Consumer

On March 20, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled on the fairness, under EU consumer protection law, of a contractual clause allocating a percentage of an athlete’s income to a professional services provider (Case C‑365/23 [Arce]).  This ruling sets an important precedent and strengthens the protection afforded by consumer protection law to minors who enter into professional service contracts, whether in sport or elsewhere.

Background

The case was referred to the CJEU by a Latvian court.  It concerns a contract whereby a company undertook to provide career support services – including coaching, training, sports medicine, sports psychology, career guidance, club contracts, marketing, legal services, and accounting – to a basketball player, who was a minor at the time and therefore represented by his parents.  In exchange for the company’s services, the athlete agreed to pay 10% of any net income (plus VAT) he would receive over a period of 15 years from the signing of the contract.  At the time of signing the contract, the athlete was not a professional.  Some years later, however, he became a professional athlete.  When the athlete refused to pay the percentage to the company, the company sued him to enforce the contract.  The Latvian courts asked the CJEU, whether it could assess the fairness of this long-term financial commitment under the Latvian legislation implementing Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (“UCTD”).

Application of the Unfair Contract Terms Directive

Under the UCTD, a contractual clause in a business-to-consumer contract (not negotiated by the consumer) is unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.  The CJEU ruled that the UCTD, as transposed into Latvian law, applies to the contract between the professional services provider and the athelete because the athlete was not yet engaged in professional sport at the time the contract was signed.  The status of “consumer” must be assessed at the time of the conclusion of the contract.  Consequently, the athlete was a “consumer” within the meaning of the UCTD.  The CJEU ruled that the UCTD applies even if the individual later embarks on a professional career.Continue Reading CJEU Rules on Fairness of Remuneration Clause in Sports Contract

On March 21, 2025, the European Commission announced that the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (“CPC-N”) had initiated enforcement proceedings against an online gaming company, for allegedly violating EU consumer protection laws and engaging in practices that could pose a particular risk to children.  The gaming company now has one month…

Continue Reading Consumer Watchdogs Turn Their Attention to the Online Gaming Industry

Authors: Jennifer Johnson, Jayne Ponder, August Gweon, Analese Bridges

State lawmakers are considering a diverse array of AI legislation, with hundreds of bills introduced in 2025.  As described further in this blog post, many of these AI legislative proposals fall into several key categories: (1) comprehensive consumer protection legislation similar to the Colorado AI Act, (2) sector-specific legislation on automated decision-making, (3) chatbot regulation, (4) generative AI transparency requirements, (5) AI data center and energy usage requirements, and (6) frontier model public safety legislation.  Although these categories represent just a subset of current AI legislative activity, they illustrate the major priorities of state legislatures and highlight new AI laws that may be on the horizon.

  • Consumer Protection.  Lawmakers in over a dozen states have introduced legislation aimed at reducing algorithmic discrimination in high-risk AI or automated decision-making systems used to make “consequential decisions,” embracing the risk- and role-based approach of the Colorado AI Act.  In general, these frameworks would establish developer and deployer duties of care to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination and would require risks or instances of algorithmic discrimination to be reported to state attorneys general.  They would also require notices to consumers and disclosures to other parties and establish consumer rights related to the AI system.  For example, Virginia’s High-Risk AI Developer & Deployer Act (HB 2094), which follows this approach, passed out of Virginia’s legislature this month.
  • Sector-Specific Automated Decision-making.  Lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced legislation that would regulate the use of AI or automated decision-making tools (“ADMT”) in specific sectors, including healthcare, insurance, employment, and finance.  For example, Massachusetts HD 3750 would amend the state’s health insurance consumer protection law to require healthcare insurance carriers to disclose the use of AI or ADMT for reviewing insurance claims and report AI and training data information to the Massachusetts Division of Insurance.  Other bills would regulate the use of ADMT in the financial sector, such as New York A773, which would require banks that use ADMT for lending decisions to conduct annual disparate impact analyses and disclose such analyses to the New York Attorney General.  Relatedly, state legislatures are considering a wide range of approaches to regulating employers’ uses of AI and ADMT.  For example, Georgia SB 164 and Illinois SB 2255 would both prohibit employers from using ADMT to set wages unless certain requirements are satisfied.

Continue Reading Blog Post: State Legislatures Consider New Wave of 2025 AI Legislation

Despite a lead plaintiff with unique injuries, the Northern District of Indiana recently certified a class seeking economic damages under Indiana’s consumer protection statute in a case challenging contaminated hand sanitizer manufactured by 4e Brands North America, LLC.  Callantine v. 4e Brands North America, LLC, 2024 WL 4903361 (N.D.

Continue Reading Unique Injuries No Bar to Class Certification Pursuing Economic Damages

On October 3, 2024, the European Commission published a report evaluating the effectiveness of existing EU consumer protection laws in protecting consumers in the digital space.  More specifically, the report assesses the effectiveness of the following three consumer protection laws: (i) the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (“UCPD”); (ii) the Consumer…

Continue Reading EU Commission Publishes Report Assessing EU Consumer Laws and Paves Way for New and Stronger EU Consumer Law for the Digital Space

On August 14, the FTC announced a final rule that, according to the FTC, is intended to “combat fake reviews and testimonials.”  The rule will go into effect on October 21, 2024.  This final rule is the culmination of the FTC’s issuance of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in November 2022 and notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in June 2023.  We previously analyzed the draft rule presented in the NPRM. 

In response to public comments, the FTC made several substantive changes in the final rule.  Many of these changes narrow the rule in helpful ways for businesses concerned about the breadth of the proposed rule, although a few changes arguably expand the rule.  We have outlined some of the major differences between the draft and final rules below:Continue Reading FTC Issues Final Rule on Reviews and Testimonials

On May 30, 2024, the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) ruled that any button a consumer uses to order a service online must clearly indicate that the consumer commits to pay the price for the relevant service by affirmatively clicking on it. (Conny Case C-400/22) At issue was whether…

Continue Reading CJEU Clarifies Online “Order Buttons” Must Indicate that the Consumer is Assuming an Obligation to Pay

On June 20, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to require cable operators and direct broadcast satellite (“DBS”) providers to display an “all-in” price for their video programming services in their billing and marketing materials.  The White House issued a press release that…

Continue Reading FCC Proposes “All-In” Pricing Rules for Cable/Satellite TV

Those in the business of fast‑moving consumer goods (“FMCGs”) are likely aware of the plethora of environmental and product stewardship regulations applicable to the FMCG sector.  These laws are set to increase and expand in application.  What FMCG companies also need to get to grips with are a range of broader (and also fast‑moving!) environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) developments and consequent risks and opportunities.  Companies need to understand how the new world of ESG impacts their supply chains, key ingredients and components, consumer choice and confidence, competitive advantage, market accessibility, and marketing. 

Designed as a ‘primer’ for FMCG companies, in this piece, we cover a range of key trends in the emerging UK and EU ESG legal landscape as relevant for the FMCG sector, from farmers to Food Business Operators (“FBOs”) and from manufacturers to retailers.  We also discuss some key legal and reputational risks; as well as pointers to help companies decipher and prepare for the ESG storm.

We focus on the UK and the EU (first movers on many ESG issues), but the landscape in other jurisdictions (including, for example, the US) is also evolving and becoming more complex.

Key ESG Issues for FMCGs

We think there are four categories of key ESG developments for FMCGs to watch: (I) corporate reporting and disclosure regimes; (II) green/sustainability claims and labelling; (III) supply chain obligations; and (IV) product packaging and presentation.

Many emerging ESG frameworks cut across sectors.  This may be efficient for regulators, but can make identifying sector-specific risks and opportunities more challenging.  We have sought to do that below.Continue Reading Green Groceries: Key ESG Issues for the FMCG Industry (including FBOs)

On March 22, 2023, the European Commission published a proposal for Directive on common rules promoting the repair of goods (“Proposal”), which would grant consumers the right to request from producers the repair of products that under EU law are subject to “reparability requirements.”  The Proposal’s aim is to encourage producers to develop more sustainable business models by ensuring that their products are reparable.

The European Parliament and Council are now considering the Proposal for adoption and may introduce amendments.  Manufacturers should consider the impact of the Proposal on their products and suggest their amendments to Members of the European Parliament and Member States. If adopted, the Proposal’s requirements are not likely to apply in the different Member States before the end of 2026.

Contextual Background of the Proposal

The Proposal is intended to achieve the product sustainability and circularity objectives of the European Commission’s Circular Economy Action Plan of 2020, one of the main building blocks of the European Green Deal, that announced the Commission’s intention to introduce legislative initiatives aimed at “improving product durability, reusability, upgradability and reparability.”  Other initiatives affecting the durability, reparability and reusability of appliances and other products include: (i) a proposal for Regulation on Ecodesign Requirements for Sustainable Products (“Proposed Sustainable Products Regulation”), which will replace the existing Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC; and (ii) a proposal for a Directive amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Through Better Protection Against Unfair Practices and Better Information (“Proposal for a Greenwashing Directive”).Continue Reading European Commission Publishes Directive on the Right of Repair Proposal