U.S. Ad Law Trends: Takeaways For Canadian/U.K. Brands And When To Call A Cross-border Friend

As a new year approaches, advertisers on both sides of the Atlantic are contending with fast-changing rules, emerging technologies, and heightened scrutiny from regulators and consumers alike. To help anticipate what's next, Gowling WLG's advertising law team attended the annual ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference in Chicago; the largest advertising and marketing law event in the U.S., bringing together hundreds of industry leaders, lawyers, and regulators to discuss where advertising law is headed.

The conversations we had highlighted an ongoing reality: what happens in the U.S. rarely stays there. Trends that dominate the American market often influence consumer expectations, enforcement priorities, and industry practices elsewhere in the world, making it valuable for businesses operating internationally to track the sentiment flying out of the states.

At the same time, we're reminded to not take all movement out of the U.S. as gospel. The legal realities can differ sharply across jurisdictions, meaning what may be defensible under U.S. law could be offside elsewhere, and vice versa.

Drawing on insights from our Canadian and U.K. teams, here are three themes that are shaping the year ahead for advertisers and the legal counsel that advise them.

• For Canadian advertisers: What U.S. trends mean north of the border
• For U.K. and E.U. advertisers: How U.K. and European regulators are approaching similar issues

What U.S. trends mean north of the border

Many U.S. themes resonate in Canada, though the law often takes a tougher stance on some issues.

1. Deceitful claims: No harm, no consequence?

ANA presenters discussed several recent U.S. court cases in which an advertiser's conduct may have been deceitful, but because plaintiffs had not actually been harmed by these statements, requests for damages were denied:

• In Velez v. Lasko Products¹, a 2025 case out of New York, plaintiff alleged that defendant's claims that its space heaters “control room temperature” was misleading. The court rejected these claims, stating that plaintiff purchased the product without seeing or relying on these purportedly misleading claims.
• In Evans v. Sleep Number Corp.², a 2025 case out of California, plaintiff alleged that defendant made false sales claims on its mattresses, using strikethrough pricing to indicate a “regular” price that did not actually exist. The court concluded that it was conceivable that these “regular” prices could deceive consumers into thinking they had received a bargain. It also concluded, however, worth less than what she had paid for it. The court therefore deemed that she was not entitled to relief, and granted defendant's motion to dismiss.

It's worth noting that these claims were brought under specific statues; the conclusions here would not necessarily be reflective of the outcome in all false advertising claims under U.S. law.

From a Canadian lens, these outcomes were surprising. Under Canada's Competition Act, a claim can be offside even if no consumer relied on it or suffered harm. The Act explicitly states that it is not necessary to prove that “any person was deceived or misled” to establish that a statement is false or misleading.

Quebec goes even further. Under its Consumer Protection Act, courts can award punitive damages even absent compensatory damages. Case in point: In April 2025, the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered a major airline to pay $10 million in punitive damages for noncompliant pricing practices, despite there being no basis for compensatory damages.

Takeaway for advertisers: A defense that works in the U.S. may fail in Canada. If you run campaigns across borders, review your practices under the laws of each jurisdiction before regulators do it for you.

2. Influencer marketing: More scrutiny, more structure

Influencer marketing was once again front and centre at this year's conference and for good reason. According to the NAD Influencer Trust Index, more than 82% of U.S. advertisers now use influencers in their campaigns, and the U.S. influencer marketing industry is valued at over USD $24 billion. With numbers like these, heightened scrutiny is inevitable.

As we previously reported, this year saw the emergence of class action litigation in the U.S. regarding allegedly insufficient disclosure by influencers of their material connections with brands. In many of these cases, the influencers had made some disclosure, but plaintiffs argue that it was unclear, insufficiently prominent, or otherwise inadequate. Damages claimed reach up to USD $150 million, and while one of these cases has recently settled (for an undisclosed amount), the remaining actions will be watched closely. How U.S. courts ultimately quantify damages could meaningfully shape advertisers' future risk assessments in this space.

Another hot topic was the NAD's newly announced influencer certification initiative. Formally called the Institute for Responsible Influence, the program offers training on U.S. disclosure rules and best practices, as well as a certification intended to signal an influencer's understanding and commitment to compliant practices. While optional, it is positioned as a tool to give brands added confidence in the individuals representing them publicly.

In Canada, the similar key development is Ad Standards' recent update to its Influencer Marketing Disclosure Guidelines.

Canada has not—or at least, not yet—seen class actions mirroring the U.S. cases. Nonetheless, these developments offer a timely reminder to Canadian advertisers that proactive compliance reviews are prudent. Brands would be well-served to audit influencer content against the updated Ad Standards Guidelines, particularly as successful U.S. claims could pave the way for similar actions here.

Finally, there is currently no Canadian equivalent to the NAD's certification program, and we are not aware of any analogous initiatives in development. For Canadian brands working with U.S.-based influencers, however, it may be worth inquiring whether participation in the Institute for Responsible Influence would be beneficial. Certification could help support compliance efforts, especially where influencers are creating content intended for cross-border audiences.

Takeaway for advertisers: The rules of influencer marketing are tightening on both sides of the border. Now is the time for brands to double-check their compliance practices and ensure their influencer partners are set up to meet evolving expectations.

3. Enforcement heat map: Uneven readings

A recurring theme at the conference was the potential shift in U.S. enforcement action under the current administration. Several speakers noted that regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may take a more measured approach in the coming years. FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak's plenary remarks aligned with this view, stating that the FTC is unlikely to take overly aggressive enforcement action.

That said, Commissioner Holyoak emphasized that advertising to children, AI-related practices (particularly those involving deception), “Made in the U.S.” claims, and pricing representations remain priorities. Advertisers should expect continued attention in these areas even if overall enforcement is more calibrated.

A moderated regulatory environment often leads competitors to take a more active role, and speakers pointed to increased use of NAD challenges and Lanham Act litigation. Many also expect a corresponding uptick in consumer class actions, which tend to rise when regulatory oversight softens.

In contrast, Canada seems to be moving in the opposite direction. The Competition Bureau's 2025-2026 Strategic Plan highlights a commitment to proactive enforcement, particularly regarding environmental claims and drip pricing. Recent actions such as the $38.9 million penalty against Cineplex and the investigation into Canada's Wonderland reflect this heightened focus.

Takeaway for advertisers: With U.S. and Canadian enforcement moving at different speeds, brands should keep in mind that a practice that may present lower enforcement risk in the U.S. might not he the same in Canada, making it important to assess compliance separately in each jurisdiction. And while regulatory approaches differ, U.S. class action trends have a strong track record of migrating north, meaning Canadian advertisers should keep a close eye on these developments.

How UK and European regulators are approaching similar issues

The same issues are surfacing in the U.K. and Europe, but regulators are taking a markedly different and increasingly assertive approach.

1. Deceitful claims: No harm, no consequence?

In the European Union, there is a 2-stage test before something can amount to a "misleading action" in breach of the laws on unfair commercial practices.

First, it must be untruthful or deceive or be likely to deceive the average consumer. Second, it must cause the consumer to take a transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise. So, ads which are misleading, but which do not cause the consumer to take a different decision (e.g. to buy the product, or to investigate it further) may not be caught.

But, in the U.K., new law has departed from this principle, at least in the context of price transparency (and 'junk fees').

When a consumer-facing ad displays a product price that excludes mandatory fees, it constitutes an offence. Regulators don't need to show that the omission influenced a customer's purchase decision or caused harm. The U.K. regulator (the CMA) launched enforcement action against several businesses just last week, focusing on this issue and 'drip pricing' in particular (the practice of advertising a price, but then 'dripping in' additional fees during the customer purchase journey).

U.S. businesses should also note that U.K. action on 'drip pricing' is not limited to the hotel and ticketing sectors (as with the FTC Rule). Instead, it applies across retail and this recent action takes in many different categories of product and service (holidays, travel and transport, homeware retail, gym chains, food delivery, parcel delivery, driving schools, fashion and more). And, unlike in the US, advertised pricing must include tax and, in some cases, shipping.

Takeaway for advertisers: Always take specific local legal advice. Rules, enforcement, and sanctions differ. If you operate in the U.K. and you're advertising prices to consumers, then you should take urgent steps to review and assess the risk of customer purchase journeys. 'Drip pricing' and other price transparency issues and 'dark patterns' are a high-risk area with significant regulatory enforcement action in progress.

2. Influencer marketing: More scrutiny, more structure

The regulation of influencer marketing takes different forms across Europe. In June, France adopted a specific law governing influencer marketing which includes multiple measures to protect consumers (it's not just #ad!). Notably, influencers operating from outside the E.U. and addressing the French public must appoint a legal representative on French territory and take out European civil liability insurance. Take note if you're engaging U.S.-based influencers to target France!

At the U.K. Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), it is still mainly about #ad. The ASA treats the label as a de facto standard and would almost certainly not accept a (Kevin Hart before the NAD in the US-style) argument that U.K. consumers expect celebrity posts to be paid for without needing specific disclosures.

But other regulators are getting involved too. Last year, the FCA, the U.K.'s financial services regulator, prosecuted several high-profile influencers for their promotion of unauthorised investment schemes. And the CMA has wrapped influencer disclosures into the action it is taking on consumer reviews. More new rules are in place making it an offence to publish fake reviews, reviews which have been incentivised where the incentive has not been disclosed (which would include influencer content, without the necessary disclosures, as well as incentivised consumer reviews), and the publication of misleading review information (e.g. publishing a cherry-picked sample of 5-star reviews which are not representative of the body of reviews).

Takeaway for advertisers: While "clear and conspicuous" disclosures will help, local variation in laws means that it won't get you all the way. #ad might not be the right label in non-English speaking countries. There are potential fines and prison sentences in France for brands that fail to comply with the new law on influencer marketing. Will the E.U. follow the French lead? We will have to wait and see. In the U.K., you should audit your use of review information—in the broadest sense, including influencer 'reviews'—and put the necessary policy in place, or face the threat of regulatory sanction.

3. Enforcement heat map: Uneven readings

In Europe, the nature and scale of enforcement activity in the ad law space varies by jurisdiction and by topic/sector.

Greenwashing remains a hot topic across the continent, with the E.U. directive on empowering consumers for the green transition introducing changes to the rules on unfair commercial practices to better combat misleading environmental claims.

Meanwhile, in the U.K., the CMA has been invested with new powers, including the power to issue its own fines without going through the courts (more in the style of the FTC?). The fines it can impose have also increased exponentially, up to 10% of global turnover. The speed and scale of its action to date, which includes announcements of new guidance and enforcement proceedings, suggest that it won't be shy to use those new powers.

Takeaway for advertisers: The U.K. regulators have new 'teeth' and aren't afraid to use them. If you thought that the worst-case scenario was a 'slap on the wrist' from the ASA, then think again, you could get a huge fine from the CMA.

And if you thought that your digital advertising would escape scrutiny, then it's time to revisit that assumption too. The ASA is using AI tools to sweep up to 50 million ads per year and then pro-actively launching its own investigations. So, the chances of getting away with it are significantly reduced and the consequences of getting caught are potentially very much worse. It may be time to revisit your approach to U.K. and international advertising compliance!

Stay informed. Stay compliant.

For Canadian and U.K. businesses, understanding where the rules align and where they don't is key to staying compliant and competitive.

Footnotes

1. Velez v. Lasko Prods., LLC, 2025 WL 1865165 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2025)

2. Evans v. Sleep Number Corp., No. 24-cv-01136-KES (E.D. Cal. April 11, 2025)

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.