eCommerce
When it comes to false “Made in USA” claims, the FTC continues to ramp-up investigations and enforcement.
The FTC states taht misrepresentations about a product’s origin is injurious to consumers, honest businesses and American workers. That is why FTC attoreys continue to investigate and sue manufacturers and markerters that fail to adhere to applicable legal regulations, such as the Made in USA Labeling Rule, assessing civil monetary penalties where appropriate and returning money to consumers.
The FTC provides guidance and case documents at www.ftc.gov/musa.
In JUly 2024, FTC lawyers released a refreshed version of the agency’s Complying with the Made in USA Standard guidance document. It contains updated information about how teh FTC believes that consumers understand Made in USA claims, how the Federal Trade Commission evaluates advertisements, and how the laws and rules teh agency enforces interact with those enforced by other agencies.
Here are some key takeaways:
- Consumer expectations control. The FTC’s job is to make sure marketers’ claims match consumer expectations. According to the FTC, when consumers see Made in USA claims they expect advertised products to be “all, or virtually all,” made in the United States. All the way back to raw materials. If that is not true, or there exists uncertainty, manufacturers and marketers should make a different claim that is capable of being lawfully substantiated. Caveat. Just because parts are purcahsed from U.S. suppliers does not necessarily mean those parts are made in the USA.
On July 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission announced the issuance of orders to eight companies offering surveillance pricing products and services that incorporate data about consumers’ characteristics and behavior. The orders were sent to: Mastercard, Revionics, Bloomreach, JPMorgan Chase, Task Software, PROS, Accenture, and McKinsey & Co.
The orders seek information about the potential impact these practices have on privacy, competition and consumer protection.
The orders are aimed at helping the FTC better understand the opaque market for products by third-party intermediaries that claim to use advanced algorithms, artificial intelligence and other technologies, along with personal information about consumers—such as their location, demographics, credit history, and browsing or shopping history—to categorize individuals and set a targeted price for a product or service.
The study is aimed at helping the FTC better understand how surveillance pricing is affecting consumers, especially when the pricing is based on surveillance of an individual’s personal characteristics and behavior.
“Firms that harvest Americans’ personal data can put people’s privacy at risk. Now firms could be exploiting this vast trove of personal information to charge people higher prices,” said FTC lawyer and Chair Lina M. Khan. “ Americans deserve to know whether businesses are using detailed consumer data to deploy surveillance pricing, and the FTC’s inquiry will shed light on this shadowy ecosystem of pricing middlemen.”
The FTC is using its 6(b) authority, which authorizes the Commission to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose,
The FTC recently announced various examples of how the agency works to ensure that small businesses and consumer are not the victims of unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition.
Here are some recent examples.
“Made in the USA” Must Mean Made in the USA
Many small businesses make an effort to keep manufacturing jobs in their communities. If they meet the standards established in the FTC’s Made in USA Labeling Rule and Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, they may be able to lawfully label or advertise their products as “Made in the USA.” However, the FTC’s long record of law enforcement establishes that many manufactureres and marketers seek to undermine those efforts by falsely including an unqualified U.S. origin statement on products even though significant parts, processing and labor are not U.S.-based. Consult with an experienced Made in USA attorney to discuss agency guidance and enforcement of domestic origin claims.
Right-to-Repair Legislation
After addressing “misconceptions” about product repair in its Nixing the Fix report and bringing law enforcement actions to challenge illegal terms in product warranties, the FTC continues to work toward ensuring that dealers compete fairly with independent third-party repair businesses. One example is our work in support of state right-to-repair laws. For example, the FTC recently testified before the Colorado General Assembly’s Committee on Business Affairs and Labor in support of proposed legislation to expand the state’s right-to-repair statute to include digital electronics.
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 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,
On October 10, 2023, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Delete Act (SB 362). The Act is new legislation that requires businesses that meet the definition of “data broker” to provide detailed disclosures about its practices, register with the state and delete any personal information relating to a California resident upon receiving a verifiable deletion request.
The Act requires the California Privacy Protection Agency to establish a simple deletion mechanism that permits individuals to submit deletion requests that data brokers must adhere to starting August 1, 2026. Importantly, beginning in 2028 data brokers will be subject to audits intended to demonstrate compliance with the Act.
What Businesses are Covered Under the Act?
The Delete Act defines “data broker” as a business that knowingly collects and sells personal information of a consumer that it does not have a direct relationship with, to third parties. Excluded are certain entities that may be covered by various federal and state laws relating to data, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act.
Data brokers must register with the CPPA and pay registration fees, as well as fees for access to the deletion mechanism.
What are the Applicable Registration and Disclosure Requirements?
Data brokers are required to register with the CPPA on or before January 31 for each year that they meet the statutory definition of “data broker.” In fact,
On August 22, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission announced that as a result of an FTC lawsuit, a federal court has temporarily shut down an alleged business opportunity scheme that purportedly lured consumers to invest $22 million in online stores, using alleged unfounded claims about income and profits.
The operators of Automators also claimed to use artificial intelligence to ensure success and profitability for consumers who agreed to invest with Automators, according to the agency.
In addition to offering consumers high return as “passive investors” in profitable e-stores, Automators, which previously used the names Empire and Onyx Distribution, also offered to teach consumers how to successfully set up and manage e-stores themselves using a “proven system” and the powers of artificial intelligence, according to the FTC.
“The defendants preyed on consumers looking to provide for their families with promises of high returns and the use of AI to power such returns,” said FTC attorney Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Their lies caused consumers to lose tens of thousands of dollars, with many losing their life savings. The FTC is working to hold defendants accountable and to secure redress for their victims.”
The FTC’s complaint against defendants Roman Cresto, John Cresto, and Andrew Chapman, through their companies Automators AI, Empire Ecommerce and Onyx Distribution, claims that the vast majority of defendants’ clients did not make the promised earnings or even recoup their investment. Instead, most clients allegedly lost significant amounts and Amazon and Walmart have routinely suspended or terminated the stores that defendants operated for repeated policy violations,
On August 14, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it will require Experian Consumer Services, which offers consumers access to their Experian credit information, to pay $650,000 to settle charges it sent consumers unsolicited email without offering them a way to opt out of such messages, as required under the CAN-SPAM Act.
In a complaint filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, the agency says that California-based Experian Consumer Services (ECS), also known as ConsumerInfo.com, Inc., spammed consumers with marketing offers after they signed up for an account with the company in order to manage their Experian credit report information.
In the emails, the FTC alleges that the company failed to provide clear and conspicuous notice of consumers’ ability to opt out of receiving additional marketing messages and a mechanism for doing so, in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, according to the complaint.
“Signing up for a membership doesn’t mean you’re signing up for unwanted email, especially when all you’re trying to do is freeze your credit to protect your identity,” said FTC lawyer Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “You always have the right to unsubscribe from marketing messages, and the FTC takes enforcing that right seriously.”
Consumers who wish to freeze or take other steps to manage their Experian credit information online must create an account with ECS. The complaint charges that consumers who signed up for a free membership account with ECS were then sent emails promoting Experian’s products and services such as one touting Experian Boost,
FTC advertising compliance and defense attorney Richard B. Newman was recently quoted in an article for Cybersecurity Law Report titled “Xbox and Alexa COPPA Case Lessons: Avatars, Biometrics and Other New Expectations.”
The article discusses the FTC’s recent privacy enforcement run and how it reinforces regulators’ expanding expectations for companies using video and audio recordings, smart devices and AI. The article further discusses recent agency settlements with Microsoft, Amazon and educational technology provider Edmodo that drew $51 million in penalties, broke new ground on the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule enforcement and signaled new expectations for all companies’ privacy compliance.
In discussing how COPPA is a tool for financial penalties and how these cases highlight the value of COPPA enforcement to the FTC versus its Section 5 authority under the FTC Act, Mr. Newman noted that “[i]n Amazon, obviously, the $25‑million settlement amount leaps out” for Alexa’s improper retention of voice recordings in violation of COPPA.
Mr. Newman further shared that “not just the FTC, but state attorneys general are becoming increasingly interested in expanding regulation of the use and sharing of consumer data, including geolocation data.”
While the FTC contests the issue at the federal level, data brokers and those that interact with them should expect that the plaintiffs’ class action bar and state AGs may lodge claims under state “little FTC acts” that echo the FTC’s July 2022 statement about geolocation data or the biometric one,
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.