On March 12, Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group hosted its 12th Advertising Law Symposium in Washington, DC, bringing together in-house counsel, marketing executives, and industry professionals to examine the legal and regulatory landscape facing advertisers. The panels focused on a range of the latest topics in advertising law, including FTC enforcement priorities, pricing transparency, artificial intelligence, class action trends, and more.
In case you were unable to attend, here are some key themes that emerged from the day’s discussions.
All-in Pricing Is Becoming the Default
Both state laws and federal enforcement trends point to a consensus: consumers must understand the total cost of a product or service before committing to a transaction, including the nature or purpose of any unavoidable fees.
During a panel on pricing and marketing practices, Venable partners Ellen Berge, Shahin Rothermel, and Ari Rothman discussed how multiple state laws require an upfront disclosure of total price that includes mandatory fees, like shipping and handling. Berge noted that in California, in particular, enforcement of this requirement has accelerated to the point where lawsuits are being filed daily.
Pricing transparency is a priority on the federal level as well. FTC Bureau Director Chris Mufarrige, in conversation with partner Len Gordon, explained that the commission is focused on pursuing companies that are failing to conspicuously disclose the total price consumers will pay for goods and services, pointing to enforcement actions involving rental housing, grocery delivery, and ride-sharing platforms. He noted that obscured pricing information “prevents consumers from comparing prices, which undermines the price system and harms consumers.”
These same transparency expectations are extending into subscription models. As of January 2026, the FTC has reopened rulemaking regarding the Negative Option Rule. Mufarrige said the goal of these revisions is to strike a balance between being “pro-competitive and beneficial to consumers,” pushing companies toward clearer disclosures and simplified cancellation, while still recognizing that negative options can provide advantages.
A More Complex Enforcement Ecosystem Is Taking Shape
Enforcement is no longer driven by the FTC alone. State attorneys general, private plaintiffs, competitors, and even payment processors are shaping compliance expectations.
In one afternoon session presented by partner Mary Gardner and associate Eden Caliendo, Gardner described how state attorneys general can serve as “laboratories” testing new enforcement theories, applying existing consumer protection laws to emerging marketing practices, frequently coordinating across jurisdictions. These actions often move ahead of, or alongside, federal priorities rather than waiting for them. For example, the FTC is not currently focused on issues involving green claims, but states continue to pursue related litigation.
At the same time, private litigation is playing an increasingly influential role. In a panel focused on the hidden costs of FDA noncompliance, including Venable partner Claudia Lewis and associate Richard Starr, Lewis said that the plaintiffs’ bar is now “shaping what FDA compliance really looks like,” particularly as litigation expands in areas where the federal agency may be slower to act. Advertisers should consider this in any sweepstakes or gamified promotional campaigns as well. In a related panel, partners Melissa Steinman, Barry Benjamin, and associate Shannon Sansom highlighted how technical requirements, such as avoiding the element of consideration and structuring loyalty programs, are frequent targets for class actions, even where regulatory enforcement is limited.
Compliance expectations are being shaped beyond traditional regulators and private litigation. In a session on partnerships with NCAA athletes, partners Ben Stockman and Phil Sheng emphasized that while NIL deals present new marketing opportunities, advertisers must navigate a rapidly evolving landscape shaped by varying state laws, the NCAA, and school-specific requirements. Following a recent class action settlement, the NCAA and its largest Division I athletic conferences established the College Sports Commission (CSC), an independent oversight body that reviews and monitors NIL agreements to assess whether they reflect genuine promotional relationships.
Payment processors are also emerging as key enforcement gatekeepers. Partners Andrew Bigart and Chris Boone pointed out how processors are facing more liability for facilitating merchant misconduct, creating strong incentives for them to monitor or restrict higher-risk merchants.
This creates a layered enforcement landscape where compliance expectations are shaped simultaneously by regulators and private actors. For advertisers, this means that a single issue may trigger scrutiny from multiple directions at once.
New Technologies, Same Advertising Rules
Regulators are applying long-standing principles to emerging areas like AI governance, subscription practices, and influencer marketing.
Venable partner Eric Prager and associate Jay Prapaisilp explained that regulators are already targeting AI-related issues—the fact that AI is an emerging technology does not necessarily make it immune from regulation. In New York, a new law requires disclosure when an advertisement uses “synthetic performers,” or AI-generated characters meant to look and sound like real people. This law signals that states are starting to regulate AI-generated advertising directly—companies can expect to see additional AI-related disclosure transparency requirements emerge in the near future.
Disclosure is a hot topic in influencer marketing as well, where the core issue that regulators care about is transparency to consumers. State attorneys general specifically look at whether advertisers and influencers are complying with disclosure requirements under applicable rules and consumer protection statutes—for example, whether influencers are clearly and conspicuously disclosing material connections to a brand. In a roundtable focused on various advertising claims and risks, partners Calvin Nelson and Chris Kim and counsel William Lawrence walked through an influencer marketing case study, advising that disclosure is as “transparent as possible” in a sponsored post.
These developments show that new technologies and formats do not change the underlying rules but reinforce the importance of transparency and how advertising is understood by consumers.
Substantiation Across All Claims
Across industries, regulators and courts are focusing more on overall consumer impression, rather than technical accuracy alone. In the closing session on class action trends, partners Amit Rana, Caitlin Blanche, and Roger Colaizzi discussed how plaintiffs are leveraging scientific evidence and evolving legal theories to challenge advertising claims. Blanche emphasized that liability often depends on how a “reasonable consumer” interprets the message, rather than how companies define it internally.
When it comes to avoiding false advertising claims, detailed substantiation is an advertiser’s best tool. Colaizzi encouraged internal legal teams to collaborate closely on this substantiation with their marketing colleagues, stating that “when your marketing team is empowered to understand the rules around the claims you are making, it makes a huge difference.” This ensures that companies are prepared to defend their claims immediately if challenged.
Missed the symposium but want to stay current on the shifting ad law landscape? Visit our All About Advertising Law blog to hear more from our Advertising and Marketing Law Group, listen to our Ad Law podcast, download the latest edition of our Ad Law Tool Kit, and sign up to be among the first to know about upcoming events hosted by the group.