Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

State legislatures have continued to enact privacy laws aimed at protecting kids and teens despite significant—and often successful—legal challenges that largely focus on First Amendment flaws. Some laws have recently gone into effect, or will become effective soon, while others are not slated to take effect until 2027. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) remains the primary federal law protecting children’s online privacy (updated implementing regulations took effect earlier this year, with a compliance deadline of April 22, 2026) and bars inconsistent state laws. While there have been some recent legislative efforts at the federal level to expand children and teens’ privacy protections (including a bill introduced this week to regulate the use of AI chatbots and companions by minors), these have failed to pass. However, states continue to pursue their own online privacy laws with a goal of enhancing protections for children and teenagers, particularly around social media use and exposure to AI. The unabated pace of legislative action reflects rare bipartisan support for protecting kids and teens, adding to the growing patchwork of laws that now make up the state privacy landscape. Because these laws do not simply cover websites or services “directed to children,” as defined in COPPA, but to websites and services that are “likely to be accessed” by children, they often effectively regulate businesses that target general, largely adult-only audiences. Many of these laws are therefore being challenged as overbroad, unconstitutional restrictions on speech.

We review recent developments affecting children’s privacy, and potentially the broader online privacy landscape, including current and likely challenges on the horizon.

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

On October 2, 2025, after the federal government shut down, the Senate received President Trump’s nomination for a new commissioner at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission)—William “Billy” Hewes III, former mayor of Gulfport, Mississippi. This recent nomination came as a surprise, since for the last few months, it was not clear if President Trump would in fact nominate a replacement for former Republican Commissioner Douglas Dziak (who stepped down in August, before the end of his term) or seek to fill the seat vacated by Mary Boyle (one of the recently fired Democratic commissioners whose term ends October 27, 2025).

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

Businesses making negative option or auto-renewal subscription offers, beware: Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) enforcement is alive and well in 2025. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down the FTC’s much-criticized Biden-era “click to cancel” rule earlier this summer, on September 25, 2025 the FTC announced that Amazon.com, Inc. and two of its senior executives agreed to pay $1 billion in FTC fines and another $1.5 billion in consumer refunds to settle allegations that Amazon “knowingly duped millions of consumers into unknowingly enrolling in its Amazon Prime service” and intentionally made Prime membership difficult to cancel. The FTC asserts that the Amazon settlement is just the third time in which the FTC has obtained a civil penalty under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) and represents the second-largest restitution award ever obtained by the FTC.

Read the full article here.

Additionally, see Amazon’s statement about the FTC settlement here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-DanchevaPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

The latest development in the ongoing legal saga regarding the scope of presidential authority to fire officials at various independent federal agencies occurred on September 22, 2025, when the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS or the Court) granted a stay of the reinstatement of Rebecca Slaughter, a former commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Court also granted a writ of certiorari without waiting for judgment on the merits by the federal appeals court, directing the parties to brief two questions for the Court’s December 2025 argument session: “(1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the [FTC] violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.” While this case concerns the FTC, any decision affecting Humphrey’s Executor will have wide-reaching effects, as that nearly century-old SCOTUS precedent limits the president’s authority to fire without cause officers at many independent agencies.

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Tracy Marshall

Google and two Disney companies recently settled lawsuits alleging that the companies violated children’s privacy laws, once again demonstrating a heightened interest in protecting children online and putting content creators and channel owners on notice that they will be subject to strict liability for violations of federal and state privacy laws. On August 18, 2025, Google and its subsidiary YouTube agreed to pay $30 million to settle a class action lawsuit claiming that YouTube collected personal information of children under age 13 for targeted advertising without parental consent, in violation of state privacy laws and the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). A few weeks later, Disney agreed to pay $10 million to settle Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allegations that videos the company uploaded to YouTube were not properly marked as “Made for Kids” and the company allowed personal information to be collected from children who viewed videos without notifying parents or obtaining consent, as required by the COPPA Rule. Disney now faces a separate class action lawsuit.

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-DanchevaPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

On September 8, 2025, once again, the question of the President’s authority to terminate, without cause, commissioners of independent agencies, was examined in federal court and appealed to the Supreme Court, and once again, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overruled the court of appeals and granted a temporary stay of that court’s order reinstating a fired commissioner without addressing the merits of the pending appeal.

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-DanchevaPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

It has been a turbulent time at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission), with several months of legal battles over President Trump’s termination, without cause, of the three Democratic commissioners, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, Mary Boyle, and Richard Trumka. As we previously discussed here, the commissioners were fired in May 2025 and then reinstated by a federal district court in June 2025. The Fourth Circuit upheld that decision, but the Supreme Court reversed, sending the matter back to the Fourth Circuit in July 2025, where the issue of the president’s authority to fire the CPSC commissioners without cause is still being litigated. Now, with the resignation of Republican Commissioner Douglas Dziak, only one commissioner remains: Acting Chairman Peter Feldman, also a Republican. How will the Commission operate now?

Read the full article here.

Environmental claims remain a hot topic for global marketers and changing rules around the world create new challenges as marketers strive to inform consumers and business customers about their products. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Framework for Responsible Environmental Marketing Communications (Environmental Framework), first published in 2008, and most recently updated in 2021, offers marketers interested in making environmental claims practical guidance on meeting advertising rules of the road.

ICC is in the final stages of the latest update to the Environmental Framework, which includes a dedicated Environmental Claims Checklist to support day-to-day implementation by marketers and provides guidance on both general and a number of specific claims, like “recyclable,” “compostable,” “free-of” and emerging terms, including “net-zero,” “climate positive,” “carbon neutral,” “micro-plastics free,” “not made with fossil fuels,” and more.

Partner Sheila A. Millar, who chairs the ICC Marketing and Advertising Commission’s Working Group on Sustainability, the committee responsible for the Environmental Framework, will be a featured speaker at a launch event for the updated ICC Environmental Framework. The session will be held during Climate Week on September 22 from 9 a.m. – 11 a.m. ET at Frankfurt Kurnit’s office in New York.

For more information or to register, click here.

Photo of Sheila Millar

Internet dating apps, whose revenue is derived largely from subscription sales, have been the subject of concerns about marketing practices, including allegations that they used “fake” love interest ads to attract users and left customers vulnerable to scams, failed to make terms of service clear, and adopted onerous cancellation procedures. The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC or Commission) long investigation into the marketing practices of Match Group (Match), owners of Match.com and other online data services, ultimately ended with a settlement announced on August 12, 2025. Match agreed to pay a $14 million civil penalty to settle charges that the dating service violated the FTC Act and Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA).

The FTC initially announced an investigation of Match’s marketing practices in 2019, filing suit in a U.S. district court in Texas alleging that the company engaged in five separate deceptive practices:

  • Sending consumers misleading advertisements from fraudulent sources while making it seem that the communications were from potential dates.
  • Exposing consumers to the risk of fraud by providing recent subscribers access to communications that the company knew were likely fraudulent.
  • Guaranteeing users a free six-month subscription renewal if they fail to “meet someone special” without making clear the onerous requirements of its “guarantee.”
  • Imposing a byzantine and confusing cancellation process that misled subscribers into thinking they had cancelled when they had not.
  • Blocking the user profiles of subscribers who disputed billing charges.

In addition to the fine, the proposed order requires Match to simplify its cancellation process, refrain from blocking or otherwise retaliating against users who dispute the company’s billing practices, and clearly and conspicuously disclose the material terms of any guarantees.

The obligations under the proposed order will remain in place for 10 years, a change from the historic practice of mandating a 20 year term. More recent FTC orders refer to a 10-year period, which may reflect recognition of longstanding business concerns that a 20-year term is unreasonable given fast-paced market changes.

The Commission vote approving the proposed order was 3-0. Ultimately this action, like so many other enforcement actions by the FTC, is a reminder of essential marketing 101 principles: be fair and truthful with consumers and build your brand by building trust.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-DanchevaPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

The U.S. Supreme Court gave a strong signal that it will likely overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 90-year-old case which held that Congress may restrict the President’s authority to terminate officials at independent federal agencies without cause.

Read the full article here.