Newsletter August 11, 2026

Wiley Consumer Protection Download (August 11, 2026)

August 11, 2026

Select Federal Enforcement Actions
Select State Enforcement Actions
Select NAD Advertising Challenge Case Decisions
Federal and State Regulatory Announcements
More Analysis from Wiley

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 or Commission), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or the Bureau), and state Attorneys General (AGs), as well as self-regulatory advertising challenges decided by BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD). Please reach out to any of our authors with any questions about recent regulatory or enforcement activity on the federal or state level.

To subscribe to this newsletter, click here.

Select Federal Enforcement Actions

FTC and States Sue Telehealth Provider for Allegedly Deceptive Practices. On July 29, the FTC, along with California and Utah, filed a complaint in federal court against a telehealth provider for alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), as well as other related state consumer protection laws. The complaint alleges that the company misrepresented its privacy policy, shared consumers’ health information with third‑party advertising platforms, charged consumers for a prescription subscription without proper disclosures of the immediate and recurring charges, and made it difficult for consumers to cancel their subscriptions. The complaint seeks monetary and injunctive relief.

FTC Settles with Ticket Broker for Allegedly Violating BOTS Act. On July 27, the FTC filed a complaint and stipulated order against a ticket broker and its owners for alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Better Online Ticket Sales Act (BOTS Act). The FTC alleges that the defendants used fake accounts and IP proxies to bypass online ticket purchase limits for thousands of events, purchased large quantities of high‑demand tickets, and resold said tickets at significant markups in the secondary market. The defendants agreed to injunctive relief and to pay $10.7 million in civil penalties, which is partially suspended due to their inability to pay the full amount.

Select State Enforcement Actions

Washington AG Settles with Online Hotel Booking Companies for Allegedly Adding Unnecessary Fees. On July 31, the Washington AG announced a $750,000 settlement with online booking companies for allegedly adding “refund protection” fees in a pre-checked box, which, according to the Washington AG, made the cost appear mandatory. The Washington AG alleged that this violated both the Washington Consumer Protection Act and ROSCA. In addition to paying the settlement amount, the online booking companies agreed to disclose similar website designs more conspicuously going forward.

Colorado AG Settles with Payment Processor for Allegedly Deceptive Fee Practices. On July 29, the Colorado AG announced a settlement with a California-based rent payment processor for alleged violations of Colorado consumer lending and consumer protection laws. In its July 29, 2026 complaint, the AG alleged that the processor violated Colorado’s Price Transparency Law – or “junk fees” law – by charging tenants fees for using credit or debit cards, while failing to provide a cost-free payment alternative. As part of the settlement, the processor agreed to, among other things, comply with Colorado’s junk fees law by providing a cost-free payment option that is reasonably accessible to all consumers, as well as providing annual compliance reports for two years detailing all properties using the processor’s services.

Massachusetts AG Settles with Property Management Company for Allegedly Charging Illegal Housing Fees. On July 28, the Massachusetts AG announced a settlement with a property management company resolving allegations that the company violated Massachusetts’ consumer protection law. The Massachusetts AG alleged that the company imposed unnecessary fees for new tenants or tenants who were renewing their leases; such fees are prohibited by Massachusetts law. Under the settlement, the company agreed to injunctive relief and to pay $500,000 in restitution for affected tenants.

Select NAD Advertising Challenge Case Decisions

NAD Recommends Modification of Results Claims for Eczema Relief Medication. On August 5, NAD recommended that the maker of a prescription biologic treatment for moderate-to-severe eczema clearly and conspicuously qualify the claims that some adults achieved long-lasting clearer skin at four months and at one year and that some saw fast itch relief after the first dose at two weeks. NAD specifically recommended the pharmaceutical company disclose how many patients achieved the advertised results in the study or that the results reflected treatment with both the biologic and other topical corticosteroids. Separately, NAD found sufficient support for a variety of other claims, including that the product helps patients “stay ahead of eczema,” blocks a “key source of inflammation,” and can “help heal your skin from within.”

Federal and State Regulatory Announcements

FTC Releases Policy Statement Regarding Disparate-Impact Claims. On August 7, the FTC released a Policy Statement stating that the Commission would no longer pursue disparate-impact claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The Policy Statement follows President Trump’s April 2025 Executive Order No. 14281, “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” which directed agencies to “deprioritize enforcement of all statutes and regulations to the extent they include disparate-impact liability.” The Policy Statement states that the Commission lacks statutory authority to pursue disparate-impact claims under ECOA and that Section 5 does not authorize any antidiscrimination claims. The Commission notes that it will continue to assert disparate-treatment claims under ECOA for intentional discrimination.

New York AG and Governor Release Final Rules Implementing SAFE for Kids Act. On July 28, the New York AG released final rules implementing the Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (SAFE) for Kids Act. The SAFE for Kids Act requires social media platforms to restrict algorithmically personalized feeds and notifications sent between midnight and 6 a.m. ET for users under the age of 18 unless a parent’s or guardian’s consent is obtained. The SAFE for Kids Act was signed into law by the New York Governor in June 2024. The New York AG’s final rules implementing the law require social media platforms to verify users’ age before allowing them to access algorithmic feeds or receive nighttime notifications. Moreover, minors must consent to their parent being notified if they affirmatively seek access to algorithmic feed and nighttime notification features. The rules then require the parent to go through the age verification procedures to grant consent. The SAFE for Kids Act rules take effect on January 25, 2027.