Consumer Protection - State UDAAP's

Guiding Questions

• How do state-level UDAAP laws complement federal enforcement in addressing AI-related consumer protection issues? What are the benefits and drawbacks of this dual enforcement approach?
• What constitutes "AI washing" in marketing claims, and how can existing UDAAP frameworks address these deceptive practices?
• Looking at recent enforcement actions (like the Pieces Technologies Settlement and Google case), what patterns emerge in how states are applying consumer protection laws to AI technologies?

Guest

Jared Rinehimer 

Required

Facts

• Bernard Marr, Spotting AI Washing: How Companies Overhype Artificial Intelligence (Apr. 2024).
• FTC, FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes (Sept. 2024).

Law

• [executive summary] Carolyn Carter, Consumer Protection in the States, National Consumer Law Center (Mar. 2018).
• Delaware UDAP
• [Parts I and II] Samuel Evan Milner, From Rancid to Reasonable: Unfair Methods of Competition under State Little FTC Acts, 73 AM. U. L. REV. 857 (February 2024). 
• [skim] Bryan M. Mull & Christopher R. Rahl, Newest 2022 Survey of CFPB UDAAP Actions Released, Gordon Feinblatt (Mar. 8, 2023).
• [skim] Justin J. Hakala, Follow-On State Actions Based on the FTC's Enforcement of Section 5, FTC (last accessed Dec. 15, 2024).

Application

• Pieces Technologies Settlement (TX, 2024) [paragraphs 12-21]
• MA Attorney General Advisory on the Application of the Commonwealth’s Consumer Protection, Civil Rights, and Data Privacy Laws to Artificial Intelligence (2024).
• Google Deceptive Practices Complaint (AZ, 2020) [paragraphs 1-14, 156-161]

Optional

Stephen P. Mulligan et al., Data Protection Law: An Overview, Congressional Research Service (Mar. 25, 2019).