North America: Consumer Protection

Washington, D.C. has enacted comprehensive legislation that fundamentally changes how medical debt is handled, prohibiting healthcare providers and debt collectors from reporting medical debt to credit reporting agencies while imposing strict limitations on collection practices. The law establishes significant protections including wage garnishment restrictions, interest rate caps, and mandatory financial assistance screening, though it faces concerns about potential impacts on the healthcare system's susta

The Federal Trade Commission announced a $12 million settlement with payment processor Humboldt Merchant Services over allegations of facilitating merchant fraud through unauthorized billing scams, while simultaneously rescinding its 2021 policy statement on health app breaches. The settlement imposes permanent restrictions on processing payments for high-risk merchant categories and prohibits credit card laundering activities.

On September 30, the CFPB published a notice seeking comment on a proposed revision to its existing collection of credit card information under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act).

Affordability remains front and center at the FTC. This month, the agency turned its attention to healthcare and gas costs. It also issued detailed guidance on price transparency for auto dealers that marketers in any industry might want to heed: the advertised price “must be the actual price that any consumer can walk in and pay,” with only government fees excluded. The FTC continues to consider how to combat scams and is seeking public comment on whether online platforms should help stop scammers who use those platforms to impersonate third parties by, for example, requiring the removal of confirmed impersonation scam ads.

Law 543 of 2026 introduces new obligations for supermarkets, retail stores, and other commercial establishments in Panama regarding the identification of the origin and nature of food products offered to consumers.

The National Consumer Commission’s new CPA Opt-Out Registry adds a second compliance layer - POPIA alone no longer protects direct marketers.

When does a disclosure on the back of a package save a misleading claim on the front? A federal court's ruling in a class action against Barilla over its "Italy's #1 Brand of Pasta" slogan clarifies when disclosures on other panels can resolve ambiguous claims versus when front-panel statements are unambiguously deceptive.

This comprehensive newsletter covers recent consumer protection enforcement actions by the FTC, CFPB, and state Attorneys General, alongside NAD advertising challenge decisions and regulatory developments. The update examines settlements involving deceptive business practices, data breaches, and unlawful operations, while highlighting new guidance on price transparency and impersonation rules that will shape compliance strategies across industries.

A Federal Court ruling clarifies that displaying itemized fees on the same screen does not constitute drip pricing under Canada's Competition Act, provided all mandatory charges are visible simultaneously in legible type. The decision establishes that while concealment and sequential disclosure trigger the prohibition, transparent partitioned pricing remains lawful, leaving businesses to navigate the line between compliant fee disclosure and misleading price representations.

This monthly newsletter examines significant legal trends and landmark cases in product liability and mass torts, including recent court decisions on phenylephrine preemption, BIOCELL implant litigation, AI-directed court filings, EPA hazardous substance designations, and climate superfund laws. The analysis provides strategic insights for businesses navigating complex tort litigation and regulatory challenges across multiple industries.

In April 2024, EPA designated perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). As previously discussed in Re:Torts, industry groups challenged the designation, arguing that EPA misread the phrase “may present substantial danger” as requiring only a “possibility” of harm. The groups also argued EPA gave inadequate notice of its cost-benefit methodology and acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

This monthly newsletter examines significant legal trends and landmark cases in product liability and mass torts, including recent court decisions on phenylephrine preemption, BIOCELL implant litigation...