FTC Archives - Page 6 of 9 - The National Law Forum

Personal Email Management Service Settles FTC Charges over Allegedly Deceptive Statements to Consumers over Its Access and Use of Subscribers’ Email Accounts

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) entered into a proposed settlement with Unrollme Inc. (“Unrollme”), a free personal email management service that offers to assist consumers in managing the flood of subscription emails in their inboxes. The FTC alleged that Unrollme made certain deceptive statements to consumers, who may have had privacy concerns, to persuade them to grant the company access to their email accounts. (In re Unrolllme Inc., File No 172 3139 (FTC proposed settlement announced Aug. 8, 2019).

This settlement touches many relevant issues, including the delicate nature of online providers’ privacy practices relating to consumer data collection, the importance for consumers to comprehend the extent of data collection when signing up for and consenting to a new online service or app, and the need for downstream recipients of anonymized market data to understand how such data is collected and processed. (See also our prior post covering an enforcement action involving user geolocation data collected from a mobile weather app).

A quick glance at headlines announcing the settlement might give the impression that the FTC found Unrollme’s entire business model unlawful or deceptive, but that is not the case. As described below, the settlement involved only a subset of consumers who received allegedly deceptive emails to coax them into granting access to their email accounts. The model of providing free products or services in exchange for permission to collect user information for data-driven advertising or ancillary market research remains widespread, though could face some changes when California’s CCPA consumer choice options become effective or in the event Congress passes a comprehensive data privacy law.

As part of the Unrollme registration process, users grant Unrollme access to selected personal email accounts for decluttering purposes. However, this permission also allows Unrollme to access and scan inboxes for so-called “e-receipts” or emailed receipts from e-commerce transactions. After scanning users’ e-receipt data (which might include billing and shipping addresses and information about the purchased products or services), Unrollme’s parent company, Slice Technologies, Inc., would anonymize the data and package it into market research reports that are sold to various companies, retailers and others. According to the FTC complaint, when some consumers declined to grant permission to their email accounts during signup, Unrollme, during the relevant time period, tried to make them reconsider by sending allegedly deceptive statements about its access (e.g, “You need to authorize us to access your emails. Don’t worry, this is just to watch for those pesky newsletters, we’ll never touch your personal stuff”). The FTC claimed that such messages did not tell users that access to their inboxes would also be used to collect e-receipts and to package that data for sale to outside companies, and that thousands of consumers changed their minds and signed up for Unrollme.

As part of the settlement, Unrollme is prohibited from misrepresentations about the extent to which it accesses, collects, uses, stores or shares information in connection with its email management products. Unrollme must also send an email to all current users who enrolled in Unrollme after seeing the allegedly deceptive statements and explain Unrollme’s data collection and usage practices. Unrollme is also required to delete all e-receipt data obtained from recipients who enrolled in Unrollme after seeing the challenged statements (unless Unrollme receives affirmative consent to maintain such data from the affected consumers).

In an effort at increased transparency, Unrollme’s current home page displays several links to detailed explanations of how the service collects and analyzes user data (e.g., “How we use data”).

Interestingly, this is not the first time Unrollme’s practices have been challenged, as the company faced a privacy suit over its data mining practices last year. (See Cooper v. Slice Technologies, Inc., No. 17-7102 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 2018) (dismissing a privacy suit that claimed that Unrollme did not adequately disclose to consumers the extent of its data mining practices, and finding that consumers consented to a privacy policy that expressly allowed such data collection to build market research products and services).

This article is by Jeffrey D Neuburger of Proskauer Rose LLP.

For more on data privacy see the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet law page.

FTC Charges Two Japanese Corporations with Alleged HSR Avoidance Scheme

Two Japanese corporations each agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) charges of violating the premerger notification and waiting period requirements under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) Act.

According to the FTC’s complaint (the “Complaint”), the scheme began when an independent investigation in July 2015 (triggered by an earlier investigation by financial regulators) publicly revealed long-running financial irregularities within Toshiba Corporation (“Toshiba”) and that Toshiba had been overstating its profits by billions. To strengthen its financial statement for FY 2015, Toshiba attempted to sell its subsidiary Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation (“TMSC”), which conducts substantial business in the United States, before the end of FY 2016 (March 31, 2016). However, Toshiba did not resolve the TMSC sales process in a timely manner and found that, by early 2016, it would be almost impossible to file premerger notifications in several jurisdictions, including the United States, and receive premerger clearances in time.

To complete the acquisition before the end of FY 2016, the Complaint alleges that Toshiba and Canon Inc. (“Canon”), one of the potential bidders, devised a plan to (i) enable Canon to acquire TMSC, (ii) allow Toshiba to recognize proceeds from the sale by the end of FY 2016, and (iii) avoid filing the notification and observing the waiting period required by the HSR Act. In March 2016, the companies completed this multi-step process as follows:

Toshiba and Canon created a special purpose company, MS Holding Corporation (“MS Holding”), to use as the alleged HSR avoidance device.
Toshiba rearranged the corporate ownership structure of TMSC by creating (i) new classes of voting shares, (ii) a single non-voting share with rights custom-made for Canon, and (iii) options convertible to ordinary shares.
Toshiba sold TMSC’s non-voting share and newly created options to Canon for $6.1 billion while simultaneously transferring TMSC’s voting shares to MS Holding for a nominal payment of $900.
Canon later obtained formal control of TMSC’s voting shares by exercising its options in December 2016.

The Complaint concluded that the companies were hiding the “true nature of the acquisition” because Canon, and not MS Holding, (i) bore the risks/benefits of TMSC and (ii) became the beneficial owner of TMSC in March 2016 when it paid Toshiba $6.1 billion.

According to the Complaint, the scheme devised by Toshiba and Canon “had no purpose” other than to complete the sale of TMSC prior to March 31, 2016, and avoid the HSR Act’s waiting period requirements. The Complaint asked the Court to assess each Defendant a civil penalty of at least $6,360,000.

According to the proposed Final Judgement, each Defendant will pay a civil penalty of $2.5 million. The settlement also requires Defendants to establish and maintain a compliance program to address the alleged violations and comply with inspection and reporting requirements, among other imposed obligations.

Why does this matter?

Unlike most HSR penalty cases, this one did not allege a mistaken filing analysis but rather an alleged HSR Rule 801.90 (“Transactions or devices for avoidance”) scheme. A few notable takeaways:

Investment funds sometimes structure funds such that voting rights are given to the fund manager and economic rights given to the investors. This case stands for the proposition that, in such instances, the FTC will look through the formal division of voting/nonvoting securities to the substance of who has beneficial ownership of the shares (risk of gain and loss, etc.).
Although the statute says that “no person shall acquire” voting securities or assets without first making the required filing and observing the appropriate waiting period, the government here obtained voluntary civil penalties from the seller as well as from the buyer. When analyzing which party bears the risk of not filing HSR for a transaction, this case may be evidence that both sides bear the risk equally, at least in an 801.90 context.
Also note that, although the Complaint asks the court to assess each defendant a civil penalty of “at least $6,360,000,” the government accepted a settlement of $2.5 million each. Given the parties’ apparent decision that paying a potential civil penalty for not fiing an HSR notification was an acceptable cost of doing business, it seems that, with a fine of less than 1% of the $6.1 billion deal value, the regulators may be encouraging rather than discouraging such risk assessments despite having brought this case.

What happens next?

Companies and individuals should carefully determine whether they must observe the HSR Act’s notification and waiting period requirements before consummating their transactions in order to avoid fines of up to $42,530 daily (adjusted annually). HSR rules and filing obligations can be complex and may change through amendments to the regulations or through formal and informal interpretations issued by the FTC. Experienced HSR counsel should be consulted to determine if an acquisition may trigger a filing requirement and, if so, if an exemption is available.

This post was written by Joel Mitnick and Ngoc Pham Hulbig of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.

Read more on FTC Trade Regulation on the National Law Review Antitrust & Trade Regulation page.

Fake Followers; Real Problems

Fake followers and fake likes have spread throughout social media in recent years. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram have announced that they are cracking down on so-called “inauthentic activity,” but the practice remains prevalent. For brands advertising on social media, paying for fake followers and likes is tempting—the perception of having a large audience offers a competitive edge by lending the brand additional legitimacy in the eyes of consumers, and the brand’s inflated perceived reach attracts higher profile influencers and celebrities for endorsement deals. But the benefits come with significant legal risks. By purchasing fake likes and followers, brands could face enforcement actions from government agencies and false advertising claims brought by competitors.

Groundbreaking AG Settlement: Selling Fake Engagement Is Illegal

On January 30, 2019, the New York Attorney General announced a settlement prohibiting Devumi LLC from selling fake followers and likes on social media platforms. Attorney General Letitia James announced that the settlement marked “the first finding by a law enforcement agency that selling fake social media engagement and using stolen identities to engage in online activity is illegal.”^[i]

Devumi’s customers ranged from actors, musicians, athletes, and modeling agencies to businesspeople, politicians, commentators, and academics, according to the settlement. Customers purchased Devumi’s services hoping to show the public that they or their products were more popular (and by implication, more legitimate) than they really were. The AG said Devumi’s services “deceived and attempted to affect the decision-making of social media audiences, including: other platform users’ decisions about what content merits their own attention; consumers’ decisions about what to buy; advertisers’ decisions about whom to sponsor; and the decisions by policymakers, voters, and journalists about which people and policies have public support.”^[ii]

Although the Devumi settlement did not impose a monetary punishment, it opened the doors for further action against similar services, and the AG warned that future perpetrators could face financial penalties.

Buyers Beware

Although the New York AG’s settlement with Devumi only addressed sellers of fake followers and likes, companies buying the fake engagement could also face enforcement actions from government agencies and regulatory authorities. But the risk doesn’t end there—brands purchasing fake engagement could become targets of civil suits brought by competitors, where the potential financial exposure could be much greater.

Competing brands running legitimate social media marketing campaigns, and who are losing business to brands buying fake likes and followers, may be able to recover through claims brought under Lanham Act and/or state unfair competition laws, such as California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).^[iii]

The Lanham Act imposes liability upon “[a]ny person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, … uses in commerce any … false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which … is likely to … deceive as to the … sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person” or “in commercial advertising … misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of … goods, services, or commercial activities.”^[iv]

Fake likes on social media posts could constitute false statements about the “approval of [the advertiser’s] goods, services, or commercial activities” under the Lanham Act. Likewise, a fake follower count could misrepresent the nature or approval of “commercial activities,” deceiving the public into believing a brand is more popular among consumers than it is.

The FTC agrees that buying fake likes is unlawful. It publishes guidelines to help the public understand whether certain activities could violate the FTC Act. In the FAQ for the Endorsement Guides, the FTC states, “an advertiser buying fake ‘likes’ is very different from an advertiser offering incentives for ‘likes’ from actual consumers. If ‘likes’ are from non-existent people or people who have no experience using the product or service, they are clearly deceptive, and both the purchaser and the seller of the fake ‘likes’ could face enforcement action.” (emphasis added)^.[v]

Although there is no private right of action to enforce FTC Guidelines, the Guidelines may inform what constitutes false advertising under the Lanham Act.^[vi] Similarly, violations of the FTC Act (as described in FTC Guidelines) may form the basis of private claims under state consumer protection statutes, including California’s UCL.^[vii]

While the Devumi settlement paved the way for private lawsuits against sellers of fake social media engagement, buyers need to be aware that they could face similar consequences. Because of the risk of both government enforcement actions and civil lawsuits brought by competitors, brands should resist the temptation to artificially grow their social media footprint and instead focus on authentically gaining popularity. Conversely, brands operating legitimately but losing business to competitors buying fake engagement should consider using the Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws as tools to keep the playing field more even.

_{[i]Attorney General James Announces Groundbreaking Settlement with Sellers of Fake Followers and “Likes” on Social Media, N.Y. Att’y Gen.}

_[ii] Id.

_{[iii] Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.}

_{[iv] 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).}

_{[v] The FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking, Fed. Trade Comm’n (Sept. 2017) .}

_{[vi] See Grasshopper House, LLC v. Clean & Sober Media, LLC, No. 218CV00923SVWRAO, 2018 WL 6118440, at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 18, 2018) (“a ‘plaintiff may and should rely on FTC guidelines as a basis for asserting false advertising under the Lanham Act.’”) (quoting Manning Int’l Inc. v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 152 F. Supp. 2d 432, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)).}

_{[vii] See Rubenstein v. Neiman Marcus Grp. LLC, 687 F. App’x 564, 567 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A]lthough the FTC Guides do not provide a private civil right of action, ‘[v]irtually any state, federal or local law can serve as the predicate for an action under [the UCL].’”) (quoting Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1168 (9th Cir. 2012)).}

This post was written by Robert S. Freund of Robert Freund Law.

FTC Settlement with Video Social Networking App Largest Civil Penalty in a Children’s Privacy Case

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a settlement with Musical.ly, a Cayman Islands corporation with its principal place of business in Shanghai, China, resolving allegations that the defendants violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule.

Musical.ly operates a video social networking app with 200 million users worldwide and 65 million in the United States. The app provides a platform for users to create short videos of themselves or others lip-syncing to music and share those videos with other users. The app also provides a platform for users to connect and interact with other users, and until October 2016 had a feature that allowed a user to tap on the “my city” tab and receive a list of other users within a 50-mile radius.

According to the complaint the defendants (1) were aware that a significant percentage of users were younger than 13 years of age and (2) had received thousands of complaints from parents that their children under 13 had created Muscial.ly accounts.

The FTC’s COPPA Rule prohibits the unauthorized or unnecessary collection of children’s personal information online by internet website operators and online services, and requires that verifiable parental consent be obtained prior to the collecting, using, and/or disclosing personal information of children under the age of 13.

In addition to requiring the payment of the largest civil penalty ever imposed for a COPPA case ($5.7 million), the consent decree prohibits the defendants from violating the COPPA Rule and requires that they delete and destroy all of the personal information of children in their possession, custody, or control unless verifiable parental consent has been obtained.

FTC Commissioners Chopra and Slaughter issued a joint statement noting their belief that the FTC should prioritize uncovering the role of corporate officers and directors and hold accountable everyone who broke the law.

This post was written by Katherine E. Armstrong of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Sears Seeks to Modify FTC Order on Online Tracking

In 2009, Sears Holding Management settled with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over allegations that the company’s online tracking activity exceeded what they told consumers. Now, Sears has submitted a petition requesting that the FTC reopen and modify its settlement order, arguing that changing technology since 2009 has made the order’s definition of “tracking applications” too broad and has put them at a competitive disadvantage.

The 2009 FTC complaint charged that Sears “failed to disclose adequately the scope of consumers’ personal information it collected via a downloadable software application, telling consumers that the software would track their “online browsing,” without telling them that it also collected information from third-party websites consumers visited such as their shopping cart information, online bank statements, and drug prescription records. Sears was required to stop collecting data from participating consumers and to destroy what they’d collected.

Sears now argues that the definition of “tracking application” in the FTC’s order now applies to most software on nearly all platforms, making them “out of step with current market practices without a corresponding benefit in combatting threats to consumer privacy.” The definition of tracking applications is so broad, Sears claims, that it “encompasses all of Sears’ current mobile apps, forcing Sears to handle disclosures differently than other companies with mobile apps and disadvantaging Sears in the marketplace.” Sears claims that modification of the order would allow the retailer to align with current tracking practices used by their competitors.

For more legal analysis, go to The National Law Review

FTC’s Settlement in Vizio May Provide Hint at Direction of Internet of Things Regulation

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Settlement in FTC v. Vizio, Inc.may signal the direction that agency is heading on Internet of Things (IoT) enforcement. With veteran FTC enforcer Jessica Rich leaving and new appointee Maureen Ohlhausen taking over, Ohlhausen’s separate concurring statement in that matter is insightful.

The settlement took a broad view on the types of data that require protection. While the “Covered Information” included information like personal identifiers, IP address, and geolocation, it also included “Viewing Data,” which is essentially data about the content viewed on a television. Ohlhausen criticized this expansion and the FTC’s foray into this public policy basis for alleging an unfair practice. She notes, “But here, for the first time, the FTC has alleged in a complaint that individualized television viewing activity falls within the definition of sensitive information.” Hinting that this broad view of personal data may not continue, Ohlhausen writes, “There may be good policy reasons to consider such information sensitive…. But, under our statute, we cannot find a practice unfair based primarily on public policy. Instead, we must determine whether the practice causes substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable by the consumer and is not outweighed by benefits to competition or consumers.” She then promises that “[i]n the coming weeks I will launch an effort to examine this important issue further.”

ARTICLE BY Adrienne S. Ehrhardt & Stephen A. Mason of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

DOJ, FTC Announce New Antitrust Guidance for Recruiting and Hiring; Criminal Enforcement Possible

Many companies—and the HR professionals and other executives who worked for them—have found out the hard way that business-to-business agreements on compensation and recruiting can violate the antitrust laws and bring huge corporate and personal penalties.

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) jointly issued antitrust guidance for anyone who deals with recruiting and compensation. The guidance is written for HR professionals, not antitrust experts. It avoids jargon and applies antitrust basics in plain English. It expands on those basics by providing short and direct answers to real-life questions.

The guidance comes in the wake of several actions in recent years by the federal antitrust agencies against so-called “no-poaching” or “wage-fixing” agreements entered by companies competing for the same talent. It announces that DOJ will prosecute criminally some antitrust violations in this space. While the new guidance is explicitly aimed at HR professionals, senior executives should understand it as well.

The guidance starts with the basics: The antitrust laws establish the rules for a competitive marketplace, including how competitors interact with each other. From an antitrust perspective, firms that compete to recruit or retain employees are competitors, even if they do not compete when selling products or services. Therefore, agreements among employers not to recruit certain employees (no-poaching) or not to compete on various terms of compensation (wage-fixing) can violate the antitrust laws.

To be illegal, these agreements need not be explicit or formal. Evidence of exchanges of information on compensation, recruiting, or similar topics followed by parallel behavior can lead to an inference of agreement. Intent to lower a company’s labor costs is no defense. Also, there is no “non-profit” defense: while they might not compete to sell services, non-profits are considered competitors for the staff they hire.

The potential costs of antitrust violations are huge: fines by the agencies; treble damages for injured actual or potential employees; and intrusive regulation of basic company operations from consent decrees and judgments. In addition, the DOJ used this guidance to announce that it will now prosecute criminally any naked wage-fixing or no-poaching agreements. According to DOJ, these naked agreements—“separate from or not reasonably necessary to a larger legitimate collaboration between the employers”—harm competition in the same irredeemable way as hardcore price-fixing cartels. So now, any executives involved in such agreements—whether HR professionals or not—face personal consequences, including threats of potential jail time.

Even unsuccessful attempts to reach an anticompetitive agreement on these topics can be illegal in the eyes of the regulators. As the guidance makes clear, so-called “invitations to collude” have been and will continue to be pursued by the FTC as actions that might violate the Federal Trade Commission Act.

Some of these information exchanges and agreements do not automatically violate the antitrust laws and there is nothing in this new guidance that suggests otherwise. If the agreements are reasonably necessary to an actual or potential joint venture or merger, legitimate benchmarking activity, or other collaboration that might help consumers, their net effect on competition would need to be judged. In prior actions, the agencies also have recognized as legitimate certain no-poaching clauses in agreements with consultants and recruiting agencies. Even such common uses as employment or severance agreements might not run afoul of the antitrust law’s prohibitions.

The guidance does not—and really cannot—go into all the detail necessary to determine when any particular effort will pass antitrust muster. It does refer readers to the earlier Health Care Guidelines but those helpful tips relate only to information exchanges. The guidance also provides links to the many prior civil actions taken by the agencies on these types of matters. It is accompanied by a two-sided index card entitled Antitrust Red Flags for Employment Practices that could be part of an effective compliance program.

ARTICLE BY Steven J. Cernak of Schiff Hardin LLP

Made in the USA (For the Most Part)

Newspaper headlines report a new economic trend—manufacturing is returning to the United States. The country’s industrial production grew by 0.7 percent in July, its biggest jump since November 2014. This number represents everything made by factories, mines, and utilities. Before companies start slapping “Made in the USA” labels on their wares, they need to make sure they are familiar with the legal requirements to do so.

The Federal Trade Commission (the FTC) monitors the marketplace and aims to keep businesses from misleading consumers. Within the FTC’s jurisdiction is regulating “Made in the USA” claims.

If a product is labeled as “Made in the USA,” without any qualification, it must be “all or virtually all” made in the United States. “[A]ll significant parts and processing that go into the product must be of U.S. origin. That is, the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content.” The FTC contemplates the site of final assembly or processing, the proportion of manufacturing costs paid to the U.S., and how detached the foreign material is from the finished product. For many businesses, this standard can be hard, if not impossible, to meet.

Since January 2015, the FTC has issued 46 letters to companies asserting misleading U.S. origin claims on a wide range of products, such as cookware, snow blowers, auto parts and pet products.

For example, the FTC recently determined that Shinola—a Detroit-based manufacturer of high-end watches, bicycles, and leather goods—did not meet it. Shinola advertises its products with the slogans “Built in the USA” and “Built in Detroit.” But in June of this year, the FTC called this labeling misleading because “100 percent of the cost of materials used to make certain watches . . . [and] more than 70 percent of the cost of the materials used to make certain belts” goes to imported materials. For example, Shinola’s watches incorporate Swiss-made timekeeping components.

Shinola’s founder had a good reason for why his company incorporated foreign parts: many of the components are unavailable in the U.S. The components are imported to Detroit where Shinola’s 400 employees assemble watches in the company’s factory. The FTC, however, applied its “net impression” analysis and determined that Shinola’s slogans contradict reality. Shinola’s advertisements will now read “Built in Detroit using Swiss and Imported Parts.”

In light of the FTC’s stance on U.S. origin claims, companies should follow FTC decisions and exercise caution when saying “Made in the USA.” There is no bright line rule for whether a product is “all or virtually all” made in the USA. Companies should consider how their products fit within the FTC’s framework and only then decide whether their merchandise has, according to the FTC, been “Made in the USA.”

ARTICLE BY Brittany Robbins of Schiff Hardin LLP

Federal Trade Commission Continues to Scrutinize Social Media Influencer Programs

This week, as part of its ongoing focus on influencer programs, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settled charges against Warner Brothers Home Entertainment, Inc. regarding its use of such a campaign to market the video game Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. This investigation of Warner Bros. was brought under the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive marketing, and requires that endorsers “clearly and conspicuously” disclose any “material connection” to the brand they are endorsing.

In late 2014, Warner Bros. and its advertising agency, Plaid Social Labs, LLC, hired “influencers” (i.e., individuals with large social media followings) to create videos and post them on YouTube, and promote the videos on Twitter and Facebook. One of the influencers hired for the program, PewDiePie, is the most-subscribed individual creator on YouTube, with more than 46 million followers. Warner Bros. paid each of the influencers from a few hundred to tens of thousands of dollars for the videos, in addition to providing free copies of the game. Under these contracts, Warner Bros. had the ability to review and approve the videos.

The FTC alleges that Warner Bros. failed to require sponsorship disclosures clearly and conspicuously in the video itself, where viewers were likely to notice them. Instead, Warner Bros. instructed influencers to place the disclosures in the description box below the video. Warner Bros. also required the influencers to include other information about the game in the description box, so most of the disclosures appeared “below the fold,” visible only if consumers clicked on the “Show More” button. Additionally, when influencers embedded the YouTube videos on Facebook or Twitter, the description field (and thus, the disclosure) was completely invisible. Some of the disclosures also only mentioned that the game was provided free, and did not disclose the payment.

This continues the FTC’s focus on influencer programs with insufficient disclosures. In March, the FTC settled charges against national retailer Lord & Taylor related to its use of an Instagram influencer program with insufficient disclosures, where the influencers were paid and provided with a free dress. The influencers were required to make a post with the hashtag #DesignLab, and tagging @LordandTaylor, but were not instructed to disclose the payment or the free goods. At the same time, Lord & Taylor placed a paid article in Nylon, an online magazine, and purchased a paid placement on the Nylon Instagram account. Neither the post nor the article indicated they were paid advertising.

Likewise, in September 2015, the FTC settled charges against Machinima, an online entertainment network. Microsoft, through its advertising agency, hired Machinima to promote its Xbox One gaming console and video games. The FTC alleged Machinima gave pre-release versions of the console and games to influencers, as well as payments of tens of thousands of dollars in some cases, in exchange for their uploading and posting endorsement videos. Machinima did not require that the influencers disclose the sponsorship.

In each of these cases, the FTC entered consent agreements that require the brands to closely monitor and review its influencer content for appropriate disclosures, and terminate influencers who fail to accurately and conspicuously disclose their paid endorsements. The brands must keep records of their compliance and the FTC may review them at any time—with penalties of $16,000 per violation.

As marketing teams continue to try to reach consumers in new and creative ways, the FTC continues to signal its intention to closely scrutinize each development. As these methods evolve, brands should be conscious of their obligations to ensure appropriate disclosures in every format and to monitor for compliance.

ARTICLE BY Katherine Dennis Nye of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Serious Games Require Serious Attention to Marketing Statements

Lumos Labs recently paid $2 million to the Federal Trade Commission to settle claims that it deceived consumers about its brain training application’s ability to increase cognitive function. According to the FTC, the company alleged that its app, called Lumosity, provided many beneficial effects including the ability to improve users’ school and work performance, delay the onset of age-related cognitive disorders and help restore brain function lost as a result of brain trauma and other health conditions.

According to the FTC, the company did not have sufficient scientific data to back up the claims made in its ads. The FTC also claimed that the company did not disclose that it solicited consumer testimonials about the effectiveness of the product via a contest that offered users the chance to win iPads and other prizes.

In a prepared statement, the company stood by the scientific basis for its brain-training methods and asserted that the settlement was a result of its marketing language that has since been discontinued.

The use of games for “good” causes, such as education, health and training is known as “serious games.” The potential for these types of games to help people in a variety of ways is immense. The number of these games is growing rapidly.

Makers of these games must be mindful not to overreach in the claims of what these games can do. The FTC has been active in policing unsupported claims by app makers.

Additionally, the FTC has been enforcing its endorsement guidelines which require disclosure when a company provides some compensation or financial incentive for endorsements or testimonials. Here, the fact that users had a chance to win valuable prizes in exchange for providing testimonials apparently was not disclosed.

Serious games and other apps have tremendous opportunity to provide beneficial results. However, it is important for makers of these games and apps to understand and comply with the various legal issues that are relevant to these offerings. It is advisable to seek legal review of all serious games and apps and their marketing plan before they are released to identify potential legal issues.

Article By James G. Gatto of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Tag: FTC

Personal Email Management Service Settles FTC Charges over Allegedly Deceptive Statements to Consumers over Its Access and Use of Subscribers’ Email Accounts

Like this: