Archive for the ‘Cases’ Category

Facebook Settles FTC Privacy Complaint

Monday, December 5th, 2011

Facebook has agreed to settle FTC charges that it deceived consumers by telling them they could keep their information on Facebook private, and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public. The eight-count complaint charges that the claims were unfair and deceptive, and violated federal law.

Similar to the recent Google Buzz privacy settlement, the proposed Facebook settlement requires the social networking company to take specific steps to ensure it lives up to its privacy promises, including giving consumers clear and prominent notice and obtaining the user’s express consent before their information is shared beyond the privacy settings the user has established.

Facebook also will be required, for the next 20 years, to obtain independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order, as well as to ensure that the privacy of consumers’ information is protected.

The proposed settlement also

  • bars Facebook from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of user’s personal information.
  • requires Facebook to obtain a user’s express consent before effecting changes that override their privacy preferences.
  • requires Facebook to prevent anyone from accessing a user’s material more than 30 days after the user has deleted the account.
  • requires Facebook to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated with the development and management of new and existing products and services, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of users’ information.
  • requires Facebook within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, to obtain independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order, and to ensure that the privacy of consumers’ information is protected.

Among the instances cited in the complaint where allegedly made promises that it did not keep:

  • In December 2009, Facebook made changes that allowed made public certain information that users may have designated as private without warning users of the change or getting their approval in advance.
  • Facebook represented that third-party apps that users’ installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users’ personal data – data the apps didn’t need.
  • Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with “Friends Only.” In fact, selecting “Friends Only” did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used.
  • Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers when in fact, it did.

FDA Seeks Permanent Injunction Against Pennsylvania Dietary Supplement Manufacturer and Distributor

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

On the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, the FDA gave the owners of ATF Fitness Products, Inc. (ATF) and Manufacturing ATF Dedicated Excellence, Inc. (MADE) little to be thankful for. On that day, the Justice Department, on behalf of the FDA, filed legal action against the Oakmont, Pennsylvania companies seeking a permanent injunction that would stop them from manufacturing and distributing over 400 different dietary supplement products.

The action was based on alleged violations by ATF and MADE of the current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations for the manufacture of dietary supplements. According to the Complaint filed by the Justice Department, ATF is the sole distributor of dietary supplement products manufactured by MADE. Also named in the complaint is James G. Vercelotti, the owner and operator of both entities.

Under the cGMPs for dietary supplements (found at 21 C.F.R. § 111), dietary supplements must be manufactured according to processes that incorporate controls in the design and production process to assure a quality finished product. The purpose of the cGMPs for dietary supplements is to ensure quality and safety. According to the Complaint, ATF and MADE failed to adhere to the cGMPs in the manufacture of over 400 dietary supplement products. The Complaint alleges a number of deviations from the cGMPs at pages 3 through 5 of the Complaint. You can access the Complaint here.

In addition to the alleged deviations from the cGMPs, the Complaint alleges that the defendants misbranded their dietary supplement products by substituting ingredients for those listed on the product labels. Finally, the Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to submit Serious Adverse Event reports to the FDA as required by the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 379aa – 379aa-1). As an example of this failure, the Complaint alleges that the defendants received a report of a serious adverse event from a consumer who claimed that one of their products caused a high blood pressure spike requiring hospitalization and subsequently caused a mild heart attack. The defendants failed to submit a report of this event to the FDA as required by the Act.

According to the press release issued by the FDA, this is the first time that the agency has sought a permanent injunction against a dietary supplement manufacturer of this size.

Hoodia Defendants to Turn Over Assets, Two Banned from Marketing Supplements

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

The FTC’s charges against three people and two companies charged with deceptive advertising of hoodia as a weight loss has resulted in a settlement where one defendant is banned from making any weight-loss claims related to foods, drugs, or dietary supplements and must turn over a vacation home and other assets to the FTC; another is banned from the dietary supplement business altogether; and all defendants are barred from making any more deceptive claims.

The FTC’s 2009 complaint alleged that the defendants made false and deceptive claims about hoodia and its effectiveness as a treatment for obesity, and falsely claimed that their ingredient was hoodia when it was not. The complaint also alleged that they falsely and deceptively claimed their product was, among other things, scientifically proven to suppress appetite, resulting in weight loss and was clinically proven to reduce caloric intake by 1,000 to 2,000 calories per day.

  • David J. Romeo, and two companies he controlled, Nutraceuticals International LLC and Stella Labs LLC, are banned from making any weight-loss claims while marketing foods, drugs, and dietary supplements. The settlement imposes a $22.5 million judgment against Romeo and the two companies, which will be suspended when Romeo forfeits his vacation home in Vermont, and assigns to the FTC the right to collect on $635,000 in business loans owed to him. If it is later determined that the financial information Romeo gave the FTC was false, the full amount of the judgment will become due.
  • Nutraceuticals International principal Craig Payton is banned from marketing any foods, drugs, or dietary supplements.
  • Nutraceuticals International marketing executive Deborah B. Vickery is required to pay a $4 million judgment, which has been suspended due to her inability to pay..
  • All five defendants are prohibited from making any false or unsupported claims about foods, drugs, or dietary supplements, and from helping others to make these claims. They also are barred from misrepresenting the results of any scientific study.

FTC Gives Final Approval to Google Buzz Settlement

Monday, November 14th, 2011

The FTC has approved the settlement with Google regarding the FTC complaint that Google used deceptive practices and violated its own privacy policy when it launched Google Buzz.

The settlement bars Google from future privacy misrepresentations, requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program, and calls for regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years. This is the first time an FTC settlement order has required a company to implement a comprehensive privacy program to protect the privacy of consumers’ information.

FTC Settlement with Reebok Regarding EasyTone Advertising Claims

Friday, September 30th, 2011

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced on September 28, 2011 that it has entered into a stipulated judgment with Reebok to settle false advertising claims brought against the company by the FTC.  In the settlement, Reebok agreed to cease making muscle toning and other claims for its toning shoes and agreed to pay $25,000,000 into a fund administered by the FTC for the compensation of consumers.  Although Reebok admits no wrong-doing in the settlement, in addition to agreeing to deposit the $25,000,000 into the fund, the company also agreed that it would not:

  •  make claims that toning shoes and other toning apparel are effective in strengthening muscles, or that using the footwear will result in a specific percentage or amount of muscle toning or strengthening, unless the claims are true and backed by scientific evidence;
  • make any health or fitness-related efficacy claims for toning shoes and other toning apparel unless the claims are true and backed by scientific evidence; and 
  • misrepresent any tests, studies, or research results regarding toning shoes and other toning apparel.

Among the claims that the FTC took issue with were advertisements for Reebok’s EasyTone walking shoes, RunTone running shoes, and EasyTone flip flops that stated that the soles of the shoes feature pockets of moving air to create “micro instability” that tones and strengthens muscles as you walk or run.  According to the FTC Complaint, the company made unsupported claims that walking or running in its shoes would strengthen and tone key leg and buttock muscles more effectively than walking or running in regular shoes.  The FTC’s complaint also alleges that Reebok falsely claimed that walking in EasyTone footwear had been proven to lead to 28 percent more strength and tone in the buttock muscles, 11 percent more strength and tone in the hamstring muscles, and 11 percent more strength and tone in the calf muscles than regular walking shoes. 

Although Reebok denies any wrong-doing, it is clear from the terms of the settlement that the company did not possess the necessary evidence to substantiate the advertising claims that it was making for its products.  As such, this case serves as a timely reminder to all marketers of health related products, whether they be nutritional supplements, weight loss products, or toning footwear, that they must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence” in their files to support the claims that are made in advertising materials for their products.  Bear in mind that anecdotal evidence such as customer testimonials does not satisfy this standard.  Nor do purported scientific studies that are of dubious quality.  Competent and reliable scientific evidence is defined in FTC cases as “tests, analyses, research, studies, or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area, that have been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified to do so, using procedures generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.”  

To view the FTC’s complaint and the stipulated judgment, go to http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023070/index.shtm.

Government Returns $22 Million Seized in Inter-Mark Investigation

Thursday, July 14th, 2011

Federal authorities will return $22 million in funds owed to Inter-Mark member salespersons which were seized in 2010 amid accusations that Inter-Mark, an Internet-based multilevel marketing firm, actually was a Ponzi scheme.

The money will be distributed to 75,000 Inter-Mark member salespeople as commissions owed to them. According to a report in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, some Inter-Mark members could receive as much as $200,000.

A special administrator working with Inter-Mark will verify claims and disburse the funds.

While the government would say only that they didn’t want the members deprived of their money, Inter-Mark is taking the action as an admission by the government that the company did nothing wrong.

FTC Finalizes Agreement with Oreck Settling Complaint Concerning Deceptive Health Claims

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

The FTC has finalized the order settling charges with Vacuum cleaner and air cleaner marketer made false and unproven claims that two of its Halo vacuum and the ProShield Plus air cleaner can reduce the risk of flu and other illnesses, and eliminate virtually all common germs and allergens. As part of the settlement, Oreck agreed to pay a $750,000 fine to the FTC.

The Halo is a $599.95 upright vacuum with a light chamber that generates ultraviolet light onto the floor while vacuuming. The ProShield Plus is a $399.95 portable air cleaner that filters air particles using an electrostatic charge.

According to the FTC complaint, Oreck used infomercials, traditional TV and print ads, in-store displays and online ads to promote the products, most of which highlighted germ-killing and illness-prevention claims. The FTC charged Oreck Corporation with making these allegedly false and deceptive claims about the two products, including:

The Halo and the ProShield Plus prevent or substantially reduce the risk of flu.

The Halo and the ProShield Plus prevent or substantially reduce the risk of other illnesses or ailments caused by bacteria, viruses, molds, and allergens – such as the common cold, asthma, and allergy symptoms.

The Halo eliminates all or almost all common germs and allergens found on the floors in users’ homes, and is scientifically proven to do so.

The Halo’s ultraviolet light is effective against germs, bacteria, dust mites, mold, and viruses embedded in carpets.

The ProShield Plus eliminates all or almost all airborne particles from a typical household room under normal living conditions, and is scientifically proven to do so.

The complaint also alleges that Oreck provided deceptive advertisements to its franchised stores for their use in marketing the Halo and the ProShield Plus. By doing so, the FTC said, Oreck provided the means and instrumentalities to its distributors to deceive consumers.

Under the terms of the administrative settlement, Oreck is barred from making any of the allegedly deceptive claims in the complaint for any vacuum cleaner or any air cleaning product unless it has competent and reliable scientific evidence to support them. The company also is prohibited from making any claims about a product’s comparative health benefits without competent and reliable scientific evidence, and from misrepresenting the results of any scientific test, study, or research.

More information on the case is available in the original complaint, settlement agreement and print promotional materials exhibits.

FTC Seeks to Stop Fake News Sites’ Deceptive Claims About Acai Berry Weight Loss Products

Wednesday, April 20th, 2011

The Federal Trade Commission has asked to federal courts to issue temporary restraining orders to stop 10 alleged “fake news” operations from using their Web sites to market  acai berry weight-loss products.  The FTC seeks to permanently stop these practices and has asked courts to freeze the operations’ assets pending trial.

According to the FTC, the websites that are intended to appear as if they belong to legitimate news organizations. However, the FTC maintains that the sites are simply advertisements using deceptive practices to entice consumers to buy the featured acai berry weight-loss products from other merchants.

The FTC complaints allege that the fake news sites have titles such as “News 6 News Alerts,” “Health News Health Alerts,” or “Health 5 Beat Health News.”  They often include the names and logos of major media outlets such as ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, USA Today, and Consumer Reports and falsely represent that the reports on the sites have been seen on these networks. 

The FTC is asking the courts to permanently bar the allegedly deceptive claims, and to require the companies to provide money for refunds to consumers who purchased the supplements and other products.  The FTC charges that the defendants:

  • make false and unsupported claims that acai berry supplements will cause rapid and substantial weight loss;
  • deceptively represent that  their websites are objective news reporters,  that independent tests demonstrate the effectiveness of the product, and that the comments following the “articles” on their websites reflect the views of independent consumers; and
  • fail to disclose their financial relationships to the merchants selling the products.

(more…)

FTC Charges Deceptive Privacy Practices in Google’s Rollout of Buzz

Thursday, April 7th, 2011

Google Inc. has agreed to settle an FTC complaint that it used deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy policy when it launched the Google Buzz social network last year.  In addition to alleged FTC privacy violations,  this is the first time the FTC has alleged violations of the substantive privacy requirements of the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, a method for U.S. companies to transfer personal data lawfully from the European Union to the United States.

The settlement agreement bars the Google from future privacy misrepresentations, requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program and includes regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years. This is the first time an FTC settlement order has required a company to implement a comprehensive privacy program to protect the privacy of consumers’ information.

According to the FTC complaint, on the day Buzz was launched through the Gmail service, users got a message announcing the new service and were given two options: “Sweet! Check out Buzz,” and “Nah, go to my inbox.” However, some Gmail users who clicked on “Nah…” were enrolled in certain features of the Google Buzz social network anyway. For those Gmail users who clicked on “Sweet!,” the FTC alleges that they were not adequately informed that the identity of individuals they emailed most frequently would be made public by default. Google also offered a “Turn Off Buzz” option that did not fully remove the user from the social network.

When Google launched Buzz, its privacy policy stated that “When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use.” The FTC complaint charges that Google violated its privacy policies by using information provided for Gmail for another purpose – social networking – without obtaining consumers’ permission in advance.

The agency also alleges that by offering options like “Nah, go to my inbox,” and “Turn Off Buzz,” Google misrepresented that consumers who clicked on these options would not be enrolled in Buzz. In fact, they were enrolled in certain features of Buzz.

The complaint further alleges that a screen that asked consumers enrolling in Buzz, “How do you want to appear to others?” indicated that consumers could exercise control over what personal information would be made public. The FTC charged that Google failed to disclose adequately that consumers’ frequent email contacts would become public by default.

Finally, the agency alleges that Google misrepresented that it was treating personal information from the European Union in accordance with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor privacy framework. The framework is a voluntary program administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission. To participate, a company must self-certify annually to the Department of Commerce that it complies with a defined set of privacy principles. The complaint alleges that Google’s assertion that it adhered to the Safe Harbor principles was false because the company failed to give consumers notice and choice before using their information for a purpose different from that for which it was collected.

You can read the settlement agreement, as well as the original complaint and accompanying exhibits on our Web site.

Avoid Running Afoul of FTC Endorsement Guidelines

Thursday, March 24th, 2011

While the FTC settlement with Legacy Learning may seem unrelated to the direct selling indusry, the case actually is extremely relevant to MLM and direct selling companies.

Although you don’t typically see paid reviewers compensated for posting positive comments about direct selling companies’ products, it is common in the direct selling industry for companies to use testimonials to promote the sale of their products and services.

Oftentimes, those testimonials come from their distributors.  Just as the Legacy “affiliates” benefited financially from their reviews, MLM distributors have a direct financial interest in the sale of the products.

As the Legacy Learning case clearly illustrates, whenever a direct selling company does this, it is extremely important that the company disclose the relationship between the company and the person providing the testimonial if that person is a distributor for the company.  This can be accomplished by adding the title ‘Independent Company X Distributor’ to the identification of the person giving the testimonial.