False Advertising

Subscribe to False Advertising via RSS

On September 30, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a $5.7 million settlement with Dun & Bradstreet, resolving allegations that the global provider of business-decisioning data and analytics, violated a prior 2022 FTC order by deceptively marketing its business credit services.

FTC Targets Deceptive Business Credit Marketing Practices

At the heart of the FTC’s allegations is the claim that Dun & Bradstreet misled small and mid-sized businesses about the value and necessity of its credit monitoring service. According to the agency, the company allegedly represented that purchasing its credit monitoring services was essential to prevent harm to customers’ business reputations and the credit reports published by Dun & Bradstreet, when in reality the risk was overstated.

The FTC further charged that Dun & Bradstreet failed to implement other required compliance measures imposed under an earlier consent order, including failing to notify customers of the order and to maintain certain records regarding compliance with the order.Continue Reading Dun & Bradstreet Faces $5.7M FTC Penalty for Violating Compliance Order and Misleading Small Businesses

On June 24, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Mercury Marketing, LLC, and several affiliated entities and individuals alleging that the defendants impersonated substance use disorder (SUD) treatment clinics in search ads to deceptively route consumers trying to call those clinics to the defendants.

FTC Alleges Fake Rehab Ads Misled Vulnerable Treatment Seekers

According to the FTC, the defendants used search advertisements that impersonated legitimate SUD treatment facilities. These ads displayed the names of specific clinics and included phone numbers that, when called, routed consumers to the defendants’ call centers. Call center representatives allegedly misrepresented themselves as staff of the searched-for clinics or as employees of a centralized admissions office. The call centers then directed consumers to treatment centers owned by or affiliated with the defendants, such as Malibu Detox and Malibu Recovery Center, without disclosing their true affiliations.Continue Reading Lead Generation Scams in Healthcare: FTC Files Case Against Impersonator Ads

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairman Andrew Ferguson has promised vigorous law enforcement under his leadership. Consistent with that promise, on June 10, 2025, the Commission announced a $1.9 million settlement with Florida-based Evoke Wellness and two of its corporate officers, resolving allegations that the company engaged in deceptive advertising and telemarketing practices targeting individuals seeking substance use disorder treatment.

At the heart of the FTC’s complaint filed in the waning days of the Biden administration is a classic bait-and-switch: Evoke allegedly purchased Google search ads that prominently displayed the names of competing treatment centers. When consumers clicked those ads—believing they were contacting the named facility—they were routed instead to Evoke’s internal call centers. According to the Commission, the representatives answering those calls were trained to reinforce the deception, often falsely stating that they were calling from or affiliated with the facility the consumer had originally searched for.

The FTC’s complaint alleged violations of both the FTC Act and the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act of 2018 (OARFPA). This settlement signals OARFPA remains a tool the Ferguson-led FTC is prepared to use.Continue Reading Marketing in Sensitive Sectors: The FTC Prescribes a $1.9 Million Lesson to Evoke Wellness

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