FTC Commissioner Mark Meador spoke at the National Advertising Division’s Annual Conference this week in Washington and provided some insight into his views on advertising and consumer protection. 

Meador began by noting that he was an antitrust lawyer prior to becoming a commissioner, with limited exposure to consumer protection issues. He noted that many antitrust matters contest subtle issues of market definition and the anticompetitive effects likely to occur in the future. 

On the other hand, Meador described many of the cases brought by the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection as fighting evil and involving conduct that morally shocked him. He threw in a quote from Leviticus 19:35-36 to make his point: “Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight, or volume. Your scales and weights must be accurate. Your containers for measuring dry materials or liquids must be accurate.” 

Continue Reading FTC Commissioner Mark Meador Highlights Consumer Protection Priorities at NAD 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

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled President Trump’s removal of Democrat commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was unlawful. In a 2-1 decision, the panel held that the case was squarely controlled by Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor. The D.C. Circuit decision upheld the district court’s ruling in July and sets the stage for the Supreme Court to determine whether to uphold or overrule long-standing precedent regarding removal protections for “independent” executive agencies.

On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration’s request  and stayed the D.C. Circuit’s decision pending further orders from Roberts or the Supreme Court, which effectively removes Rebecca Slaughter (again) from her role as an FTC commissioner. The stay order directs Slaughter to respond to the administration’s appeal by September 15. During her brief reinstatement, Slaughter dissented from several FTC actions.

Continue Reading Legal Ping-Pong: D.C. Circuit Restores, Then Supreme Court Removes, Rebecca Slaughter as FTC Commissioner

Texas’s amended telemarketing registration law takes effect on September 1. Although the law is not new, the legislature expanded it to apply to text messages. Under Texas’s existing law, a company that makes telephone solicitations to or from Texas must obtain a registration certificate for each business location where it makes those telephone solicitations. Until now this requirement applied to outbound calls, but beginning September 1 it will also apply to outbound marketing text messages.

Certain types of entities and telephone solicitation activities are exempt from the registration requirement, such as communications soliciting food sales; soliciting businesses to purchase items for resale; soliciting former or current customers; and telephone solicitations for purchases that will be completed at in-person sales presentations.

Continue Reading Compliance Deadline of September 1 for Companies Sending Texts: Telemarketing Registration in Texas

Following a recent uptick in influencer-related lawsuits, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed a dismissal of a putative class action against apparel company Luli Fama. The complaint alleged that influencers had posted content promoting the company without adequately disclosing their material connections, such as payment.

Plaintiff Targets Influencer Marketing

In the case, the plaintiff alleged violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, arguing he was misled by multiple influencer posts on a social media platform because he believed those posts were unpaid endorsements when in fact Luli Fama paid those influencers for the content.

Continue Reading Influencer Disclosure Lawsuits Face Setback: Eleventh Circuit Rules for Luli Fama

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

Last week, a U.S. district judge in the District of Columbia held that President Trump did not have statutory authority to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without cause. Judge Loren AliKhan held that Trump’s “at-will” removal of Slaughter was unlawful and granted a permanent injunction requiring the Trump administration to permit her return to the office without interference. Read our full analysis here.

On July 21, the Trump administration sought a stay of this order, just as it did in Wilcox and Harris. Indeed, in June 2025 another federal court in the District of Maryland—in Boyle v. Trump—rejected President Trump’s at-will removal of several members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. A stay request submitted to the Supreme Court in that case is awaiting a decision.

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement with NextMed parent company Southern Health Solutions, Inc., in response to allegations that the telemedicine platform offered deceptive claims and fake reviews to lure consumers into buying its programs.

The FTC charged that NextMed and its founders sold fixed-term weight-loss memberships that provided access to GLP-1 drugs and deceptively advertised costs and expected weight loss outcomes. The case marks the first consumer protection action brought by the Andrew Ferguson-led FTC focused on marketing and membership billing practices in the healthcare space.

The FTC’s recently vacated Negative Option Rule would not have applied here because NextMed sold a fixed‑term membership rather than a negative option plan, and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), which governs negative option features, was likewise not at issue.

Continue Reading FTC Settles with NextMed Over Deceptive Pricing, Hidden Material Terms, and Fake Reviews and Testimonials in Telehealth Membership Programs

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) continues to be hotly litigated by class action plaintiffs’ attorneys, with filed cases increasing significantly over the last year. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. that federal district courts have the power to ignore the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) interpretations of the TCPA and to independently decide what the TCPA requires. The decision (which should not come as much of a surprise after the Loper Bright holding) concluded that the federal Hobbs Act does not demand that district courts absolutely defer to the FCC’s interpretations of the TCPA in enforcement proceedings, stating:

In an enforcement proceeding, a district court must independently determine for itself whether the agency’s interpretation of a statute is correct. District courts are not bound by the agency’s interpretation, but instead must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation. 

Continue Reading The Future of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the Wake of Supreme Court’s Decision in McLaughin Chiropractic v. McKesson

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s Rule Concerning Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Plans (often referred to as the “Click-to-Cancel” rule) on July 8, just days before the FTC was set to begin enforcement of the rule.

The decision resolved various consolidated petitions challenging the rule on grounds that it exceeded the scope of the FTC’s authority, was not promulgated in accordance with necessary rulemaking procedures, and was overly broad. The winning argument, though, was that the FTC skipped the critical step of issuing a preliminary analysis of the benefits and effects of the proposed rule and any reasonable alternatives, because it initially failed to treat the rule as “economically significant” to the national economy.

Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Cancels FTC Negative Option Rule: What Does It Mean?