Advertising & Product Risk Management

Subscribe to Advertising & Product Risk Management via RSS

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

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

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…

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…

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…

FTC Building Door

Key takeaway #1 – The FTC’s request for public comment is a notable sign that the federal government is investigating online content moderation practices.

Key takeaway #2 – Companies should prepare for the possibility of a new legal landscape where content moderation practices face new legal challenges.

On February 20, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission launched an “inquiry” into “tech censorship” by calling 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.” The deadline for comments is May 21, 2025.

While promulgated under the banner of protecting citizens’ rights to speech, this “inquiry” marks the Trump Administration’s first official action to address how businesses edit, moderate, and deliver user generated content online. The repercussions are widesweeping as any business with an online presence—whether selling products, allowing users to post content or commentary—may be at risk of further investigation. This also may be the precursor to changes in law that governs internet activity in the United States.Continue Reading The FTC’s Request for Public Comment on Online Content Moderation – Are You Ready for a Sea Change?

Federal Trade Commission
The building of the Federal Trade Commission in downtown Washington DC.

Call it the summer of junk fees and drip pricing. In July, California’s new drip pricing law went into effect and in August the federal government announced further proposed rules into junk fees and subscription services. Regulators say these proposed price transparency laws and regulations are consumer protection tools that will save consumers money, help them avoid hidden fees and enable them to cancel recurring charges and subscriptions.

Here is what you need to know now:

Continue Reading Turning up the Heat on Junk Fees and Drip Pricing: Federal and State Regulations Require Increased Transparency into Pricing and Contract Cancellation

As we’ve previously reported, FTC practitioners and businesses alike have been anxiously awaiting details about the rule that will prohibit purportedly deceptive practices in connection with reviews and testimonials. Our readers likely recall the FTC’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking from November 2022, the notice of proposed rulemaking from June 2023, and the informal hearing on the proposed rule which occurred in February 2024. The wait is finally over: just yesterday, August 14, 2024, the agency announced the “Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials” (the “Rule”). The final Rule, which the Commissioners unanimously approved, is a formal step to address alleged ongoing non-compliance with Section 5 of the FTC Act and the agency’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the “Endorsement Guides”), particularly in the consumer review space.Continue Reading Final Rule Announced: The FTC Strengthens Its Enforcement Capacity Against “Deceptive” Reviews and Testimonials

Online shopping concept-GettyImages-1301022916-Med

Since the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published its updated 2023 Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising earlier this year, consumer reviews have been front of mind. This guidance covers, in part, the treatment of consumer reviews, and companies have been (or should be) preparing for an uptick in FTC enforcement. But it’s not just the FTC to watch out for. A recent wave of class actions arising under California Civil Code § 1670.8 related to a customer’s right to make statements about their experience with a seller has raised the bar for retailers to another level.Continue Reading I Can’t Say What? New Wave of Class Actions Target Consumer Review Terms & Conditions

whiskey-gf3a585bed_640

In a decision to be applauded by brand owners throughout the country, the Supreme Court clarified the balance between trademark rights and First Amendment interests in its decision in the Jack Daniel’s case, Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC, No. 22-148 (June 8, 2023).  Vacating the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court held that an accused infringer does not receive special First Amendment protection when it has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods.  Such use is subject to the traditional test for likelihood of confusion, the Court held, not a threshold test derived from the First Amendment such as that contained in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989).[1]Continue Reading A Win for Brand Owners as Jack Daniel’s Escapes the Doghouse in Supreme Court Ruling