FTC Order Requires Glass Manufacturer to Pay for Allegedly False Made in USA Claims

The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against Instant Brands, manufacturer of Pyrex-brand kitchen and home products, for allegedly falsely claiming that all its popular glass measuring cups were made in the United States during a time some measuring cups were imported from China.  The FTC’s proposed order against Instant Brands would stop the company from making deceptive claims about products being “Made in USA” and require them to pay a monetary judgment.

“Consumers rely on marketers to make truthful ‘Made in USA’ claims,” said FTC lawyer Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.  “If marketers move their manufacturing outside the United States, even temporarily, they must update their advertising to make it accurate.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, Instant Brands faced increased demand for its glass measuring cups in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when consumer interest in home baking spiked.  Pyrex has purportedly long used the U.S. origin of its products as a selling point.  By early 2021, the company was allegedly not able to meet the demand for certain measuring cup sets sold on Amazon with cups produced in the United States.  From March 2021 to May 2022, Instant Brands produced some Pyrex cups in China, according to the FTC.

When the production shifted to China, the company allegedly continued to market the Chinese-made products on Amazon as “Made in USA,” despite the cups themselves being marked “Made in China.”  While the Chinese cups were being sold the company also purportedly continued its marketing that implied all Pyrex cups were of U.S. origin, with claims about the company’s “made in the USA heritage,” and that its products were “American as Apple Pie.”

All told, more than 110,000 units of the Chinese-made measuring cup sets were sold to U.S. consumers as being “Made in USA,” according to the FTC.

The FTC’s order against Instant Brands, which the company has agreed to, includes a number of requirements about the claims they make:

  • Restriction on unqualified claims: The company will be prohibited from making unqualified U.S.-origin claims for any product, unless it can show that the product’s final assembly or processing—and all significant processing—takes place in the U.S., and that all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the U.S.
  • Requirement for qualified claims: The company is required to include in any qualified Made in USA claims a clear and conspicuous disclosure about the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients or components, or processing.
  • Requirement for assembly claims: The company must also to ensure, when claiming a product is assembled in the U.S., that it is last substantially transformed in the U.S., its principal assembly takes place in the U.S., and U.S. assembly operations are substantial.

The order also requires Instant Brands to pay a $129,416 judgment.

The FTC is committed to ensuring that “Made in USA” claims are truthful. The FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims provides guidance on making non-deceptive “Made in USA” claims.

In addition, the FTC recently finalized its Made in USA Labeling Rule, which went into effect on Aug. 13, 2021. Companies that violate the Rule from that date forward may be subject to civil penalties.

Once the proposed settlement appears in the Federal Register, the FTC will receive public comments for 30 days.

This matter should be of interest to FTC CID lawyers and in-house counsel.

The lesson of the Pyrex case is to make sure your manufacturing processes measure up to your Made in USA promises.  If there are changes to your supply chain – even temporary ones – update your ads to avoid deception. It’s a recipe for consumer dissatisfaction and possible law enforcement to disseminate half-baked Made in USA claims.

Richard B. Newman is one of the premier FTC defense lawyers in the country and a partner at Hinch Newman LLP.  You can follow FTC defense lawyer on LinkedIn.

Informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May be considered attorney advertising.

Richard Newman

Richard B. Newman is a nationally recognized FTC advertising compliance, CID investigation and regulatory enforcemetn attorney. He regularly provides advertising counsel and represents clients in high-profile investigations and enforcement proceedings initiated by the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, departments of consumer affairs, and other federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over advertising and marketing practices. Richard is also an ecommerce lawyer and spam defense attorney. His practice additionally focuses upon false advertising defense, data privacy, cybersquatting, intellectual property law and transactional matters relating to the dissemination of national advertising campaigns, including the gamut of affiliate marketing, telemarketing, lead generation, list management and licensing agreements. Richard advises clients on how to minimize the legal risks associated with digital marketing, email marketing, telemarketing, social media influencer campaigns, endorsements and testimonials, negative option marketing models, native advertising, online promotions and comparative advertising,

Topics

Topics

Archives

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.

Featured Posts

Stay Connected