As we race toward 2025, here are some thoughts from members of the Frankfurt Kurnit Advertising Group about some of the big issues to focus on in the new year.  

Brian Murphy writes, "Believe it or not, the 2022 SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract and Audio Commercials Contract expire on March 31, 2025. And while everyone hopes that negotiations between the union and the Joint Policy Committee will go well and that a strike will be avoided … life is unpredictable. (The actors’ strike in 2013 over the film and tv collective bargaining agreements lasted 118 days.)  Over the next few months, agencies and brands should take the possibility of a strike into consideration and the impact it will have on new production, commercials with expiring rights, and celebrity deals." 

Jordyn Milewski says, “Think about your environmental claims! 2025 is shaping up to potentially be a big year in the green marketing space. This year, we can (most likely) expect to see the first update to the FTC’s Green Guides since 2012. And, we’ll likely also be getting California’s final material characterization report, which will start the clock on compliance requirements for the state’s ‘Truth in Recycling’ law. Plus, if you haven’t already, make sure you’re thinking about bringing any of your carbon neutral/net zero claims into compliance with California’s VCMDA!”

Hannah Taylor suggests, “Recently, a new wave of 'all-in' price laws has emerged, mandating transparent pricing practices to ensure consumers are fully aware of the total cost of goods and services upfront. While the federal stance on junk fees and all-in pricing could shift in 2025, with new leadership under Trump-appointed Chair Andrew Ferguson, state attorneys general and legislatures may be poised to fill any potential FTC enforcement void. Businesses should anticipate increased scrutiny at the state level and ensure their pricing practices align with these evolving requirements.”

Terri Seligman writes, “This fall, the FTC issued the Final Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, intended to combat fake reviews and testimonials and providing the FTC authority to seek civil penalties. It also published Guidance and brought enforcement actions, underscoring the FTC’s ongoing interest in protecting the integrity of the review eco-system for consumers. So this is a good time for marketers to ensure that their (and their agencies’) review hygiene is healthy, which means (1) soliciting reviews in a neutral manner; (2) not suppressing negative reviews; (3) disclosing clearly and conspicuously when reviews are incentivized, whether by coupons and gifts, or through relationships between the reviewer and the company; (4) using only real reviews from actual users of their products and not fake or AI-produced reviews; and (5) aggregating reviews for ratings and claims appropriately.”

Emma Smizer recommends, “Starting January 1, 2025, a new California law restricts the use of the words ‘buy,’ ‘purchase,’ and similar terms in connection with the sale of many digital goods, where there are limitations on consumers' unrestricted ownership and use of such goods.  Companies should prepare for this new law either by discontinuing the use of these terms when consumers aren't getting full ownership of the goods or by complying with the law's procedures for providing notice about what the limitations on customers' ownership rights are.”

Kate Patton says, “Now's the time to prioritize auto-renewal compliance.  In October, the FTC announced its final 'click-to-cancel' rule, which imposes new requirements on negative option programs in all forms, some of which take effect in January and others in May 2025.  And in September, California enacted significant amendments to its auto-renewal law, effective July 1, 2025.  These new requirements are both broad and prescriptive, and will impact how you design and promote your subscription programs.  See our previous blog posts on the key provisions and practical implications of the FTC’s new rule (here) and California’s amended law (here), and start reviewing your user flows for compliance.”

Chris Chase writes, “While there have been many headline-grabbing aspects about the use of college athletes’ names, images, and likenesses (including whether college athletes can be paid directly by their schools, whether coaches and administrators can assist college athletes with obtaining deals, and whether college athletes can receive settlement payments for past, unauthorized uses), these do not necessarily affect brands’ use of such names, images, and likenesses.  Rather, brands must continue to be mindful of the guidelines and laws set by a school and the state where such school resides, including the athlete obtaining written approval from the school’s athletic department for any such brand deal and the brand’s avoidance of a school’s intellectual property without a separate school-direct agreement.”

Brian Murphy also recommends, "Legal battles over AI-generated content will continue in 2025.  I am not a gambler, but here are my predictions.  First, the odds of getting comprehensive AI legislation out of the divided 119^th U.S. Congress fall somewhere in the range of slim to none. That means that the courts will continue to play a major role in determining how copyright laws apply to AI-generated works.  Second, there are several cases pending in which copyright owners allege that the use of their copyrighted content to train AI platforms constitutes infringement, and the platforms argue that training constitutes a transformative fair use.  (See this post and this one and this one.) My gut is that the odds are actually pretty good that we will see at least one significant AI fair use decision issued by a court in 2025.

Daniel Goldberg says, “Data privacy enforcement is expected to ramp up as states grow their privacy divisions. Enforcement and regulation to date has focused heavily on advertising practices, including the sale or sharing of personal and sensitive data for targeted advertising. Publishers, advertisers, and other businesses in advertising should assess the data they process and ensure consumers can opt-out of the sale or sharing of their personal information, including through Global Privacy Control and a ‘Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information’ link.”  

Andrew Folks warns, “The scope of what constitutes a 'data broker' is quickly expanding, particularly in the context of advertising. Four states have data broker registration requirements, and California and Texas have begun enforcement over businesses’ noncompliance. Businesses should assess whether they are considered a 'data broker' under these laws and review new regulations from California, including an upcoming requirement to effectuate opt-out requests through a California operated platform.”

And, finally, from Jeff Greenbaum (me!), “Don't forget about the FTC's Mail Order Rule.  With the orders flowing in from your post-holiday sales, you'd better make sure that you ship when promised.  And, if you find out you can't ship on time, you're required to notify customers and give them an opportunity to cancel.  The Mail Order Rule also requires, among other things, that you have a reasonable basis for the shipping promises you make.  If making your customers happy isn't incentive enough, check out the recent FTC enforcement action against online retailer GOAT, which just paid more than $2 million in civil penalties to settle charges that its shipping practices weren't in compliance."  

We hope you have a great holiday season and a very happy new year!  See you in 2025!