Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
The FTC’s Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials went into effect on October 21, 2024 and addresses deceptive and unfair conduct involving consumer reviews and testimonials. You can also review the FTC’s other guidance on reviews and testimonials, including FAQs relating to the agency’s Endorsement Guides.
Here are 10 things that marketers must be aware of concerning the Rule in order to avoid liability exposure, including the initiation of regulatory investigations. Consult with an FTC review and testimonial rule lawyer if you or your company have received an access letter, a civil investigative demand (CID) or if you are interested in discussing the implementation of preventative compliance measures.
- The Rule authorizes courts to impose civil penalties for knowing violations and is important because fake, false or otherwise deceptive reviews and testimonials have, according to the agency, polluted the marketplace. There is no private right of action under the Rule.
- There is a difference between a consumer review and a testimonial. A consumer review is a consumer’s evaluation, or a purported consumer’s evaluation, of a product, service, or business that is submitted to and published on a website or platform dedicated in whole or in part to receiving and displaying such evaluations. So, consumer reviews could appear, for example, on a site dedicated to consumer reviews or on product pages of retailer websites. A testimonial, one type of endorsement, is an advertising message that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions,
As contemplated by FTC defense lawyer in December 2024, the Federal Trade Commission’s operations during the first two months under the second Trump Administration have been chaotic. Unsurprisingly, the policy focus appears to be de-regulation and an enforcement focus on bread-and-butter fraud and deception (for example and without limitation, bogus business opportunity offers, unsubstantiated earnings claims and unlaw debt collection), privacy, telemarketing, big technology moderation and the protection of competition in labor markets.
Last week, President Trump fired the remaining two Democratic commissioners. Both have stated that they believe their termination is unlawful and may challenge the dismissals judicially. Two Republican commissioners remain to make regulatory, investigation and enforcement-related decisions.
The Federal Trade Commission has traditionally been considered an independent agency. However, President Trump recent issued an Executive Order seeking to vest control of various federal agencies and financial regulator within his control, including the FTC. In doing so, the Trump administration seemingly seeks to exert some degree of control over the strategic priorities of the agencies and regulators.
Historically, an FTC commissioner may only be removed by the President for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” In fact, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that FTC commissioners cannot be removed over policy differences.
Importantly, however, in Selia Law v. CFPB (2019), the Supreme Court held that restricting removal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director to “for cause” only is unconstitutional.
On February 18, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson appointed David Shaw as Principal Deputy Director and Kelse Moen as Deputy Director of the agency’s Bureau of Competition, and Douglas C. Geho as Deputy Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
Shaw is an experienced antitrust lawyer with expertise in high-stakes litigation and contentious merger review. During the first Trump Administration, Shaw served in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division in a variety of roles, from the front lines as a trial attorney to the front office as acting chief of staff. As a trial attorney, Shaw served on multiple trial teams, including the first litigated vertical merger challenge in forty years.
While serving in DOJ’s front office, he held a leadership role in the Big Tech investigations and successfully coordinated a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general joining the DOJ complaint in the Google search monopolization case.
In addition to his government service, Shaw was a partner in the antitrust practice of a large international law firm.
Moen is an experienced antitrust attorney, with a career in both government service and private practice. Most recently, he served as senior counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee for Senator Lindsey Graham, where he focused on antitrust, technology, and intellectual property issues, a position that he held until his appointment to the FTC.
Before joining the Judiciary Committee staff, Moen spent nearly a decade practicing antitrust law at major international law firms,
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 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,
The Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division recently participated in the G7 Competition Authorities and Policymakers Summit to discuss ways to ensure competition in artificial intelligence (AI)-related technologies, products, and applications. At the conclusion of the summit, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan and other representatives of the G7 competition authorities and government policymakers issued a Communiqué highlighting potential competition concerns in AI-related markets and identifying guiding principles to ensure fair competition across AI markets.
The Communiqué underscores the important role that competition authorities and policymakers have in addressing competitive threats. As the Communiqué outlines, concentrated market power in AI-related markets and possible collusion or improper information sharing using AI technologies require careful vigilance and vigorous and timely competition enforcement. The G7 competition authorities and policymakers reaffirmed that they are working to ensure there is open and fair competition in digital markets and AI and seeking to ensure that the benefits of AI are fully realized and widely available across society.
The summit was convened by the G7 Industry, Technology and Digital Ministerial Declaration and hosted in Rome by the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) in conjunction with Italy’s rotating G7 presidency.
The Federal Trade Commission works with counterpart agencies to promote sound antitrust, consumer protection, and data privacy enforcement and policy.
Richard B. Newman is an FTC defense lawyer at Hinch Newman LLP.
Informational purposes only. Not legal advice.
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.
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.