Advertising & Marketing
The Federal Trade Commission’s initial findings from its surveillance pricing market study revealed that details like a person’s precise location or browser history can be frequently used to target individual consumers with different prices for the same goods and services.
The staff perspective is based on an examination of documents obtained by FTC staff’s 6(b) orders sent to several companies in July aiming to better understand the “shadowy market that third-party intermediaries use to set individualized prices for products and services based on consumers’ characteristics and behaviors, like location, demographics, browsing patterns and shopping history.”
Staff found that consumer behaviors ranging from mouse movements on a webpage to the type of products that consumers leave unpurchased in an online shopping cart can be tracked and used by retailers to tailor consumer pricing.
“Initial staff findings show that retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services—from a person’s location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC should continue to investigate surveillance pricing practices because Americans deserve to know how their private data is being used to set the prices they pay and whether firms are charging different people different prices for the same good or service.”
The FTC’s study of the 6(b) documents is still ongoing. The staff perspective is based on an initial analysis of documents provided by Mastercard,
On January 1, 2025, an amendment to California’s existing false advertising law will become effective. The amended legislation takes aim at deceptive digital ad representations that lead consumers to believe that they are purchsing owership rights in a product when, in fact, only a revocable license is being conveyed.
With limited exception., AB 2426 prohbitis sellers of digital goods from using terms such as “buy,” “purchase” or similar terms when the net impression thereof objectively leads a reasonable person to believe that they are purchasing an unrestrictice ownership interest. The exception to the foregoing restriction is when a seller of digital products obtains affirmative acknowledgement from the buyer of a complete list of restrictions and conditions of the license, and that access to the digital product may be unilaterally revoked by the seller (e.g., if the seller no longer has the right to license). Additionally, prior to completing the sale, the seller must provide the buyer with a hyperlink, QR code or other means of accessing the license terms and conditions, a a clear and conspicuous disclosure that purchase of the digital product merely constitutes a license.
The new legistlation defines “digital goods” broadly. The law also sets forth exclusions, such as any distribution of television, video or radio service. The new law also does not apply to specifically enumerated subscription-based services and digital goods such as those advertised for no monetary consideration.
Violation of the amended statute can result in civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation. It couls also potentially exposure a violator to class action litigation pursuant to California’s UCL law.
On December 19, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that a group of 10 car dealerships and their parent company will be required to pay $20 million to settle allegations they systematically defrauded consumers looking to buy vehicles as a result of a lawsuit by the Federal Trade Commission and state of Illinois.
In addition to paying $20 million, which will be used to refund harmed consumers, the proposed settlement also would require the companies to make clear disclosures of a car’s offering price—the actual price any consumer can pay to get the car, excluding only required government charges—and get consent from buyers for any charges.
The $20 million proposed monetary judgment is the largest the FTC has secured against an auto dealer.
“Working closely with the Illinois Attorney General, we are holding these dealerships accountable for unlawfully extracting millions of dollars from consumers through a textbook bait-and-switch scheme, and bolstering their poor reputation with fake reviews,” said FTC lawyer Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We will continue our work to ensure that consumers are not being overcharged for cars, and that honest dealers do not need to compete with firms that cheat.”
“This dealership network engaged in bait-and-switch tactics by luring consumers into their dealerships with lower prices only to either require consumers to purchase allegedly pre-installed add-on products or charge consumers for those products without their knowledge or permission,” said Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
On December 18, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it approved a final consent order against a seller of an AI “testimonial and review” service – settling allegations that the service it sold provided subscribers with the means of generating false and deceptive online reviews.
The FTC’s September 2024 complaint alleges that the service generated detailed reviews that contained specific, often material details that had no relation to the user’s input, so would purportedly be false for the users who copied them and published them online. Accordingly, the complaint charges that the company violated the FTC Act by providing subscribers with the means to generate false and deceptive written content for reviews. It also alleges the company engaged in an unfair business practice by offering a service that is likely to pollute the marketplace with a glut of fake reviews.
The final order settling the Commission’s complaint prohibits the comapny from engaging in such conduct and bars the company from advertising, promoting, marketing or selling any service dedicated to – or promoted as – generating consumer reviews or testimonials.
The Commission voted 3-2 to approve the final consent order and letters to eight public commenters. Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson previously issued separate dissenting statements.
In his dissent, Commissioner Ferguson states, in pertinent part, “I dissent from the filing of the complaint and consent agreement because I do not have reason to believe that [the company] violated Section 5,
The Federal Trade Commission is watching the healthcare lead generation industry closely.
On December 10, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has sent warning letters to 21 companies that market or generate leads for healthcare plans. The letters were sent as open enrollment season for healthcare plans is ongoing. They provide guidance and provide about deceptive or unfair claims that likely violate laws enforced by the FTC.
The letters were sent to companies that provide marketing or advertising, including lead generation, related to Affordable Care Act Marketplace health insurance and healthcare-related products, such as limited benefit plans and medical discount programs.
The purpose of FTC warning letters is to warn companies that their conduct is likely unlawful and that they can face serious legal consequences, such as a federal investigation of lawsuit, if they do not immediately stop. Overwhelmingly, companies that receive FTC warning letters take steps quickly to correct and come into compliance with applicable legal regulations.
“It is critical for consumers’ health and financial well-being that marketers of health plans be honest about the plans they and their partners are offering,” said FTC lawyer Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC has been watching this important sector closely, especially during open enrollment season, and these warning letters put companies on notice that unlawfully marketing or advertising health plans to consumers can result in serious legal consequences.”
Based on information collected by FTC staff and the agency’s enforcement experience in this area,
On October 16, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced the final FTC “Click-to-Cancel” Rule pertaining to recurring subscriptions and memberships.
The Federal Trade Commission is not the only regulatory agency that actively enacts, updates and polices legislation governing autorenewals, subscriptions and continuous service offers. For example, state attorneys general are, in some instances, more aggressive than the FTC. Some notable states with automatic renewal legislation include New York, Vermont, Colorado, Illinois, Tennessee, Virginia, Minnesota, South Carolina, Utah and California.
California’s Current Automatic Renewal Law
California’s auto renewal legislation is perhaps the most aggressive of all. In short, California’s ARL applies to contracts with consumers, defined as “any individual who seeks, acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods, services, money, or credit for personal, family, or household purposes.” It includes notice and cancellation requirements for free trials and automatically renewing subscription plans. It also emphasizes the provision of a simple, easy-to-use cancellation mechanism. In California, those making an automatic renewal or continuous service offer are required to present material terms in a “clear and conspicuous manner.” Businesses are also required to seek and obtain a consumer’s affirmative consent to such terms in close proximity to making these material disclosures and prior to the point of billing the consumer.
Disclosures must include, for example and without limitation, that the subscription or purchase agreement will continue until the consumer cancels, a description of the cancellation policy, that recurring charges will be charged continuously until cancellation,
As previously blogged about here, following notices of proposed rulemaking in 2022 and 2023, on August 22, 2024 the Federal Trade Commission finalized a rule that will impose monetary civil penalties false and misleading consumer reviews and testimonials. Those covered by the Final Rule, including, but not limited to, advertisers, marketers, manufacturers, brands and various intermediaries, and businesses that promote and assist such entities, should consult with an experienced FTC compliance lawyer and begin to prepare for its enforcement, immediately.
What Does the FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Cover?
The FTC Final Rule Banning Fake Consumer Reviews and Testimonials formalizes the prohibition of various practices relating to the use of consumer reviews and testimonials and sets forth which practices may be considered unfair or deceptive pursuant to the FTC Act.
In short, the Final Rule is intended to foster fair competition and protect consumers’ purchasing decisions. In general, the Final Rule covers: (i) the purchase, sale or procuring of fake reviews or testimonials (for example and without limitation, a reviewer that does not exist, a reviewer that did not actually use or possess experience with the product or service, or a review that misrepresents actual experience); (ii) providing compensation or other incentives in exchange for reviews that express a particular sentiment; (iii) facilitating “insider” consumer reviews and testimonials that do not contain a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the relationship; (iv) utilizing websites that appear to be independent review websites when,
On September 25, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced “Operation AI Comply.” According to FTC attorneys, “some marketers can’t resist taking advantage of that by using the language of AI and technology to try to make it seem like their products or services deliver all the answers.”
As part of Operation AI Comply, the FTC announced five cases exposing allleged AI-related deception.
First, the FTC announced four settlements involving allegedly deceptive claims about AI-driven services, three of which are purported business opportunity scams that claim to use AI to help people earn more money, faster. The agency also announced a settlement involving a company that purportedly offered a generative AI tool that let people create what the FTC alleges to be fake consumer reviews.
- DoNotPay: An FTC complaint claims U.K.-based DoNotPay told people its online subscription service acts as “the world’s first robot lawyer” and an “AI lawyer” by using a chatbot to prepare “ironclad” documents for the U.S. legal system. The complaint says DoNotPay told small businesses its service could check their websites for law violations and help them avoid significant legal fees. According to the complaint, DoNotPay’s service did not live up to the hype. The FTC welcomes comments on a proposed settlement between FTC and DoNotPay, which requires DoNotPay to stop allegedly misleading people, pay $193,000, and tell certain subscribers about the case.
- Ascend Ecom: An FTC complaint filed in California alleges a group of companies and their officers used deceptive earnings claims to convince people to invest in “risk free” business opportunities supposedly powered by AI.
On August 30, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced that the Department of Justice filed a complaint upon notification and referral from the FTC against a surveillance camera company that allegedly failed to provide reasonable security for the personal information it collected—including 150,000 live camera feeds in sensitive areas like psychiatric hospitals, women’s health clinics, elementary schools and prison cells.
According to the complaint, these alleged failures allowed a threat actor – in March 2021 – to remotely access the company’s customer camera feeds and watch consumers live, without their knowledge or consent. Despite the purported invasive security breach, the company allegedly remained unaware of the threat actor’s exploration until the threat actor self-reported the hack to the media.
According to the FTC, the vast majority of the company’s customers throughout the U.S. and abroad include small businesses spanning multiple industries, including education, government, healthcare, and hospitality. The FTC says that the compromise went beyond the company’s security cameras. According to the complaint, the threat actor also exfiltrated data about the company’s own customers, mostly businesses, including, but not limited to, names, email addresses, physical addresses, usernames and password hashes, and geolocation data for security cameras.
The company’s alleged security failures “are in stark contrast to its many public promises to keep personal and customer information safe,” according to the FTC.
According to the complaint, the company’s own privacy policy claimed that the company “take[s] customer privacy seriously,” and “[w]e will use best-in-class data security tools and best practices to keep your data safe and protect [the company’s] products from unauthorized access.”
The FTC also states that the company’s publicly promised that it was HIPAA certified or compliant and that it followed the EU-U.S.
On August 7, 2024 the Federal Communications Commission proposed new consumer protections against AI-generated robocalls and robotexts. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking broadens the FCC’s efforts to address AI’s impact on the rights of consumers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The NPRM seeks comment on the definition of AI-generated calls, requiring callers to disclose their use of AI-generated calls and text messages, supporting technologies that alert and protect consumers from unwanted and illegal AI robocalls, and protecting positive uses of AI to help people with disabilities utilize the telephone networks.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to define “AI-generated calls,” and introduces such a definition that would include calls using artificial intelligence generate voice or text. For purposes of identifying the types of calls that would be subject to the new proposed rules, the FCC proposes to define “AI generated call” as “a call that uses any technology or tool to generate an artificial or prerecorded voice or a text using computational technology or other machine learning, including predictive algorithms, and large language models, to process natural language and produce voice or text content to communicate with a called party over an outbound telephone call.”
The definition proposed by the FCC is broad enough to encompass existing and evolving AI technologies. Importantly, it is limited to outbound calls. AI technologies that are used to answer inbound calls are not within the scope of the proposed definition of “AI-generated calls.”
“We believe this definition is consistent with federal and state AI definitions cited in the AI NOI,
Topics
Archives
About This Blog and Hinch Newman’s Advertising + Marketing Practice
Hinch Newman LLP’s advertising and marketing practice includes successfully resolving some of the highest-profile Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general digital advertising and telemarketing investigations and enforcement actions. The firm possesses superior knowledge and deep legal experience in the areas of advertising, marketing, lead generation, promotions, e-commerce, privacy and intellectual property law. Through these advertising and marketing law updates, Hinch Newman provides commentary, news and analysis on issues and trends concerning developments of interest to digital marketers, including FTC and state attorneys general advertising compliance, civil investigative demands (CIDs), and administrative/judicial process. This blog is sponsored by Hinch Newman LLP.