Advertising & Marketing

On Thursday March 13, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced proposed legislation to expand New York’s consumer protection law: the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act (“the Act”). The Act would update and expand New York’s current consumer protection law, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”), to encompass a broader range of practices and claims.

The current versions of Sections 349 and 350 make unlawful certain deceptive business acts and practices and false advertising.  The Act would amend Section 349 to cover not only “deceptive” business acts and practices, but also conduct that may fall under vague definitions of “unfair” and “abusive” acts and practices.  The Act would further expand Section 349 by making it applicable “regardless of whether or not that act or practice is consumer-oriented [or] has a public impact or impact on consumers ….” The Act would also increase statutory damages to $1,000 and grant standing to organizations and third parties to the fullest extent otherwise permitted by law. However, the Act would also create affirmative defenses that limit plaintiffs to individuals and small entities, and excludes acts or practices that could be addressed by federal securities or intellectual property laws or that involve “high-value experienced commercial transaction[s]” directed exclusively to the parties to such transactions.Continue Reading New York Proposes New Consumer Protection Law

In Bates v. Abbott Laboratories, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a consumer class action challenging the labeling of Ensure shakes and drinks as materially misleading.  2025 WL 65668, at *1–2 (2d Cir. Jan. 10, 2025). Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Class Action Challenging Nutrition Shakes and Drinks As Misleading

On December 17th, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced its final rule intended to require the display of total price for tickets to live events and for short-term lodging.  

The rule will require businesses that offer, display, or advertise a price for live-events tickets and short-term lodging to clearly and conspicuously disclose a total price inclusive of all mandatory fees (excluding shipping and government fees).  And, before checkout, this total price must be displayed more prominently than other pricing information (such as itemized fees or surcharges).   

The rule also prohibits businesses from misrepresenting any fee or charge associated with tickets and lodging—including the fee’s nature, purpose, amount, or refundability.Continue Reading Hidden No More: FTC Finalizes Rule Restricting Hidden Fees for Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging

A court in the Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the alleged inclusion of artificial citric acid in a product rendered the “No Artificial Flavors, Preservatives, or Dyes” representation on the front label false and/or misleading.  Hayes v. Kraft Heinz Co., 2024 WL 4766319 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2024). Continue Reading Illinois Federal Court Permits Citric Acid Case To Proceed

Last year, in an important decision for companies that routinely face false advertising claims, the Ninth Circuit held that when “a front label is ambiguous, the ambiguity can be resolved by reference to the back label.”  McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1099 (9th Cir. 2023).  The Ninth Circuit recently further clarified when reference to the back label is appropriate.  See Whiteside v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 108 F.4th 771 (9th Cir. 2024).Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Further Refines Rule on When Back Labels Should Be Considered in False Advertising Claims

In the latest false advertising decision regarding malic acid (see prior Inside Class Actions coverage here, here, and here), the Southern District of California dismissed with prejudice a plaintiff’s claim that defendant falsely advertised that its licorice was “naturally flavored” because testing allegedly showed that the product…

Continue Reading California Federal Court Dismisses False Advertising Suit Based on Malic Acid

California’s prohibition on so-called “hidden” or “junk” fees in consumer transactions is set to take effect on July 1, 2024, with potentially wide-ranging ramifications for how prices are displayed or offered to consumers in the Golden State – and the potential for a significant wave of new class action litigation.

The law—often referred to by its bill number, SB 478—amends California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) to restrict the prices and fees businesses can offer to California consumers.  The basic prohibition is stated in simple terms:  businesses can no longer “advertis[e], display[], or offer[] a price for a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges” to consumers, with limited exceptions such as for sales tax and certain shipping charges.  SB 478 § 3 (to be codified at Cal Civ. Code § 1770(a)(29)(A)).  But this simple language generates numerous complexities.  For example:  Are clearly disclosed fees prohibited if not folded into the main price, or just fees not presented to consumers in close proximity (in both location and time) to the primary price?  When is a fee “mandatory”?  Can fees that are included in a price still be itemized? Continue Reading Outlawing Hide-and-Seek:  California’s Prohibition on “Hidden Fees” in Consumer Pricing Set to Take Effect

Environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) initiatives have become increasingly important in today’s business setting.  Increased awareness and heightened scrutiny of ESG-related issues, combined with third-party litigation funding, has led to a surge in ESG-related litigation and enforcement actions as consumers, regulators, and investors seek to hold companies accountable for claims about their environmental and social impact.  

This post explores the emerging trends shaping the landscape of ESG litigation, which are increasingly centralized in courts in the District of Columbia.  Such claims are often brought by nonprofit organizations seeking to take advantage of local consumer protection laws which they claim allow them standing to sue.Continue Reading A Closer Look: Developing Trends in ESG Litigation

A court in the Southern District of New York recently denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification on adequacy grounds in a suit challenging the labeling of “Maximum Strength” Robitussin cough syrup.  See Woodhams v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2024).Continue Reading SDNY Court Denies Class Certification in Suit Challenging Robitussin “Max Strength” Labels