Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a $1.76 million settlement with Truly Organic, Inc. and its founder and CEO Maxx Harley Appelman regarding false “organic” claims. This is the first time the FTC has obtained monetary relief for deceptive “organic” claims, and the buzz around this settlement signals it may not be the last. The Commissioners’ vote was unanimous, and Commissioner Rohit Chopra released a statement in support of the settlement calling for the FTC to issue a Policy Statement setting forth the Commission’s approach to enforcement in cases involving dishonesty or fraud.

Truly Organic is a bath and beauty retailer that makes and sells a variety of personal care products, including hair care products, body washes, lotions, baby products, and cleaning products. As the brand name suggests, Truly Organic markets its products as wholly organic or certified organic in compliance with the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National Organic Program (NOP), the program that enforces national standards for organically produced agricultural products. Truly Organic conveyed the organic theme through a variety of claims, including “100% organic,” “truly organic,” “certified organic,” and “USDA certified organic.” The company also claimed its products were “vegan.”


Continue Reading The FTC Gets Real About Fake “Organic” Claims

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission issued a press release announcing that it had issued warning letters to three unnamed sellers of cannabidiol (CBD) products who marketed everything from gummies to creams with bold claims that the products could treat a wide variety of the most serious diseases known to man. This follows an earlier wave of letters that it issued jointly with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last March, which warned other CBD marketers of misbranding and introducing an unapproved new drug without prior approval, and of making unsupported claims about their CBD products’ ability to treat and cure serious diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s, among other medical conditions.

In the latest press release, the FTC reaffirms its interest in monitoring health-related advertising claims in the budding CBD industry. The FTC did not disclose the recipients of the warning letters, but the Commission quoted several problematic claims made by the undisclosed CBD companies. Examples of claims that the FTC appears focused on include 1) assertions that CBD products have been “clinically proven” to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, or other serious medical diseases; 2) claims that CBD products are effective in relieving various types of pain; and 3) references to the amount of research companies have acquired to support these claims.


Continue Reading Alzheimer’s and Cancer? FTC Announcement Shows That FDA Is Not the Only Agency That Is “Serious”

Three things to remember when making claims: always ensure that you have the appropriate substantiation—I forget the other two. Last week, the Second Circuit issued an order vacating the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of an FTC complaint alleging that Quincy Bioscience falsely advertised a memory supplement, known as Prevagen.

A little background: Quincy represented that Prevagen improved memory—and that studies proved as much. Advertising through multiple mediums, Quincy claimed Prevagen “improves memory” and “has been clinically shown to improve memory,” and that “a landmark double-blind and placebo controlled trial demonstrated Prevagen improved short-term memory, learning, and delayed recall over 90 days.” Quincy also represented that apoaequorin, a protein derived from jellyfish and an ingredient in Prevagen, “enters the human brain to supplement endogenous proteins that are lost during the natural process of aging.”

On January 9, 2017, the FTC and the New York Attorney General brought suit alleging that Quincy did not have the proper substantiation to make the claim that apoaequorin improves memory or that it enters the brain. Attached to the complaint was the study on which Quincy relied. Quincy moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complaint failed to allege facts demonstrating that the representations at issue were false or unsubstantiated, and relying on the study to defend against the FTC’s claims.


Continue Reading Best to Leave Cherry Picking to Cherry Farms: Regulators Revive Lawsuit Challenging Data Used to Support Memory Improvement Claims

There is no denying that, at times, the express claims made on dietary supplement labels may seem to convey a broader implied claim to the consumer regarding the supplement’s performance benefits. While that may be true, last month the Ninth Circuit confirmed that plaintiffs cannot successfully allege that a lawful “structure/function” claim misleadingly implies that a dietary supplement will treat, cure, or prevent a disease under state law. In so deciding, the court found that Section 403(r)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) expressly permits dietary supplements to make claims that describe the role of a nutrient or dietary ingredient intended to affect the structure or function of the body (i.e., structure/function); and that Section 403A(a)(5) of the FDCA expressly preempts any California law that would differ from the FDCA’s allowance for structure/function claims.

While perhaps not surprising that the court reached this conclusion, a recent Ninth Circuit opinion is worth noting because it is the first time that the court has issued an opinion expressly confirming that lawful structure/function claims will have coverage against California’s strong consumer protection laws. We caution, however, that dietary supplement manufacturers may still face liability under state law if they fail to disclose material information about their products, including its safety profile.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s Vitamin E supplement claims to “support cardiovascular health” and “promote[ ] immune function” were false and misleading in violation of California law because the Vitamin E supplements (1) did not prevent “cardiovascular disease” and (2) might increase the risk of all-cause mortality. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant.


Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms FDA Preemption in Tossing Vitamin E Supplement Case

Earlier this week, the FTC and the FDA announced a joint effort to combat unsubstantiated health claims in the supplement space. In three warning letters—to Gold Crown Natural Products, TEK Naturals, and Pure Nootropics, LLC (collectively, the “Companies”)—the agencies explain that certain efficacy claims may lack competent and reliable scientific evidence for support.

Many retailers carry products with the phrase “As Seen on TV.” What if a product bearing that phrase, however, had not actually been seen on TV? A recent case in federal court in the Southern District of New York ponders that question.

In an advertising war between copper cookware competitors, plaintiff Emson sued its competitor Masterpan under the Lanham Act challenging claims made for the “The Original Copper Pan” (“OCP”). These claims included Masterpan’s use of the “As Seen On TV” logo; that the OCP was “original;” and that the OCP was “copper-infused,” “made of ultra-tough copper,” and made with “copper construction.” Emson alleged, among other things, that: (a) Masterpan falsely represented the OCP with its “As Seen On TV” label; (b) Masterpan’s “original” advertising deceived the public into believing that the OCP was the first copper pan of its kind; and (c) Masterpan mischaracterized the amount of copper in the OCP. Emson contended that these false claims diverted sales from Emson’s own “Gotham Steel” products, traded off its goodwill, and deceived consumers. Masterpan moved to dismiss Emson’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim.


Continue Reading But Wait, There’s More! . . . Litigation: Federal Court Sustains Lanham Act Claims Against Allegedly False “As Seen On TV” Advertising

Recently, we wrote about new faces at the FTC, which, for the first time in its history, has five new Commissioners in a calendar year. This unprecedented change has cast some uncertainty on how the FTC will approach consumer protection enforcement. Recent actions by the Commission, however, indicate that despite new leadership, the Commission’s focus

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently settled a case against a physician and his two clinics over allegedly deceptive and unsubstantiated claims relating to their “amniotic stem cell therapy.” The physician, Dr. Bryn Jarald Henderson, frequently appeared in his companies’ advertisements and claimed that this therapy, which purported to use stem cells derived from amniotic

It seems like we (and the NAD) can’t get enough of “best.” In a recent case, the National Advertising Division (NAD) ruled that the advertiser, Mahindra USA, Inc., could not claim its products were superior without reasonable evidence.

Deere & Company, Inc. challenged Mahindra’s tractor advertisements as unsubstantiated superiority claims. Mahindra’s ads included “Best” claims such as: best-selling, best value, best warranty, best performance, “toughest tractors,” and superior engine oil. Additionally, Mahindra advertised consumer testimonials that expressed disappointment in the quality of John Deere tractors compared to Mahindra tractors.

Of course, context is king and “Best” advertisements can either be substantive claims, or considered mere “puffery.” (See here for a discussion on NAD and “best” claims). For some of the challenges in this case, Mahindra conceded its ads were substantive claims and argued that they were factually supported. For instance, Mahindra argued its best-selling claims were based on unbiased data. NAD agreed that a reasonable basis existed for the claims (although additional disclosures were necessary). For the majority of the challenged advertisements, however, Mahindra argued its statements were puffery. NAD rejected this defense in all but one instance and recommended discontinuation of the ads.


Continue Reading Recent NAD Decision Largely Rejects Puffery Defenses and Consumer Testimonials that Disparage Competition

Do you have the best wireless provider? If so, best in what sense—the best contract, the best devices, the best connectivity, the best value? That was the issue NAD recently addressed when it recommended that T-Mobile discontinue its “Best Unlimited Network” claim. AT&T challenged T-Mobile’s tagline in a recent NAD case, arguing that it was an unqualified superiority claim that T-Mobile couldn’t substantiate.

Now, the advertising world is no stranger to the word “best,” which we discussed in an earlier post on The Absolute Best Puffery Panel Ever. The problem arises when “best” is meant as a measurable claim, including its use here in connection with the phrase “unlimited network.” As NAD pointed out in this T-Mobile decision, wireless service providers should be able to tout the advantages that their innovations provide, but their claims must be substantiated to avoid misleading consumers. NAD reiterated in the T-Mobile decision that broad superiority claims (like “best” or “largest”) must be supported by reliable market data.


Continue Reading Simply the Best, Better Than all the Rest: Superiority Claims and Substantiation