Microplastics pollution has emerged as a significant issue as the public learns more about the presence of microplastics in the environment and how they may enter the human body. In recent years, Congress has considered measures to address microplastics pollution, including a bill requiring the Food and Drug Administration to study the health effects of
A recent wave of California class actions under Business & Professions Code § 17529.5 is targeting companies for allegedly misleading commercial emails, posing significant legal and financial risks—especially due to strict liability claims and substantial statutory damages. Click here to to continue reading the full version of this alert.
On July 14, 2025, the FTC announced its enforcement action against telemedicine company NextMed over charges it used misleading prices, fake reviews and deceptive weight-loss claims to sell GLP-1 weight-loss drugs. The FTC has now settled its charges that NextMed used deceptive practices to lure consumers into buying their weight-loss membership programs that had hidden terms and conditions. With the rise of both authentic and counterfeit GLP-1s throughout the nation and the proliferation of the availability of GLP-1s from telemedicine/telehealth companies, online pharmacies and medspas, this announcement is a sign that the federal government will actively monitor these entities to ensure consumers are getting genuine, authentic GLP-1s, that consumers are making informed decisions about weight-loss drugs, and that consumers are not being deceived and duped in the frenzy over GLP-1s.Continue Reading FTC Uses Its Consumer Protection Powers to Regulate Sellers of GLP-1s
On July 8, 2025, the Eighth Circuit vacated the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Negative Option Rule, also known as the Click-to-Cancel Rule, on procedural grounds. The Click-to-Cancel Rule, which provided a streamlined path for consumers to cancel subscription services in a few clicks of a mouse, was scheduled to take effect on July 14, 2025, but the Court found that the FTC had failed to follow mandatory procedural requirements.
Petitioners argued that the FTC had, in implementing the rule, exceeded its statutory authority, skipped a requisite preliminary regulatory analysis during the rulemaking process pursuant to Section 22 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by enacting the Click-to-Cancel Rule. The Court agreed, finding that the FTC violated Section 22 of the FTC Act.Continue Reading Eighth Circuit Cancels Click-to-Cancel
Crowell attorneys have closely monitored developments related to the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). In particular, we have watched plaintiffs attempt to extend this wiretapping law to encompass website chatbot communications that are managed by third parties.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed key CIPA issues in Thomas v. Papa John’s International, Inc., No. 24-3557. The decision reaffirms CIPA’s eavesdropping standard as well as the specific personal jurisdiction standard set out in its recent en banc decision, Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2025).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms that CIPA Only Applies to Third-Party Eavesdropping
In a recently published Law360 article, “Appellate Guidance Needed on California Chatbot Litigation,” Jason Stiehl, Jacob Canter, and Kari Ferver discuss how the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) is being levied in cases against website owners that allegedly help third parties spy on visitors via chatbots. Click here to read the full article.
Register now to join Joanna Rosen Forster, Joachim B. Steinberg, Preetha Chakrabarti, David Ervin, and Warrington Parker on June 11, 2025 from 12:00 pm EDT – 1:00 pm EDT as they discuss Section 230 and the implications for digital platforms, online businesses and e-commerce. Section 230 was enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act (CDA), providing immunity to interactive computer service providers for third-party content. Known as “the 26 words that created the internet,” this statute is responsible for the development of the modern internet as we know it.
Recent calls by the DOJ, FTC, FCC, State AGs and even Congressional Leaders to reform, edit or take Section 230 enforcement in new directions signal a potential inflection point. The challenge for policy reform lies in balancing Section 230’s role in protecting online speech and fostering innovation with evolving concerns about platform accountability, consumer protection, and market efficiency in a data-driven economy.Continue Reading Register Now! Section 230: Implications for Digital Platforms, Online Businesses and E-Commerce Webinar
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
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
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