When is a “100%” claim not as clear as it seems? In this episode, we unpack a recent NAD decision examining how consumers interpret absolute claims and why advertisers should be cautious when using “100%” messaging in marketing. The case highlights NAD’s continued focus on consumer takeaway, substantiation, and context, emphasizing that even simple, seemingly straightforward claims can convey broader messages than advertisers intend. As regulators, self-regulatory bodies, and plaintiffs increasingly scrutinize absolute and unqualified representations, the decision offers valuable guidance for companies looking to balance compelling marketing with defensible advertising claims.

Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo E. Mon.

What can a $35 million settlement teach companies about subscription billing, auto-renewals, and cancellation practices? In this episode, we unpack the FTC’s case against Shutterstock, which resulted in one of the agency’s largest recent settlements over alleged negative option marketing violations. The complaint alleges that Shutterstock failed to clearly disclose automatic renewals and cancellation fees, did not obtain consumers’ express informed consent for recurring charges, and made it unnecessarily difficult to cancel subscriptions. As regulators continue to focus on auto-renewal programs, recurring billing, and “click-to-cancel” principles, the case serves as a powerful reminder that businesses must ensure material terms are clear, consent is meaningful, and cancellation is as straightforward as enrollment.

Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo E. Mon.

What does the FDA’s latest update on cosmetics regulation mean for beauty brands, manufacturers, and marketers? In this episode, we unpack how the FDA is expanding its oversight of the cosmetics industry through implementation of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA), the most significant overhaul of federal cosmetics regulation in more than 80 years. From mandatory facility registration, product listing, adverse event reporting, and safety substantiation requirements to forthcoming rules on good manufacturing practices, fragrance allergens, PFAS scrutiny, and talc testing, the agency is gaining unprecedented visibility into the cosmetics marketplace. As FDA signals that compliance, transparency, and product safety will remain key priorities, companies should prepare for heightened regulatory, litigation, and reputational risks in an increasingly scrutinized industry.

Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Donnelly L. McDowell, Cristina Ferretti, and Katrina Hatahet.

In this episode, we unpack Washington Attorney General Nick Brown’s lawsuit against Albertsons, Safeway, and Haggen over allegedly deceptive “buy one, get one free” promotions, where the state claims the grocers quietly inflated prices before running BOGO sales and then dropped them afterward, generating nearly $20 million in alleged overcharges across more than 3 million transactions. The case highlights intensifying regulatory scrutiny around pricing transparency, discount advertising, and consumer perception at a time when rising grocery costs are already under the microscope—and serves as a warning that regulators are increasingly willing to challenge whether “free” really means free.

Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo E. Mon.

Are grocery store “BOGO” deals really bargains—or just clever price manipulation? In this episode, we unpack Washington Attorney General Nick Brown’s lawsuit against Albertsons, Safeway, and Haggen over allegedly deceptive “buy one, get one free” promotions, where the state claims the grocers quietly inflated prices before running BOGO sales and then dropped them afterward, generating nearly $20 million in alleged overcharges across more than 3 million transactions. The case highlights intensifying regulatory scrutiny around pricing transparency, discount advertising, and consumer perception at a time when rising grocery costs are already under the microscope—and serves as a warning that regulators are increasingly willing to challenge whether “free” really means free.

Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo E. Mon.

What happens when states stop waiting for Congress and begin building their own AI rulebooks? In this episode, we unpack major AI regulatory developments emerging from Colorado, Connecticut, and California, where lawmakers and regulators are advancing dramatically different approaches to AI governance—from Colorado’s pause on enforcing its landmark AI Act while lawmakers debate a broader overhaul, to Connecticut’s sweeping omnibus bill addressing employment algorithms, companion chatbots, synthetic content labeling, and safe harbor programs, to California’s expanding focus on chatbot disclosures, child safety, and high-risk automated decision-making. As states continue racing to shape the future of AI oversight, one theme is becoming increasingly clear: companies deploying AI systems should expect growing obligations around transparency, documentation, human oversight, and consumer protections long before a unified federal framework arrives.

Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Laura Riposo VanDruff, Alexander I. Schneider, and Joseph Cahill.

What happens when AI marketing moves faster than the technology itself? In this episode, we unpack Apple’s proposed $250 million settlement over claims that it overstated the availability of “Apple Intelligence” features tied to the iPhone 16 launch, including ads suggesting advanced Siri capabilities were “Available Now” even though some features would not arrive until later software updates. The case—following both an NAD challenge and multiple consolidated class actions—highlights the growing legal scrutiny around AI advertising, substantiation, and product availability claims, sending a clear warning to companies eager to promote future-facing AI capabilities before they are fully market-ready.

Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo E. Mon.

What happens when a jury decides that “fair and skill-based” gaming claims may have been anything but? In this episode, we unpack the blockbuster $420 million false advertising verdict against mobile gaming company Papaya, where competitor Skillz convinced a New York jury that Papaya’s marketing misled users by implying they were competing against real human players of similar skill levels while allegedly relying on bots and manipulated gameplay. The case—one of the largest Lanham Act verdicts in recent memory—highlights the growing legal and reputational risks facing gaming companies that market fairness, transparency, and skill-based competition in an industry already under increasing scrutiny from regulators, competitors, and consumers alike.

Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo E. Mon.

In this episode of Privacy Perspectives, Alex Schneider is joined by Laura Riposo VanDruff, Salim Rashid, and Joseph Cahill for a focused discussion on what has become one of the most active state legislative seasons for AI regulation. The group maps the landscape across five emerging categories of AI bills — companion chatbot disclosures, deepfake and watermarking requirements, frontier model transparency obligations, algorithmic discrimination rules, and AI liability frameworks — and examines what the pace of activity means for companies trying to build durable compliance programs. They also talk about Colorado’s recently passed SB 189, which is effectively a repeal and replacement of the original Colorado AI Act, what changed, what was removed, and the associated compliance planning challenges.

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS

Alex Schneider

Special Counsel, Advertising and Privacy Group

(202) 342-8634

www.kelleydrye.com/people/alexander-i-schneider

Laura Riposo VanDruff

Office Managing Partner of the firm’s Washington, D.C. office and former Chair of the firm’s Advertising and Marketing practice group

(202) 342-8435

https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/laura-riposo-vandruff

Salim Rashid

Associate

(202) 342-8473

https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/salim-rashid

Joseph Cahill

Associate

(202) 945-6626

https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/joseph-cahill

RESOURCES

Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog:

www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe

Subscribe to the Ad Law News newsletter:

www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe

Visit the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center:

www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law

Find all of our links here:

linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw

What does the FTC’s top leadership really think about AI, surveillance pricing, and the future of privacy enforcement—and how much of that will translate into action? In this episode, we unpack key takeaways from the Senate Commerce Committee’s April 2026 oversight hearing featuring FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, where lawmakers pressed on rising concerns around personalized pricing, data-driven market practices, and the agency’s role in regulating emerging technologies. With Ferguson emphasizing that the FTC is a law enforcer—not a broad economic regulator—while signaling potential guidance on pricing disclosures, continued focus on children’s privacy, and possible consent decree reforms, the discussion highlights a pivotal moment for businesses navigating AI, pricing, and privacy compliance in an uncertain regulatory environment.

Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Laura Riposo VanDruff and Joseph Cahill.