On May 19, 2025, President Trump signed into law the Take It Down Act. The new law imposes strict takedown obligations and creates new civil and criminal liabilities for individuals and platforms that distribute nonconsensual intimate images (NCII).

The Act makes it a federal crime for individual posters to knowingly share or threaten to share NCII, including AI-generated images that depict real people, and clarifies that consent to create an image does not mean consent to share it.

“Covered Platforms” must now provide a notice-and-takedown notification process allowing affected persons to request the removal of intimate visual depictions of an identifiable individual posted without consent. Covered Platforms include any website, online service, application, or mobile app that (1) serves the public and (2) either (a) provides a forum for user-generated content (e.g., videos, images, messages, games, or audio), or (b) in the ordinary course of business, regularly publishes, curates, hosts, or makes available nonconsensual intimate visual depictions. Covered Platforms do not include the following entities: (1) broadband internet access providers (ISPs); (2) email services; or (3) online services or sites with primarily preselected content, where the content is not user-generated but curated by the provider, and interactive features are merely incidental or directly related to the preselected content.

Under the statute, the FTC will enforce a Covered Platform’s obligations under the Act. With a failure to meet the Act’s takedown obligations subjecting a platform it to civil penalties, investigation, and injunctive relief. Note that the Act also provides “safe harbor” protection for good-faith removal efforts where a Covered Platform takes prompt action, prevents re-uploads, and complies with the Act’s recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Compliance Recommendation – By May 19, 2026, a Covered Platform should provide on its platform a clear and conspicuous notice of its removal process, including an online submission process with identity verification. The Covered Platform must then put in place a procedure such that when it receives a valid request to remove content, it will take the following steps: (1) remove the reported content within 48 hours, (2) make reasonable efforts to locate and remove identical copies of the same image or video, and (3) ensure its systems detect and prevent attempts to re-upload the offending content. Finally, the Covered Platform should implement an internal system to log and document all takedown actions, as well as other efforts to demonstrate good-faith compliance and to meet the Act’s safe harbor.

On Friday, ​the Federal Trade Commission voted to defer the compliance deadline for the amended Negative Option Rule by 60 days. The Commission issued a statement on the new deadline.

The delay reflects the FTC’s response to various commenters who expressed concern that, “given the complexities” of these provisions, it would take a substantial amount of time to come into compliance. Thus, to ensure ample time for companies to conform their conduct to the Rule, the Commission stated it would exercise its enforcement discretion by further deferring the compliance deadline for 16 C.F.R. §§ 425.4–425.6 by 60 days. Starting July 14, 2025, regulated entities must be in compliance with the whole of the Rule because the Commission will begin enforcing it. The FTC states that, if that enforcement experience exposes problems with the Rule, the Commission would be open to amending the Rule to address any such problems.

If you have questions about complying with the updated rule, contact the authors or any VAST member.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) aimed at helping businesses and consumers understand the agency’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees, which takes effect on May 12, 2025. The new guidance signals the FTC’s continued focus on ensuring price transparency in industries where hidden fees have become common—and increasingly controversial.

The rule, which the commission approved in a 4-1 vote in December 2024, is designed to curb misleading fee practices, particularly in the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging sectors. The rule is also part of a broader effort to implement President Donald Trump’s Executive Order on Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment Market.

Continue Reading FTC Staff Issues Guidance Ahead of New Rule Targeting Deceptive Fees

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a proposed order requiring Workado, a company specializing in artificial intelligence (AI) detection tools, to stop advertising the accuracy of its AI detection tools unless it has suitable evidence that the detection tools are as accurate as claimed. The proposed settlement is yet another indication of the FTC’s continued emphasis on tackling deceptive AI technology under a new administration.

The complaint alleged that Workado marketed its AI Content Detector as being “98 percent” accurate when detecting whether text was written by AI or humans, but the complaint alleged that in reality, the accuracy rate was much lower. The complaint also alleges the AI detection tool was trained and built in such a way as to effectively analyze only academic content, rather than all of the various forms of marketing content Workado customers were submitting, thus making the 98% claim impossible. When independent testing was conducted, measuring the tool against various forms of marketing media, the accuracy rate dropped to just 53%.

Continue Reading AI Detection or AI Deception? FTC Says Be Ready to Back It Up

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit in federal court against rideshare and delivery company Uber for allegedly deceptive subscription practices, including making it unreasonably difficult to cancel.

In the accompanying press release, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson made clear that regulatory scrutiny of negative option and continuity programs will remain a priority: “Americans are tired of getting signed up for unwanted subscriptions that seem impossible to cancel. The Trump-Vance FTC is fighting back on behalf of the American people.” The agency voted 2-0-1 to file the complaint, with Commissioner Mark R. Meador recused.

Continue Reading FTC Makes Clear It Will Continue Regulating Subscription Services and Signals Enforcement Priority for Negative Option Rule in Lawsuit Against Uber

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.

Telephone and text message marketing is subject to complex litigation risks and regulatory challenges, requiring careful compliance. Federal laws like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and state-specific laws regulate marketing calls and texts, focusing on the use of autodialers, prerecorded messages, and consent requirements.

Continue Reading Telemarketing and Texting

The Fifth Circuit on April 17 vacated a $57 million FCC forfeiture against AT&T, ruling the agency violated the company’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial under the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. This decision reinforces that federal agencies imposing fines, forfeitures, and other monetary penalties must afford targets access to an Article III decision maker and a jury trial in order to perfect the penalty.

Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Decision Vacating FCC Fine Against AT&T Makes It More Difficult for Federal Agencies to Impose Monetary Penalties for Violations of Agency Rules

With tariffs creating an atmosphere where “imported” may soon come to mean “expensive,” American businesses might be tempted to use their advertising and packaging to emphasize the American origin of their product, no matter how little of the product originates in the USA. But, considering the regulations in place and the recent attention to challenges for false advertising, it’s a good time to review the rules for making Made in the USA claims. A recent jury verdict shows the potential consequences a company may suffer for not following the rules.

Earlier this month, a California jury found a popular tea company, R. C. Bigelow, liable for damages of $2.36 million in a class action lawsuit challenging the company’s Made in the USA claim. The plaintiffs relied on the standard set forth in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Made in USA labeling rule to show that Bigelow had violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), which makes it unlawful to misrepresent the “source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.”

Continue Reading Tariffs May Encourage Made in the USA Claims, but You Need to Be Careful

On April 4, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) published its final material characterization study report, starting the clock for compliance with Senate Bill No. 343 (SB 343), also known as the “Truth in Recycling” law. Under the law, marketers have 18 months from the date the study findings are published to comply with the requirements.

In 2021, California enacted SB 343, which prohibits the use of chasing arrows and any implied “recyclable” claims on products and packaging unless certain criteria are met. Specifically, SB 343 limits when a company can make a recyclable claim for a product or packaging to situations where:

Continue Reading Compliance Countdown for California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law Begins

The Trump administration transformed global trade policies by implementing a series of sweeping tariffs. Advertisers should ask the following questions.

1. How can I comply with pricing and transparency laws when my costs increase?

    Tariffs are typically calculated as a percentage of a product’s value, paid by importers, and collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Although Trump now imposes a 10% across the board tariff on most countries, China’s total tariff rates can now exceed 145%. Because tariffs often increase the landed cost of imported products, companies might need to raise prices.

    When incorporating the tariffs into pricing, companies should monitor states’ tariffs announcements and state price gouging laws. (COVID-19 price increases resulted in aggressive enforcement.) Companies should follow “drip pricing” laws requiring the upfront advertised price to reflect all fees (including tariffs and surcharges). Companies should brace for class actions under California’s “Honest Pricing Law,” and challenges to “junk” fees.

    Continue Reading Eight Questions Advertisers Should Be Asking About Tariffs