Ad Law Access https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access Updates on advertising law and privacy law trends, issues, and developments Mon, 01 Jul 2024 23:40:13 -0400 60 hourly 1 FTC Blankets Companies With Warning Letters Over Endorsements and Reviews https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/ftc-blankets-companies-with-warning-letters-over-endorsements-and-reviews https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/ftc-blankets-companies-with-warning-letters-over-endorsements-and-reviews Wed, 13 Oct 2021 16:53:22 -0400 FTC Blankets Companies With Warning Letters Over Endorsements and ReviewsAs we have noted in earlier posts, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s holding that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act does not allow for monetary restitution, the Federal Trade Commission has been attempting to creatively utilize other provisions of the Act in order to obtain money from the companies and individuals it prosecutes. One threat it seems the FTC is now making good on is the use of the FTC’s long dormant Penalty Offense Authority, found in Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the Act.

That provision, which has rarely been used, authorizes the Commission to seek civil penalties against other parties where (1) a final cease and desist order has been entered against a party in an administrative proceeding under Section 5(b) of the FTC Act, (2) there is a Commission determination that a specific practice is unfair or deceptive, as part of that order, and (3) a party with actual knowledge that the practice is unfair or deceptive has engaged in that practice after the order became final. Civil penalties can add up quickly – potentially nearly $44,000 per violation.

Earlier today, the FTC sent warning letters to more than 700 companies recommending that recipients review their practices related to endorsements and reviews to ensure that those practices comply with the law. The warning letters are explicitly meant to serve as a predicate for what could be a sweep of civil penalty investigations of advertisers. In the Commission’s announcement of the warning letters, it emphasized that, in the Commission’s view, the blanket warning letter to over 700 companies in nearly every industrial sector “puts those businesses on notice that deceptive practices in the future could result in penalties of up to $43,792 per violation.”

The warning letters outline a broad array of purportedly deceptive practices the FTC has determined to be unfair or deceptive in prior administrative cases, including:

  • claiming – directly or by implication – that a third party has endorsed a product or its performance when that’s not the case (this includes fake reviews);
  • misrepresenting that an endorsement reflects the experience, views, or opinions of users or purported users;
  • misrepresenting an endorser as an actual, current, or recent user of a product;
  • continuing to advertise an endorsement unless the advertiser has good reason to believe the endorser continues to subscribe to the views presented in the endorsement;
  • using testimonials to make unsubstantiated or otherwise deceptive performance claims – even if the testimonial is genuine;
  • failing to disclose a connection between an endorser and seller of a product if that connection might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement or review and if consumers wouldn’t reasonably expect that connection; and
  • misrepresenting – explicitly or implicitly – that the experience of an endorser represents the typical or ordinary experience of users of the product.
The warning letter informs its more than 700 corporate recipients that “FTC staff is not singling out your company or suggesting that you have engaged in deceptive or unfair conduct.” Instead, staff is “widely distributing similar letters and the notice to large companies, top advertisers, leading retailers, top consumer product companies, and major advertising agencies.” It remains to be seen whether such a blanket “notice of penalty violation” will survive what will surely be multiple, inevitable court challenges.

These types of letters are usually precursors to investigations. The FTC recently passed resolutions giving staff wide latitude in issuing Civil Investigative Demands, so now may be a good time to review your practices. Be sure to read our other posts on endorsements, reviews, and influencers for tips on how to comply with the law.

FTC Blankets Companies With Warning Letters Over Endorsements and Reviews

]]>
An Endorsement is Still Advertising. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/an-endorsement-is-still-advertising https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/an-endorsement-is-still-advertising Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:22:32 -0500 John Villafranco breaks down how endorsements are regulated and what guidelines advertisers should adhere to in order to stay out of trouble with the FTC in a new article published by Nutritional Outlook. “Enforcement on Endorsements,” explains how endorsements can be very powerful advertising tools, but must comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5 like all other forms of advertising. The article outlines recommendations for endorsements and guidelines for protecting these advertisements from the FTC’s scrutiny.

]]>
FTC Announces Settlements on "No VOC" Claims https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/ftc-announces-settlements-on-no-voc-claims https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/ftc-announces-settlements-on-no-voc-claims Wed, 31 Jul 2013 09:16:53 -0400 The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced settlements with three mattress manufacturers last week that prohibit the manufacturers from making claims that their products are free from volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) absent competent and reliable scientific evidence.

The companies involved - Relief-Mart, Inc., Essentia Natural Memory Foam Company, Inc., Ecobaby Organics, Inc. – are all alleged to have advertised their mattress as free from VOCs and similar claims absent the requisite level of substantiation. The FTC’s complaint against Ecobaby further alleges that the company made unsubstantiated third-party certification claims. Specifically, Ecobaby allegedly displayed the seal of the National Association of Organic Mattress Industry (“NAOMI”) to indicate that the product met the organization’s quality and manufacturing standards. In fact, the FTC alleges, NAOMI is not an independent, third-party organization but is an alter ego of Ecobaby.

The proposed orders bar Relief-Mart, Essentia, and Ecobaby, from making VOC-free claims unless the VOC level is zero micrograms per cubic meter or the company relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that its mattresses contain no more than trace levels of VOCs, based on the guidance in the FTC’s Green Guides. The orders also bar environmental benefit or attribute claims, and certain health claims, unless they are true, not misleading, and supported by scientific evidence.

Manufacturers looking to make “No-VOC” or other environmental marketing claims should ensure that claims are properly substantiated and qualified as necessary. The updated Green Guides include guidance regarding proper substantiation of “free of” claims. The Green Guides also address certifications and seals of approval, which tend to be very persuasive to consumers, and may also implicate the agency’s Endorsement and Testimonial Guides.

]]>