FTC and Illinois Attorney General Settle with Grubhub for Deceptive Practices

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its long-awaited Final Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees. When the FTC released the proposed rule over a year ago, the rule covered any business that offered goods or services for sale. The Commission largely narrowed the rule’s application, which now focuses on live-event tickets and short-term lodging (defined as a hotel, motel, inn, short-term rental, vacation rental, or other place of lodging).

The Final Rule also covers third-party travel service providers, including online travel agencies and travel advisors. The FTC did not shed much light on its reasoning, but Republican Commissioner Melissa Holyoak’s concurring statement on the overly broad scope of the earlier version provides some indication of an effort to make the rule more palatable to the incoming Congress, which could repeal the rule through the Congressional Review Act.Continue Reading FTC Issues Scaled-Back Final Fee Rule Targeting Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging

Not to be left behind by other regulators, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) recently issued an enforcement advisory on “dark patterns” in the context of the notice and consent required under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). As we’ve previously discussed, dark patterns are a subset of “deceptive marketing” and are also known as “deceptive design patterns.” The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a report in 2022 outlining the various methods companies employ, such as “making it difficult for consumers to cancel subscriptions or charges, burying key terms or junk fees, and tricking consumers into sharing their data.”

The scrutiny of dark patterns has only intensified since then, and states like California are jumping in. The CCPA defines dark patterns as “[u]ser interfaces or choice architectures that have the substantial effect of subverting or impairing a consumer’s autonomy, decision making, or choice” and says consumer agreement obtained through dark patterns does not constitute consent. The CPPA advises companies seeking to obtain consumer information to use language that is easy to understand and to avoid technical or legal jargon.Continue Reading California Privacy Protection Agency Warns Businesses Against “Dark Patterns” and Urges “Symmetry in Choice”