Executive Summary
- What’s new: In March 2026, the Trump administration took steps related to consumer protection, including regarding “Made in America” advertising claims, negative option marketing and rental housing fees, and alleged deceptive pricing practices by auto dealers.
- Why it matters: These actions suggest a potential increased focus on consumer protection and pricing-related matters by the FTC, possibly affecting a range of consumer-facing businesses, including online marketplaces and auto dealers.
- What to do next: Businesses should consider monitoring the administration’s consumer protection initiatives to mitigate risk and ensure continued compliance, and consider reviewing advertising and pricing practices in anticipation of potential increased enforcement and possible rulemaking.
__________
In March 2026, the Trump administration has taken a number of steps in quick succession related to consumer protection. President Donald Trump issued an executive order to “combat fraudulent ‘Made in America’ claims” in consumer-facing advertising. (See the accompanying fact sheet.)
And the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or “the Commission”) has advanced what it calls “price transparency” by:
- Issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on the Negative Option Rule.
- Issuing a second ANPRM related to unfair and deceptive rental housing fees.
- Sending warning letters to auto dealers about alleged deceptive pricing.
These actions suggest a potential increased focus on consumer protection and pricing-related matters by the FTC.
Executive Order on a ‘Made in America’ Advertising Rule
On March 13, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order to strengthen enforcement against false or misleading “Made in America” advertising claims. Among other requirements, the executive order instructs the Commission to:
- “Prioritize enforcement actions against sellers and manufacturers who falsely claim their products are ‘Made in America.’” (See the fact sheet).
- Consider issuing a rule that would make “the failure of an online marketplace to establish procedures for verifying country-of-origin claims” a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. (See the executive order.)
The prior Trump administration sought to combat these claims as well. During President Trump’s first term, the Commission proposed the Made in USA Labeling Rule, which was finalized under the Biden administration in August 2021. The rule prohibits businesses from marketing their products as “Made in America” unless “all or virtually all” of the products are made in the United States, with processing and final assembly also occurring in the United States.
Consumer-facing businesses should expect increased enforcement of “Made in America” advertising claims under both the Made in USA Labeling Rule and Section 5 of the FTC Act. Since 2014, the FTC has issued around 200 closing letters related to “Made in America” deceptive advertising claims, citing both Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Made in USA Labeling Rule. (Closing letters are informal notices from the FTC informing a respondent that the Commission has concluded an investigation into them and does not intend to pursue formal enforcement at that time.)
The “Made in America” closing letters generally stated that the FTC was closing investigations after businesses agreed to remove the “Made in America” labels or implemented remedial action plans. The FTC uses closing letters to signal concerning conduct to other companies, and it may continue to utilize closing letters in this new enforcement push.
Businesses should consider monitoring FTC enforcement of “Made in America” advertising claims related to, in particular, the sale of products in online marketplaces. Enforcement trends in this area could indicate what a future rule could look like and permit e-commerce companies to get a head start in assessing their business practices.
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Negative Option Rule
On March 11, 2026, the Commission announced an ANPRM to seek public comment on amending its Negative Option Rule. Negative option plans are practices “that allow[] a seller to interpret a customer’s silence, or failure to take an affirmative action, as acceptance of an offer.”
The purpose of the Commission’s ANPRM is to solicit comments on these practices “to help consumers avoid recurring payments for products and services they did not intend to order and to allow them to cancel such payments without unwarranted obstacles.”
The Biden administration FTC amended the Negative Option Rule to require that businesses make canceling subscriptions as easy as enrolling. (See the authors’ March 2024 Bloomberg Law article.) However, in Custom Communications, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 142 F.4th 1060, 1072, 1075 (8th Cir. 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated the amended rule in July 2025 on procedural grounds, and the FTC did not appeal or attempt to reintroduce the amendments after the vacatur.
The ANPRM notes ongoing concerns from consumers about negative option marketing practices. According to the FTC, it receives more than 90 complaints per day about alleged unfair and deceptive negative option marketing practices, like recurring charges for products that consumers did not intend to order or subscriptions that they find difficult to cancel.
Public comment is requested on “practices that prevent consumers from understanding the terms of the negative option program, enroll consumers without their express informed consent, or impede consumers from canceling their enrollments.”
The ANPRM also seeks public comment on potential amendments to the Negative Option Rule, including comments on “adopting provisions” of the vacated amendments. It includes an extensive list of questions for commenters to address. Public comments on the ANPRM are due by April 13, 2026.
ANPRMs do not always lead to future rulemaking, so it is yet unknown whether this one will lead to any new restrictions on negative option marketing practices. If the FTC does decide to move forward with rulemaking, it will follow up with a notice of proposed rulemaking that will invite further public comment. Concerned companies should consider monitoring any related rulemaking steps.
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Unfair and Deceptive Housing Fees
On March 12, 2026, the Commission announced an ANPRM on unfair and deceptive rental housing fees. The purpose of the ANPRM is to “explore[] whether a rule is needed to address hidden and misleading fees that inflate rent well beyond what is advertised and other problematic fee practices.”
The Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (Junk Fees Rule) proposed by the Biden administration FTC in November 2023 would have prohibited unfair or deceptive fees across all industries, including rental housing. At that time, the Commission indicated that addressing misleading rental housing fees was an enforcement priority, and it could have utilized the rule for related enforcement.
Ultimately, the FTC limited its final Junk Fees Rule to regulate only advertising of live-event ticketing and short-term lodging, not rental housing. Rulemaking on rental housing fees could fill a previously identified enforcement gap.
The ANPRM identifies several misleading pricing practices. And it warns that unfair and deceptive advertising of rental housing fees could violate Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, by “falsely representing the price of a rental home and thereby obtaining or attempting to obtain customer information of a financial institution.”
The ANPRM seeks public comment on the nature of deceptive rental housing fees. Like the Negative Option Rule ANPRM, it includes an extensive list of questions for commenters to address. Public comments on the ANPRM are due by April 13, 2026.
As noted, ANPRMs do not always lead to future rulemaking, so the future of any rule on unfair or deceptive rental housing fees is unclear at this time. Concerned companies may want to monitor any related rulemaking steps.
Warning Letters to Auto Dealers
On March 13, 2026, the Commission announced that it had issued warning letters to 97 auto dealers about their alleged deceptive pricing practices. Warning letters typically inform respondents that their conduct is likely unlawful; the FTC issues warning letters to persuade respondents to change their conduct, without initiating formal proceedings against them.
The FTC published a sample warning letter along with its announcement that called on auto dealers to advertise only actual prices. The sample letter indicated that it is deceptive for auto dealers to advertise prices for cars lower than what auto dealers “actually charge consumers.”
It listed examples of deceptive pricing practices, including, among others, advertising prices that:
- exclude required fees,
- reflect discounts not available to all consumers, or
- are conditioned on dealer financing or purchasing additional items.
The sample warning letter also cited a handful of 2024 lawsuits the FTC initiated against auto dealers related to deceptive pricing practices.
The FTC thus continues to pursue deceptive pricing practices in the auto industry under Section 5 of the FTC Act. In light of the warning letters, auto dealers should consider reviewing their advertising and pricing to ensure that advertised prices align with actual prices, without any add-on fees.
Final Thoughts
The Trump administration has indicated it is interested in increased enforcement related to consumer protection issues. In light of these recent developments, businesses should be aware of the potential for increased enforcement and possible rulemaking related to consumer-facing advertising.
Monitoring the administration’s consumer protection initiatives could mitigate risk and ensure continued compliance for concerned companies.
This memorandum is provided by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and its affiliates for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This memorandum is considered advertising under applicable state laws.