Advertising & Marketing
The FTC has made no secret about its recent focus upon anticompetitive practices related to repair marketers and ensuring that consumers have options when it comes to repairing products. Those that offer product warranties should take a close look at their warranty terms and related communications to ensure that they comply with the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and developing federal and state laws specific to right to repair.
Product Repair Restrictions Workshops, Reports and Policy Statements
In 2019 Federal Trade Commission lawyers held a workshop to discuss manufacturer restrictions on proposed state consumer good repair rights legislation. For example, making it unreasonably difficult – if not impossible – for a consumer or an independent third-party – to make product repairs. Various approaches were proposed by panelists, including federal guidance on the right to repair; a requirement that manufacturers disclose product information with everyone, and not only certified repair shops; state right to repair legislation; and permitting consumers to pay for repairs.
Subsequently, in 2021, the FTC cited a report stating that there is “scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions.” A strong statement toward legislation mandating that manufacturers ensure that consumer goods are able to be repaired without consumers having to incur extra costs.
In 2021 Federal Trade Commission attorneys approved the adoption of a policy statement reflecting aggressive enforcement against manufacturer restrictions that prevent consumers and businesses from repairing their own products. The policy statement also sanctions more aggressive enforcement of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
As previously blogged about here, the Federal Communications Commission recently published the final, single-seller, one-to-one lead generator consent rule (the “Rule”). The Rule amends the definition of “prior express written consent” for purposes of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and will dramatically impact the lead generation industry.
How Does the New One-to-One, Single Seller Rule Impact Lead Generation?
When utilizing regulated technologies such as automatic telephone dialing systems (“ATDS”), artificial or prerecorded voice telephone calls, artificial intelligence voice telephone calls, outbound interactive voice response, and voicemail technology using artificial or pre-recorded voice messages, consumers will be required to select each “seller” – the ultimate provider – of a product or service from whom they want to receive telephone calls from.
Note that manual dialing may not provide cover, including insofar as telephone numbers on a do-not-call registry and various state legal regulations are concerned.
Further note that single “seller” consent does not encompass lead generators and other intermediaries, with potentially limited exception. Furthermore, it also appears that sharing consent across corporate affiliates will also be considered a Rule violation.
The cost of violating any of the Rule’s provisions are potentially devastating. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will be ready to pounce. Do not attempt to secure compliance on your own. Contact an FTC lawyer to discuss legal regulatory considerations for keeping you and your business from becoming low hanging fruit.
The effective date for the single seller provisions of the Rule is January 2025.
On June 18, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission released a statement regarding the agency’s referral to the Department of Justice a complaint against TikTok, the successor to Musical.ly, and its parent company ByteDance Ltd.
The FTC’s investigation of these companies began in connection with its order compliance review of Musical.ly following a 2019 settlement with the company for alleged violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The FTC also investigated additional potential violations of COPPA and the FTC Act, according to the statement.
The investigation uncovered reason to believe named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and that a proceeding is in the public interest, so the FTC has voted to refer a complaint to the DOJ, according to the procedures outlined in the FTC Act.
The FTC does not typically make public the fact that it has referred a complaint. Here, however, the agency states that it has “determined that doing so here is in the public
interest.”
Richard B. Newman is an FTC defense lawyer at Hinch Newman LLP. Follow FTC defense attorney on X.
Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May be considered attorney advertising.
On June 7, 2024, the New York Attorney General announced that it applauds the passage of two legislative bills designed to protect children online and address the youth mental health in conjunction with the use of social media.
The bills, sponsored by Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Nily Rozic, and advanced by Attorney General James in October 2023, are designed to protect children by prohibiting online websites from collecting and sharing their personal data and ”limiting addictive features of social media platforms that are known to harm their mental health and development. The nation-leading legislation will serve as a model for other states to follow as governments work to curb the most dangerous aspects of social media to protect children online.”
“Our children are enduring a mental health crisis, and social media is fueling the fire and profiting from the epidemic,” said Attorney General James. “The legislation my team worked on and supported along with bill sponsors Senator Gounardes and Assemblymember Rozic will help address the addictive features that have made social media so insidious and anxiety-producing. I applaud Governor Hochul, Senate Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins, Assembly Speaker Heastie, and the legislative majorities for supporting this legislation and for agreeing that protecting children’s mental health must be a top priority. New York state is once again leading the nation, and I hope other states will follow suit and pass legislation to protect children and put their mental health above big tech companies’ profits.”
According the New York AG’s office,
Investigatory procedures, including use of compulsory process, may be used by Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawyers in connection with the spectrum of activities that the agency is authorized or required to carry out.
For What Purposes May FTC Investigations be Carried Out?
FTC Investigations may be conducted in connection with:
- law enforcement investigations
- adjudicatory or rulemaking activities
- determinations of compliance with agency cease and desist orders
- penalty or redress matters prior to filing a judicial complaint, and
- economic and other studies
In the event that compulsory process is used in an investigation to determine whether any person is or has been engaged in any unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the special civil investigative demand (CID) procedures of Section 20 of the Federal Trade Commission Act must be followed.
Are FTC Investigations Public?
As a general rule, the existence of an FTC investigation initiated in order to determine whether a statute for which the FTC enforces is being violated generally is not public. However, disclosure is permitted to potential witnesses or other third parties to the extent necessary to advance the investigation
Note that the existence of an investigation may become public if a respondent files a motion to quash or otherwise – under certain circumstances – discloses the existence thereof.
Bureau of Consumer Protection Investigations
The FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection utilizes an evaluation committee tasked with assessing proposals for enforcement matters.
On April 10, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report to Congress detailing the FTC’s law enforcement cooperation with state attorneys general nationwide and presenting best practices to ensure continued effective collaboration.
The report, directed by the FTC Collaboration Act of 2021, “Working Together to Protect Consumers: A Study and Recommendations on FTC Collaboration with the State Attorneys General” makes legislative recommendations that would enhance these efforts, including reinstating the FTC’s authority to seek money for defrauded consumers and providing it with the independent authority to seek civil penalties.
“Today’s consumer protection challenges require an all-hands-on-deck response, and our report details how the FTC is working closely with state enforcers to share information, stop fraud, and ensure fairness in the marketplace,” said FTC attorney Samuel Levine, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We look forward to seeking new opportunities to strengthen these ties and confront the challenges of the future.”
In June 2023, the FTC announced a request for public information seeking public comments and suggestions on ways it can work more effectively with state attorneys general to help educated and protect consumers about and from deception and fraud. After reviewing and analyzing the comments received, the FTC developed the report to Congress.
The report is divided into three sections: (i) the FTC’s Existing Collaborative Efforts with State Attorneys General to Prevent, Publicize and Penalize Frauds and Scams; (ii) Recommended Best Practices to Enhance Collaboration;
On March 7, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced a final rule extending telemarketing fraud protections to businesses and updating the rule’s recordkeeping requirements as a result of developments in technology and the marketplace.
FTC lawyers also announced a proposed rule that would provide the agency with significant new tools to combat tech support scams.
Both actions are part of the FTC’s current review of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), which includes the Do Not Call Registry (DNC) rules and provisions banning nearly all telemarketing robocalls to consumers.
Importantly, the FTC also affirms the TSR’s prohibitions on robocalls using voice cloning technology.
“Today’s changes provide important new protections for small business and will help ensure that the FTC can take action against deceptive marketers who use AI robocalls and other emerging technology,” said FTC attorney Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We look forward to comments from the public on the additional proposals that would deter tech support scams and aid the Commission’s efforts to put money back into the pockets of defrauded consumers.”
The TSR became effective in 1995 and applies to virtually all “telemarketing” activities, both in the United States and international sales calls to consumers in the United States. The rule generally applies only to outbound calls made by telemarketers to consumers, with some exceptions, and protects consumers in a range of ways.
For example and without limitation,
The Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection welcomes an open dialogue with parties cooperating with its investigations. According to FTC lawyers, such dialogue allows the agency to make more informed decisions on whether to recommend an enforcement action and, if so, whether such an action can be resolved without the need for protracted litigation.
However, the Federal Trade Commission is also mindful of and believes that delays in investigations can undermine the public interest by allowing alleged lawbreaking to continue and by depriving consumers of redress for harms they may have suffered. Consequently, the FTC has made it clear that while substantive engagement is welcome and constructive, the FTC is prepared to pivot more quickly to litigation if undue delay comes at the expense of redress for consumers.
Delay causes particular concern to the agency in matters where the conduct extends beyond the statute of limitations period. In these cases, the FTC’s ability to provide refunds to injured consumers may be barred in whole or in part.
This risk has become more acute following the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, 141 S. Ct. 1341 (2021). Because of AMG, the FTC can no longer seek monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b), which does not have a statute of limitation. Instead, the FTC must often rely on Section 19, 15 U.S.C. § 57b, which authorizes courts to order defendants to provide redress only when violations occurred within three years of the initiation of the Commission’s action.
On December 13, 2023, the Federal Communications Commission adopted new rules designed to protect consumers from “scam communications” by directly addressing some of the “biggest vulnerabilities” in America’s robotext defenses and closing the “lead generator” robocall/robotexts loophole.
The new rules allow blocking of “red flagged” robotexting numbers, codifies Do-Not-Call rules for texting, and encourages an opt-in approach for delivering email-to-text messages.
Closing the Lead Generator Loophole
The new rules close a loophole through which “unscrupulous robocallers and robotexters inundate consumers with unwanted and illegal robocalls and robotexts.” The new rules make it unequivocally clear that comparison shopping websites and lead generators must obtain consumer consent to receive robocalls and robotexts one seller at a time – rather than have a single consent apply to multiple telemarketers at once.
Combating Robotext Sources
The new rules allow the FCC to “red flag” certain numbers, requiring mobile carriers to block texts from those numbers. The rules also codify that Do-Not-Call list protections apply to text messaging, making it illegal for marketing texts to be sent to numbers on the registry. And the order encourages providers to make email-to-text messages an opt-in service, which would limit the effectiveness of a major source of unwanted and illegal text messages.
Groundwork for Future Steps
In addition to the rules, the FCC also proposed and will take public comment on additional steps it might take against robotexts. The FCC proposes additional blocking requirements when the FCC notifies a provider of a likely “scam text-generating number.” The FCC will also seek further comment on text message authentication – modeled on the implementation of STIR/SHAKEN protocols for phone calls – including on the status of any industry standards in development.
One of the key issues relating to the NPRM pertains to consent being sent directly to/obtained by one seller at a time.
The FCC has now circulated its proposed rule. It has not been adopted yet but it looks like it will be in December when voted upon. It looks like the rule will become effective in or around August or September of 2024.
In pertinent part, the FCC ruling would require terminating mobile wireless providers to block all texts from a particular number when notified by the FCC of illegal texts from that number; codify that the National Do-Not-Call Registry’s protections extend to text messages; and close the lead generator loophole by making unequivocally clear that comparison shopping websites must get consumer consent one seller at a time.
Additionally, as amended “prior express written consent” shall be revised to read, as follows: “The term prior express written consent means an agreement, in writing, that bears the signature of the person called that clearly and conspicuously authorizes no more than one identified seller to deliver or cause to be delivered to the person called advertisements or telemarketing messages using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.” The “seller” is not the a lead generator. It is the provider of the products or services
Moreover, “calls must be logically and topically associated with the interaction that prompted the consent and the agreement must identify the telephone number to which the signatory authorizes such advertisements or telemarketing messages to be delivered.” “[R]obotexts and robocalls that result from consumer consent obtained on comparison shopping websites must be logically and topically related to that website.
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.