<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
			<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/rss.xsl' ?>
			<rss version='2.0' xmlns:content='http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/'
					xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'
					xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
				<channel>
					<title>Advertising law Blog</title>
					<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/2022/</link>
					<atom:link href='https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/2022/?rss' rel='self' type='application/rss+xml' />
					<description><![CDATA[The latest updates to Advertising law Blog.]]></description>
					<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2026 16:11:21 -0400</lastBuildDate>
					
				<item>
				<title>NAD Examines Blue Apron’s “Canceling Meals is Easy” Claim</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/nad-examines-blue-aprons-canceling-meals-is-easy-claim</link>
<dc:creator>Morgan E. Spina</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>nad-examines-blue-aprons-canceling-meals-is-easy-claim</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (&ldquo;NAD&rdquo;) recently reviewed claims made by subscription-based meal kit company Blue Apron related to its subscription cancellation process. In doing so, NAD has provided additional guidance as to what is expected from companies that enroll customers in automatically renewing continuity programs from a self-regulatory perspective. &nbsp;</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Pay Me What You Owe Me:  Rihanna’s Savage X Fenty Reaches Settlement with
CART Over Autorenewal Practices</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/pay-me-what-you-owe-me-rihannas-savage-x-fenty-reaches-settlement-with-cart-over-autorenewal-practices</link>
<dc:creator>Andrew B. Lustigman, Morgan E. Spina</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>pay-me-what-you-owe-me-rihannas-savage-x-fenty-reaches-settlement-with-cart-over-autorenewal-practices</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:00:02 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>Rihanna&rsquo;s lingerie company, Lavender Lingerie, LLC dba Savage X Fenty (&ldquo;Savage X Fenty&rdquo;), has agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by members of the California Automatic Renewal Task Force (&ldquo;CART&rdquo;) relating to the company&rsquo;s automatic renewal practices. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Many Celebrities Named in Class-Action Lawsuits for Touting Cryptocurrency
on Social Media</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/many-celebrities-named-in-class-action-lawsuits-for-touting-cryptocurrency-on-social-media</link>
<dc:creator>Scott  Shaffer</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>many-celebrities-named-in-class-action-lawsuits-for-touting-cryptocurrency-on-social-media</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:00:03 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen join Kim Kardashian and Floyd Mayweather as defendants.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Class Action Accuses Amazon Prime of “Dark Patterns”</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/class-action-accuses-amazon-prime-of-dark-patterns</link>
<dc:creator>Scott  Shaffer</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>class-action-accuses-amazon-prime-of-dark-patterns</guid>

					<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2022 09:00:04 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><em><strong>* Taylor Lodise is a law clerk in the Litigation practice group.</strong></em></p>  <p>On November 9, 2022, amidst ongoing investigations by the FTC regarding &ldquo;dark patterns&rdquo; that Amazon allegedly employed to discourage subscribers from canceling their Amazon Prime memberships, a class-action lawsuit named Amazon as a defendant. The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and is styled <em>Dorobiala v. Amazon.com, Inc</em>.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Authority of Consumer Finance Protection Board Is Now Less Certain</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/authority-of-consumer-finance-protection-board-is-now-less</link>
<dc:creator>Scott  Shaffer</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>authority-of-consumer-finance-protection-board-is-now-less</guid>

					<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2022 09:00:05 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>Federal Court rules CFPB funding mechanism is unconstitutional</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>FTC Seeks Comments on “Junk Fees” –  Signaling a Renewed Focus on
Supplemental Fees</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/ftc-seeks-comments-on-junk-fees-signaling-a-renewed</link>
<dc:creator>Andrew B. Lustigman</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>ftc-seeks-comments-on-junk-fees-signaling-a-renewed</guid>

					<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2022 09:00:06 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>On October 20, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission issued an <span><a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/11/08/2022-24326/unfair-or-deceptive-fees-trade-regulation-rule-commission-matter-no-r207011">advance notice of proposed rulemaking</a></span> for a rule that would seek to address so called &ldquo;junk fees&rdquo; &ndash; unnecessary, unavoidable, or surprise charges that inflate costs while adding little to no value to consumers.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>FTC Reaches $100 Million Settlement With Vonage Over Subscription Practices</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/ftc-reaches-100-million-settlement-with-vonage-over-subscription</link>
<dc:creator>Morgan E. Spina</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>ftc-reaches-100-million-settlement-with-vonage-over-subscription</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2022 09:00:07 -0500</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>Internet phone service provider, Vonage, has agreed to pay $100 million to settle the Federal Trade Commission&rsquo;s charges that it imposed fees and made it difficult for subscribers to cancel their service. Specifically, the FTC alleged that Vonage implemented &ldquo;dark patterns&rdquo; to create obstacles for subscribers looking to cancel their services, often resulting in consumers being charged even after they had requested cancellation. This settlement highlights the FTC&rsquo;s continued focus on &ldquo;dark pattern&rdquo; marketing techniques, particularly as they are applied to cancellation of automatically renewing subscription arrangements.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>TCPA Judgment of $925 Million Reversed over Fairness Considerations</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/tcpa-judgment-of-925-million-reversed-over-fairness-considerations</link>
<dc:creator>Scott  Shaffer</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>tcpa-judgment-of-925-million-reversed-over-fairness-considerations</guid>

					<pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2022 09:00:08 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>This is the second ruling of this type in two months</p>
<p>A concept that we explored in a recent article &ndash; the reduction of massive class-action awards based on fairness concerns &ndash; appears to be picking up judicial steam. In August 2022, a Northern District of California court reduced statutory damages in a consumer class action from the $91.4 million to just $8.3 million plus pre-judgment interest. That case is <em>Montera v. Premier Nutrition Corp</em>. The basis for lowering damages in the face of the requirements of the New York statute at issue was a 1919 Supreme Court ruling which authorized courts to set aside judgments based on statutory penalties that are &ldquo;wholly disproportionate to the offense and obviously unreasonable.&rdquo;</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Kim Kardashian to pay $1.26 Million towards “Unlawful Touting” SEC Charges</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/kim-kardashian-to-pay-1-26-million-towards-unlawful</link>
<dc:creator>Andrew B. Lustigman, Morgan E. Spina, Rachel L. Gold</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>kim-kardashian-to-pay-1-26-million-towards-unlawful</guid>

					<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2022 09:00:09 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p><em><strong>* Rachel Gold is a law clerk in the Corporate/Securities Law practice group.</strong></em></p>  <p>Following up on its action against other celebrities who have promoted crypto investments without disclosing their compensation interest, the Securities and Exchange Commissions (&ldquo;SEC&rdquo;) announced &ldquo;unlawful touting&rdquo; <span><a target="_blank" rel="noopener" href="https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2022/33-11116.pdf">charges</a> and Order</span> against reality star Kim Kardashian for promoting a cryptocurrency on social media without acknowledging that she was being compensated for the post. This enforcement action is a reminder that it is not just the Federal Trade Commission (&ldquo;FTC&rdquo;) who is enforcing compensation disclosures on social media.</p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Ninth Circuit Issues Pro-Plaintiff Ruling in Do-Not-Call Suit</title>
				<link>https://www.olshanlaw.com/Advertising-Law-Blog/ninth-circuit-issues-pro-plaintiff-ruling-in-do-not</link>
<dc:creator>Scott  Shaffer</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>ninth-circuit-issues-pro-plaintiff-ruling-in-do-not</guid>

					<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:00:10 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>Dual-purpose phones can qualify as &ldquo;residential&rdquo; numbers to support a TCPA action</p>  <p>The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (&ldquo;TCPA&rdquo;) and its regulations prohibit calls and text messages to residential telephone subscribers who have registered their phone numbers on the national do-not-call list maintained by the federal government. While business lines are not eligible to be registered on the national do-not-call list, in practice there is nothing that bars such registration. As a result, TCPA litigation sometimes requires a determination as to whether a phone line is used for residential or business purposes. This issue arises more frequently in the current gig-economy era, because many cell phone owners use their devices for both personal and business purposes.</p>]]></description>
</item>

			</channel></rss>