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

Match.com’s $14M Settlement: Why Connecticut Beats New York for Class Actions for Unfair Trade Practices

Match.com and its sister dating sites, like Hinge and Tinder, just agreed to pay $14 million after the FTC settled with them for using scammer accounts to lure people into paid subscriptions, hiding restrictive promo terms, and making cancellation so tricky you’d think you were breaking out of prison.

Even though Match.com settled with the FTC, that doesn't mean that consumers can't sue next in a class action lawsuit where consumers can recover even more money. If you’re thinking of bringing this class action, as the class representative, where you bring the lawsuit really matters in what results you can expect.

Connecticut vs. New York

In CT, the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA") lets consumers recover punitive damages with no cap. Plus, if you couple the lawsuit with another cause of action, like identity theft under CGS 52-571h, which provides for treble damages (triple your actual damages), the sky would be the limit as we recently saw when the CT Supreme Court ruled that a Plaintiff could recover both together (treble + punitive) in White v. FCW Law Offices. That means if the bad behavior is really bad, the award can climb into serious money. Plus, CUTPA provides for attorneys’ fees if you win.

While NY has a similar law, General Business Law § 349, that also allows treble damages, it caps them at just $1,000. Moreover, the statute does not provide for punitive damages where a separate cause of action that provides for punitive damages would be necessary to obtain them in NY and even then, NY courts keep them relatively low as compared to CT. In other words, in New York, even a slam-dunk case can hit a low ceiling.

When a company tricks consumers, with items like fake account messages, buried terms, and/or intentionally hard cancellations, which in turn hurts thousands of people, a class action in CT (in Fed Court based on the diversity that would likely exist) could mean a much bigger payout for consumers than the same case in NY.

Even more important is picking a firm that knows various state laws and can guide you to the right forum that gives you the best opportunity and knows how to work the law to your advantage. 

So next time you hear about a big consumer case or deceptive business practice, remember the where and the who matter just as much as the what. The right state can mean the difference between a small payout and a meaningful recovery, and the right law firm will know exactly where and how to file to get you the best result.

If you believe you’ve been misled by a company’s deceptive practices, don’t leave money on the table. Contact Lieb at Law today to evaluate your potential class action claim. 

*attorney advertising