Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Subscription Shake-Up: Navigating the FTC’s Click-to-Cancel Rule

By Baldassare Vinti, Jennifer Yang, Alyson Tocicki & Naomi Caldwell on June 10, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In October 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) updated its 1973 Negative Option Rule to address unfair and deceptive online subscription practices. See 16 C.F.R. § 425 (2024) (the “Negative Option Rule” or the “Rule”). The Rule sparked significant debate, with the original proposal garnering over 16,000 comments. Following some revisions based on this feedback, the Rule went into effect in January 2025. Originally slated for enforcement on May 14, the FTC announced on May 9 that enforcement would be deferred by 60 days, giving businesses until July 14, 2025 to review and comply. This post outlines key aspects of the updated Rule and how companies can reduce legal and reputational risk.

Who Does the Rule Affect: The Negative Option Rule, also known as the “Click-to-Cancel Rule”, implements certain requirements for businesses offering subscription or recurring billing programs. This includes, for example, businesses that offer automatically renewing contracts and subscriptions (e.g., monthly or annual streaming services), free trials that transition into paid subscriptions, and continuity plans with recurring shipments.

How the Rule Works:  The Rule outlines four main requirements:

  • Prohibition on Misrepresentation: Businesses must not mislead consumers regarding any material fact when marketing negative option features.  This includes misleading claims about pricing, cancellation terms, trial periods, or subscription details. 16 C.F.R. § 425.3.
  • Clear and Conspicuous Disclosures: Before obtaining billing information, sellers must clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms, including the frequency of the recurring payment, the amount they will be charged, and cancellation information.  These disclosures must appear immediately before the request for affirmative consumer consent.  16 C.F.R. § 425.4.
  • Affirmative Consumer Consent: Sellers must obtain express informed consent for negative option programs and their material terms.  This consent must be separate from other general terms and conditions and must be express (e.g. a checkbox that the consumer needs to affirmatively check).  It cannot be inferred through pre-checked boxes, silence, or inactivity. 16 C.F.R. § 425.5.
  • Simple Cancellation Process: Cancellation must be as easy as the sign-up process.  If a consumer can sign up online, they must also be able to easily cancel online, such as via an easy to find, clearly labeled “Cancel Subscription” button. 16 C.F.R. § 425.6.

Interaction with State Law: Businesses should also monitor state laws related to negative option and auto-renewal programs.  The FTC permits states to implement broader protections, and some have incorporated provisions that were not adopted at the federal level.  For example, the California Automatic Renewal Law (effective July 1, 2025) requires businesses to send annual reminders of subscription auto-renewals.  Minnesota’s Updated Automatic Renewal Law (effective January 1, 2025) also mandates annual renewal reminders, and prohibits sellers from presenting additional “save” offers during the cancellation process.

Consequences for Non-Compliance: The stakes for ignoring the FTC’s Negative Option Rule can be high.  The FTC can impose a penalty of $53,088 per violation, with single transactions potentially accruing multiple fines.  Additionally, the FTC may seek court injunctions or consumer refunds, which can be costly and cause reputational harm.  Class actions alleging deceptive auto-renewal practices have also been popular in recent years, and are often premised on alleged failures to comply with FTC negative option requirements or related state laws.

Looking Ahead: The FTC has demonstrated a strong commitment to enforcing consumer protection laws related to negative option programs.  Even before the updated Click-to-Cancel Rule, the agency pursued enforcement actions against companies that it alleged failed to secure clear consumer consent or made cancellation excessively difficult.  Note that the FTC is currently defending a legal challenge to the updated Click-to-Cancel Rule in the Eighth Circuit, with oral argument set for June 10, 2025.  However, absent an adverse ruling in that case before July 14, the new Rule remains set for enforcement beginning on that date.

Businesses should be prepared for continued scrutiny and enforcement efforts in this area, as well as the possibility of an uptick in related class actions.  Proskauer has extensive experience advising clients on compliance with both federal and state laws governing negative option and auto-renewal programs. Our team helps clients implement clear and conspicuous disclosures, obtain valid affirmative consent, and design compliant cancellation processes. In addition, Proskauer regularly defends companies facing FTC investigations, state attorney general enforcement actions, and private litigation. Our renowned Class Action Defense Team are leaders in representing clients in high-stakes consumer protection class actions, including those involving automatic renewal and subscription practices.

Photo of Baldassare Vinti Baldassare Vinti

Baldassare (“Baldo”) Vinti is the head of Proskauer’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group.

Baldo is a first-chair trial lawyer known for navigating complex, bet-the-company intellectual property disputes across industry verticals and next-generation technologies. With over 25 years of experience, Baldo represents leading global companies…

Baldassare (“Baldo”) Vinti is the head of Proskauer’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group.

Baldo is a first-chair trial lawyer known for navigating complex, bet-the-company intellectual property disputes across industry verticals and next-generation technologies. With over 25 years of experience, Baldo represents leading global companies and universities in patent, trade secret, false advertising, consumer class actions and technology-related breach of contract litigation in federal and state courts as well as before the International Trade Commission.

Baldo is particularly sought after for his courtroom skill and strategic depth, having led trials, arbitrations and appeals in high-stakes disputes involving technologies ranging from pharmaceuticals and medical devices to encryption, digital media, diagnostics, mobile platforms and software. Baldo has represented global corporations, including Arkema S.A., British Telecommunications PLC, Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Henry Schein, Inc., Maidenform Brands Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Corp., Ossur North America Inc., Panasonic Corp., Sony Corp., Welch Foods, Inc. and Zenith Electronics LLC.

With a background in pharmacy, Baldo brings deep domain expertise to pharmaceutical litigation. He has a proven record of driving successful outcomes in complex pharmaceutical milestone payment, royalty and licensing disputes—often stemming from collaboration agreements, co-development deals, and M&A transactions—where the financial and strategic stakes run high.

In addition to representing corporate clients, Baldo works closely with university innovation and technology transfer offices to maximize the financial return of research investments. He develops tailored IP asset optimization strategies and aggressively enforces intellectual property rights to protect and monetize core innovations—whether through high-value licensing agreements, shaping and advancing spin-out company development, or successful litigation.

Baldo also provides strategic counsel on IP due diligence, complex licensing, IP structuring, patentability and freedom-to-operate analyses, and infringement and validity opinions. He advises boards and executive teams on aligning IP strategy with business objectives, mitigating risk and maximizing the value of innovation assets.

A frequent author and commentator on intellectual property topics, Baldo has been quoted in the National Law Journal, Bloomberg BNA, Law360, Westlaw Journal and Inside Counsel magazine. He is also a regular contributor to articles published in Medical Product Outsourcing magazine that deal with the medical device industry.

Baldo served as a judicial intern for Hon. John E. Sprizzo of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and for Hon. Charles A. LaTorella of the New York Supreme Court.

Read more about Baldassare VintiEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Jennifer Yang Jennifer Yang

Jennifer Yang is a partner in the Litigation Department. She is a skilled commercial litigator specializing in false advertising and other intellectual property disputes, including Lanham Act and consumer class action false advertising litigation, advertising challenges before the National Advertising Division (NAD) and…

Jennifer Yang is a partner in the Litigation Department. She is a skilled commercial litigator specializing in false advertising and other intellectual property disputes, including Lanham Act and consumer class action false advertising litigation, advertising challenges before the National Advertising Division (NAD) and National Advertising Review Board (NARB) as well as trademark, trade secret and copyright litigation. Jen represents clients in a variety of industries, including medical device companies, consumer products companies, cosmetics companies, food and beverage companies, fashion retailers, sports, entertainment and art foundations.

Jen regularly defends clients in threatened and filed consumer class actions. She has successfully helped clients defend cases around the country involving core product performance claims, ingredient claims, slack fill allegations, environmental and other ESG-related claims, pricing disputes, health claims, and allegations of undisclosed PFAS and other contaminants. Jen has extensive experience litigating matters involving foods, drugs, medical devices, dietary supplements and cosmetics, and is proficient on the impact of the regulatory frameworks governing these products on consumer class action defense.

Jen also frequently represents both plaintiffs/challengers and defendants/advertisers in competitor Lanham Act cases and challenges before NAD and NARB. She brings her deep experience in litigation strategy and subject matter expertise to each case to achieve the best possible outcome for her clients.

A core part of Jen’s practice includes counseling clients on advertising and claim substantiation. She leverages her expertise in NAD, regulatory guidance (including the FTC Endorsement Guides, Green Guides and Negative Option Rule), state consumer protection statutes and consumer class action trends to work closely with clients and their marketers to help develop compelling marketing campaigns and messaging while minimizing legal risk. Jen also partners with clients’ R&D teams to help develop robust claim substantiation in accordance with best legal practices, including clinical studies, in vitro testing, sensory studies, home use tests, and consumer and expert surveys.

Jen is a regular speaker at ANA’s Masters of Advertising Law Conference, and is an author and editor of Proskauer’s advertising law blog, Proskauer on Advertising.

Read more about Jennifer YangEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Alyson Tocicki Alyson Tocicki

Alyson Tocicki is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Trials Practice Group. Alyson handles high-profile and complex litigation matters around the country, with a particular emphasis on product liability, false advertising, and intellectual property disputes.

Alyson has experience…

Alyson Tocicki is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Trials Practice Group. Alyson handles high-profile and complex litigation matters around the country, with a particular emphasis on product liability, false advertising, and intellectual property disputes.

Alyson has experience representing clients at all stages of litigation, including: filing initial pleadings; coordinating discovery; briefing and arguing motions; assisting with key fact and expert witness depositions; writing jury addresses; drafting direct and cross examinations; and preparing witnesses for trial. She regularly represents Fortune 500 companies in the media and entertainment, consumer products, and pharmaceutical industries, as well as professional sports leagues and teams. Alyson leverages her experience to provide creative solutions and to manage her cases with an eye towards trial.

In addition, Alyson devotes significant time to pro bono matters, having been recognized at Proskauer’s 2023 Golden Gavel Awards for her substantial contributions to the Firm’s pro bono efforts. She also serves as a member of the Firm’s Associate Council and was selected to be a Protégée for Proskauer’s Women’s Sponsorship Program, an initiative for high-performing, mid-level lawyers that champions future leaders.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Alyson earned her J.D. from the UCLA School of Law, where she served as a Managing Editor of the UCLA Law Review and President of the Student Bar Association. While in law school, she also earned multiple Masin Family Academic Excellence Awards, advised first-year students on legal research and writing, and worked as a judicial extern for the Honorable Robert N. Kwan in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.

Read more about Alyson TocickiEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Naomi Caldwell Naomi Caldwell
Email
  • Posted in:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Blog:
    Proskauer on Advertising Law
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

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

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • 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