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

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

A Connecticut state court recently denied Exxon Mobile Corp.’s motion to strike the Connecticut attorney general’s lawsuit, allowing all the state’s consumer protection claims regarding Exxon’s alleged greenwashing to proceed.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2020, alleges that Exxon violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by misleading consumers about the climate impacts of its fossil fuel products and by overstating or misrepresenting its own sustainability efforts. Connecticut asserts that this has amounted to a long-running “systematic campaign of deception,” including alleged “greenwashing.”

Continue Reading State Court Clears Connecticut’s Greenwashing Suit Against Exxon

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision issuing a permanent injunction and over $7 million in sanctions against people engaged in an illegal multilevel marketing scheme. The court’s opinion in Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Noland sheds light on the scope of the agency’s power to obtain monetary relief after the Supreme Court restricted the FTC’s authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act in a 2021 case, AMG Capital Management v. FTC.

In Noland, the defendants attempted to use the AMG Capital decision to challenge the court’s ability to award compensatory sanctions for contempt and redress under Section 19 for a rule violation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of those arguments.

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms the FTC’s Authority to Seek Damages After AMG Capital

Just days after the federal government shutdown came to an end, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wasted no time returning to enforcement mode, announcing a major settlement with Seek Capital, LLC and its CEO, Roy Ferman. The agency’s action permanently bans the company and its founder from offering business financing, debt relief, or credit repair services, serving as an aggressive post-shutdown reminder that the FTC’s focus on deceptive small-business lending practices remains undiminished.

FTC Targets Deceptive Small Business Lending Practices

According to the FTC’s complaint, filed in November 2024, Seek advertised itself as a source of quick and easy business loans for new and aspiring small businesses, promising “lines of credit” and “cold hard cash.” Both Seek telemarketers and lead generators regularly marketed to small business owners the message that thousands of dollars were easily available and could be pre-approved in minutes.

Continue Reading FTC Bans Seek Capital in $48 Million Settlement

This week, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a $1.1 million settlement with JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS) over allegations that the meat producer misled consumers about its commitment to reduce its environmental impact. In February 2024, the AG filed suit, alleging that JBS’s consumer-facing statements that it would achieve “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2040 were deceptive “greenwashing” because the company lacked a viable plan to achieve that goal.

As we reported in January, a New York Supreme Court judge dismissed the AG’s complaint (with leave to amend). Following the dismissal, the AG continued to investigate JBS’s net zero statements by issuing a subpoena and, with JBS, agreeing twice to extend the response deadlines. JBS ultimately provided eight sets of documents in response to the subpoena, after which the AG agreed to resolve the matter through an Assurance of Discontinuance in lieu of filing an amended complaint alleging violations of New York consumer protection statutes. 

Continue Reading New York AG Secures $1.1 Million Settlement with JBS Over Greenwashing and Net Zero Claims

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