YOU MAY BE PUZZLED, LIKE ME, AS “WHY THE FCC AND THE FTC AND C.F.P.B., DON’T WORK TOGETHER BETTER AND “SHARE/CROSS-SHARE” REGULATORY DATA AND “SEARCH ALGER ISMS”???!!!
WHAT THE “FTC” AND THE “CONSUMERS FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU” ARE Enforcing, is “negating” the Crazy A_S/Supreme Court’s Decision, that “Corporations/Businesses are people: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood)=Corporate personhood; At least, NOT, Always!!!!!!
Are Corporations People?
Business Blog
Online marketplaces, take note: INFORM Consumers Act takes effect on June 27th
By
Lesley Fair
June 27, 2023
The INFORM Consumers Act is effective as of June 27, 2023. Online marketplaces, have you taken the steps the statute requires? And is your site ready for scrutiny by the FTC and state law enforcers?
The INFORM Consumers Act requires “online marketplaces” – a term defined in the statute – to protect consumers from counterfeit, unsafe, and stolen goods by verifying the identity of high-volume third-party sellers on their platforms and by making it easier for consumers to report suspicious conduct.
Last week FTC staff sent letters to 50 online marketplaces across the country calling attention to their obligation to comply with the new law. Whether or not your business received one of those letters, if you meet the statutory definition of an online marketplace, you need to be in full compliance with the INFORM Consumers Act by June 27th. FTC staff also urge online marketplaces to communicate with their third-party sellers about the information the law requires marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose about them.
A new FTC publication, Informing Businesses About the INFORM Consumers Act, offers compliance basics. If you spot a possible violation of the law, report it to the FTC.
Tags:
- Consumer Protection
- Bureau of Consumer Protection
- Advertising and Marketing
- Online Advertising and Marketing
- Advertising and Marketing Basics
_________________________________________________________________
For Release
FTC Order Requires New England-based Clothing Accessories Company to Pay for Falsely Claiming Its Products Were Made in USA
Order requires company to stop deceptive claims
June 27, 2023
Tags:
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against a group of Massachusetts- and New Hampshire-based clothing accessories companies, along with their owner, Thomas Bates, for falsely claiming that certain company products were manufactured in the U.S. The FTC’s proposed orderwould stop the companies and Bates from making deceptive claims about products being “Made in USA” and require them to pay a monetary judgment.
“‘Made in USA’ means what it says,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Falsely labeling products as ‘Made in USA’ hurts consumers and competition, and the FTC will continue to aggressively enforce the law to stop deceptive claims and hold violators accountable.”
According to the FTC’s complaint, the companies—Chaucer Accessories, Bates Accessories, and Bates Retail Group—have frequently advertised their products as being “Made in USA” or “Hand Crafted in USA” in their marketing and sales materials. Additionally, the complaint alleges, the companies sold certain belts labeled as “Made in USA from Global Materials.”
In spite of those claims, the complaint charges that the companies sold certain products that were wholly imported or incorporated significant imported components. The complaint also charges that belts labeled “Made in USA from Global Materials” consisted of belt straps imported from Taiwan with buckles attached in the U.S.
The FTC’s order against the companies and Bates, which the respondents have agreed to, includes a number of requirements about the claims they make:
- Restriction on unqualified claims: the companies and Bates 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 companies and Bates are required to include in any qualifiedMade 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 companies and Bates must also 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.
- Monetary judgment: The order includes a monetary judgment of $191,481, which the companies and Bates will be required to surrender to the FTC.
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’s Made in USA Labeling Rule went into effect on Aug. 13, 2021. Companies that violate the Rule from that date forward may be subject to civil penalties.
The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the consent agreement was 3-0. The lead staff attorney on this matter was Julia Solomon Ensor in the Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.
Contact Information
Media Contacts
Office of Public Affairs
Office of Public Affairs
_________________________________________________________________
Business Blog
In Olde English or modern, Made in USA means Made in USA
By
Lesley Fair
June 27, 2023
When thou makest claims to thy consumers,
Base them in facte, not boast or rumours.
Nowhere is this truer sayeth
Than when thou claim “Made in USA-eth.”
OK – that’s not even close to Ye Olde English, but when a company’s name is Chaucer Accessories, it’s hard for Literature majors not to harken back to their Canterbury Tales days. The FTC just announced a proposed settlement with the company, affiliated entities, and the company president for making allegedly deceptive Made in USA representations. In addition, the case sends an important message about the care advertisers must exercise if they want to make qualified Made in USA claims.
Massachusetts- and New Hampshire-based Chaucer Accessories, Bates Accessories, and Bates Retail Group sell belts, bags, wallets, and shoes to consumers directly, on major product platforms, and through third-party trade customers that resell products under their own private-label brands. The companies’ websites featured banners on every page that said “Made in USA” or “Hand Crafted in the USA.” But according to the FTC, in numerous instances, their shoes, belts, and other items were wholly imported or contained significant imported content. The complaint also alleges the companies made similar misleading Made in USA statements to its third-party trade customers and provided them with labels and promotional materials featuring deceptive U.S.-origin claims.
What’s more, the companies imported belt straps from Taiwan, attached buckles to the straps in the United States, and labeled the finished products as “Made in USA from Global Materials.” According to the complaint, the companies then advertised and sold the belts through their websites, in catalogs, and on third-party platforms with prominent “Made in USA” claims.
In fact, United States Customs and Border Protection determined that those belts weren’t “Made in USA from Global Materials” because attaching a buckle to a strap is a minimal assembly operation that doesn’t change the name, character, or use of an imported belt strap.
The FTC’s three-count complaint charges the respondents with making false or misleading “Made in USA” claims, making false or misleading “Made in USA from Global Materials” claims, and providing its trade customers with the means and instrumentalities to commit deceptive acts or practices. The proposed settlement includes a monetary judgment of $191,481 and requires the respondents to contact certain customers directly about the FTC action.
In the future, the companies and the company president will be prohibited from making unqualified U.S.-origin claims for any product, unless they can show that the product’s final assembly or processing – and all significant processing – takes place in the United States and that all or virtually all ingredients or components are made and sourced here. If they make qualified claims, they must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure about the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, components, or processing. For assembly claims, they must ensure that the product is last substantially transformed in the United States, its principal assembly takes place here, and U.S. assembly operations are substantial. Once the proposed settlement is published in the Federal Register, the FTC will accept public comments for 30 days.
The takeaway message for other companies: U.S. origin claims are highly material to many consumers. Don’t run the risk of customers “going medieval” if they learn that a company’s Made in USA claims – qualified or unqualified – are deceptive.
Looking for compliance resources? The Made in USA page features links to the FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, the Complying with the Made in USA Standard guide for business, and the Made in USA Labeling Rule.
Tags:
- Consumer Protection
- Bureau of Consumer Protection
- Clothing and Textiles
- Advertising and Marketing
- Made in USA
______________________________________________________________
Business Blog
FTC “Apprise Patrol” visits Publishers Clearing House to challenge company’s digital dark patterns
By
Lesley Fair
June 27, 2023
Most people are familiar with the Publishers Clearing House Prize Patrol and their visits to consumers’ homes to deliver those big checks. In a twist on the familiar scenario, this time the FTC is – metaphorically speaking – paying a call on Publishers Clearing House as the Apprise Patrol, apprising companies and consumers of a proposed settlement with Publishers Clearing House for multiple violations of federal law. However, a big check is still involved: an $18.5 million financial remedy for the company’s use of allegedly deceptive tactics in how it promoted its sweepstakes.
Any discussion of Publishers Clearing House’s sweepstakes practices has to start with a mention of the company’s long history of alleged consumer protection violations. The FTC complaint cites multimillion dollar settlements with State AGs in 1994, 2000, 2001, and 2010. Then there was a $10 million settlement of a nationwide class-action lawsuit. Congress looked into potentially deceptive practices by PCH and other sweepstakes companies in 1998 and 2013, and also passed the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. That law requires that sweepstakes mailers clearly and conspicuously disclose “on the order or entry form, that no purchase is necessary to enter [the] sweepstakes,” and that “a purchase will not improve an individual’s chances of winning.”
In the intervening years, PCH has moved a substantial portion of its marketing efforts online, where the FTC says PCH has employed digital dark patterns to deceive people. According to the complaint, the company used “the prospect of winning lucrative sweepstakes prizes to lure consumers” – often older people with lower household incomes – “into repeatedly visiting its e‑commerce website and buying products.” The FTC says PCH misled them “into believing that they must place an order to buy products to enter a sweepstakes or that ordering will increase their odds of winning.”
Image
You’ll want to read the complaint for a detailed analysis of how the FTC alleges PCH used deception to lure people in, but here’s a summary of the tortuous journey consumers had to take just to enter a sweepstakes. When consumers first visited PCH’s webpage, they were presented with an “Official Entry Form” or “Official Entry Registration Form” to “WIN $5,000 a week ‘FOREVER.’” After typing in their personal information, PCH presented them with a button that says “Submit Entry!” – or in other examples, “WIN IT!” or “Win for Life!”
So at that point did PCH enter them in the advertised sweepstakes? No. As the complaint puts it, “PCH does not process consumers’ sweepstakes entries when consumers complete and submit the ‘Official Entry Form.’” Instead, the company took them through page after page of sales pitches. Only after navigating through that marketing material did PCH present them with another button that the FTC says led people to think they were finally entered in the sweepstakes.
But it didn’t stop there. Once in possession of their email addresses, PCH then sent consumers emails claiming they had to take a “final step” to claim a prize number on the “winner selection list” or be eligible to win the sweepstakes. In some instances, PCH told people if they didn’t respond, they would be “disqualified.”
So by clicking links in those emails did PCH enter them in the advertised sweepstakes? Again, no. Instead the FTC says PCH sent them back to its e-commerce site where once again people had to navigate through a deceptive loop of pitches and prompts, including a confusingly titled “Official Order-Entry Form.” According to the FTC, that’s one more tactic PCH used to further its deceptive conflation of the sweepstakes entry process and the product ordering process.
For example, the complaint charges that if consumers got to that page without putting anything in their shopping cart, PCH often displayed a message directing them back to the shopping pages. In other cases, if consumers clicked the “Enter Now” button, the FTC says the company presented them with more confusing product offers. Throughout the process, if consumers still tried to enter the sweepstakes without buying anything, PCH continued to send them confusing emails referring to “1 critical decision” or “the last step” that consumers needed to take. When consumers would click on those emails, the company made references to the fact that “We see you’ve never placed an order” and that “Just one order is all it takes to activate these customer rewards.” One screen with the bold headline “PLEASE DON’T SAY NO!” presented people with an array of merchandise to buy – including a “Kissing Moose Salt and Pepper Shaker Set.” The FTC says that people who didn’t opt for those items had to make their way through more relentless product offers in what would have to be described as a “Groundhog Day” of circular sales pitches.
Image
But what about the legal requirement that people can enter the sweepstakes without buying anything? As the complaint alleges, PCH did state “No purchase or fee necessary to enter. A purchase won’t increase an individual’s chance of winning.” But it was in fine print. And on the shopping pages, the disclosure appeared at the bottom and below the CONTINUE button – hardly a clear and conspicuous disclosure.
The complaint alleges that PCH made a host of deceptive representations to consumers, including that a purchase was necessary to enter the sweepstakes, that buying something would increase their chances of winning, that they had been entered in the sweepstakes when they hadn’t, and that they would be “disqualified” if they didn’t take additional steps. The FTC also charges that for people who did order merchandise, PCH didn’t disclose the total cost of their order and made deceptive “risk-free” guarantees. Furthermore, the complaint alleges that until January 2019, PCH falsely claimed it didn’t “rent, license, or sell personal data to third parties” when it shared that information with third parties that advertised on PCH’s websites and other platforms. In addition, the FTC says PCH violated the CAN-SPAM Rule by sending marketing emails with deceptive subject lines – for example, one titled “High Priority Doc. W-34 Issued,” leading consumers to believe the message was related to a tax form or some other official requirement.
In addition to the $18.5 million financial remedy, the proposed order, which is subject to court approval, requires PCH to make clear disclosures that consumers don’t have to buy anything to enter a sweepstakes and that a purchase won’t increase their chances of winning. The order also prohibits the company from using tactics that state or imply the contrary. What’s more, PCH will have to take steps to separate sweepstakes from sales on its website.
The proposed order bans a host of deceptive dark patterns, including false exhortations of urgency. Also prohibited: misrepresentations about the total cost of goods, deceptive statements about how the company uses consumers’ personal information, and violations of the CAN-SPAM Act.
The proposed settlement offers insights for companies that use sweepstakes and similar promotions, but even if your company doesn’t, the action conveys important advice for all businesses.
Dark patterns take many injurious forms and the FTC is committed to rooting out all of them. The phrase “dark patterns” covers broad categories of deceptive feints, head fakes, and misdirections that have violated the FTC Act for years. As this action illustrates, digital dark patterns can be particularly harmful to consumers. Companies that want to stay out of legal hot water should strive for transparency in their transactions. Luring people in under false pretenses and then subjecting them to a relentless barrage of sales pitches until they finally cry “Uncle!” is an unacceptable business practice.
Consider a CAN-SPAM compliance check at your company. If it’s been a while since you’ve taken a close look at your marketing emails, read the FTC’s CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business. Make sure your messages still measure up.
Tags:
- Consumer Protection
- Bureau of Consumer Protection
- Advertising and Marketing
- Online Advertising and Marketing
- Advertising and Marketing Basics
_____________________________________________________________
Business Blog
FTC and endorsements: Final revised guides, a proposed new rule, and an updated staff publication
By
Lesley Fair
June 30, 2023
Companies that use deceptive endorsements and reviews inflict an injurious double whammy. They harm consumers with misleading tactics that subvert their choices at check-out. And they take business away from honest competitors that work hard to comply with the law. For decades, the FTC has challenged those illegal practices and will continue that fight. But it’s important that our approach keeps current with the state of technology and marketing. That’s why you’ll want to follow three important developments just announced by the FTC: final revisions to the Endorsement Guides, a proposed new Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, and updates to a key staff guidance publication for businesses, endorsers, and members of the advertising industry.
Final Revised Endorsement Guides
Last revised in 2009, the Guides Concerning Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising offer advice for businesses on how the FTC Act applies in the use of endorsements. As part of its regulatory review efforts, the FTC announced in May 2022 that it was seeking public comments on proposed updates to the Guides to ensure they reflect current advertising trends, including how long-standing legal principles apply in social media and review platforms.
The revised Endorsement Guides reflect the feedback we received and recent law enforcement experience. Here are six final changes that merit your attention:
- Articulating a new principle regarding not procuring, suppressing, organizing, upvoting, downvoting, or editing consumer reviews in ways that likely distort what consumers really think of a product.
- Addressing incentivized reviews, reviews by employees, and fake negative reviews by competitors.
- Adding a definition of “clear and conspicuous” and warning that a platform’s built-in disclosure tool might not be adequate.
- Updating the definition of “endorsements” to clarify that it can include fake reviews, virtual influencers, and social media tags.
- Providing a clearer explanation of the potential liability that advertisers, endorsers, and intermediaries face for violating the law.
- Emphasizing special concerns with child-directed advertising.
Proposed Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials
Not to coin a phrase, but wait – there’s more. In addition to announcing final changes to the Endorsement Guides, the FTC is proposing a new Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials based on comments we received in response to a November 2022 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. We had the benefit of a broad range of perspectives from consumers, small businesses, advocacy organizations, trade associations, review platform operators, researchers, and others with an interest in the area. And now we’re asking you to comment on a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking designed to fight clearly deceptive practices involving consumer reviews and testimonials.
What’s the need for a rule specifying certain practices as illegal? A rule that clearly spells out prohibited practices and authorizes courts to impose civil penalties could strengthen FTC enforcement actions and have a deterrent effect when companies map out their marketing strategies. You’ll want to read the Federal Register Notice for details, but the proposed Rule would specifically prohibit the following practices:
Selling or obtaining fake consumer reviews and testimonials. The proposed rule would prohibit businesses from writing or selling consumer reviews or testimonials by someone: 1) who doesn’t exist, 2) who didn’t have actual experience with the product or service, or 3) who misrepresented their experience. It also would prohibit businesses from procuring reviews or disseminating testimonials from those same three categories.
Review hijacking. The proposed rule would ban businesses from using or repurposing a consumer review written for one product so that it appears to have been written for a substantially different product. (The FTC recently brought an enforcement action challenging the practice of review hijacking.)
Buying positive or negative reviews. Businesses would be prohibited from providing compensation or other incentives contingent on the writing of consumer reviews expressing a particular sentiment, either positive or negative.
Insider reviews and testimonials. The proposed rule would prohibit a company’s officers and managers from writing reviews or testimonials about its products without clearly disclosing their relationship. It also would prohibit businesses from disseminating testimonials by insiders without clear disclosures, and it would prohibit certain solicitations by officers or managers of reviews from company employees or their relatives.
Company controlled review websites. Businesses would be prohibited from creating or controlling websites that claim to provide independent opinions about a category of products that includes their own products.
Illegal review suppression. Businesses would be prohibited from using unjustified legal threats, other intimidation, or false accusations to prevent or remove a negative consumer review. Also, if negative reviews have been suppressed, the proposed rule also prohibit a business from misrepresenting that the reviews on its website represent all submitted reviews.
Selling fake social media indicators. The proposed Rule would prohibit businesses from selling false indicators of social media influence, like fake followers or views. The proposed rule also would bar anyone from buying indicators like that to misrepresent their significance for a commercial purpose.
The Federal Register Notice includes a number of questions we hope you’ll address. Once the Notice appears in the Federal Register, you’ll have 60 days to file a public comment.
Updated Staff Guidance
FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking has been a to-the-point business resource for five years. We’ve revised and expanded the publication to answer 40 more questions that may be on your mind, with a particular focus on influencers, the required disclosure of material connections across different platforms, and issued related to reviews. For a 360° perspective on the use of endorsements and reviews, read the revised Endorsement Guides and the updated publication side by side.
Visit the FTC’s Endorsements, Influencers, and Reviews page for more compliance resources written with businesses, platforms, and influencers in mind.
Tags:
- Consumer Protection
- Bureau of Consumer Protection
- Advertising and Marketing
- Endorsements, Influencers, and Reviews
- Online Advertising and Marketing
- Advertising and Marketing Basics
____________________________________________________________
https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2023/06/time-help-your-buddies-0?utm_source=govdelivery
Consumer Alert
Time to help your buddies
By
Carol Kando-Pineda
Staff Attorney, Division of Consumer and Business Education
June 30, 2023
Image
July is Military Consumer Month. Take a minute to consider the mottos of our military services: Always Faithful (Marine Corps), This We’ll Defend (Army), Aim High…Fly-Fight-Win (Air Force), Always Ready (Coast Guard), and Always Above (Space Force). They all convey a sense of pride and responsibility — and tell you a bit about the fighting spirit of the people in that branch. Honor and duty are drilled into servicemembers from the minute they start boot camp.
But we also know that — whether it’s the steady paycheck, frequent relocations, or other aspects of military life — scammers target servicemembers and their families. In 2022, military consumers reported over $414 million in losses to fraud.
You may be able to spot a scam from a mile away, but chances are, you know someone who might not. It could be a family member, colleague, a servicemember or veteran in your life, or maybe even a battle buddy. Sharing what you know can help protect someone you know from that scam.
During July, watch this space to hear more about new twists on scams. By working together, we can empower the troops, veterans, and their families. Share Military Consumer advice with people you know and your social networks. Tell your connections to follow Military Consumer on Facebook and Twitter to be part of the conversation.
Finally, if you spot a scam, protect the military and veteran communities by reporting it. Let the FTC know at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.Leave a comment
____________________________________________________________
Business Blog
“I’m not a smoker, but I play one in ads”: FTC files first smoking cessation case under addiction treatment law
By
Lesley Fair
June 30, 2023
The Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act gives the FTC authority to seek civil penalties for unfair or deceptive advertising of products or services marketed to treat substance use disorders – and that includes addiction to tobacco. The FTC just announced a settlement with affiliated companies selling products under the “Smoke Away” brand and the man behind all those LLCs, Michael J. Connors. Do those names sound familiar? They should because this isn’t the first time the FTC has sued Connors for illegal conduct related to Smoke Away. This complaint alleges the defendants violated OARFPA and the FTC Act by making deceptive smoking cessation claims and by passing off actors as genuine users of the products. The proposed settlement – which includes a $7.1 million monetary judgment and a $500,000 civil penalty – imposes a lifetime ban that will put the “away” in Smoke Away and in Connors’ involvement in marketing addiction-related products or services.
All too often, tobacco addiction ends in death, but most smokers will tell you that snuffing out cigarettes for good poses a particular challenge. The defendants’ products – Smoke Away Formula 1 tablets, Smoke Away Maintenance tablets, Spray Away by Smoke Away homeopathic spray, and Smoke Away Homeopathic Pellets – contained various formulations of vitamins and botanicals, including alfalfa root, licorice root, cape aloe, white oak. The “Basic Kit,” which featured Smoke Away Formula 1 and Smoke Away Maintenance, typically sold for about $69.
The defendants pitched their products with a compelling message: “Don’t be a slave to cigarettes anymore. Quit Smoking for good. The safe way. The natural way. With the help of Smoke Away.” What’s more, ads claimed smokers would quit easily and quickly, including within seven days. According to the complaint, the defendants further promised instant relief from cravings thanks to “all-natural herbs” to “help you stay calm and comfortable in spite of the nasty withdrawal symptoms your body throws at you.” They disseminated those representations on websites they controlled, in social media platforms like Facebook and YouTube, in radio ads, via online advertising networks like Google Search Ads and Google Display Ads, and through text messages.
Image
Skeptical of such dramatic results? Prospective customers didn’t have to just trust what the company claimed because ads also featured testimonials from people represented as real users of the product. A consumer named “Deborah” had this to say in a video about Smoke Away: “I, after a few days, did not even look for cigarettes or crave them. . . . Smoke Away, just thank you – thank you again for saving my life.” According to another consumer called “Andrew,” “Now I tried everything – the patch, the gum. You name it, I tried it. And nothing worked until I found Smoke Away.”
But according to the FTC, the defendants made numerous deceptive smoking cessation claims and failed to have substantiation to support their promises. What about those dramatic endorsements from “real” customers? Here’s what the complaint alleges: “[A]t least some of the individuals giving testimonials were not bona fide Smoke Away users, but rather actors that Defendants recruited.” The FTC says the defendants gave them a rough outline of what to say and encouraged them to take artistic license so they would seem “authentic.”
In addition to the financial remedy, the proposed order bans Connors and his companies from marketing or selling any product or service to treat any form of substance use disorder. How long is the ban in effect? Forever.
What can other companies learn from the FTC’s action?
The scope of OARFPA is broader than you may think. The word “opioid” is in the title of OARPFA – and the FTC has used the statute to challenge deceptive claims for products and services claiming to treat opioid use disorder – but the text of the law makes it clear that it covers the broad range of substance use disorders, including tobacco-related addiction. Given the personal toll and public health costs of addiction, the FTC will continue to put those claims under the microscope.
Consumer endorsers must be bona fide users of the product or service. The personal experiences of consumers who recommend a product can be uniquely persuasive to prospective customers. The FTC’s Endorsement Guides make it clear that people portrayed as real-life users must be just that. That’s how the FTC has interpreted Section 5 for decades and the just-announced revisions to the Endorsement Guides don’t change that fundamental compliance principle. What’s new is that this case establishes the FTC’s position that bogus consumer endorsements also violate OARFPA.
Companies may like repeat customers, but the FTC doesn’t. To paraphrase the old standard, “Love may be lovelier the second time around,” but once is more than enough when it comes to deceptive advertising. In 2005, the FTC challenged similar claims for Smoke Away made by defendant Connors and his now-defunct company Emerson Direct, which went by notable d/b/a “Council on Natural Health.” The lifetime ban in the current action should convey just how seriously the FTC views recidivism.
Tags:
- Consumer Protection
- Bureau of Consumer Protection
- Advertising and Marketing
- Endorsements, Influencers, and Reviews
- Health Claims
___________________________________________________
“LYING/PROPAGANDA/CHEATING/PROGRAMMING EVIL INTO MACHINES AND INTO “A.I.” AND INTO ROBOTS, AND “LYING SO-CALLED NEWS MEDIA PEOPLE/OUTLETS/COMPANIES=”ARE AUTHORS OF CONSTANT CONFUSION”=NOT GOD AND NOT “REAL/TRUE/TRUTH CHRISTIANS”=THE MASSES OF EVANGELICALS ARE “DEMONICALLY/LEGIONS” INFESTED AND CONTROLLED BY “LUCIFER/SATAN’S FORCES”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Corinthians 14:33
King James Version
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
THE WHOLE CHAPTER IS VERY “REAL/TRUE/TRUTH REVEALING:
1 Corinthians 14
King James Version:
14 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
40 Let all things be done decently and in order.
