On February 27, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to hear a case that could cast doubt on all of the regulations that have been promulgated by the bureau to date, as well as all pending investigations and litigation brought by the agency.

The Court will consider in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) whether the CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says, “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by the law.”

Continue Reading Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Involving CFPB Funding

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to “ban the practice of obtaining a single consumer consent as grounds for delivering calls and text messages from multiple marketers on subjects beyond the scope of the original consent.”

According to the FCC, the proposed rule’s intent is to prevent lead generators from obtaining consent to receive calls and texts from multiple “partner companies” identified through a hyperlink rather than on the same page where consent is obtained. Implementing this rule could drastically change the way lead generators obtain consent for marketing calls and texts under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Continue Reading FCC Proposes Rule to “Close the Lead Generator Loophole,” with Business-Changing Ramifications

The first quarter of 2023 hasn’t started much better for the blockchain and cryptocurrency industry than the fourth quarter of 2022 ended. Last week, in Friel v. Dapper Labs, Inc et al., a federal judge declined to dismiss a class action complaint alleging securities law violations, finding that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the non-fungible tokens (NFTs) sold on the NBA’s Top Shot platform could be securities. The ruling was the first of its kind, and while the court expressly stated that it is narrow in scope and other NFTs may not be securities, the holding could ultimately have far-reaching implications for other NFT projects and marketplaces as applied, particularly in today’s uncertain environment.

NBA Top Shot is an NFT platform, owned and operated by Dapper Labs, that allows consumers to buy, sell, and trade “Moments” NFTs (digital video clips of player highlights) on Dapper Lab’s Flow Blockchain. On February 22, 2023, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Dapper Labs’ motion to dismiss, holding that although “it is a close call and the Court’s decision is narrow,” Moments NFTs qualify as securities under the Howey test, the four-pronged test created by the Supreme Court in SEC v. Howey Co. to determine whether certain transactions qualify as investment transactions and are thus regulated securities. In its decision to deny the motion to dismiss, the court focused on prongs two and three of the Howey test.

Continue Reading Layup or Airball? Court Holds NBA Top Shot NFTs May Be a Security in Friel v. Dapper Labs

In what could be a seminal case of the Internet age, the U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, its first case concerning the hotly debated Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The case’s potential ramifications might be gleaned from the 70-plus amicus briefs filed by major companies, states, elected officials, and organizations.

Section 230 provides immunity to Internet platforms from liability arising out of third-party content posted to the platform’s websites.  The statute prevents a “provider or user of an interactive computer service” from being treated as “the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In this case, the Gonzalez family sued YouTube for making targeted recommendations of recruitment videos created by the terrorist organization ISIS. The Gonzalez’s daughter died in an ISIS terrorist attack, and they claim that Section 230 should not shield YouTube from civil liability when its algorithms recommended harmful content such as these videos.

Continue Reading For the First Time, Supreme Court Considers Section 230 Immunity for Third-Party Content on Internet Platforms Such as Google and YouTube

It’s here! The 11th edition of Venable’s popular Advertising Law Tool Kit is now available for download. This annual resource compiles a broad spectrum of marketing-related topics, background information, and checklists into an easy-to-access guide, authored by some of the most experienced attorneys in the industry. Download this year’s Tool Kit or bookmark the link to our e-book for quick access to these industry best practices.

If you haven’t already, be sure to subscribe to this award-winning blog, and tune in to our comprehensive webinar series, where our team addresses current events and examines themes and issues important to advertising and marketing. Have specific questions? Don’t hesitate to contact any of our Tool Kit or blog authors to arrange a conversation or to suggest a topic for subsequent editions of the Advertising Law Tool Kit.

Venable's Advertising Law Tool Kit - Eleventh Edition

Gather your W-2’s and call your CPAs! Tax season is upon us, and that means one thing for the FTC—another flurry of activity in its ongoing action against Intuit, Inc., one of the largest online tax-filing services. Recently, the FTC issued an order denying complaint counsel’s motion for summary decision in the case, concluding that the matter will proceed to a full evidentiary hearing—the FTC’s administrative version of a trial.

As we previously reported, the FTC initially brought its case against Intuit in March 2022, alleging that the marketing of TurboTax as free was misleading because the free service applies only to those customers filing “simple” tax returns, while the service charges many other customers at the end of the filing process. Two months later, we wrote about the states’ investigation of Intuit, which overlapped with the FTC case, and the resulting $141 million settlement with all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Along with the restitution payment, Intuit was required to cease its “free” advertising campaign as part of the settlement.

Continue Reading FTC’s Case Against Intuit Isn’t Won—Yet

Last week, a magistrate judge in U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina dismissed a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who claimed calls made by an insurance lead generator to her cell phone number, which was registered on the national Do Not Call (DNC) registry, were unlawful. The decision takes a view contrary to that of at least one other district court in the Fourth Circuit, but sides with a district court in Texas in finding that the do not call prohibitions of the TCPA do not encompass cell phones.

Does this latest decision, Gaker v. Q3M Insurance Solutions et al., mean that telemarketing calls to cellphone numbers listed on the national DNC list are actually OK? Probably not. For starters, since 2003, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has allowed cell phone numbers to be registered on the DNC list and interpreted the TCPA’s do-not-call prohibitions to encompass cell phone numbers. Other courts have followed the FCC’s lead in this matter. However, the judge’s reasoning in the Gaker case is interesting to consider, particularly for anyone following a textualist reading of Congress’s laws.

Continue Reading North Carolina Judge Says Cell Phones Not Subject to Federal Do-Not-Call Protections

On January 19, 2023 the Third Circuit dismissed a TCPA class action lawsuit (Mauthe v. Millennium Health LLC) against a company that had sent a one-page promotional fax to consumers without their prior consent about a free educational seminar related to drug testing and medication monitoring.

The free seminar would “highlight national trends in opioid misuse and abuse…and discuss the role of medication monitoring as a valuable tool that provides objective, actionable information during the care of injured workers.” 

The fax did not promote specific goods or services. Nor did it include pricing information, testimonials, discount offers, coupons, or any product images. It also did not contain contact information for purchasing a product or service sold by the company. Nevertheless, Millennium Heath was sued under the TCPA’s fax provisions based on a claim that the fax was an unsolicited advertisement. 

Rejecting the claim, the Third Circuit held that “no reasonable recipient…could view [the fax] as promoting the purchase or sale of goods, services or property,” and thus directed dismissal of the suit.

If the contents of the fax had been only slightly different, such as mentioning a product sold by the company, the decision could have easily gone the other way. For marketers and advertisers, the case highlights the fine line companies face when sending consumers messages by telephone, text, or fax without obtaining their prior consent. 

Bookmark our All About Advertising Law blog and subscribe to our monthly newsletter for more updates.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has moved to curb digital mortgage comparison-shopping platforms from receiving referral fees, issuing an advisory opinion that outlines how companies violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when “they steer shoppers to lenders by using pay-to-play tactics rather than providing shoppers with comprehensive and objective information.” The advisory is a warning to digital marketing platforms of the potential consequences of business relationships with mortgage lenders. The CFPB has a direct sightline into the marketing activities of mortgage lenders though supervision and routine examinations, and has already put a target on digital marketing providers.

The CFPB’s advisory opinion describes how platform operations can violate Section 8 of RESPA by enhancing the placement of lenders or related service providers on the digital platforms, or by otherwise steering consumers to those lenders or service providers. in addition, the opinion provides illustrative examples.

Continue Reading CFPB Warns Digital Mortgage Comparison-Shopping Platforms About Referral Fees and Pay-to-Play Advertising

As the dust settles from the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, 141 S. Ct. 1341 (2021), which gutted the Federal Trade Commission’s authority to obtain equitable monetary relief in court, the contours of the FTC’s remedial authority continue to be shaped by the lower courts.

Most recently, the Eleventh Circuit weighed in on whether Section 19 of the FTC Act authorizes the FTC to obtain an asset freeze and impose a receiver. Prior to AMG, the FTC routinely obtained such preliminary relief against companies and individuals the FTC believed were engaging, or about to engage, in unfair deceptive business practices. In doing so, the FTC would rely on its authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. However, after AMG, the FTC can only use Section 13(b) to obtain forward-looking injunctive relief.

Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Says FTC Can Seek Asset Freezes and Receivership Under Section 19