This week the Supreme Court allowed the President to fire Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without cause. On the consumer protection side, the FTC proposed a policy statement addressing AI accuracy and approved consent orders for deceptive earnings claims and reviews and for hidden fees. On the competition side, the FTC and Department of Justice (DOJ) issued their Fiscal Year 2025 Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Annual Report. More on these stories after the jump.
Monday, June 29, 2026
Commissioners; Supreme Court
- The U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Slaughter ruled that the president has authority to fire members of independent agencies, ruling in favor of President Donald Trump against former FTC Commissioners. In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturned its 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had established for-cause removal protections for FTC commissioners and served as the foundation for dozens of other independent agencies whose leaders could not be removed by the president except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, declared that the 90-year-old precedent “has not withstood the test of time” and cannot be squared with the founding generations’ views of presidential power. The Court held that the FTC Act’s protection of commissioners from removal other than for cause was “contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution,” following its holding in Myers v. United States that those who fall within the president’s “general administrative control” must be removable at will. The decision affirms President Trump’s March 2025 firing of Democratic Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya without cause, both of whom had challenged the firings as illegal. Notably, the majority declined to “define the bounds” of its ruling, leaving open questions about statutory protections for officials at other agencies, including the NLRB, SEC, FERC, and Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, the Court distinguished the Federal Reserve Board, simultaneously blocking Trump’s firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook in the companion case Trump v. Cook and refusing to “transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment.” In dissent, Justice Sotomayor—joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson—argued that the majority’s opinion “undoes centuries of political practice,” disregards stare decisis, and “welcomes untold chaos.”
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Technology; Privacy and Security; Artificial Intelligence (AI)
- The FTC released a proposed policy statement targeting concerns about AI companies manipulating the outputs of their systems in ways that contradict consumer expectations of objectivity and accuracy. The proposed statement explains that AI companies distorting their systems’ outputs to achieve undisclosed ideological objectives could constitute deceptive conduct in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, as such conduct may be inconsistent with explicit and implicit representations made to consumers about the effectiveness and suitability of AI systems. The statement also takes aim at state-level AI regulations—specifically citing Colorado’s Artificial Intelligence Act—characterizing such laws as potentially coercing companies into altering AI outputs to advance state ideological objectives, and stating that such laws may be impliedly preempted to the extent they conflict with a federal regulatory scheme. The proposed statement follows a December executive order in which President Trump directed the FTC to address the legal implications of state laws that require alteration of the “truthful outputs of AI models.” The proposed policy statement will be published in the Federal Register, and public comments are due by July 31, 2026. The Commission vote authorizing the Federal Register notice was 2-0.
Thursday, July 2, 2026
Bureau of Competition; Merger; Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR)
- The FTC and the DOJ Antitrust Division released their 48th Annual Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Report. The report summarizes the agencies’ merger enforcement efforts and provides fiscal year 2025 data on the Premerger Notification Program, which alerts the agencies to transactions that may substantially lessen competition in violation of federal law. In fiscal year 2025, companies notified the agencies of 2,006 transactions under the HSR Act, of which approximately 31.8% were valued at more than $1 billion. Together, the FTC and DOJ took 18 merger enforcement actions across a variety of markets—including healthcare, technology, energy, defense, consumer goods and services, labor, and manufacturing—with the FTC bringing eight of those actions, including three litigated challenges, three consent orders issued for public comment, and two transactions that the parties abandoned before litigation as a result of antitrust concerns raised during the investigation. The Commission vote to issue the report was 2-0.
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Advertising and Marketing; Endorsements, Influencers, and Reviews; Western Region San Francisco
- The FTC announced a finalized settlement order against Publishing.com LLC and its two principals, CEO Christian Mikkelsen and Chief Product Officer Rasmus Mikkelsen, resolving allegations that the company misled consumers by claiming its programs and services would help them earn substantial income publishing e-books and audiobooks online, and that its founders personally obtained significant wealth through the same system. The FTC alleged that most consumers who purchased Publishing.com’s products never earned the income promised, and that those who sought refunds faced burdensome conditions that were often buried in fine print or lengthy terms of service, making it difficult or impossible to recover their money. The complaint further alleged that the company failed to disclose when reviews were written by employees, relatives, or other interested parties, and that it offered incentives for positive testimonials. Under the final order, Publishing.com and its principals will pay $1.5 million and are required to substantiate any earnings claims going forward. The order also prohibits the company and its principals from making unsupported or misleading earnings claims, misrepresenting refund and cancellation policies, and misrepresenting endorsements and reviews, while requiring disclosure of any material connections with endorsers or reviewers and any incentives offered for reviews. The Commission voted 2-0 to finalize the order.
Bureau of Consumer Protection; Travel; Advertising and Marketing
- The FTC announced that the companies operating the Hopper travel apps have agreed to pay $35 million and are prohibited from deceiving consumers about fees to settle allegations that they unfairly charged consumers hidden fees and misrepresented total prices and the benefits of their VIP Support and Price Freeze services. Despite Hopper’s “no hidden fees” promises, the FTC’s complaint alleges that Canadian company Hopper Inc. and its Massachusetts-based subsidiary unfairly charged users without their consent for “Tip” and VIP Support fees that were hidden and pre-selected, though the company claimed they were optional. Until mid-2023, consumers saw a “total price” screen that failed to adequately disclose these add-on charges, which were pre-selected and buried on a screen only visible if the consumer scrolled down—and consumers routinely complained that they had not consented to the extra fees, which generated millions of dollars in additional revenue for the company. The FTC also alleged that Hopper misrepresented the benefits of its VIP Support service—which promised “instant” customer service access but often left consumers unable to reach an agent at all—and its Price Freeze service, which failed to clearly disclose key restrictions and did not apply the Price Freeze fee toward the cost of booking as promised. The complaint alleges that Hopper’s conduct violated the FTC Act and, for short-term lodging bookings since May 12, 2025, the FTC’s Unfair and Deceptive Fees Rule. Under the proposed order, in addition to the $35 million payment for consumer redress, Hopper is prohibited from misrepresenting any fees and must clearly and conspicuously disclose all fees, charges, and the total price of any goods or services. The Commission voted 2-0 to file the complaint and stipulated proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.