The Future of Consumer Law, On Tap.
The Next Round pours out the newest trends shaping consumer law before they hit the mainstream. Grab a seat—your next legal insight is already on its way.
What’s Ahead for TCPA in 2026
📊 Litigation Will Continue to Grow — and Get More Complex
1/28/26- Thanks to major judicial shifts, TCPA litigation isn’t slowing down in 2026 — it’s evolving:
- More attacks on settled interpretations: After the McLaughlin Chiropractic v. McKesson decision, federal district courts no longer must defer to prior FCC interpretations of the TCPA. That opens the door to new and divergent legal theories on key issues like:
- whether cell phones qualify for the Do-Not-Call registry,
- how consent and revocation work,
- what technologies actually count as an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS).
- Plaintiffs will push boundaries: There’s already evidence that plaintiffs’ counsel are exploring creative pathways — including seeking liability under other TCPA sections (like Do-Not-Call or prerecorded messages) or even leveraging state “mini-TCPA” statutes that offer similar statutory damages.
👉 Prediction: 2026 will see an uptick in class actions and individual suits with novel arguments and split results across districts, especially on topics previously considered settled (like ATDS).
📜Regulatory Action Will Be Slow — But Still Important
The FCC has taken a cautious approach to updating TCPA rules — and some of the most consequential changes are scheduled for 2026:
- Consent revocation rules delayed: Portions of the FCC’s updated consent revocation requirements (especially the part requiring opt-out requests to apply across all unrelated calls/texts) have been postponed until April 11, 2026 to ease compliance burdens.
- Other important rule changes: Other aspects of the TCPA consent rules (e.g., honoring standard opt-out keywords and quicker revocation timeframes) already took effect or remain in force.
👉 Prediction: The FCC won’t radically overhaul the TCPA in 2026, but it will finalize and implement delayed compliance rules that tighten consent and revocation requirements — creating new operational risks for callers.
📈 Compliance Risks for Businesses Will Rise
In 2026, businesses that engage in outreach (especially with automated or mass communications) will face increasing pressure on compliance:
- Heightened exposure: TCPA exposure is expected to be a top litigation risk across corporate outbound communication strategies, particularly for texts and robocalls.
- AI and automated tools in the spotlight: As companies use AI-driven communications and CRM automation, questions about what counts as an ATDS may resurface, especially since courts are now independently interpreting the statute.
👉 Prediction: Marketing tech and AI communication platforms will be a frequent focus of TCPA claims in 2026 — pushing companies to rethink how they obtain and document consent.
🧩 Divergence Across Courts and the Need for Strategy
Without a uniform set of binding FCC interpretations, TCPA law in 2026 will likely look more fractured:
- Some courts may interpret key terms differently (e.g., ATDS, consent, scope of Do-Not-Call), leading to forum shopping and unpredictability.
- Strategic compliance including strong consent capture, centralized opt-out management, and audit trails will become critical risk management tools for organizations.
👉 Prediction: 2026 will be a year where litigation strategy and compliance infrastructure matter even more than before.
What Consumers Can Expect....
1) Text-message cases will dominate
Consumers will keep getting more texts than calls, and TCPA enforcement/litigation will follow the money:
- more “marketing” texts disguised as “account alerts
- more lead-gen / affiliate text campaign
- more “confirm your appointment / delivery / quote” texts that are actually sales funnels
Prediction: 2026 becomes even more of a text-message TCPA world than a robocall world.
2) Consent will be the #1 battleground
In 2026, businesses will still hide behind “consent,” but consumers will win more when:
- consent is buried in fine prin
- consent was obtained through deceptive webform
- a third-party lead seller claims consent but can’t prove it
- consent doesn’t match the actual caller/text sender
Prediction: more consumer wins based on lack of provable consent (and more discovery fights over lead source records).
3) Revocation rights get stronger (and easier to enforce)
Consumers increasingly expect:
- “STOP” to mean STO
- opt-out to be honored immediate
- no more “we processed your request but may take 10 days
With FCC revocation rules tightening (including the delayed portion hitting in 2026), consumers will have more leverage.
Prediction: 2026 sees a surge in cases where the entire case is built on failure to honor opt-out.
.... and What Lawyers Will
4) More lawsuits against lead generators (not just the brand name)
The consumer movement is shifting toward:
- suing the actual source of the harassment (lead gen, dialer vendors, “marketing partners”
- pulling the chain of custody of consent
Prediction: consumers will increasingly win by proving the defendant is part of a lead-gen pipeline, not an “isolated mistake.”
5) Courts will be more unpredictable — but consumers can benefit
Because courts are now freer to disagree with FCC interpretations, outcomes will vary by jurisdiction. This unpredictability helps defendants sometimes — but it also opens the door for:
- fresh arguments expanding liability
- pushing more aggressive readings of “called party,” consent scope, etc.
Prediction: consumer lawyers will forum shop harder, and some districts will become consumer-friendly TCPA hubs.
6) Mini-TCPA state laws will explode
Even if TCPA itself gets harder in some courts, states are stepping in
Prediction: 2026 is the year consumers increasingly sue under state mini-TCPA statutes (often easier to prove + still high statutory damages).
Bottom line (consumer lens):
In 2026, TCPA becomes less about robocalls and more about digital harassment via texts, and the winning consumer cases will focus on:
✅ no real consent
✅ unverifiable consent
✅ lead-gen fraud
✅ ignored STOP requests
✅ repeated marketing disguised as “informational”
Bottom Line
In 2026, the TCPA won’t become simpler — but it will become more dynamic: litigation will expand into new legal terrain, the FCC will enforce tighter consent mechanisms, and businesses will face heightened compliance and litigation risk. The removal of binding agency deference means TCPA law is now more open to statutory interpretation battles, and that will define the next phase of this statute’s evolution.
The Consumer Cost of Unequal Business Financing
When Women-Owned Businesses Can’t Access Capital, Consumers Pay the Price
1/20/26- We often talk about access to capital for women-owned businesses as if it’s a niche issue — something relevant only to entrepreneurs, lenders, or policymakers. But that framing misses the bigger picture. When women-owned small businesses struggle to obtain fair financing, the impact ripples outward — to families, employees, and consumers.
As a woman who owns a small business, and as a consumer rights attorney, I’ve come to see the financing gap not just as an equity issue, but as a consumer protection issue hiding in plain sight.
Bias Rarely Looks Like Bias Anymore
Most lenders today would say — honestly — that they don’t discriminate. And yet, study after study shows persistent disparities in access to credit for women-owned businesses.
The Federal Reserve’s Small Business Credit Survey has repeatedly found that women-owned businesses are less likely to be approved for financing and more likely to receive less than the amount requested, even when they apply.[¹] Forbes has similarly reported that women entrepreneurs receive smaller loans and less favorable terms than men with comparable business profiles.[²]
Bias today doesn’t announce itself. It shows up quietly:
- In extra documentation requests
- In longer approval timelines
- In “suggestions” to borrow less or grow more slowly
- In assumptions about risk, ambition, or scale
None of that appears on a denial letter. But anyone who has gone through underwriting recognizes the pattern.
Why This Matters to Consumers
When women-owned businesses can’t access affordable capital, they don’t simply disappear. They adapt — often in ways that shift costs and risks onto consumers and families.
Businesses turn to:
- High-interest online lenders
- Personal credit cards
- Home equity or retirement funds
- Informal or short-term financing with worse terms
The Federal Reserve has noted that women-owned firms are more likely to rely on higher-cost financing or personal credit, increasing financial vulnerability.[¹] These choices don’t just affect the business owner. They affect pricing, stability, wages, and long-term viability — all of which consumers feel downstream.
The Hidden Cost: Who Opts Out
One of the most under-discussed consequences of bias is self-selection out of the credit system.
Federal Reserve data shows that women business owners are less likely to apply for financing at all, often because they expect denial or unfavorable terms based on prior experience.[¹] The OECD has echoed this finding globally, noting that women entrepreneurs are more likely to be “discouraged borrowers,” even when their businesses are viable.[³]
That matters because access to capital isn’t just about survival — it’s about growth. Businesses that don’t scale don’t hire as many employees, don’t expand services, and don’t contribute as fully to local economies.
This Is a Consumer Justice Issue
Small businesses are consumers of financial products. When lending systems produce unequal outcomes — even unintentionally — they undermine the principles of transparency, fairness, and access that consumer law is meant to protect.
Forbes, the OECD, and the World Economic Forum have all emphasized that closing the financing gap for women entrepreneurs isn’t just a fairness issue — it’s an economic one. The OECD estimates that billions in potential economic growth are lost when women-owned businesses are undercapitalized.[³]
From a consumer perspective, that loss shows up as:
- Fewer local businesses
- Less competition
- Reduced innovation
- More fragile community economies
Why Lived Experience Still Matters
I’ve signed the personal guarantees. I’ve navigated underwriting. I’ve had conversations that looked neutral on paper but felt very different in practice. And I hear the same stories from women business owners across industries.
This isn’t about accusing individual lenders of bad intent. It’s about acknowledging that systems built around historical norms will continue to produce unequal outcomes unless they’re examined honestly.
A Broader Conversation Worth Having
If we care about consumers, we have to care about the health of the businesses that serve them. And if we care about fairness in consumer finance, we can’t ignore the ways business lending quietly reinforces inequality.
Access to capital determines who gets to grow, who gets to fail safely, and who is asked to carry disproportionate risk. That’s not just a business issue — it’s a societal one.
Bias in small business financing isn’t loud. But its consequences are felt every day — by women business owners, by families, and by consumers who depend on a fair and competitive marketplace.
What Can Women Business Owners Do — Even in an Uneven System
Acknowledging bias in business financing doesn’t mean women are powerless within it. But it does require being strategic, informed, and intentional about how we navigate a system that was not designed with us in mind.
This is not about “leaning in” harder. It’s about reducing exposure to unnecessary friction while preserving leverage.
1. Treat Financing as a Long-Term Strategy, Not a Crisis Response
One of the most common disadvantages women business owners face is being forced to seek capital only when it’s urgently needed. That timing shifts power to the lender.
Whenever possible:
- Establish banking relationships before you need financing
- Apply when cash flow is stable, not strained
- Build optionality — even if you don’t plan to draw immediately
Capital is cheapest and most accessible when you can walk away.
2. Separate Personal and Business Credit Early
Women are disproportionately encouraged — or required — to rely on personal credit to support business financing. While personal guarantees are often unavoidable, blurring the lines too much increases personal risk and weakens negotiating power.
Practical steps include:
- Maintaining strong, independent business credit profiles
- Limiting personal credit card reliance for operating expenses
- Documenting revenue, contracts, and cash flow meticulously
This isn’t just financial hygiene — it’s protection.
3. Ask for More Than You Think You’ll Be Offered
Many women business owners internalize the expectation that they should be conservative or “reasonable” in their requests. But data shows that women are often approved for less than they request, while men are more likely to receive the full amount.
Asking for less up front often compounds the problem. If the answer is “no” or “not that much,” you still learn where the ceiling actually is.
4. Don’t Treat a Denial as a Verdict
A loan denial is not a moral judgment — and it’s rarely the full story.
Women business owners should:
- Ask why — in writing
- Ask what would change the outcome
- Compare feedback across institutions
- Reapply strategically, not reflexively
Patterns matter more than any single lender’s decision.
5. Use Collective Knowledge
Women entrepreneurs are often siloed. Sharing information changes that.
Peer networks can reveal:
- Which lenders are more women-friendly
- Which products come with hidden costs
- Which “standard” practices are actually negotiable
Information is leverage — especially in opaque markets.
6. Protect Yourself as a Consumer
Finally, remember this: you are a consumer of financial products. Read the terms. Question the pricing. Understand the downside. If something feels rushed, confusing, or one-sided, it probably is. As consumer lawyers know well, unfairness often hides behind complexity.
Final Thought...
None of these steps eliminate systemic bias. But they can reduce its impact — and preserve options. The long-term solution requires transparency, accountability, and institutional change. In the meantime, women business owners deserve tools that help them operate from strength rather than scarcity.
Sources / Footnotes
[¹] Federal Reserve
Federal Reserve Banks, Small Business Credit Survey: Employer Firms (most recent annual report)
– Findings on approval rates, discouraged borrowers, and reliance on higher-cost financing by women-owned firms.
[²] Forbes
Forbes, Small Business Grants For Women: 6 Options To Consider and related reporting on gender gaps in small business financing.
– Coverage of loan size disparities, approval rates, and lending terms.
[³] OECD
OECD, Bridging the Finance Gap for Women Entrepreneurs
– Global analysis of financing disparities, discouraged borrowing, and macroeconomic impact of undercapitalization.
How to Stop Paying for Subscriptions You Don’t Use
...And Why New Lawmakers Are Paying Attention
1/17/26- Streaming services, apps, gym memberships, software trials — subscriptions are everywhere. And for many consumers, they quietly drain money month after month for services they no longer use or never meant to keep. Congress is finally paying attention.
A bipartisan bill known as the Unsubscribe Act (often referred to as a “click-to-cancel” law) has been reintroduced to make it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions and avoid surprise charges. Until protections like this become law, here’s what consumers should know — and what they can do right now to stop unnecessary subscription charges.
Why Subscriptions Are a Growing Consumer Problem
Many subscription services:
- Make it easy to sign up, but hard to cancel
- Automatically convert free trials into paid plans
- Hide cancellation options behind multiple screens or phone calls
- Continue billing even when services go unused
Studies show the average household wastes hundreds of dollars a year on forgotten or unwanted subscriptions.
What the Unsubscribe Act Would Do
If passed, the Unsubscribe Act would:
- Require companies to make cancellation as easy as signing up
- Mandate clear disclosure of subscription terms and renewal dates
- Require consumer consent before charging after a free trial
- Prohibit deceptive “dark patterns” that trap consumers into recurring charges
This legislation reflects what consumer advocates have been saying for years: confusing cancellations are unfair and deceptive.
How to Stop Paying for Subscriptions You Don’t Use — Right Now
Even before new laws are passed, consumers can take action:
1. Review Your Bank & Credit Card Statements
Look back at least 3–6 months. Highlight recurring charges you don’t recognize or no longer need.
2. Search Your Email for Subscription Confirmations
Search terms like:
- “receipt”
- “subscription”
- “trial”
- “renewal”
- “membership”
You may be surprised how many you find.
3. Cancel Directly — and Take Screenshots
Cancel through the company’s website or app whenever possible.
📸 Take screenshots showing cancellation confirmation in case of future disputes.
4. Block Problem Merchants
If a company won’t cancel or keeps charging after cancellation, contact your bank or credit card issuer to block future charges and dispute improper billing.
5. Know When It Becomes a Legal Issue
If a company:
- Continues charging after cancellation
- Misrepresents terms
- Makes cancellation unreasonably difficult
You may have rights under state consumer protection laws, the Fair Credit Billing Act, or other statutes.
The Bottom Line
Subscriptions shouldn’t be a trap. If lawmakers move forward with the Unsubscribe Act, consumers may finally see stronger protections against deceptive billing practices. Until then, vigilance is key — and if a company won’t play fair, legal remedies may be available.
📞 If you’re being charged for subscriptions you didn’t agree to or can’t cancel, a consumer rights attorney can help.
Who Stole the Color from Our Lives?
Cars, Couches, and Your Consumer Rights.
12/8/25- If you grew up in the 1980s or 90s, you /remember it vividly: driveways dotted w/ith cherry-red hatchbacks, emerald sedans, and electric-blue convertibles. //Living rooms glowed with mauve, teal, and patterned sofas your grandparents still defend. Fast-forward to today, and the landscape feels drained — gray SUVs, white crossovers, black sedans, and homes coated in greige from floor to ceiling. One automotive analysis recently found that over 80% of cars sold today are white, black, gray, or silver. That’s not an accident. It’s a transformation.
And it’s not just about taste — it’s about marketing, economics, and increasingly, the law.
How We Got from Hot Pink to Greige
Color cycles have always moved with culture, but something distinctive happened between the 1980s and today.
1980s–1990s: The Color Explosion
These were the decades of personality. Car lots looked like Skittles packets. Home interiors leaned bold and expressive. Manufacturers offered huge color ranges because consumers expected variation — and companies didn’t yet know how to algorithmically optimize choices.
2000s–2010s: The Retreat to Neutrals
As the millennium turned, subtlety replaced vibrancy. Beige, cream, espresso, slate, and silver became the safe bets. Designers began insisting neutrals were “timeless,” “refined,” and “high-end.” Automakers experimented less with bold colorways and more with metallic gray variants. Builders began defaulting homes to “resale-friendly” palettes — the kind that wouldn't offend a hypothetical future buyer.
Why Neutrals Took Over
Neutrals solved a problem for companies:
- Fewer pigments to stock
- Easier production
- Less risk of consumer regret
- Higher perceived value without higher production cost
In other words: neutrals were cheap, safe, and profitable — and companies built an entire aesthetic philosophy around them.
Marketing, Psychology, and “Choice”
Color psychology is one of marketing’s oldest tools. Marketers know bright colors stimulate energy and individuality, while neutrals evoke calm, stability, and sophistication. But today, these psychological associations are amplified by data-driven algorithms that track consumer clicks, preferences, and behaviors.
Companies curate the color menu long before you see it. You think you’re choosing freely — but in reality:
- You’re shown the neutral options most profitable for the company
- Bold colors are hidden, offered in limited stock, or tied to expensive “appearance packages"
- Digital displays highlight the highest-margin color options through contrast, placement, and defaults
Your “choice” is often a carefully staged performance.
Companies learned that if you can teach consumers to associate gray with luxury, you can charge a luxury price for gray — even if it’s the cheapest paint they produce.
Where the Law Comes In
Color itself isn’t regulated. But how companies use color to influence, restrict, or financially pressure consumers absolutely intersects with consumer protection law.
Deceptive or Unclear Pricing & Add-Ons
If a dealer or retailer charges a “premium color fee,” the fee must be clearly disclosed — and truthful. Claims like “this color costs more to produce” or “this is a rare edition” can cross into misrepresentation territory if unsupported.
Illusory Choice & Restrictive Covenants
Builders and HOAs frequently limit exterior color options — sometimes to just three shades of taupe. If these restrictions aren’t disclosed before purchase, consumers may have claims under UDAP laws, contract law, or state HOA statutes.
Dark Patterns in Online Interfaces
Companies increasingly use visual manipulation to steer consumers:
- expensive colors highlighted in high-contrast buttons
- cheaper colors buried in dropdown menus
- pre-selected costly options
- “only 1 left!” messages for high-margin colors
The FTC has stated that such design-based manipulation can violate fed law.
Misrepresentations About Resale Value
Salespeople often claim neutrals guarantee better resale value. Unless backed by real market data, such statements may be misleading — especially if they drive consumers into higher-priced options.
Practical Tips for Consumers
Here’s how to protect yourself:
✔ Ask for itemized pricing on any color-related add-ons.
If a paint color costs extra, ask why.
✔ Get HOA or builder rules in writing before signing anything.
Look specifically for sections on “architectural control” or “approved palettes.”
✔ Challenge vague claims about resale value.
If someone says, “This color holds its value better,” respond with: “Show me the data.”
✔ Watch for digital nudges.
If a checkout page highlights upgrades in neon and hides the free option in gray text, remember: that’s not a design choice. That’s a sales strategy.
You may not care whether your next car is teal or taupe. But you should care if your choices are being narrowed — and your wallet quietly drained — through curated menus, manipulated interfaces, and marketing narratives that have little to do with truth.
If you believe you were misled in the purchase or financing of a car, home, or major household item, reach out. Behind every “neutral” choice is a strategy — and sometimes, a legal issue worth challenging.
The Beige Tax
Why Consumers Pay More for Less Color — and What the Law Has to Say About It
12/7/25- For decades, American consumer culture embraced color. Cars came in jewel tones and wild metallics, living rooms exploded with teal and mauve, and even kitchen appliances showed personality. Today, the landscape is radically different. We drive gray SUVs, live in greige homes, and buy electronics in a narrow spectrum of blacks and silvers. Marketers call it modern, minimal, elevated, or luxurious.
But there’s a less glamorous truth beneath the aesthetic shift: Neutral colors are often the cheapest and easiest for companies to produce—yet consumers are paying more for them than ever. This isn’t a coincidence. It’s an algorithmic strategy.
Companies learned that if you teach people to associate muted palettes with wealth and sophistication, you can charge more for the illusion of “premium.” And consumers, unaware of the psychological and technological machinery operating behind the scenes, rarely question the markup for a shade of gray that costs no more to make than a vibrant turquoise.
The result is something few consumers realize they’re experiencing: a Beige Tax.
The Aesthetic of Wealth — Manufactured and Monetized
Minimalist, neutral aesthetics have been sold to consumers as the hallmark of good taste—quiet luxury, subtlety over flash, timelessness over trend. What gets obscured in that narrative is that limiting color choice is extremely efficient for manufacturers:
- fewer pigment batches
- lower inventory complexity
- streamlined production lines
- standardized marketing materials
- reduced returns due to “unexpected” color variation
In other words: neutrals save companies money. Yet at the same time, those same colors are positioned as high-end. A gray car often costs more than the same model in a brighter color. Interior paint upgrades to “designer neutrals” come with surcharges. Appliances, furniture, and fixtures all have “premium” versions that are, functionally, just more subdued. The value doesn’t come from the color. It comes from the story companies tell about the color. And that story has been amplified by algorithms.
Algorithms Don’t Sell Color — They Sell Identity
In the age of machine learning, companies don’t simply track what consumers buy; they track what people like you buy:
- Professionals in higher-income ZIP codes prefer muted palettes.
- Real estate agents promote neutral staging for resale value.
- Social media trends reward minimalism and punish “dated” bright colors.
Algorithms recognize patterns long before consumers do, and marketing adapts to reinforce them. This creates a feedback loop:
- Algorithms notice that consumers respond positively to neutrals.
- Marketing pushes neutrals harder.
- Inventory shifts to match algorithmic “demand.”
- Choice diminishes, making neutrals appear dominant.
- Prices rise because demand appears strong.
Soon, neutral colors aren’t just an option—they’re the default. And defaults have tremendous behavioral power. Consumers think they freely chose the gray car or the beige sofa, but the reality is more subtle: the algorithm offered those options more prominently and framed them as aspirational.
What This Means for Consumers
You’re not imagining it: You have less color choice than you used to—and you’re being nudged toward the most profitable option. This doesn’t mean buying a gray car is wrong. Or that minimalism is a scam. But it does mean consumers benefit from understanding how aesthetic preference is shaped, monetized, and sometimes manipulated.
As a consumer-rights attorney, I see the pattern clearly: When companies use aesthetics not to express beauty, but to justify pricing structures that aren’t transparent, the law begins to care. Today’s Beige Tax is subtle, algorithmic, psychological, and largely invisible. But invisible manipulations are exactly what consumer-protection law was designed to expose.
Closing Thought
Our world didn’t become gray by accident. It became gray because neutrality is profitable. And any time profit hides behind a curated “choice,” consumers deserve clarity—and, when necessary, legal protection.