Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

FTC Negative on Business Focused Subscription Offers

By Leonard L. Gordon & William C. Lawrence on May 19, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

We have written repeatedly about the FTC and various states’ efforts to clamp down on “negative option” offers to consumers (see blog posts here and here). Last week, consistent with a newly found focus on protecting small businesses, the FTC challenged negative option marketing aimed at business entities. The case underscores the FTC’s continued focus on negative option marketing as well as its new focus on protecting small businesses.

On May 13, 2020, the FTC brought a complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against American Future Systems, Inc. (“AFS”) and International Credit Recovery, Inc. (“IRC”) alleging that AFS would cold call businesses, speak to their employees, and offer free samples of books or newsletters to the organizations. If the employee agreed to accept the free sample, AFS allegedly enrolled the business, without its consent, into a negative option program for the publications, under which the businesses are automatically invoiced for annual subscriptions to the newsletters. The FTC alleged AFS would do this despite representations that AFS was not selling subscriptions, or without disclosing that the free sample offers were part of AFS’s attempts to sell such subscriptions.

According to the FTC, the defendants made matters worse by utilizing aggressive collection tactics. The FTC alleges that after six months, if business organizations did not pay the amounts invoiced for the subscriptions they never agreed to buy, AFS would then engage a third-party collection agency, IRC, to use false threats to collect the purported debt. IRC would tell consumers that failure to pay AFS’s bills would impact their credit rating or result in legal action. The FTC charged that such deceptive tactics violate the FTC Act and the Unordered Merchandise Statute.

Given the current economic disruptions caused by COVID-19, we can expect that the FTC will continue to attack both deception and improper debt collection aimed at small businesses. Sellers beware.

Photo of Leonard L. Gordon Leonard L. Gordon

Len Gordon, chair of Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group, is a skilled litigator who leverages his significant experience working for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help protect his clients’ interests and guide their business activity. Len regularly represents companies and individuals in…

Len Gordon, chair of Venable’s Advertising and Marketing Group, is a skilled litigator who leverages his significant experience working for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to help protect his clients’ interests and guide their business activity. Len regularly represents companies and individuals in investigations and litigation with the FTC, state attorneys general, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Len also represents clients in business-to-business and class action litigation involving both consumer protection and antitrust issues. He also counsels clients on antitrust, advertising, and marketing compliance issues.

Read more about Leonard L. GordonEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Business and Commercial
  • Blog:
    All About Advertising Law
  • Organization:
    Venable LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo