On April 21, 2025, the FTC filed an enforcement action against Uber alleging that Uber enrolled consumers in Uber One without proper consent, created substantial barriers to cancellation, and misrepresented the financial benefits of the subscription. The claims include violations of the FTC Act—which prohibits unfair and deceptive acts in commerce—and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”)—which prohibits charging consumers for goods and services sold on the internet through a negative option (i.e., failing to cancel a subscription, unless the seller clearly discloses all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s information and obtains the consumer’s expressed informed consent for the charges and provides simple mechanisms for the consumer to stop the recurring charges). Click here to continue reading.

Continue Reading Three-Clicks You’re Out? The FTC’s Action against Uber Showcases That Businesses Need To Provide Transparent Cancellation Processes
Federal Trade Commission
The building of the Federal Trade Commission in downtown Washington DC.

The FTC has remained active in both the antitrust and consumer protection spaces. The agency is seeking public comment about federal regulations that could themselves be harming competition in the economy. The Commission also released data and statistics about common text message scams. And, of course, the agency’s landmark trial against Meta continues. More information on these stories after the jump.

Continue Reading FTC Updates (April 14 – 18, 2025)
California-State-Capitol-Building-GettyImages-482507305-Sm

Two bills currently making their way through the California Legislature could, if passed, have far-reaching implications for how companies doing business in California price their goods and services. California Assembly Bill 325 (Aguiar-Curry) and Senate Bill 384 (Wahab), as drafted, seek broad prohibitions against the use, distribution of, and inputs into algorithmic pricing and supply software, even where there is no coordination among competitors on the use of such software or the setting of prices. Their enactment would reach every business that uses software applications to develop pricing, supply levels and other commercial terms in California. Crowell & Moring represents the California Chamber of Commerce (“CalChamber”) in monitoring, analyzing and responding to the proposed bills.

Continue Reading California Considering Broad Bans on Pricing Software
Recall

The 2024 trends in recall litigation and class actions, including food recall cases, prudential mootness decisions, benefit of the bargain opinions, and PFAS litigation, continue into 2025. Click here to continue reading.

On April 14, 2025, ClassPass, a web-based company offering subscription services to third-party fitness classes, petitioned for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit’s Chabolla v. ClassPass decision, which held that ClassPass’ users were not bound by the terms of ClassPass’ “sign-in wrap” agreement. The ruling has significant consequences for online companies using sign-in wrap agreements and for online contract formation and enforcement more generally. A sign-in wrap is a type of online agreement in which the agreement is hyperlinked on the website, but the user is not required to access, review, confirm an understanding, or otherwise affirmatively “assent” to be bound. If the Ninth Circuit does not grant ClassPass’ request and issue a new ruling in Chabolla, this case may signal the death knell for sign-in wraps, resulting in significant disruption, friction, and ultimately lower conversion for online companies who will be forced to redesign their sign-up flows to be click-wrap agreements (online agreements that require the user to affirmatively accept a company’s terms of use by clicking an assent box or button). Short of that, this decision increases business risk given that there are now conflicting opinions both within the Ninth Circuit and between the various Circuits. Click here to continue reading.

Business, Technology, Internet and network concept. Labor law, Lawyer, Attorney at law-GettyImages-1331137712-Sm

On April 3, 2025, the United States Department of Justice’ Antitrust Division hosted a forum on “Big-Tech Censorship” in which key Trump Administration Officials announced their desire to reform, or entirely overhaul, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In March 2025, we wrote about the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) inquiry into “tech censorship” and its associated request for public comments from those who “may have been harmed by technology platforms that limited their ability to share ideas or affiliations freely and openly.” That RFI remains open, and its deadline is May 21, 2025. Click here to continue reading.

United-States-Supreme-Court-building-GettyImages-617600672-Sm

On April 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the reach of Section 1964(c) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act by holding that a plaintiff may seek treble damages for a business or property loss resulting from a personal injury.[1] The 5-4 decision has resolved a 3-2 circuit split over whether the RICO statute precludes relief for losses stemming from a personal injury. Click here to continue reading.

mocra white paper blog

Despite other sweeping changes to the federal government under the Trump administration, the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), passed under former President Biden, remains good law. Below, we report on recent trends in FDA’s implementation and enforcement of MoCRA in the early months of Trump’s presidency.

FDA is continuing to monitor the cosmetic industry’s compliance with MoCRA. On March 13, 2025, FDA released data summarizing the number of active facility registrations and product listings submitted pursuant to MoCRA’s requirements.

Continue Reading MoCRA Under the Trump Era: A Look at FDA’s Monitoring and Enforcement Two Months In

“Right to Repair” laws are regulations that generally require manufacturers to give consumers and independent repair providers access to tools, parts, and information to repair certain consumer products and other equipment on fair and reasonable terms. Recently, six states—California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—have implemented their own comprehensive right to repair regulations. Click here to read a summary of these states laws and what companies can expect on a state and federal level.