- with readers working within the Insurance industries
Welcome to Wiley’s update on recent developments and what’s next in consumer protection enforcement and regulation. We cover developments with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau), and state Attorneys General (AG), as well as self-regulatory advertising challenges decided by BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD). In a recent alert we discussed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Slaughter – U.S. Supreme Court Allows President to Remove FTC Commissioners – which impacts the composition of the FTC. Please reach out to any of our authors with any questions about recent regulatory or enforcement activity on the federal or state level.
Select Federal Enforcement Actions
FTC Settles with Consumer Reporting Agency for Alleged Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On July 9, the FTC filed a complaint and stipulated order in federal district court settling allegations that a consumer reporting agency providing consumer reports for tenant screening violated the FTC Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FTC alleges that the company failed to employ reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of tenant screening reports, failed to disclose all data sources to enable consumers to dispute inaccuracies, and failed to appropriately investigate and respond to consumer disputes. The company agreed to pay $2.25 million in addition to injunctive relief.
FTC Warns Companies of Potential “Made in the USA” Misrepresentations. On July 6, the FTC sent warning letters to seven companies regarding potential deceptive “Made in the USA” representations in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, Section 45a, and the Made in USA Labeling Rule. Specifically, the letters allege that the companies may be promoting instruments, machines, and other goods as being made within the United States while importing the goods or parts and raw materials used to make the goods. The letters ask the companies to respond with a plan to come into compliance within five days of receipt.
FTC Settles with Travel App for Allegedly Misleading Business Practices. On July 2, the FTC filed a complaint and stipulated order in federal court alleging a travel app violated the Commission’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees. The FTC alleges that the company charged additional fees that were not included in the listed price, sold support services without obtaining consumer consent, and failed to disclose restrictions for certain services offered. The company agreed to pay $35 million in addition to injunctive relief.
FTC Finalizes Settlement with Online Self‑Publishing Company and Its Officers for Allegedly Deceptive Business Practices. On July 1, the FTC issued a final order to settle allegations that a company and its corporate officers deceptively sold online self-publishing products and services. In its April 2026 complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants misrepresented how much income consumers could earn through their online self‑publishing programs and imposed undisclosed conditions that made it difficult for consumers to obtain refunds. The defendants agreed to pay $1.5 million in addition to injunctive relief.
Select State Enforcement Actions
Forty-Six States Settle with Payment Platform for Allegedly Insufficient Fraud Protections. On July 7, the attorneys general (AGs) of 46 states, including California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and Texas, announced a settlement with a payment platform for alleged violations of state consumer protection laws. The state AGs alleged that the company marketed its platform as a safe, bank-like alternative for consumers to transfer money while failing to provide adequate fraud prevention measures – including by using insufficient verification procedures, delaying fraud investigations, and ignoring requests to issue refunds. The company agreed to pay $45 million in addition to injunctive relief.
California DFPI Takes Action Against Debt Collectors for Alleged Deceptive Practices and Operating Without a License. On July 3, the California Department of Financial Protection & Innovation (California DFPI) issued a Notice of Intent to Issue an Order and a Desist and Refrain Order against debt collectors for allegedly engaging in debt collection services in California without first obtaining a license, as required by the California Financial Code. The Notice of Intent to Issue an Order and the Desist and Refrain Order also allege that the debt collectors misrepresented that legal actions or judgments had been filed against certain California residents, even though no such actions or judgments were filed. The Notice informs the debt collectors notice of the California DFPI’s intent to issue an order assessing administrative penalties in the amount of $35,000. The Desist and Refrain Order directs the debt collectors to desist and refrain from engaging in further debt collection practices that are in violation of the California Financial Code.
Select NAD Advertising Challenge Case Decisions
NAD Recommends Maker of Hospital Disinfection Product Discontinue Claims about Disinfection Time. On July 8, NAD recommended that the maker of a hospital generator product used to disinfect surfaces modify or discontinue its claim that the product kills the pathogen Clostridium difficile in five minutes. NAD found that the study relied upon to justify the claim was insufficiently rigorous and that the data did not adequately support the five-minute claim under ordinary-use conditions. The company agreed to comply with the decision, even though it “respectfully disagrees with NAD’s conclusion.”
NAD Upholds Patent and Consumer Survey Claims for Razor Product. On July 7, NAD found sufficient support for a variety of claims for a refillable five-blade cartridge razor, including claims related to consumer surveys and patents. Specifically, NAD found the claim that four out of five users of a competitor product “like the feeling” of their own company’s product had sufficient support and is not misleading. NAD also determined that the claim that the company benefited from the expiration of design patents held by a competitor did not reasonably convey the message that the company had copied all of the competitor’s razor technology.
Federal and State Regulatory Announcements
CFPB Releases 2026 Regulatory Agenda. On July 6, the CFPB released its 2026 regulatory agenda listing its rulemakings at the Pre-rule, Proposed Rule, and Final Rule stages. At the Pre-rule stage, the Bureau is focused on the statutory language of the Dodd-Frank Act; adjustments to the “ability-to-repay” requirements and qualified mortgage (QM) definitions in the General QM Final Rule; and whether amendments to the 2016 prepaid accounts rules under Regulations E and Z are necessary. At the Proposed Rule stage, the Bureau plans to consider, among other things, issuing proposed rules related to its 2017 payday lending rule; its November 2024 § 1033 open banking final rule; requiring periodic reviews of its regulations to ensure alignment with market dynamics; and reconsidering the larger participant tests in the automobile financing, consumer debt collection, consumer reporting, and international money transfer markets. At the Final Rule stage, the agenda includes nine items on topics ranging from financial data transparency to mortgage servicing to equal credit opportunities.
FTC Proposes Policy Statement Regarding Accuracy of AI Systems. On July 1, the FTC released a proposed Policy Statement Concerning the Suppression of Accuracy in Artificial Intelligence Systems. The proposed Statement addresses (1) how Section 5 of the FTC Act applies when AI companies “alter” or “steer” the output of AI systems in ways that are allegedly “contrary to consumers’ reasonable expectations” and misleading to consumers, and (2) how state AI laws would be preempted by the FTC Act if they require such an outcome. The proposed Statement asserts that if AI companies “steer the outputs of their AI systems toward unexpected objectives, and away from the objectives set by or reasonably expected by users, [they] are likely to deceive consumers in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.” It also notes that “[a]lthough the FTC Act does not expressly preempt state law, state law is impliedly preempted to the extent it conflicts with a federal regulatory scheme,” and a “state law that requires an AI firm to deceive its consumers obviously conflicts with Section 5’s express purpose of protecting consumers from such conduct.” The Proposed Policy Statement is open for comment. The comment deadline is July 31.
Washington State AI Task Force Releases Final Policy Report. On July 1, the Washington State Artificial Intelligence Task Force released a Final Report on how AI is used across the state to recommend policies that “balance innovation with protections for civil rights, consumers, and workers.” The Final Report follows a Preliminary Report issued in December 2024 and an Interim Report issued in December 2025. The Final Report adopts two recommendations for the Washington Legislature: (1) establishing a permanent advisory body on AI and emerging technology, and (2) regulating companion AI chatbots.
More Analysis from Wiley
Chambers USA 2026 Recognizes Wiley Lawyers and Practices
Legal 500 US 2026 Recognizes Wiley Practices and Attorneys
U.S. Supreme Court Allows President to Remove FTC Commissioners
State Chatbot Laws Are Moving From Transparency to Risk Management
Amidst uncertainty from FTC, states zero in on dynamic and algorithmic pricing
Key Developments With State App Store Accountability Acts, as Texas Act Takes Effect
Connecticut Enacts AI Framework While Colorado Scales Back Landmark AI Law
May 19 Deadline for TAKE IT DOWN Act Compliance: Is Your Company Prepared?
President Trump’s “Made in America” Executive Order Seeks to Enforce Accuracy of U.S.-Origin Claims
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
