Most advertising compliance conversations for medical practices stop at the licensing board. In New York there is a second layer that catches more ordinary marketing, and it applies whether you are a clinic or a contractor.
The framework
New York's General Business Law § 349 prohibits deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of business, and § 350 addresses false advertising specifically. The standard is whether a practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances.
It changed in 2026, and most of what you'll read about it hasn't caught up. The FAIR Business Practices Act, signed December 19, 2025 and effective February 17, 2026, amended § 349 to prohibit unfair and abusive practices as well as deceptive ones. An unfair practice is one that causes, or is likely to cause, substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable and is not outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition — the framework the FTC has used for decades.
Two enforcement tracks now run side by side:
- The Attorney General can pursue deceptive, unfair and abusive practices.
- Private plaintiffs can still sue only over deceptive ones — for actual damages or $50, whichever is greater, trebled up to $1,000 where the violation was wilful or knowing, and the court may award attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
A plaintiff under § 349 has to show consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading and caused actual injury. They do not have to prove they relied on it.
You do not have to intend to deceive. The test is whether a reasonable consumer would be misled, which is a much lower bar than most advertisers assume.
The patterns that get attention
Prices that are not obtainable. "From $199" where nothing at $199 exists in practice, or where the $199 version requires a purchase of something else.
Discounts from a fictional anchor. "Was $800, now $400" where nothing was ever sold at $800. This is a well-worn enforcement theory and it is not specific to New York.
"Free" that is not free. A free consultation that requires a deposit, or a free service conditional on buying another, needs the condition stated prominently rather than in a footnote.
Urgency that does not expire. A countdown that resets for every visitor, or "offer ends Friday" running for eight months, is a misrepresentation of a material fact.
Testimonials that are not typical, presented as though they are.
Undisclosed material connections. If an influencer was paid, or a reviewer was compensated, that has to be disclosed — this overlaps with the FTC's endorsement rules, which apply nationally.
The scarcity question specifically
We use scarcity in our own funnel — a limited number of spots, a deadline at the end of the calendar month. Two rules make it defensible.
The number must be real and must move. If it says seven spots left, there should be seven, and next month it should say something different. A figure that never changes is a misrepresentation, and it is the easiest kind to catch: open the page in two months.
The deadline must be computed, not rolling. Our countdown runs to the actual end of the calendar month, from the real date. A timer that restarts for each visitor shows a different deadline to different people for the same offer, which is a false statement of material fact dressed up as a design pattern.
If you cannot defend your scarcity to someone who screenshots the page twice, three months apart, do not use scarcity.
What we do about it
Every claim in a New York client's advertising has to be something we could demonstrate. Prices obtainable at the stated price. Discounts from a real former price. Deadlines that arrive. Testimonials that are real and, where the result is unusual, labeled as such.
None of this is a compliance burden so much as a description of honest advertising. The reason to write it down is that the alternative is generally not a decision anyone made — it is a template someone inherited.
If your New York advertising carries prices, discounts or urgency, it is worth reading once against this list.