While the full economic impact of COVID-19 is unknown, the demand—and need— for jobs and work that can be performed from home certainly will increase. Companies offering opportunities to potentially earn income working from home are likely to see an influx in consumer interest—and, of course, likely to ramp up advertising. The FTC always has actively policed the industry, given the challenges inherent in substantiating earnings claims, and will continue to do so during the pandemic. Below are some common advertising pitfalls and general guidelines for avoiding them.

  1. Earnings Claims Must Be Substantiated and Typical

An earnings claim is a representation of how much money a consumer will make or the level of success a consumer will achieve. Such claims can be either express or implied, and all must be substantiated. This means you must possess information that sufficiently backs up every reasonable takeaway of the ad. In addition, any claim should be typical, which means the average person pursuing the offered opportunity is likely to achieve similar success. It may be tempting to advertise results achieved by the most successful students, but those advertisements are risky. From a regulator’s standpoint, atypical results may mislead consumers into thinking they too will achieve a similar level of success. At a minimum, in order to limit (but not eliminate) the risk, a well-drafted disclaimer should be present.


Continue Reading

Session #1: When It’s All Over but the Shouting: How to Identify and Avoid Ethical Pitfalls during Settlement Negotiations

11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. ET

As more cases are resolved through settlement, it is important to understand how you can negotiate settlement without falling into an ethical quagmire. What can you say (or not say)

Last week, the Arizona Attorney General filed a complaint against telemarketer Valley Delivery LLC and affiliated companies Next Day Delivery LLC and My Home Services LLC, and an individual defendant, Mathew Willes, for allegedly distributing fake missed package slips to homeowners to collect their personal information in a “delivery slip scheme.” While the conduct here seems particularly egregious, the case serves as a good reminder that the State AGs remain focused on consumer protection issues especially involving personal data and telemarketing.

The complaint alleged that since January 2017, Valley Delivery gathered new homeowners’ addresses from the county recorder’s office and then dispatched “delivery drivers” to those addresses to post fake delivery slips, with the caption “Sorry We Missed You” on the door of each home. The delivery slips contained a callback telephone number, purportedly for consumers to reschedule the delivery. However, when consumers dialed the callback number on the slips, representatives allegedly collected consumers’ information for telemarketing purposes by affiliated companies and third parties. In addition, according to the complaint, the defendants created websites with false information about the company meant to induce consumers to contact the companies about their “missed delivery.” The defendants allegedly failed to provide sufficient disclosure to consumers concerning their business practices, both on the companies’ websites and on the delivery slips themselves. Even though, there was a purported disclaimer on the back of the slip that any contact information customers provide may be used by the companies or any of its partners for marketing purposes, many homeowners did not see this less conspicuous language placed in a smaller font than the language on the front of the slip.


Continue Reading

Growing concern over the coronavirus (COVID-19) has seeped into the regulatory and legal world. Agencies and plaintiffs’ attorneys are targeting companies that claim their products can treat or prevent COVID-19. As people search for health products to counter the growing threat of coronavirus, companies should keep in mind that any advertising claims made must be substantiated. Health claims trying to trade on the panic caused by the virus will be closely monitored and pursued by law enforcement and the plaintiffs’ bar.

A few days ago, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued seven joint warning letters to companies making allegedly unapproved and unsupported advertising claims related to their products’ ability to treat or prevent the coronavirus. The letters state that any advertising claims trumpeting a product’s ability to treat COVID-19 “are not supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence” — which is required under the FTC Act.


Continue Reading

Last week, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a settlement with Neurometrix, the makers of the Quell electrical nerve stimulation device. In the complaint, the FTC alleged that the company made false claims about Quell’s ability to treat chronic and severe pain throughout the body, even though the device is only placed below the knee, and allegedly false claims that the device is clinically proven and cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to treat full body pain. The case provides a good reminder that the FTC remains focused on health claims and the standards that the FTC requires for marketing products making health claims.

The FTC’s complaint also challenged advertising claims about Quell users’ results from using the device, including that 81% of people achieve significant pain relief with Quell, and that Quell relieves chronic or severe pain throughout the body caused by a wide range of conditions, including osteoarthritis, nerve damage, sciatica, shingles, and fibromyalgia.


Continue Reading

Last week, the FTC entered into a settlement with Teami, LLC, a marketer of teas and tea-based skincare products that the FTC alleges promoted its products with deceptive, unsubstantiated health claims and endorsements by social media influencers who did not adequately disclose their material connections to (i.e., monetary payments from) the company. The action highlights the FTC’s continued focus on both health claims and influencer marketing.

According to the FTC’s two-count complaint, Teami and its individual owners claimed, without reliable scientific evidence, that their products would treat cancer, clear arteries, significantly decrease migraines, treat colds, prevent flus, cause “rapid and substantial” weight loss and burn body fat.

The defendants also allegedly misrepresented that social media posts by influencers reflected the views of ordinary users of Teami products, failing to adequately disclose that the influencers were paid for their endorsements. According to the FTC, such disclosures must be clear and conspicuous—and, in this context, because consumers’ Instagram feeds typically display only the first few lines of a longer post followed by an option to read more, that means that endorsers must disclose any material connections above the “more” link.


Continue Reading

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection released a much-anticipated paper on small business financing that highlights enforcement dangers on February 26, 2020. The staff are sounding the alarm on FTC enforcement and its investigations of small business financing providers and their marketers, servicers, and collectors.


Continue Reading

Last week, the FTC entered into a settlement with LendEDU, a lead generation website that compares and ranks student loan and other financial products, and three of its officers. According to the FTC, LendEDU heavily promoted its website to consumers as offering “objective,” “accurate,” and “unbiased” product information, when, instead, it offered higher rankings and ratings to companies that paid for placement — a practice known as “pay-to-play.” The FTC uncovered multiple emails between LendEDU’s employees and advertisers demonstrating the advertiser’s ranking was clearly based on the amount it paid LendEDU per click.

The FTC also alleged that company employees, family members, friends, associates or others affiliated with LendEDU posted fake positive reviews of the company’s website on third-party platforms. The FTC described the extent of the fake reviews, noting that 90% of the company’s reviews on the website, trustpilot.com, were created by a person affiliated with the company.


Continue Reading

The FTC has issued a Proposed Notice requesting public comment on whether to make changes to its Endorsement Guides (“Guides”) as part of the agency’s periodic retrospective review. This review will serve as a key opportunity for industry participants to shape what happens next by showing what they are seeing in the marketplace when it comes to endorsements and testimonials, consumers’ understanding of them, and the effects of new technology and platforms.

While the FTC’s standard practice is to review its rules and guides every 10 years, this review promises to be anything but standard. This is particularly true considering that FTC Commissioner Chopra weighed in with a separate statement, noting that he hopes that the Commission will consider taking steps beyond the issuance of voluntary guidance, including codifying elements of the existing Endorsement Guides into formal rules that could trigger civil penalties and damages. He also suggested that the FTC develop requirements for technology platforms that facilitate and profit from influencer marketing and specify the requirements that companies must adhere to in their contractual arrangements with influencers. The Guides were first issued in 1980, and the Commission last sought public comment on them in 2007. Since that time, endorsement-related practices (and the media where they appear) have changed dramatically, with new platforms and apps emerging that provide new ways for companies and their endorsers to reach consumers. In an attempt to keep up with the changing times, the FTC issued an FAQ-type of document, Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking, and has modified it multiple times over the years.


Continue Reading

On January 3, 2019, Axon Enterprise, Inc. (“Axon”), a manufacturer of body-worn cameras for law enforcement, filed a complaint against the Federal Trade Commission seeking a declaratory judgment in the District of Arizona. In the complaint, Axon alleges that the FTC’s administrative procedures and structure are unconstitutional, and seeks to enjoin the FTC from pursuing an administrative enforcement action against Axon. Although an antitrust case, the matter provides interesting issues that also involve the FTC’s consumer protection mission.

A little background: On June 14, 2018, the FTC opened an investigation into Axon’s attempted acquisition of Vievu, which also sells public safety camera systems. Axon contends that it cooperated with the FTC’s investigation over an 18-month period, only to result in the FTC threatening to sue in an administrative proceeding unless Axon “surrender[ed] a ‘blank check’ divestiture.” Axon protested that it did not violate the Clayton Act or any other antitrust laws in its acquisition of Vievu and filed the pending lawsuit, arguing that the FTC’s structure and administrative adjudication procedures violate the U.S. Constitution.

As for the constitutional challenges, Axon first argues that the FTC’s administrative procedures — whereby it acts as prosecutor, judge, and jury — violate Axon’s Fifth Amendment due process rights. Essentially, Axon asserts that when the FTC brings an administrative proceeding against a party, it infringes on that party’s right to a fair trial before a neutral judge in accordance with the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly, subjecting Axon to an FTC administrative proceeding will force it to “submit to a hearing process with a preordained result.” As Judge Posner noted years ago, “It is too much to expect men of ordinary character and competence to be able to judge impartially in cases that they are responsible for having instituted in the first place.” Remember, however, that Axon is not the first company caught in the FTC’s crosshairs to raise this argument, and these prior challenges have failed.


Continue Reading