Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA)

Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) is the federal statute that makes it unlawful to charge or attempt to charge a consumer for goods or services sold in an Internet transaction through a negative option feature unless the person charging provides text that clearly and conspicuously discloses all material terms before obtaining the consumer’s billing information, obtains the consumer’s express informed consent before charging, and provides simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges.1 Source: 15 U.S.C. § 8403 The statute takes “negative option feature” from the Telemarketing Sales Rule: a provision under which the customer’s silence or failure to take an affirmative action to reject goods or services or to cancel the agreement is interpreted by the seller as acceptance of the offer.2 Source: FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC, Nos. 18-2847 & 18-3310 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019)

Congress found that, in exchange for “bounties” and other payments, hundreds of reputable online retailers and websites shared their customers’ billing information, including credit card and debit card numbers, with third party sellers through a process known as “data pass.”13 Source: 15 U.S.C. § 8401 Congress also found that third party sellers used a free trial period to enroll members and then charged them periodically until they canceled, a practice that took advantage of consumers’ expectations that they would have an opportunity to accept or reject the offer at the end of the trial period.14 Source: 15 U.S.C. § 8401 It concluded that aggressive online sales tactics had undermined consumer confidence in the Internet and harmed the American economy.15 Source: 15 U.S.C. § 8401 It also concluded that the Internet must provide consumers with clear, accurate information.16 Source: 15 U.S.C. § 8401

The three core duties track the points at which those tactics worked. Congress found that when billing information moved through “data pass,” millions of consumers were unaware they had been enrolled in membership clubs.17 Source: 15 U.S.C. § 8401 ROSCA therefore puts the disclosure ahead of the billing information, so the terms come before the seller holds the account, requires express informed consent before the charge, and requires a way to end the charge.18 Source: 15 U.S.C. § 8403

Violating ROSCA is treated as a violation of a rule under section 18 of the FTC Act regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices.39 Source: 15 U.S.C. § 8404 A violator is also subject to the penalties the FTC Act provides.40 Source: 15 U.S.C. § 8404 That treatment opened consumer redress: the Seventh Circuit explained that ROSCA authorizes the Commission to go directly to court to seek relief under section 19.41 Source: FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC, No. 21-2945 (7th Cir. Aug. 30, 2023)

Civil penalties depend on what the defendant knew. The United States’ amended complaint against Cerebral asserted that a court can impose a civil penalty “of not more than [$51,744] for each violation” of ROSCA where a defendant acted with actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied.42 Source: United States v. Cerebral, First Amended Complaint for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Relief, Civil Penalties, and Other Relief A defendant met that standard, the Amazon court noted, when a reasonable person under the circumstances would have known of the provision and that the charged action violated it.43 Source: Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Certify an Interlocutory Appeal (FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc.)

Settled matters showed the range of exposure. The proposed Instacart order carried a $60,000,000 monetary judgment.44 Source: FTC v. Maplebear Inc., d/b/a Instacart, No. 3:25-cv-10783 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025) The Credit Bureau Center judgment ran to $5,260,671.36, jointly and severally.45 Source: FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC, Judgment in a Civil Case The FTC’s case page for the Amazon matter listed a press release headed “FTC Secures Historic $2.5 Billion Settlement Against Amazon.”46 Source: FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (ROSCA), FTC case page One stipulated order in the AuraVie skincare case provided that an individual defendant was permanently restrained and enjoined from advertising, marketing, promoting, or offering for sale any good or service with a Negative Option Feature.47 Source: FTC v. Bunzai Media Group, Inc., Stipulated Order as to Stipulating Defendant Motti Nottea

Individuals can be reached as well. Individuals are personally liable for corporate violations of the FTC Act if they participated directly in, or had the authority to control, the unlawful acts or practices at issue.48 Source: FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Order Denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, No. 2:23-cv-00932-JHC The Seventh Circuit held that an owner who controlled the websites and was aware of their content was personally liable for the ROSCA violations.49 Source: FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC, Nos. 18-2847 & 18-3310 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2019)