Stay ADvised: 2025, Issue 17
In This Issue:
- New York Now Requires Companies to Disclose Algorithmic Pricing
- Suit Claims Hisense Misleads Consumers With QLED Television Advertising
- ASA Rejects Hotel Ads Featuring Low "From" Rates as Misleading
- NAD Wipes Off Challenged Toxic Toilet Paper Claims
New York Now Requires Companies to Disclose Algorithmic Pricing
As of November 10, 2025, businesses operating in New York must disclose when they use algorithmic pricing, thanks to the Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act (the Act), codified as N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349-a, enacted as part of New York's omnibus budget bill.
The first-of-its-kind law targets "personalized algorithmic pricing," which is dynamic pricing set by an algorithm that uses personal data associated with a specific consumer or device. If an entity does business in New York and sets the price of a good or service for a particular consumer using such personalized algorithmic pricing—and advertises, displays, or offers that price to the consumer—then the entity must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure with the price. The exact required disclosure is:
"THIS PRICE WAS SET BY AN ALGORITHM USING YOUR PERSONAL DATA." The Act includes several important limitations and clarifications. The law expressly exempts certain categories of businesses, including insurance companies, many regulated financial institutions, and some subscription-based services—particularly where the price shown to the consumer is lower than the contracted subscription rate. Enforcement authority sits exclusively with the New York Attorney General, who may seek civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation for non-compliance.
The Act was enacted in May 2025 as part of New York's omnibus budget legislation and, following a legal challenge, ultimately took effect on November 10, 2025, when the state resumed enforcement. To guide compliance, the statute defines several key terms: "algorithm" refers to a computational process that uses a set of rules to determine a sequence of operations; "dynamic pricing" means pricing that varies based on changing conditions; and a "clear and conspicuous disclosure" is one that appears in the same medium, in close proximity to the price, and at the same time the price is displayed.
Importantly, the law focuses solely on transparency. It does not prohibit personalized or dynamic pricing, nor does it regulate fairness, equity, or nondiscrimination in pricing practices. Instead, its core requirement is disclosure—ensuring consumers are informed when their personal data is used to determine the price they are offered.
Key Takeaways
- Businesses using algorithmic pricing in New York should treat compliance as a front-burner issue. Start by mapping where and how automated pricing is used across products and platforms, and ensure every affected price point carries the required disclosure.
- Don't assume third-party tools have you covered. If your company's pricing engine relies on vendor software, check in with providers now to confirm how their systems use consumer data and whether they support the mandated disclosures.
- Documentation is your best defense. Maintain clear records showing how prices were generated, what data was used, and where disclosures appeared. In an enforcement investigation, a strong paper trail can be as critical as the disclosure itself.
Suit Claims Hisense Misleads Consumers With QLED Television Advertising
A California consumer has filed a putative class action alleging that television manufacturer Hisense deceptively markets certain TV models as featuring QLED (quantum dot) color technology, despite allegedly lacking the technology—or incorporating it only in insignificant amounts.
According to the complaint, Hisense advertises certain TV models as containing the QLED or quantum dot (QD) technology, touted for its superior and "vivid" color variety. Plaintiff avers that Hisense promotes these televisions as able to "dramatically increase the color space and improve color saturation" and "dramatically improve your watching and playing experience." The company also allegedly includes these misrepresentations on the product "spec" sheets, which consumers turn to for detailed product technical information. However, the TVs allegedly either do not contain this technology or contain it in such negligible amounts as not to materially contribute to the viewing quality. Hisense allegedly knows the televisions do not contain QLED technology but advertises them as such anyway because in this way it can charge a premium.
The plaintiff relies in part on the findings of independent review site Rtings.com, which reviews products based on rigorous, detailed technical tests. According to the complaint, the review site reported that it couldn't detect what QLED technology Hisense TVs use, or whether they actually contain the technology at all. Rting's findings about Hisense's lack of QLED technology even allegedly prompted it to begin warning consumers that a QLED label doesn't necessarily mean a TV actually contains the technology.
The plaintiff asserts violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law and brings additional claims for unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. The proposed class consists of California purchasers of the allegedly mislabeled Hisense QLED models.
Key Takeaways
- Even marquee consumer brands are not immune from scrutiny over core product features. This case is a reminder that a splashy label—particularly one tied to a premium technology—can invite significant legal exposure if the underlying feature isn't actually there. Consumers increasingly expect that claims about fundamental product attributes reflect real, measurable performance, and plaintiffs' lawyers are quick to challenge gaps between marketing and reality.
- Third-party review sites are becoming powerful arbiters of truth in advertising. Rtings.com's technical testing plays a prominent role in this complaint, illustrating how independent reviewers can surface discrepancies that would otherwise remain invisible to consumers. Their findings can not only shape consumer perception but also supply the factual backbone for false advertising suits. Advertisers should assume that any technical claim may be dissected—and publicly benchmarked—by sophisticated reviewers.
- Claims about technical features must be backed by substantiation that holds up outside the lab. The suit highlights the risk of touting complex technology without robust, real-world support. If independent evaluators can't detect the advertised feature—or find it too trivial to matter—advertisers may face allegations that the claimed benefits are illusory. In markets where shoppers compare technical specs closely, precision and verifiability matter.
ASA Rejects Hotel Ads Featuring Low "From" Rates as Misleading
Hotel room providers often advertise rates "from" a low nightly price. But how available must these rates be to avoid misleading consumers, and what does it take to substantiate them? That was the focus of four recent rulings by the U.K.'s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), which largely found such claims deceptive in ads from Booking.com, Hilton, and Travelodge.
The rulings are part of the regulator's broader review of advertised hotel pricing, what it calls its "wider piece of work on the availability of advertised hotel prices." They examined advertising of low "from" savings claims for hotel rates. For instance, the hotel chain Accor advertised "ibis budget Birmingham Centre from £27." Booking advertised "easyHotel Sheffield City Centre From £28," and Hilton advertised "Hampton by Hilton Newcastle From £59."
Under the ASA's CAP Code, price claims such as "from" or "up to" must not exaggerate availability. Crucially, the product advertised at the "from" price should be evenly available across the advertised travel period, and marketers should clearly specify the dates to which the offer applies. In this string of cases, the ASA found all but one of the ads misleading. While the advertisers provided varying levels of evidence to substantiate their claims, the ASA found that, by and large, the advertisers failed to substantiate the claims. Only one ad by Accor made the cut into non-misleading, substantiated territory and was upheld based on evidence that the rate was available on multiple dates within the relevant period.
In some cases, such as in the Hilton and Booking rulings, the advertisers provided scant evidence in the form of historical Google data which showed room rate availability. The ASA found that this information was insufficient to assess how widely the advertised rate was actually available.
Even when more thorough evidence was provided, as in the case of Accor, the ASA found that the advertised rate was not available across a wide enough range of dates to reflect the typical consumer experience. A crucial factor in these rulings centered on the advertisers' methodology for obtaining pricing information, relying on Google Travel Feed. The ASA clarified that regardless of how the ad selects the price, the advertiser must ensure compliance with the CAP code.
Key Takeaways
- The ASA is sending a clear message: "from" prices must reflect reality, not wishful thinking. If only a sliver of consumers can actually book the headline rate, the claim is likely to land you in hot water. Advertisers need real, date-level availability—not a single outlier night—to justify a low teaser price.
- Data feeds and algorithms don't get marketers off the hook. Several advertisers pointed to Google Travel Feed as the source of their pricing inputs, but the ASA made it plain: however the price is generated or selected, the advertiser remains responsible for ensuring it complies with the CAP Code. Technology can support substantiation, but it can't replace it.
- Meaningful substantiation matters—and "scant" evidence won't cut it. The rulings underscore that historical or aggregated pricing data often isn't enough. Regulators want clear, robust, date-specific proof that consumers can actually obtain the touted rate over a meaningful portion of the booking window.
- Even outside the U.K., these decisions should catch advertisers' attention. ASA rulings frequently influence how other self-regulatory bodies—especially the NAD—think about pricing practices. Marketers using "from" prices in the U.S. should expect increasing scrutiny on availability, transparency, and the evidence behind what appears to be a simple claim.
NAD Wipes Off Challenged Toxic Toilet Paper Claims
Toilet paper brand Plant Paper made claims about toxic chemicals and the environmental impact of traditional toilet paper but it did not get very far at the National Advertising Division (NAD), which took on the challenge by the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and found the claims largely unsubstantiated.
AF&PA challenged Plant Paper's claims that it said disparage conventional toilet tissue products by harping on the "toxic chemicals" in competing "conventional tree paper" products, claiming they contain bleach, formaldehyde and PFAS and can cause UTIs, hemorrhoids, vaginitis and other medical conditions. NAD found that these claims conveyed the disparaging message that conventional tree paper products (as opposed to those like Plant Paper's, which are made from bamboo) contain "toxic" and "nasty" chemicals, and therefore constituted health-related claims requiring a high level of substantiation.
Plant Paper submitted peer-reviewed studies noting formaldehyde is used in paper products and peer-reviewed studies linking vulvar irritation and dermatitis to conventional paper. NAD found that while the studies supported claims about irritation risks from formaldehyde and that PFAS can be toxic, they did not support a claim that the amount of formaldehyde in conventional toilet paper causes these maladies. Likewise, while Plant Paper provided evidence that "some" conventional toilet paper brands may contain PFAS, this evidence did not support the broader claim that "most" or "all" these products contain PFAS. NAD recommended Plant Paper discontinue these claims.
AF&PA also challenged environmental superiority claims, including statements that Plant Paper's manufacturing process uses no "toxic" chemicals while conventional processes do, and that Plant Paper's products are better for human health and the environment. NAD found these messages reinforced by visuals depicting toxic chemicals and barren forests. Although Plant Paper presented evidence that bamboo has environmental advantages, NAD held that even compelling evidence of bamboo's lower carbon footprint does not substantiate unqualified claims that conventional production is environmentally destructive.