On Jan. 5, 2026, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed Executive Order (EO) No. 10, directing the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) to enforce existing consumer protection laws against negative option offers. On March 25, 2026, the DCWP issued a Notice of Public Hearing and Opportunity to Comment on proposed “Rules Relating to Cancellation of Subscriptions” to “ensure that consumers can easily cancel subscriptions and are not subject to deceptive and unconscionable trade practices relating to the cancellation of subscriptions.”

EO 10 Highlights

Calling out negative option offers as “subscription tricks and traps,” EO 10 notes that businesses “deceptively enroll people into subscriptions and unfairly keep them stuck there, including through making it difficult to cancel” and states that “nobody should be stuck paying for a subscription they do not want[.]”

Specifically, the EO directs the DCWP to:

  • Increase enforcement. The EO directs the DCWP to “crack[] down on illegal subscription tactics” by prioritizing monitoring, investigating, and taking enforcement action against business’ subscription-related practices that deceive or mislead consumers. Such practices include enrolling people into subscriptions, misrepresenting or failing to disclose pricing or renewal terms, and unfairly keeping them subscribed by making them difficult to cancel.
  • Promulgate Rules. The EO directs the DCWP to promulgate rules to combat subscription tricks and traps or issue recommendations to the New York City Council about additional protections, resources, and authorities to fully protect New Yorkers from “underhanded tactics.”
  • Coordinate Interdepartmentally. The EO directs the DCWP to coordinate with the city’s Law Department and the New York State Attorney General to combat subscription tricks and traps.

DCWP Proposed Rule Key Highlights

Expanding on existing New York law (e.g., NY Gen. Bus. Law § 527), the DCWP’s proposed rule would provide that failing to give consumers an easy way to cancel a subscription is an unconscionable trade practice under NYC Administrative Code’s prohibition of deceptive or unconscionable trade practices in the sale of consumer goods or services, “because it forces customers to purchase services they no longer want, requiring consumers to jeopardize more money than was immediately at issue in the transaction.”

The proposed rule would apply to a subscription for any type of goods or services that meets the definitions of automatic renewals (plans in which a paid subscription or purchasing agreement is automatically renewed at the end of a definite term for a subsequent term) or continuous service offers (plans in which a subscription or purchasing agreement continues until the consumer cancels the service).

If finalized as proposed, the proposed rule would require that businesses:

  • Provide Clear, Conspicuous Pre‑Purchase Disclosures: The proposed rule would require that businesses disclose — prominently and in close proximity to consent requests — the description of the subscription, total cost and billing frequency, cancellation deadlines, cancellation methods, and the terms of any free trials, gifts, or temporary pricing (including when and how prices change) before requesting consumers’ consent or billing information.
  • Offer Simple Cancellation Mechanisms: The proposed rule would require that businesses allow consumers to cancel subscription plans at any time using a simple mechanism through the same medium they used to enroll (e.g., online sign‑up would require an online cancellation option) and through all methods in which the business allows consumers to provide consent to the subscription plan or renewal. Where the consumer enrolled in person, businesses must still offer online cancellation options “where practical.”
  • Prohibit Cancellation Obstructions: The proposed rule would prohibit businesses from obstructing or unreasonably delaying cancellation, expressly prohibiting businesses from hanging up on consumers who call to cancel, obscuring cancellation pathways, misrepresenting cancellation consequences or delays, or offering retention discounts or benefits while simultaneously obstructing or delaying cancellation.
  • Issue Renewal and Change Notices: The proposed rule would require that businesses issue advance notice: (a) 15 to 45 days before cancellation deadline for renewals for subscriptions with an initial paid term of one year or more; (b) 3 to 21 days before the first billing deadline for free trials longer than one month; and (c) 5 to 30 days before any material changes, including price increases. The proposed rule would also require businesses to deliver notices via the consumer’s selected channel (email, text, app notification, etc.) and include cancellation instructions.

Companies found violating the rule as proposed would face an initial $525 fine per violation and up to $3,500 for repeat offenses. They would also be liable for restitution of the amounts charged after a consumer’s first cancellation attempt.

Certain businesses — such as entities regulated by the Department of Financial Services, banks and other licensed financial institutions, and certain sellers of insurance — would be exempt from the proposed rule.

Takeaways for Businesses

New York City’s proposed rule closely mirrors the Federal Trade Commission’s vacated Negative Option  Rule, California’s Automatic Renewal Law, and similar laws and regulations in about half the states nationwide. Companies using negative option features — automatic renewals, continuity programs, trial‑to‑paid conversions, or bundled offers — should consider proactively evaluating their disclosures, consent mechanisms, renewal-notification practices, and cancellation pathways to comply with the nationwide patchwork of requirements. 

DCWP will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule on May 8, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. ET; any person or party interested in submitting comments should do so by that date.

We have provided ongoing analysis and commentary regarding developments concerning all-in-pricing requirements in advertising and auto-renewal subscriptions, including the prior client alerts and blog posts listed below:

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Timothy A. Butler Timothy A. Butler

Tim Butler helps companies thrive by developing tailored strategies to address their regulatory compliance challenges and vigorously defending them in government enforcement actions and bet-the-company lawsuits.

A former prosecuting attorney for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and former senior official in the Georgia…

Tim Butler helps companies thrive by developing tailored strategies to address their regulatory compliance challenges and vigorously defending them in government enforcement actions and bet-the-company lawsuits.

A former prosecuting attorney for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and former senior official in the Georgia Attorney General’s Office, Tim has led the defense of dozens of government investigations and enforcement actions brought by the FTC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the various state attorneys general. Tim also regularly defends clients in bet-the-company lawsuits, including complex business disputes and consumer class actions alleging privacy, false advertising, and unfair or deceptive business practice claims.

Tim is an experienced guide for companies struggling with regulatory complexity. He offers clear advice that helps his clients meet the demands of the ever-growing set of laws and regulations governing data privacy and cybersecurity, advertising and marketing practices, and consumer financial products and services. Clients rely on Tim’s business-minded and practical strategies to address their most difficult regulatory compliance challenges.

A graduate of the University of Chicago and Stanford Law School, Tim is a prolific author and regularly speaks to industry and trade groups about the evolving privacy landscape, about cutting-edge issues affecting payments and fintech companies, and about developments at the FTC, the CFPB, and within the state attorneys general community.

Photo of Matthew White Matthew White

Matt White guides clients through regulatory compliance challenges and represents clients in regulatory and civil investigations and litigation.

Matt has counseled fintech and payment companies on regulatory compliance matters, including those involving the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the…

Matt White guides clients through regulatory compliance challenges and represents clients in regulatory and civil investigations and litigation.

Matt has counseled fintech and payment companies on regulatory compliance matters, including those involving the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and their respective implementing regulations (Regulations E, V, P, and Z). Adept with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) Prepaid Rule, Matt has provided guidance regarding prepaid cards and related compliance.

Matt has also aided clients in developing regulatory compliant products and functionalities, including an earned wage access program, reimbursement prepaid card programs, new merchant cash advance products, and tokenized payment capabilities. In connection with products on which Matt advises, he has also negotiated high-stakes technology sales agreements involving complex regulatory issues, including compliance with data privacy laws, financial regulations, and card network rules.

Beyond helping clients strategize for regulatory complexity, Matt also helps clients navigate government investigations and enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), CFPB, and state attorneys general.

Photo of Tessa Cierny Tessa Cierny

Tessa Cierny advises companies on financial technology and data privacy issues. She has experience counseling companies on state and federal regulatory compliance, including existing and emerging privacy laws, such as the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act

Tessa Cierny advises companies on financial technology and data privacy issues. She has experience counseling companies on state and federal regulatory compliance, including existing and emerging privacy laws, such as the E.U.’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), as well as financial and banking regulations, such as the CFPB’s Section 1071 Small Business Lending Rule (Regulation B). In addition, she assists clients in defending business disputes and data breach litigation.

Prior to joining Greenberg Traurig, she served as global records manager for WestRock, where she developed and implemented email and data retention policies for global data privacy regulation compliance. In this role, she also advised on data privacy concerns related to data retention, data loss prevention, and data governance.

Cody B. Davis

Cody Davis advises clients on regulatory compliance, data privacy, and consumer protection matters within the financial technology sector, with a focus on payments, emerging platforms, and evolving regulatory frameworks. He works with companies navigating complex federal and state requirements, including regulatory compliance, government…

Cody Davis advises clients on regulatory compliance, data privacy, and consumer protection matters within the financial technology sector, with a focus on payments, emerging platforms, and evolving regulatory frameworks. He works with companies navigating complex federal and state requirements, including regulatory compliance, government investigations, and risk management across the fintech ecosystem.

Cody also has prior experience working with clients in the health care space on mergers and acquisitions as well as regulatory compliance with HIPAA, state telehealth rules, and facility licensure requirements.