Ad Law Insights - Legal and Regulatory Updates
Latest FTC and state attorneys general compliance, investigation and enforcement developments of concern to advertisers and marketers
The Federal Trade Commission and National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs set forth their enforcement priorities during the 2025 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference,
Not surprisingly, the FTC set forth a bread-and-butter enforcement agency. It includes, without limitation, protecting children (Children’s Online Protection Act (16 C.F.R. § 312); enforcing Made in USA (U.S. Origin Claims) (Made in USA Labeling Rule – 16 C.F.R. § 323); enforcing subscriptions, negative options and automatic trial programs (Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act), Dark Patterns and Click-to-Cancel); Enforcing the FTC Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees”); enforcing target advertising and surveillance marketing techniques; enforcing influencers, consumer reviews and endorsements (The Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule: Questions and Answers – 16 CFR Part 465); and enforcing the use of AI (for example and without limitation, exaggerating the capabilities of AI features).
Consult with an experienced ecommerce attorney to discuss the implementation of preventative compliance measures or if you are the subject of a regulatory investigation of enforcement action.
Other areas which are reasonably certain to receive increase regulatory investigation and enforcement attention include but are not limited to, data privacy, Telephone Sale Rule, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, state unfair and deceptive business practices,
Additional key highlights and takeaways for discussion with a qualified ecommerce attorney include the use of health claims, green claims, and social media IP rights and takedown procedures,
Contact the author for more information.
Richard B. Newman is a leading FTC compliance attorney at Hinch Newman LLP.
In November 2025, the Office of the Pennsylvania Attorney announced a $750,000 settlement with a collectibles company regarding its “negative option features” and other business practices.
According to an Office of Attorney General investigation that involved more than 200 consumer complaints, it was determined that the company allegedly advertised collectibles and engaged in sales that resulted in consumers not realizing they were enrolled in subscription services — a practice referred to as a negative option feature.
Consumers then had short windows to return goods they were charged for as part of the subscription plan, according to the PA OAG.
Under the settlement terms, the company agreed to pay $750,000 to allegedly harmed consumers, end subscription plans and collections efforts with nearly 200,000 customers, and revise its business and advertising practices.
“Negative option features are a breach of state consumer laws as they are deceptive practices designed to enroll consumers into future purchases,” the Attorney General said. “This settlement will make many consumers whole while requiring the company to change its practices and refrain from negative option features. When buying any products, be sure to read the terms and conditions thoroughly before committing to that purchase.”
According to the OAG, the company advertises and sells collectible merchandise, mostly collectible coins, via direct mail, over the phone, through print advertisements, and through the company website.
Originally, it was alleged that the company was in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
Advertisers and manufactures that utilize unqualified “Made in USA” claim in conjunction with their advertising, marketing, markings, packaging and labeling are at increased risk of private or regulatory scrutiny relating thereto. See the Essential Guide to Made in USA Advertising written by Made in USA lawyer Richard Newman for more information.
For purposes of this article, the issue is whether it is unlawful to make an unqualified “Made in USA” claim for products made from recycled materials. For example, an unqualified “Made in the USA” claim for a product made from minerals and metals recycled in the United States.
The investment of significant time and resources into collecting recyclable material, delivering it to refiners in the United States, and then processing to a purity level of almost 100% may not be enough, alone, to assign a new and different origin to recycled material.
Notable is a prior Federal Trade Commission advisory opinion on the issue that references consumer perception testing on U.S.-origin claims. It found that 57% of Americans – almost 3 in 5 – agree that “Made in America” means that all parts of a product, including any natural resources it contains, originated in the United States. The survey also found that 33% of consumers think 100% of a product must originate in a country for that product to be called “Made” in the USA.
According to the FTC, a product made from minerals and metals made from recycled materials often contain raw materials of unknown origin.
As previously covered here, in 2023, the Federal Trade Commission filed its first “review hijacking” case in which a marketer purported repurposes reviews of another product on behalf of a new product.
According to the FTC complaint, the defendant asked Amazon to create numerous variation relationships for its supplement products with different formulations. The company began selling two new products and requested that Amazon combine the new products in a variation relationship with three of its established products, all with different formulations, according to the FTC.
The FTC alleged that by manipulating product pages, the company misrepresented the reviews, the number of Amazon reviews and the average star ratings of some products, and that some of them were number one best sellers or had earned an Amazon Choice badge.
Most recently, the National Advertising Division considered a case where the challenger alleged that the respondent purportedly utilized Amazon and TikTok consumer reviews for a health supplement product in order to promote a different health supplement product.
According to the NAD, the products were “substantially different” and that it was improper for their reviews to be merged. Respondent was advised to implement remedial action, including, contacting the platform providers to remove illegitimate reviews.
Consult an FTC compliance lawyer to discuss how this decision may potentially impact your advertising practices, including, without limitation, the interpretation of the meaning of “substantially different.”
Richard B.
In October 2025, the New York Attorney General’s Office announced that, in accordance with the “Stop Hiding Hate” Act, social media companies are required to report their content moderation policies to the OAG’s office, with first reports due no later than January 1, 2026.
The New York legislation requires that platforms operating in New York with more than $100 million in gross annual revenue must post their content moderation policies publicly, provide consumers with a contact to report violations of the policy, and submit biannual compliance reports.
Key requirements of the Act include:
- Public Transparency: Covered companies are required to publish their terms of service in clear accessible language and provide contact details for user inquiries.
- User Reporting Mechanisms: Platforms must clearly describe how users can report violations of the terms of service, and provide contact information for doing so.
- Action and Response Details: Covered companies must explain what kind of action they may take for posts that violate the policy.
- Biannual Reporting: Social media companies are required to submit reports twice a year to the New York OAG. These reports must include statements on their terms of service. Covered companies must also describe their policies and how they are enforced.
- Data Disclosure: Reports must include data on the total number of posts believed to be policy violations, the number of posts acted upon, and the details thereof.
The failure to comply with the Act’s requirements can potentially result in civil penalties of up to $15,000 per violation per day.
Topics
Archives
About This Blog and Hinch Newman’s Advertising + Marketing Practice
Hinch Newman LLP’s advertising and marketing practice includes successfully resolving some of the highest-profile Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general digital advertising and telemarketing investigations and enforcement actions. The firm possesses superior knowledge and deep legal experience in the areas of advertising, marketing, lead generation, promotions, e-commerce, privacy and intellectual property law. Through these advertising and marketing law updates, Hinch Newman provides commentary, news and analysis on issues and trends concerning developments of interest to digital marketers, including FTC and state attorneys general advertising compliance, civil investigative demands (CIDs), and administrative/judicial process. This blog is sponsored by Hinch Newman LLP.