Intelligence

New York City has become the first U.S. municipality to enforce its own subscription cancellation requirements, creating a new compliance layer for businesses with NYC subscribers. The rule prohibits unreasonable barriers to cancellation and requires companies that enroll consumers in person to offer online cancellation options. With complaint-driven enforcement, per-violation fines up to $3,500, and restitution measured from the first cancellation attempt, businesses must now navigate city-level regulation

A retailer can face a California Proposition 65 claim over a product it did not manufacture, package or label. Purchasing inventory from an established supplier does not resolve whether the business has its own warning obligations. The issue often comes to the owner’s attention through a 60-day notice alleging that customers were exposed to a listed chemical without an adequate warning.

The Federal Trade Commission is considering whether to update its Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses to address how online platforms' ad optimization tools may facilitate impersonation scams. The proposed rulemaking would examine whether platforms should be held accountable for their role in generating, enhancing, and targeting fraudulent advertisements that impersonate government entities and businesses.

The Federal Trade Commission announced a $12 million settlement with payment processor Humboldt Merchant Services over allegations of facilitating merchant fraud through unauthorized billing scams, while simultaneously rescinding its 2021 policy statement on health app breaches. The settlement imposes permanent restrictions on processing payments for high-risk merchant categories and prohibits credit card laundering activities.

Two federal courts have recently blocked state product-labeling laws in Texas and California, signaling increased judicial scrutiny of government-mandated disclosures under the First Amendment. These rulings challenge both compelled health warnings on food products and restrictions on recyclability claims, creating significant implications for consumer-packaged goods companies navigating conflicting state regulations.

Federal appellate courts are divided on who qualifies as a "consumer" under the Video Privacy Protection Act, with the Supreme Court now set to resolve whether a subscription must involve audiovisual goods or services or if a newsletter subscription suffices. The distinction could significantly reshape litigation exposure for businesses using tracking pixels and offering video content, as the financial stakes in class actions can escalate quickly under the VPPA's damages framework.