False Advertising

Subscribe to False Advertising

This week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the New York attorney general announced a settlement with Handy Technologies, Inc. to resolve allegations that the company engaged in an array of unfair and deceptive practices that violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and New York advertising laws. This settlement is yet another indication of the FTC’s continued emphasis on protecting workers’ rights, an emphasis that may continue under a new administration.

The complaint alleged that Handy, a gig-economy platform that connects workers with home cleaning and handyman services, misled workers by advertising inflated earnings claims and failing to clearly disclose fees and fines that withheld millions of dollars from workers’ pay.Continue Reading FTC and New York Attorney General Settle with Handy for Deceptive Practices

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced an enforcement action against Evolv Technologies, alleging that the company made deceptive claims about the capabilities of its AI-powered security screening system, including in school settings. Among other allegations, the complaint alleged that Evolv advertised that its systems could reliably detect all weapons, but the systems consistently failed to detect guns and knives and routinely gave false alarms.

The FTC also announced a proposed settlement. Interestingly, the two sitting Republican commissioners, one of whom will likely be the acting chair after January 20, disagreed on the scope of the proper remedy under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. While commissioners Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak both supported the FTC’s settlement with Evolv, they disagreed on the FTC’s authority to provide relief in the form of contract cancellation for school customers.Continue Reading The Dueling Views of FTC Commissioners Ferguson and Holyoak on the Scope of Agency Authority

Episode 10 of Venable’s Ad Law Tool Kit Show, Season 2,is now available. Listen to “Understanding False Advertising Claims, Part 2: The National Advertising Division” here, or search for it in your favorite podcast player.

The National Advertising Division (NAD) is part of the BBB National Programs. Its mandate is to “hold national advertising…

Join us as we spotlight select chapters of Venable’s popular Advertising Law Tool Kit, which helps marketing teams navigate the legal risk of campaigns and promotions. Click here to download the entire Tool Kit, and tune in to the Ad Law Tool Kit Show podcast, to hear the authors of this chapter dive deeper into the issue of Understanding False Advertising Claims in this week’s episode.

The first rule of advertising compliance is that advertising must be truthful and not misleading to consumers. In addition, all material advertising claims must be substantiated. When competitors’ ads do not meet those tests, there are numerous venues in which they may be challenged. When challenging competitors’ advertising, it is critical to understand the different ways in which an advertising claim can be false or misleading.

Types of false advertising claims:Continue Reading Understanding False Advertising Claims: An Excerpt from the Advertising Law Tool Kit

Episode 9 of Venable’s Ad Law Tool Kit Show, Season 2,is now available. Listen to “Understanding False Advertising Claims, Part 1: Litigation” here, or search for it in your favorite podcast player.

The first rule of advertising compliance is that advertising must be truthful and not misleading to consumers. All material advertising claims also must be substantiated. There are many venues in which a business can challenge a competitor who fails to follow those rules. What are the different ways in which an advertising claim can be false or misleading?

In the first of two episodes about false advertising claims, Venable partners Liz Rinehart and Roger Colaizzi discuss the many types of false advertising claims and how to be sure your business can avoid them.Continue Reading Listen to Venable’s Ad Law Tool Kit Show Podcast – “Understanding False Advertising Claims, Part 1: Litigation”

It’s October and, in addition to playoff baseball, that means the Supreme Court is back in session. The Court has chosen to hear arguments in two cases with significant ramifications for advertising law. Both cases will impact the risks and liabilities faced by companies accused of false or misleading advertising practices nationwide.

In Medical Marijuana, Inc. et al. v. Horn, the Court will decide whether plaintiffs may bring suit under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to recover economic damages resulting from personal injuries. In Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc., the Court will determine whether the Lanham Act permits district courts to penalize corporate subsidiaries for trademark infringement.Continue Reading Medical Marijuana and Dewberry: The Supreme Court Tackles RICO and Lanham Act Claims

During the dog days of August, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought two complaints against auto companies involving alleged deceptive and discriminatory price advertising.

The first complaint was filed and settled in federal court in the District of Arizona in partnership with the Arizona’s attorney general. It alleged Coulter Motor Company advertised prices that were thousands of dollars lower than the actual prices charged to consumers due to surprise charges and fees. Many of these charges and fees were add-ons that consumers allegedly never authorized. The FTC and Arizona also charged Coulter with discriminating against Latino consumers by arranging higher interest rate markups and more expensive add-ons than it did for non-Latino consumers, in violation of both the unfairness prong of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).Continue Reading FTC Commissioner Claims Agency Creates Favorable Precedent Through Venue Selection

The National Advertising Division of BBB National Programs (NAD) recommended last month that Stihl Incorporated USA (Stihl), a manufacturer of equipment and tools, discontinue or modify its unqualified “Made in America” claims. Modified claims would need to make clear that “not all (or virtually all) of its products are made in the United States and that not all (or virtually all) of the parts of those products are from the United States,” according to the recommendations.

The Claims at Issue

NAD reviewed “Made in America” claims made on Stihl’s website, social media, commercials, and print ads. In addition to claiming “Made in America,” Stihl ran ads stating, “It’s just three words. But they tell you everything you need to know…Not everyone can say them. But we can. MADE IN AMERICA.”Continue Reading In “Made in America” Case NAD Finds That Advertisers Should Not Rely on Disclosures to Cure a False or Misleading Claim

Last week, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against the world’s largest beef producer JBS USA Food Company and JBS USA Food Company Holdings (JBS Group). The lawsuit challenges the company’s claim that it will achieve net zero greenhouse emissions by 2040 despite its documented plans to increase production and lack of supporting evidence that the aspirational claim is attainable.

Generally, achieving “net zero” means negating the amount of greenhouse gases produced by activity by reducing emissions and implementing methods of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (also known as “offsetting”). According to the complaint, there are no proven agricultural practices that would allow the JBS Group to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero at the company’s current scale, and offsetting the emissions would be a “costly undertaking of unprecedented degree.”Continue Reading New York Attorney General Says JBS Net Zero Claims Are Greenwashing

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continues to focus its attention on “Made in the USA” claims, and this time the agency has fixed its gaze on a Florida-based company and its principal, whose claims regarding patriotic and Second Amendment-themed gifts were out of bounds.

In a recent complaint, the FTC alleged that the business, ExotoUSA LLC d/b/a/ Old Southern Brass, specifically targeted servicemembers and veterans by falsely stating that Old Southern Brass was a veteran-operated business that donated 10% of all sales to military charities. The FTC also charged that Old Southern Brass falsely represented, through express and implied claims, that all of its products were made in the United States. Statements such as “All of our products are made right here in the United States of America” directly contradicted evidence that many of the company’s products were either wholly imported from China or contained a significant amount of imported content.Continue Reading Made in or Made up? The FTC Closely Reviews “Made in USA” Claims