In a statement sent to The Drum by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, she voices concern that nobody will “protect consumers and protect competition.” Marketers weigh in on a future that could involve “inconsistent enforcement” and “uncertainty for many advertisers” and an increase in state-level advertising legislation.
The FTC's independence could be brought into question
The US president, Donald Trump, has fired Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, who were, until Wednesday, Federal Trade Commissioners. This could set the tone for changes in the way marketing is legislated in the US.
The FTC is an independent US government agency tasked with protecting consumers and ensuring market competition by enforcing antitrust laws and consumer protection while also protecting the public from what it calls “deceptive or unfair business practices.”
Advertisement
In her statement, Slaughter says: “The law protects the independence of the Commission because the law serves the American people, not corporate power. The reason that the FTC can be so effective for the American people is because of its independence and because its commissioners serve across political parties and ideologies.”
Removing opposition voices may not change what Trump’s government can do or not do, she argues, but it does mean that nobody can hold the government to account. The grounds on which Slaughter claims the sacking is illegal is that the leaders of federal agencies are protected by a 1935 Supreme Court ruling.
“The administration clearly fears the accountability that opposition voices would provide if the President orders [FTC] chairman Ferguson to treat the most powerful corporations and their executives – like those that flanked the President at his inauguration – with kid gloves,” says Slaughter.
Slaughter and Bedoya are both Democrats but work for the state. Commenting on her position of impartiality, she says: “Throughout my entire time as a commissioner I applied the same criteria in my work: that the law must be enforced without fear or favor.
“I have dedicated myself to executing the Commission’s statutory mandate to protect consumers and promote competition, fighting against illegal business practices that make groceries more expensive, healthcare inaccessible and compromise people’s privacy and security.”
In no uncertain terms, she says: “Today the President illegally fired me from my position as a Federal Trade Commissioner, violating the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent.” The simple reason for this, she adds, is: “Because I have a voice. And he is afraid of what I’ll tell the American people.” Bedoya has taken the same position writing on X.
The move could spell uncertainty for businesses and brands operating in the US and even change the legislative landscape marketing and creative industries are operating in, particularly in the event of the erasure of punitive legal measures designed to protect the public. The FTC has a long history of setting out safeguarding legislation.
Marketing consultant Lou Paskalis recognizes that the FTC has always functioned as a “stabilizing influence on the advertising industry, even if advertisers have, from time to time, been less than enthusiastic about its role.”
Not having a bipartisan structure will, he argues, “likely diminish the FTC’s credibility in courts, leading to inconsistent enforcement and potentially paralyzing uncertainty for many advertisers navigating legal standards.”
Paskalis also predicts a likely shift away from the oversight of deceptive advertising practices and “less appetite for combating ‘surveillance capitalism‘ [collecting data from citizens].” He also anticipates less enthusiasm for antitrust enforcement.
Ultimately, he feels that if this is how things played out, a weakened regulatory climate would “create temptation for marketers to test the boundaries on these issues more aggressively, to the detriment of consumers.”
For Paskalis, in the longer term, if the FTC is unwilling to regulate, states may have to step in.
He says: “This would create massive headwind for advertisers who would have the additional burden of tailoring their activities at a state-by-state level, which would be inefficient and could potentially throttle national advertisers from being able to mount national advertising campaigns.”
BranchLab CEO Josh Walsh also foresees state governments stepping in if a regulation vacuum appears at a federal level, which would “make state regulations even more critical for brands and marketers to follow and understand.”
He says: “This is especially relevant for pharmaceutical advertising, as states like New York implement legislation such as S929, imposing strict limitations on the use of personal and sensitive data. Similarly, Washington state’s My Health My Data law has already prompted a class-action lawsuit, underscoring the significance of staying informed about state-level developments.”
Advertisement
FTC influence has continued to shape the US regulatory framework in recent years.
In October 2024, the FTC rolled out new legislation targeting deceptive advertising, in particular around fake endorsements and undisclosed influencer partnerships, with those who encourage fake reviews facing hefty fines. The changes were part of a move to make advertising more transparent.
Back in December 2023, the FTC proposed legislative measures to prevent businesses profiting from children’s data. One such measure was the requirement of parents or guardians to give explicit consent for websites to disclose children’s data to third parties, including third-party advertisers. Another was certain online services needing to switch off advertising targeting children.
Advertisement