NY’s New False Advertising Amendment Puts Businesses at Risk

On January 20, 2026, NYS plugged a real problem with false advertising throughout the State by amending General Business Law § 350-a, by A4575, to add new subsection (2), which now provides:

Any written or electronic communication which simulates a document authorized, issued or approved by any court, official, agency of this state or a political subdivision thereof, or of another state or official governmental entity, foreign or domestic, or which creates a false impression as to such document's source, authorization or approval, shall be considered false advertising unless the person, firm, corporation or association, or agent or employee thereof, has received express permission from such court, official, or agency for the use of such document. This subdivision shall be construed to prohibit any false representation or implication, written or verbal, that a person, firm, corporation or association, or agent or employee thereof, selling a commodity or service is vouched for, approved of, bonded by, operating with or on behalf of, or otherwise affiliated with this state or a political subdivision thereof, or of another state or official governmental entity, foreign or domestic, unless such person, firm, corporation or association, or agent or employee thereof, has received express permission from such state or political subdivision for such affiliation.

Businesses are now on notice to stop stating or implying that they have anything to do with being approved by government, unless they receive permission to do so. If you've ever gotten something about obtaining your deed for your house to avoid deed theft, you know exactly what this is all about. So often citizens are manipulated by companies who appear official when they are not. Under the statute, any person injured by such false advertising may bring an action to enjoin the unlawful act or practice and recover damages. Specifically, the statute (GBL § 350-d) provides for recovery of actual damages or $5,000, whichever is greater. Additionally, courts have discretion to increase the award of damages to an amount not exceeding three times the actual damages, up to $15,000, if the defendant is found to have willfully or knowingly violated the statute. Reasonable attorney's fees may also be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff. To make matters worse for businesses who falsely advertise, class actions for actual damages under GBL § 350-a are permissible, provided the plaintiffs waive claims for minimum or punitive damages. 

Businesses better audit their advertising today.  Facing a false-advertising class action? Get a defense team that actually knows GBL § 350-a. Contact Lieb at Law.

*attorney advertising

Can a CEO Fire You for Cheating? The Legal Issues Behind the Natalie Dawson Story

Is Cardone Ventures Discriminating by This Post and These Actions?

American CEO Natalie Dawson, president of Cardone Ventures, has sparked debate after revealing she fired two employees for cheating on their partners. Speaking on The Diary of a CEO podcast, Dawson explained that she immediately terminated the employees upon learning about the infidelity, believing that personal dishonesty reflects professional unreliability.

For her, integrity in personal and professional life is intertwined, and she considers cheating employees a liability to the company culture and environment. While some support her commitment to ethics, others criticize her for blurring private and work boundaries.

#NatalieDawson #CEO #Integrity #WorkplaceEthics #Leadership #Infidelity #USNews #CorporateCulture #Accountability #BreakingNews #fblifestyle 

It really depends on the facts, but if you were terminated, you should take a deep look into this one.

Specifically, how did the CEO learn about the infidelity? Was it from an out-of-wedlock pregnancy? If yes, that can constitute sexual harassment under Title VII because only a woman can get pregnant.

Here is another angle: Is this CEO acting on religious grounds and trying to impose her beliefs on her staff? If so, that may constitute religious discrimination. A federal court explained earlier this year:

“The plaintiff must assert that an adverse employment action was taken because of a discriminatory motive based upon the employee’s failure to hold or follow her employer’s religious beliefs.”

— Owens v. City of New York Dep't of Educ., No. 21-2875, 2022 WL 17844279, at *2 (2d Cir. Dec. 22, 2022))." Maas v JTM Provisions Co., Inc., 1:23-CV-00076-JPH, 2025 WL 823671, at *4 [SD Ohio Mar. 13, 2025]

Think your firing crossed a legal line?

Lieb at Law handles discrimination and wrongful termination cases across NY, NJ, and CT.
Talk to an attorney today.

Contact Us

*attorney advertising

Federal Court Finds Religious Discrimination in Old Westbury Zoning Code

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (EDNY), in Lubavitch of Old Westbury, Inc. and Rabbi Aaron Konikov v. Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, New York delivered a strong reminder to municipalities: zoning codes cannot discriminate against religious institutions. 

The long running dispute centered on the "adoption of a land use statute aimed at places of worship". In striking down the law, EDNY emphasized that "[o]fficial action 'burdening religious conduct that is not both neutral and generally applicable, however, is subject to strict scrutiny,'" which is violated where "they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise." Here, the Court found exactly that - a violation. 

Seventeen years of litigation later, the question remains: why wasn’t the Chabad simply allowed to build its house of worship? From a reading of this case, it’s hard to see why the Village of Old Westbury has fought so long rather than just letting them build it.

If your religious organization is facing discriminatory land use restrictions, attorneys at Lieb at Law, P.C. can help evaluate your case. 

*attorney advertising. 

NYC School Bias Case Dismissed — The Court Demands Specific Proof of Causation

NYS' highest Court, the Court of Appeals, ruled in IntegrateNYC, Inc. v. State of New York that claims that NYC Public Schools discriminate by their "admissions and screening policies, curriculum content, and lack of diversity among the teacher workforce... fail as a matter of law." However, the real takeaway was that even, under a "liberal standard applied on a motion to dismiss" where facts are presumed true, a Plaintiff cannot make conclusions of causation without allegations of fact in a discrimination lawsuit. Simply, Plaintiffs need to get granular to win and if defending, a defendant would be well served to point out that it's all conclusory when dismissal is sought. 

This case was brought under the Education Article and the Equal Protection of Law of the NYS Constitution and the NYS Human Rights Law [Executive Law 296(4)]. For each claim, the Court reminds us of the requirements as follows:

• "A claim brought under the Education Article... [requires] 'first, that the State fails to provide [plaintiffs] a sound basic education in that it provides deficient inputs—teaching, facilities and instrumentalities of learning—which lead to deficient outputs such as test results and graduation rates'...[s]econd, plaintiffs must sufficiently allege causation—that the deficient outputs are “causally connected” to the claimed input deficiencies... [where] the deficiencies complained of must represent a 'district-wide failure'... [and it] requires allegations of a “gross and glaring inadequacy” in the quality of education being provided."
• "To state an Equal Protection claim based on disproportionate impact of a facially neutral action or policy, a plaintiff must show '[p]roof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose'."
• Under the NYSHRL, it is "an unlawful discriminatory practice for an educational institution to deny the use of its facilities to any person otherwise qualified, or to permit the harassment of any student or applicant, by reason of his race . . ."

In making its decision, the Court pointed out that it is undecided whether "disparate educational outcomes alone could in some circumstances sustain such a claim." But, more importantly, the Court made a stark observation that should be noted by all Plaintiffs and Defendants in discrimination cases - a complaint fails where it does not include specifics. A complaint will be dismissed where it relies on "plaintiffs' conclusory allegations, such as here, where Plaintiff just plead 'but for the discriminatory admissions testing,' Black and Latino students 'would not have been excluded'." The Court needed more and without it, the case was dismissed. 

Think you have a discrimination case? Use our Discrimination Case Checker to see if your claim meets the legal standards set by New York’s highest court.

*Attorney Advertising

Employee Resource Groups are Discriminatory per DOJ - Here Comes Reverse Discrimination Claims

The US Justice Department Released its Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination. Yet, the real takeaway is not about funding at all. Instead, the key is that Employee Resource Groups are discriminatory. Specifically, the Guidance reads that an initiative that "designates a 'safe space' or lounge exclusively for... a specific racial or ethnic group" is an example of unlawful practices. In that vein, DOJ recommends that "[a]ll worplace programs, activities, and resources should be open to all qualified individuals, regardless of race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Avoid organizing groups or sessions that exclude participants based on protected traits. Some sex separation is necessary where biological differences implicate privacy, safety, or athletic opportunity." If you were excluded from such a program, activity, or resource based on your sex or race, or any other protected characteristic, you may now have a claim for discrimination according to DOJ. 

If you were excluded from a workplace group or denied access to an employee program based on your sex, race, or another protected characteristic, contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to discuss your potential discrimination claim. Our attorneys handle complex workplace discrimination cases across New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

*attorney advertising. 

NYS' Highest Court Addresses a Good Guy Guaranty Conditioned on Tenant's Surrender

Does a surrender require acceptance for it be effective in landlord / tenant law? Well, that really depends on the lease as we recently learned from NYS' highest court, the Court of Appeals. Before the Court was a good guy guaranty being litigated. "[A] 'good guy' guaranty is a limited guaranty in which the guarantor’s obligation extends only up to the point that the tenant surrenders the premises to the landlord, leaving the tenant solely responsible for rent due from that point forward" according to the Court in 1995 CAM LLC v. West Side Advisors, LLC, et al. This is a huge reminder because in commercial real estate litigation, tenants are often dumbfounded to learn that the good guy guaranty does not excuse the tenant from liability, just the guarantor. Regardless, the case before the highest court was far more nuanced and involved another real issue that frequently arises in commercial real estate litigation - the interplay of a tenant vacating a tenancy and a landlord accepting a surrender. Stated otherwise, the Court needed to determine whether the guarantor's "liability ends with [tenant's] surrender of possession, or with [landlord's] acceptance of surrender." In deciding this issue, and while being mindful that the contractual language at issue could change the result, the Court found that the landlord's acceptance of surrender was irrelevant to the issue because acceptance would result in the landlord never accepting and the lease running its course and therefore, the good guy language of the lease would be superfluous. Therefore, the Court reminded us that "[i]mportantly, an interpretation that renders language in the guaranty superfluous is “a view unsupportable under standard principles of contract interpretation” (Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection of State of N.Y. v Bank Leumi Tr. Co. of New York, 94 NY2d 398, 404 [2000]).

Litigation over a lease or guaranty?
Lieb at Law’s litigation team represents landlords in high-stakes real estate disputes across New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Contact us to build your case.

*attorney advertising