Consumer Protection

Subscribe to Consumer Protection via RSS

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

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

Earlier this month, attorneys general from seven states launched a coordinated inquiry into the rapidly expanding “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) market. Led by Connecticut and North Carolina, and joined by California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, the multistate coalition of attorneys general sent letters to six major BNPL providers, outlining concerns that the companies’ products may be violating state consumer protection laws.

Regulators Cite Risks: Repayment Challenges and Transparency Concerns

In the letters, state AGs request information on pricing and repayment structures, as well as copies of consumer contracts, user agreements, and disclosures. The inquiries focus on determining whether consumers have received what the states view as appropriate protections—specifically, whether they have encountered a lack of transparency, undisclosed fees, and risky repayment structures.Continue Reading State AGs Increase Scrutiny of Buy Now, Pay Later Providers Amid Consumer Protection Concerns

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

In her remarks at this year’s ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference, Commissioner Melissa Holyoak of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) emphasized three areas where the agency is focusing its consumer protection enforcement mandate: the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA), Made in USA claims, and price transparency.

Holyoak didn’t comment on press reports that she will soon leave the agency to become U.S. attorney for the District of Utah, with White House staffer Ryan Baasch set to fill Holyoak’s spot.

Price Transparency and the FTC’s Unfair or Deceptive Fee Rule

Regarding price transparency and the FTC’s Unfair or Deceptive Fee Rule, Holyoak stressed that while the rule’s scope is limited to ticket sellers and short-term lodging providers, all companies and their pricing practices remain subject to the Section 5 enforcement.  Continue Reading FTC’s Melissa Holyoak Outlines Consumer Protection Focus at ANA Advertising Law Conference

Last week, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum, “Addressing Misleading Direct-To-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements.” The memorandum invokes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority to regulate prescription drug advertising, noting that the agency has historically required manufacturers, packers, or distributors to provide consumers with materially complete information regarding the benefits and risks of the advertised drug.

In the memorandum, Trump directs Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to take “appropriate action” to ensure transparency and accuracy in direct-to-consumer drug advertising, including increasing the amount of information that must be disclosed regarding the risks associated with the drug. The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is also directed to take appropriate action to enforce the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s prescription drug advertising provisions.Continue Reading Prescription Drug Advertising Under Scrutiny: New FDA and HHS Enforcement Actions

On July 14, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against a group of companies and individuals operating under the “Accelerated Debt” brand, alleging they engaged in a sweeping debt relief scam that misled vulnerable consumers, including seniors and veterans, through impersonation, pretexting, and deceptive marketing.

According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants posed as consumers’ own banks, credit card issuers, and even government agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, to lure them into costly debt relief programs and gain access to their financial accounts. Through direct mail, online ads, and telemarketing calls (both outbound and inbound), the companies allegedly promised to reduce debts by up to 75%. But according to the FTC, these claims were exaggerated, and the program collected millions in illegal advance fees, some as high as $10,000, while leaving consumers in worse financial shape.

The court issued a temporary restraining order, halting the operation, and imposed an asset freeze to preserve funds for potential consumer redress as the case continues.Continue Reading FTC’s Ever-Expanding Remedies Toolkit: GLBA and Impersonation Rule Applied to Debt Relief Scheme

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairman Andrew Ferguson has promised vigorous law enforcement under his leadership. Consistent with that promise, on June 10, 2025, the Commission announced a $1.9 million settlement with Florida-based Evoke Wellness and two of its corporate officers, resolving allegations that the company engaged in deceptive advertising and telemarketing practices targeting individuals seeking substance use disorder treatment.

At the heart of the FTC’s complaint filed in the waning days of the Biden administration is a classic bait-and-switch: Evoke allegedly purchased Google search ads that prominently displayed the names of competing treatment centers. When consumers clicked those ads—believing they were contacting the named facility—they were routed instead to Evoke’s internal call centers. According to the Commission, the representatives answering those calls were trained to reinforce the deception, often falsely stating that they were calling from or affiliated with the facility the consumer had originally searched for.

The FTC’s complaint alleged violations of both the FTC Act and the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act of 2018 (OARFPA). This settlement signals OARFPA remains a tool the Ferguson-led FTC is prepared to use.Continue Reading Marketing in Sensitive Sectors: The FTC Prescribes a $1.9 Million Lesson to Evoke Wellness

On May 15, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairman Andrew Ferguson testified before the House Appropriations Committee in support of the FTC’s budget request. His testimony provides insight into the agency’s downsizing and its strategic enforcement priorities moving forward.

Ferguson reported that the FTC is implementing a 10% reduction in its workforce, bringing its headcount to approximately 1,100 employees—the lowest level in a decade. This decision follows the departure of 94 employees earlier in the year, which left the agency with 1,221 full-time staff. Ferguson testified that these measures are essential for aligning the agency’s resources with its current budget and emphasized a return to the FTC’s foundational mission: enforcing laws as written, rather than creating new regulations and policy.

Despite the reductions, Ferguson expressed confidence that the FTC will effectively fulfill its mission of protecting consumers and promoting competition. He highlighted several key consumer protection areas the FTC will prioritize:Continue Reading Cut to the Chase: FTC Trims Staff but Keeps Enforcement Focus

On March 21, a federal judge in Washington state denied Doxo Inc.’s motion to dismiss a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding Doxo’s alleged deceptive advertising practices. The FTC’s complaint alleges that Doxo, a third-party online bill pay platform, violated the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). Doxo provides a third-party bill-paying platform that touts that customers can “pay and manage all [their] bills with one login.”

The FTC alleged Doxo deceived consumers by giving the false impression it was the official payment channel for consumers’ billers and failing to adequately disclose fees being charged. The complaint also alleged Doxo violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose material transaction and subscription terms and by failing to obtain informed consent from consumers before signing them up for a subscription service.Continue Reading Do You Know Who You’re Paying? FTC Lawsuit Against an Online Bill Pay Platform to Proceed