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.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

On July 20, 2025, the public comment period will close on Washington state’s most recent round of proposed regulations affecting 12 categories of “consumer products” with intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). If the proposed regulations are adopted, the manufacture, sale, or distribution of three categories of products— “apparel and accessories,” “cleaning products,” and “automotive washes” —would be barred in Washington state beginning January 1, 2027, if they contain intentionally added PFAS. The sales and distribution restriction would not apply to products manufactured before January 1, 2027. Meanwhile, beginning January 31, 2027, reporting would be required for the following nine product categories if they contain intentionally added PFAS and are manufactured after 2025: “apparel intended for extreme and extended use,” footwear, “gear for recreation and travel,” automotive waxes, cookware and kitchen supplies, firefighting personal protective equipment, floor waxes and polishes, hard surface sealers, and ski waxes.

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Antonia Stamenova-Dancheva

While the Eighth Circuit struck down the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Click-to-Cancel rule on July 8, 2025, businesses should recognize that the FTC, in addition to state Attorneys General, has various tools in its arsenal to address false, deceptive, or unfair practices, and negative option sales and auto-renewals are still regulated by states.

Read the full article here.

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

On July 1, 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson designated July as “‘Made in the USA’ Month,” and reiterated the Commission’s commitment to cracking down on deceptive MUSA claims. The FTC quickly followed this announcement on July 8 by sending warning letters to four companies, reminding them to comply with FTC’s 2021 Made in USA Labeling Rule (MUSA Labeling Rule). Significantly, the FTC also sent letters to Amazon and Walmart regarding allegedly deceptive MUSA claims made by third-party sellers on the two companies’ e-commerce websites. The FTC notices could signal a potential expansion of the compliance requirements imposed on online marketplaces for MUSA claims made by third-party sellers, with implications for all types of advertising claims appearing in listings developed by third-party sellers online and possibly at brick-and-mortar retailers.

Read the full article here.

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

In an important development since our June 24, 2025 article, on July 1, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Trump administration’s motion to stay a district court’s decision reinstating three Democratic commissioners to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Immediately after the Fourth Circuit’s decision, the Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the highest court to issue a stay of the district court’s order and once again remove the commissioners while the Fourth Circuit considers the merits of the Administration’s appeal, a process that could take many months. The Administration also asks the Supreme Court to construe its application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment to address 1) the constitutional question of the President’s removal authority, and 2) whether the district court exceeded its authority by ordering the three terminated commissioners to be reinstated.

The ultimate Supreme Court decision should address the larger constitutional issue of the President’s authority to fire officers of independent federal agencies who statutorily can only be terminated for cause. Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

Earlier this month, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) sent a letter to the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) that effectively delays, until June 30, 2027, a key requirement for “compostable” and “home compostable” products set to take effect next year. California’s AB 1201 required that after January 1, 2026, products labeled “compostable” or “home compostable” must not only pass test methods specified under the law but must also be “an allowable agricultural organic input under the requirements of the United States Department of Agriculture National Organic Program.” CalRecycle’s letter to BPI grants an extension for “products that contain synthetic substances that otherwise satisfy all requirements for lawfully being labeled ‘compostable,’ including the requirement that products meet an ASTM standard specification pursuant to section 42357(a)(1). This extension shall expire as of June 30, 2027.” Absent this action, many companies would have had to remove current “compostable” labels from their products at a time when other laws – notably SB 54, California’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) law for packaging – require that products meet source reduction, recyclability, or compostability requirements by specific deadlines.

Read the full article here.

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

The three Democratic CPSC commissioners fired by President Trump last month are now back at their desks, following a ruling by the Maryland District Court that the firing violated federal law and ordering the commissioners’ immediate reinstatement. The Administration promptly appealed the reinstatement order to the Fourth Circuit, and asked the District Court to stay its order, pending the appeal. The District Court denied the Administration’s stay motion on June 23, 2025, and all eyes are now on the Fourth Circuit, which could rule on a parallel motion to pause the District Court’s reinstatement order at any time (as of the time of this writing, no decision has been issued).

Read the full article here.

Photo of Sheila MillarPhoto of Anushka R. Stein

This month, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is soliciting public feedback on two rulemakings related to extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs that apply to covered battery-embedded products (along with other types of electronics) and loose batteries. Comments on CalRecycle’s draft regulations to implement SB 1215, which revised the state’s Covered Electronic Waste Recycling Program (E-Waste Recycling Program) to include covered battery-embedded products, were due on June 6, 2025. CalRecycle is also accepting comments, due June 12, 2025, on draft regulations implementing AB 2440, which established a new state-wide Battery Stewardship Program for certain primary and rechargeable batteries. 

Read the full article here.