Privacy and Data Security
On November 2, 2022, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that a group of companies offering lead generation services violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule and Pennsylvania consumer protection law. Specifically, the OAG alleges two unlawful advertising practices.
The first unlawful ad practice allegation is that the defendants utilized deceptive online advertisements to direct consumers to websites where they would purportedly be tricked into providing contact information and survey responses. The second unlawful ad practice allegation claims that consumers’ contact information and responses were sold to telemarketers despite numbers being on state of national Do No Call registries.
As stated in the complaint, defendants operate “dozens of websites designed for lead generating” that advertise “gift cards to popular retailers and digital payments to mobile apps” for answering various survey questions. According to the OAG, the websites require visitors to provide personal contact information and click a box indicating consent to mouseprint disclosures stating that consumer will receive prerecorded calls and text messages from marketing partners (the names thereof are disclosed to by a hyperlinked list). According to the OAG, these sellers’ products and services are oftentimes not related to the promotional offerings whatsoever.
Here, according to the OAG’s complaint, the websites violate state consumer protection law because they “create a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding” by “failing to include clear and conspicuous disclosures advising consumers that by registering their contact information with defendants they are purportedly consenting to be contacted by multiple third party sellers,
“Ringless voicemails” are messages left in a consumer’s mailbox without ringing their cell phone.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act protects consumers from unwanted robocalls. The TCPA, in pertinent part, prohibits making any non-emergency call using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a wireless telephone number without the prior express consent of the called party.
On November 21, 2002 the Federal Communications Commission issued a unanimous Declaratory Ruling and Order finding that “ringless voicemails” to wireless telephones require consumer prior express consent because they are “calls” made using an artificial or prerecorded voice and therefore covered by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The FCC found that RVM are subject to robocalling restrictions. Regulated under the artificial or prerecorded voice prong of the TCPA, the issue of whether the technology used to send RVM is an automatic telephone dialing system may now be moot.
The FCC has clarified that RVM is a form of robocall and is illegal if the caller did not have the consumer’s prior express consent. Violations can be enforced by the FCC or the consumer can sue in court.
“Imagine finding robocallers leaving junk voicemails on your phone without it ever having rung. It’s annoying and it’s happening to too many of us. Today we’re taking action to ensure these deceptive practices don’t find a way around our robocall rules and into consumers’ inboxes,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.
“Up to” representations in promotional materials often draw regulatory and private plaintiff scrutiny insofar as whether such claims are truthful and can be properly substantiated. Which begs the question … how can an advertiser lawfully substantiate “up to” claims?
It may depend upon various factors, including, but not limited to, the context in which the “up to” claim is made, whether the claim is unqualified, and whether applicable conditions, limitations, exclusions and restrictions have been appropriately disclosed. It may also depend upon whether the matter involves the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general or a private plaintiff false advertising lawsuit. And/or, upon the forum in which the legal or regulatory matter has been initiated, such as state court, federal court or the National Advertising Division. Consumer perception testing prior to disseminating such claims can also be a useful tool when combating false advertising claims.
For example, at least one federal court has appeared to apply a “ceiling” test. Would reasonable consumers understand such language to be a floor rather than a ceiling that can be achieved under limited circumstances? Do the claims expressly or implied promise the best, maximum result? Is it implausible that reasonable consumers would be deceived? Would reasonable consumers understand such language to be a guarantee? Would reasonable consumers understand such language to be a promise?
Now, consider the National Advertising Division.
The NAD often considers whether an “appreciable number” of consumers actually achieve the top range of the claimed benefit under circumstances normally and expectably encountered by consumers.
Federal Trade Commision (FTC) investigation and litigation defense attorney Richard B. Newman has written an authoritative article on JD Supra for digital marketers and FTC practice counsel. JD Supra is a need-to-know news, insights and intelligence source that publishes and distributes valuable content produced by thought leading experts on myriad topics across numerous industries and fields, including advertising legal regulatory matters.
The article examines, in depth, the purpose of FTC civil investigative demands (CIDs), considerations relating to the nature substance of the initial response and subsequent responses, defense strategies, how to evaluate whether the recipient is a “target,” the importance of the “meet and confer” process, liability exposure and business disruption minimization tactics, persuasive written advocacy submissions, lodging objections to a CID, petitions to limit or quash, enforcement action avoidance and monetary fine minimization, how to avoid negative publicity, investigation closure and how to achieve an optimal resolution.
The article covers numerous steps that CID recipients should consider prior to, during and after learning that they are the subject of an FTC investigation.
You can read the article titled The Art of Responding to an FTC CID by an FTC CID Lawyer on JD Supra, here. An article authored by FTC lawyer Richard B. Newman titled Considerations for Digital Marketers When Selecting Regulatory Investigation Defense Counsel is also available on JD Supra, here.
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 compliance, civil investigative demands (CIDs), and administrative/judicial process. This blog is sponsored by Hinch Newman LLP.