Photo of Joanna Rosen Forster

Joanna Rosen Forster

Subscribe to Joanna Rosen Forster's Posts

Joanna Forster’s multifaceted background positions her to effectively manage conflicts across the legal spectrum and across the globe. In her prior roles as general counsel (representing both plaintiffs and defendants) and as government prosecutor/enforcer, Joanna handled nearly every type of matter, ranging from complex commercial and white collar matters in areas such as employment, intellectual property, securities and antitrust law, to internal investigations and corporate and M&A transactions. She views her role as both a conflict manager, dispensing advice to avoid adversarial action, and as a tech and business litigator, resolving disputes with her client’s business goals in mind.

Having served as the general counsel and compliance officer of a publicly traded ecommerce platform operating in over 60 countries, Joanna has an appreciation of strategic dispute resolution, investigations, and compliance from a general counsel’s perspective. By understanding how business leaders combine the input of in-house and outside counsel to make decisions, Joanna is able to provide her clients with decisive and efficient legal guidance.

Her practice includes litigating domestic and cross-border complex commercial disputes and advising technology and ecommerce companies on matters related to internet platforms, product launches, market campaigns, and new vertical lines of business, all while advising on foreign and domestic laws that regulate online content, physical products, and the companies that bring them to market. Drawing on her experience as the General Counsel of an online e-commerce marketplace, Joanna also regularly advises and counsels clients on California’s Proposition 65, from prevention and compliance to remediation. Joanna is well-versed in key regulations that impact ecommerce companies, including the EU’s Digital Services Act, the U.S. INFORM Act, and the proposed SHOP SAFE Act, as well as laws and regulations that govern online speech such as the Communications Decency Act, Section 230.

Prior to going in-house, Joanna was the deputy attorney general, Corporate Fraud Section of the California Department of Justice. In this capacity, she led large, complex civil matters alleging violations of California’s False Claims Act, Securities Law, Section 17200, Cartwright Act, and other deceptive business practices. She also maintained her own investigations and litigation docket.

Before joining the California Department of Justice, Joanna spent nearly a decade in private practice, where she focused on civil and criminal antitrust and commercial litigation. She also served as a law clerk for the Honorable Consuelo B. Marshall in the U.S. District Court for the Central District Court of California.

Follow:Read more about Joanna Rosen ForsterJoanna's Linkedin Profile

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

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…

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?

On August 26, 2024, the FTC announced a stipulated order and settlement with Care.com for 8.5 MM.  The complaint, filed in W.D. Tex. alleges various violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act with respect to the manner in which Care.com advertised and promoted the number of jobs available on its platform, and its auto-renew or subscription feature.  The FTC labeled Care.com’s subscription cancellation flow a “dark pattern”; it is hard to locate, and, once found, consumers must “navigate a multipage process rife with deceptive design tactics”.  The conclusion, per the FTC is that Care.com just doesn’t want users to be able to cancel.  In the stipulated order, the parties agreed that: Continue Reading The FTC and “Cancel Culture”

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

California-State-Capitol-Building-GettyImages-482507305-Sm

Gone are the days of hidden fees and tacked on surcharges in California. Starting July 1, 2024, SB478 prohibits businesses in California from adding automatic service charges onto consumer bills. The law applies to the sale or lease of most consumer goods, including hotel and restaurant fees.

Significantly, the laws requires transparency in the advertised price. This means that businesses must disclose all costs and fees upfront – no more surprises in your shopping cart before checkout, or that mandatory “large group” fee at restaurants. It’s not even enough to disclose all the fees before the consumer finalizes the transaction or hits “buy”. The total cost must be the advertised price, disclosed at the top of the funnel. Some exceptions apply, but they are limited to items such as mandatory sales tax, shipping and voluntary tips. Penalties are stiff: consumers can bring claims against businesses, with a max of $1,000 per violation, and consumers can recover attorneys’ fees.Continue Reading California Is Tightening the Pipes on Drip Pricing