Posts Tagged ‘ftc’

FTC Updates Online Advertising Disclosure Guidelines

Wednesday, March 20th, 2013

The Federal Trade Commission has updated its online advertising disclosure guidelines to reiterate that just because the media are new or rapidly changing does not mean that the law and FTC regulations do not apply.  “.com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising,” makes it clear that online advertising, whether desktop or mobile, large screen or small, must include “clear and conspicuous” disclosures, regardless of the space allotted by the medium.

The new guidelines explain the benchmark succinctly: if an advertisement without a disclosure would be deceptive or unfair, or would otherwise violate an FTC rule, and the disclosure cannot be made “clearly and conspicuously” regardless of the device or the platform, you should not run the ad. (more…)

Why Do They Buy? A Key Question in a Pyramid Scheme Analysis

Tuesday, March 19th, 2013

So your company has great products (or services). You’ve searched for the best of the best and you regularly lay out a significant chunk of change for R&D and inventory. You take great pride in what you offer and try to take the message to the sales force about the benefits of your products. To you, the benefits and value are obvious.  But is this why your distributors buy the products? This seemingly simple question has considerable ramifications from both marketing and legal perspectives.

Unfortunately, the product message can be overwhelmed by the hoopla and hype surrounding the riches that will flow from being a distributor (I use the phrase “hoopla and hype,” but feel free to insert your favorite colorful phrase of choice!). If the real message is that one should purchase the products because they are the gateway to participating in the compensation plan, then what is actually being “sold” is the income opportunity rather than a bona fide product or service. The truth is, if people are really buying the products simply to access the compensation plan, you would be better off saving your money and selling “pixie dust” rather than spending a fortune on product development and inventory.

Of course, the reality is that most direct selling businesses offer high-quality merchandise that confers excellent consumer benefits. However, their compensation plans are designed so distributors’ monthly auto-ship orders satisfy distributors’ personal volume quotas, thereby keeping them “active” in the compensation plan for the month. Therefore, the products serve dual purposes by: (1) providing superior product benefits; and (2) protecting compensation plan qualification. But as indicated, the first of these benefits can become overwhelmed by the hype surrounding the compensation plan. If the real sales pitch is about earning riches, the product purchases are vulnerable to attack as “participation fees” incidental to earning compensation. The Federal Trade Commission expressed this position in its 2004 Staff Advisory Opinion – Pyramid Scheme Analysis by stating:

The critical question for the FTC is whether the revenues that primarily support the commissions paid to all participants are generated from purchases of goods and services that are not simply incidental to the purchase of the right to participate in a money-making venture.

 In the FTC’s recent case against Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc., the FTC argues that the defendant’s products were simply a proxy for participating in the company’s compensation plan. In the Commission’s Memorandum in Support of its Ex Parte Motion for a Temporary Restraining order with Asset Freeze, Appointment of a Receiver, Other Equitable Relief, and an Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (wow – what a mouthful!!!), in reference to the defendant’s product and service package bundles, the FTC states: “It is very unlikely that representatives would ever purchase any of these products and services except to remain “qualified” for recruitment bonuses.” 

 This returns us to the original question: “Why are your distributors buying your products?” The answer of course, is that there are usually multiple reasons. History teaches us that distributors oftentimes focus on the money that can be made under a compensation plan as their primary recruiting and selling mechanism. If the product purchases are presented as the means to accessing or remaining active in the compensation plan, the FTC will use this as evidence that the product purchases are primarily participation fees and not bona fide product sales to end-user consumers.

If the FTC wants to bring an action against your company alleging it is a pyramid scheme, this analysis will form one of the cornerstones of its argument. The message to you as corporate executives is that you must ensure that the financial message does not become the principal selling point behind your products. Rather, the product features, benefits and/or value must be the primary reason why distributors buy your products.  This of course leads back to offering products with great quality and value, and of course effective non-financial marketing techniques.

FTC Concludes Crackdown on Fake News Sites with $1.6 Million Beony Settlements

Friday, February 8th, 2013

The Federal Trade Commission has announced two proposed settlements that will conclude their sweep against online marketers that allegedly used fake news sites to promote weight-loss products. 

The two settlements, one with Beony International and owner Mario Milanovic and one with Beony International employee Cody Adams, each impose a $13 million judgment. However, that will be suspended when the defendants pay more $1.6 million and sell a 2008 Porsche.  However, if the financial information the defendants provided is later determined to have been false, the full amount of the judgments will be imposed.  (more…)

Another Fake News Site Operator Settles with FTC, Will Surrender More than $2 Million in Assets

Monday, November 5th, 2012

Circa Direct LLC and Andrew Davidson will pay more than $2 million to settle the FTC complaint charging them with deceptive advertising by operating fake news websites to promote acai berry weight loss products. This follows September’s $1 million settlement with the Coleadium, Inc. affiliate network, also known as “Ads4Dough,” and its owner will pay $1 million to settle a similar FTC complaint. (more…)

Judge Dismisses POM First Amendment Suit Against FTC

Thursday, October 11th, 2012

POM Wonderful lost the latest round in its lawsuit claiming the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement of advertising rules and regulations exceeds its authority and violates POM Wonderful’s First and Fifth Amendment rights when a Federal district court judge in Washington DC dismissed POM’s suit.

However, U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts did not address those issues in the September 30 decision. Instead, he agreed with the FTC that “declaratory relief is not proper because a declaratory judgment would not fully resolve the controversy between the parties.”  (more…)

Revised Green Guides Issued by FTC

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

The Federal Trade Commission has released an updated version of the “Green Guides,” also known as 16 CFR Part 260: Guides For the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims. The revision modifies and clarifies sections of the previous Guides, and adds new sections, based on input from both consumers and industry.

The new sections cover carbon offsets, “green” certifications and seals, and claims regarding being “free-of” specific substances, being non-toxic, being made with renewable energy and being made with renewable materials. (more…)

FTC Alleges Deceptive Advertising by Natural Bed Bug and Lice Treatment Marketers

Monday, September 24th, 2012

The FTC has charged two marketers of bed bug treatments using natural ingredients such as cinnamon and cedar oil with making unsubstantiated claims that their products could prevent or eliminate infestations. The FTC also alleged that one of the marketers claimed that its products worked on head lice, as well.

In one of the two cases, RMB Group, LLC and its principals have agreed to settle the charges relating to their “Rest Easy” bed bug products. In the case against Cedarcide Industries, Inc. and others, challenging their marketing of “Best Yet!” bed bug and head lice treatments, the defendants have not settled, and the FTC is beginning litigation against them.

According to the FTC complaint, Cedarcide Industries, Inc. claims that the cedar-oil based products they market under the name BEST Yet!, will treat and prevent bed bug and head lice infestations. The products are sold nationwide to consumers and also to hotels for bed bugs and to school districts for treating head lice.

The FTC complaint charges that the Cedarcide defendants make:

  • unsupported claims that Best Yet! is effective at stopping and preventing bed bug infestations and that it is more effective than synthetic pesticides at doing so;
  • false claims that scientific studies prove Best Yet!is effective at stopping and preventing bed bug infestations, and that it is more effective than synthetic pesticides at doing so;
  • a false claim that the Environmental Protection Agency has warned consumers to avoid all synthetic pesticides for treating bed bug infestations;
  • unsupported claims that Best Yet! is effective in stopping and preventing head lice infestations, killing head lice eggs, dissolving the glue that binds head lice eggs (known as nits) to hair, and killing head lice and their eggs in a single treatment; and
  • false claims that scientific studies prove Best Yet! is effective in stopping and preventing head lice infestations.
  • false claims that Best Yet!was invented for the U.S. Army at the request of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and that the USDA has acknowledged the product as the number one choice of bio-based pesticides.

According to the FTC, RMB Group, LLC marketed Rest Easy, a liquid containing cinnamon, lemongrass, peppermint, and clove oils for consumer use, primarily when staying in hotel rooms. The FTC complaint charges that the made unsupported claims that Rest Easy kills and repels bed bugs, and that a consumer can create a barrier against them by spraying the product around a bed.

Under the settlement, the defendants are barred from representing that Rest Easy or any other pesticide kills or repels bed bugs or creates a barrier against them, and making any claims about the performance of such a product, unless they are true and backed by competent and reliable scientific evidence.

Affiliate Network Pays $1 Million to Settle FTC Fake News Charges

Friday, September 14th, 2012

The Coleadium, Inc. affiliate network, also known as “Ads4Dough,” and its owner will pay $1 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint that they used fake news sites to make deceptive claims to promote acai berry supplements and “colon cleansers” as weight-loss products. In addition, the FTC charged that they used “free trial” offers to trick consumers into signing up for additional shipments that were billed monthly.

The products included the acai berry supplements AcaiOptimum, AcaiBurn-Force Max, Acai Tropic, Acai Fit, and Acai Elite Blast; as well as colon cleansers Natura Cleanse, Smart Colon Flush, Advanced Colon Max, and Colo Flush.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that  Coleadium and its owner, Jason Akatiff, acted as intermediaries between online merchants selling the products and affiliate marketers who used fake news Web sites to promote them and funnel consumers to the merchants’ sites. The complaint alleges that through their affiliates, the company and its owner:

  • made false or unsupported claims that use of the acai and colon cleanser products would cause rapid and substantial weight loss;
  • falsely represented that the stories on the fake news sites were objective news reports written by real reporters who conducted independent tests of the products, and that the comments following were those of independent consumers;
  • failed to adequately disclose that the content on the fake news sites was authored by affiliate marketers who, along with the defendants, received payments from the merchants; and
  • failed to adequately disclose that consumers who sign up to receive a trial supply of the advertised products but who do not return the products and cancel quickly will be charged for the products, and will be shipped more products and billed on a recurring basis.

In addition to the $1 million payment, the settlement requires Coleadium and Akatiff to monitor the affiliate marketers in their network to ensure that their statements are truthful and in compliance with federal advertising law. In addition, they are barred from making any material deceptive representations, including deceptive claims about weight loss and health, and about relevant studies, tests and research.

They also are barred from failing to disclose any material connection between themselves or others marketing or selling products, and the endorsers of the products; that the content of a “news” website or other publication was not written by an objective reporter but is an advertisement placed for payment; and that consumers may be subject to recurring charges when they sign up for trial supplies of the products.

FTC Settlement Costs Skechers $40 Million

Wednesday, June 13th, 2012

Skechers USA, Inc. will pay $40 million to settle charges made by the FTC that Sketchers deceived consumers when it advertised that its Shape-ups shoes would help people lose weight, strengthen and tone their muscles, and improve their cardiovascular health. The FTC complaint also alleged that Skechers made similar claims about its Resistance Runner, Tones and Tone-ups shoes.

Consumers who bought any of these shoes will be eligible for refunds, either directly from the FTC or through a court-approved class action lawsuit.  

The FTC complaint charged that Skechers violated federal law by making deceptive advertising claims, including falsely representing that clinical studies backed up the claims. Under the FTC’s settlement, unless they are true and backed by scientific evidence, Skechers is barred from making any claims about strengthening, weight loss or any other health or fitness benefits, including claims regarding calorie burn, blood circulation, aerobic conditioning, muscle tone and muscle activation. Skechers also is barred from misrepresenting any tests, studies or research results regarding toning shoes.

The final judgment is available here.

FTC Oreck Refunds Total $698,000

Tuesday, June 5th, 2012

The FTC is sending 27,339 checks totaling $698,000 to consumers who purchased Oreck Corporation’s Halo vacuum cleaner or ProShield Plus portable air cleaner. The refunds are the result of the settlement of the FTC complaint alleging that Oreck’s advertising for the products made false and unproven claims for the products.

The Halo is an upright vacuum with an ultraviolet light that shines onto the floor while vacuuming. The ProShield Plus is a portable air cleaner that filters air particles using an electrostatic charge. Oreck’s advertising made a number of claims for the products, including that they could reduce the risk of flu and other illnesses, and eliminate virtually all common germs and allergens.

Under the settlement reached with the FTC, Oreck is barred from making any of the allegedly deceptive claims challenged by the agency unless it has competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the claims.