On January 5, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) unveiled a proposed ruling that would essentially ban noncompete agreements across the country. This proposed ruling is based on a finding that noncompete agreements constitute an unfair method of competition and violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Continue Reading Non-Compete No More? FTC Proposes Broad Ban of Non-Compete Agreements

A new set of California laws will require online marketplaces to gather verifiable identifying information about high volume third party sellers, or else boot them off the platform. The laws, which seek to combat the resale of stolen goods online, call for marketplaces and sellers to ramp up their consumer disclosures around sellers’ identities and options for consumers to report suspected stolen goods

Continue Reading Online Marketplaces: It’s Time to Track, Verify and Disclose Seller Info

In her September 20, 2022 statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Chairwoman Lina Kahn emphasized the FTC’s continued work combating repair restrictions that allegedly harm consumers, explaining that the FTC is “prioritizing action against business practices that unlawfully restrict consumers’ ability to repair their products, costing them more over the long term.”[1]

Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission Focused on Right to Repair Restrictions

On August 9, the US District Court of Georgia ruled that the FTC had provided “broad and detailed evidence” for its allegations that a tech company and its CEO engaged in deceptive advertising and unfair fee practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC’s 2019 complaint alleged the defendants made deceptive representations to customers and charged hidden, unauthorized fees in connection with the company’s “fuel card” as well as through co-branded cards, to companies in the trucking and commercial fleet industry. The FTC’s factual allegations include the following: 

Continue Reading Court Orders Injunctive Relief Against Tech Company for Deceptive Advertising, Unfair Fee Practices

On August 10, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule stating that digital marketing providers that are involved in the identification or selection of prospective customers or the selection or placement of content to affect consumer engagement including purchase or adoption behavior, are subject to the CFPB’s jurisdiction. The rule ostensibly clarifies the scope of companies that are “service providers” under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”) to include digital marketing providers, and thereby subjecting them to the CFPB’s authority to prohibit unfair, deceptive, abusive acts or practices (UDAAPs). 

Continue Reading CFPB’s New Interpretive Rule Sets Sights on Digital Marketing Vendors

Recently, Colorado’s new $0.27 retail delivery fee went into effect. The fee targets all deliveries by a motor vehicle that have at least one item of taxable and tangible personal property. This new levy impacts both in-state and out-of-state retailers, requiring those entities to register with the Colorado Dept. of Revenue and remit funds to the State.

Continue Reading Colorado’s Retail Delivery Fee

The group of chemicals known as PFAS (per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances) are high on the federal regulatory agenda for 2022, as implementation of EPA’s “PFAS Strategic Roadmap” proceeds. One potential consequence will be new additions to California’s “Prop 65 List” of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. Already, two PFAS substances are subject to Prop 65 warning and labeling requirements (PFOA and PFOS), with a third (PFNA) subject to enforcement starting in 2023. New federal Health Advisory Levels (HALs) announced on June 15, 2022 may provide the basis to add another two PFAS to the list (PFBS and GenX).

Continue Reading PFAS Regulations Could Open Floodgates to Prop 65 Enforcement – Assess & Manage Your Exposure Now

Some apparel, fabric and other goods just became more likely to get stuck at the border if U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) suspects they contain cotton from Xinjiang or from companies on a recently published U.S. Government list, or otherwise involve forced labor — whether the brand is aware of it or not. 

Continue Reading Will U.S. Customs Seize Your Presumptively Illegal Apparel? Compliance with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act