Advertising & Marketing

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) requests that consumers report any issues they experience with FDA-regulated products so that the FDA can further protect the public health. But it isn’t always clear which products the FDA regulates and which products it doesn’t. Generally, the FDA regulates the following product categories: certain foods, drugs, biologics, medical devices, electronic products that give off radiation, cosmetics, veterinary products, and tobacco products. Within each category is a number of products subject to the FDA’s regulatory authority. A more detailed, though non-exhaustive, list of the products the FDA regulates can be found on the FDA’s website. According to the FDA, these products account for about one-fifth of annual spending by U.S. consumers.

FDA
Copyright: bakhtiarzein / 123RF Stock Photo

The FDA is committed to ensuring that the products it regulates are safe, effective, and correctly labeled. But the FDA does not pre-approve for safety and effectiveness all of the products it regulates before such products can be marketed and sold. For example, the FDA does pre-approve new drugs, biologics, and certain medical devices, but does not pre-approve cosmetics (with the exception of certain color additives) or dietary supplements (though a notification is required for those containing a new dietary ingredient). However, the FDA requires that cosmetics, dietary supplements, and other products be safe for their intended use and be properly labeled/advertised. Accordingly, for such products that the FDA does not pre-approve, the FDA still has regulatory authority to take action when a safety issue arises. With respect to tobacco products, the FDA does not regulate safety in the same way as with other products, as the FDA views tobacco use as a major threat to public health. Notably, last year, the FDA finalized a new rule extending its regulatory authority to all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, and restricting youth access to such products.

As always, companies should ensure that they products they market and sell are safe for their intended use, are properly labeled, and are fairly advertised. One form of advertising that has caught the FDA’s attention is the phrase “FDA Approved.” The FDA’s recently-updated explanation on what it does and doesn’t approve (and under what circumstances) can be found on the FDA’s website. The FDA’s website also contains detailed information for companies that market and sell FDA-regulated products, including the ability to search for guidance documents that describe the FDA’s interpretation on various regulatory issues and the ability to submit questions regarding the FDA’s policies, regulations, and regulatory process.

Last week the FTC issued three letters closing three separate investigations of advertising practices by three different businesses. The letters are notable for the two common themes present in each. First, each investigation centered on allegedly unsupported “Made in the USA” claims, demonstrating the FTC’s continued vigilance on this issue–a point that has been the topic of past posts. Second, each investigation was closed without further action due to, at least in part, the advertisers’ willingness to cooperate and take remedial action to change is advertising practices.

Made in the USA Banner
Copyright: lifeking / 123RF Stock Photo

These investigations demonstrate that the FTC will continue to enforce its rules regarding “Made in the USA” claims. According to the FTC, a blanket, unqualified claim that a product is “Made in USA” is likely to suggest to consumers that the product was “all or virtually all” made in the United States. So the FTC will hold an advertiser to that standard. In fact, the FTC stated in its Enforcement Policy Statement on the matter (as we blogged about here) that if “a product is not all or virtually all made in the United States, any claim of U.S. origin should be adequately qualified to avoid consumer deception about the presence or amount of foreign content.” And as the recently closed enforcement investigations show, if some of your products are made in the USA, but some are not, the advertising should be clear as to which ones are made here and which ones are imported.

These now-closed investigations also demonstrate an important practical point in dealing with the FTC. In each of these investigations, the advertiser cooperated and agreed to take remedial action, including altering the advertising at issue, training employees regarding the proper and substantiated advertising claims, and taking steps to clear the marketplace of the prior claims. This demonstrates that cooperating with the FTC’s investigation and coming to an agreement on revised advertising could be the most effective route in dealing with an FTC investigation in some circumstances.

 

A New York case decided this week by the U.S. Supreme Court involving a state prohibition on credit card surcharge fees would not, at first blush, seem to involve “speech,” let alone “speech” that needs to be protected by the First Amendment.  Indeed, a credit card surcharge fee – such as, for example, a nondescript warning stating “3% added for credit cards” – hardly seems to be in the same league as The Pentagon Papers, or Fanny Hill, or even the fundraising advertisement “Heed Their Rising Voices” by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King, all of which were subjects of profound First Amendment cases.

ice cream sundae
Copyright: tul / 123RF Stock Photo

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decision announced on Wednesday (Mar. 29, 2017) in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 551 U.S. —, 2017 WL 1155913, involving something as innocuous as a thirty cents surcharge for using a credit card to pay for a ten dollar sundae at Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain marks a significant evolution in free speech law, one that has the prospect of affecting many areas of economic regulation.  The Court’s holding means that trade regulations that previously were perceived as solely government restrictions on economic activity having nothing to do with free speech rights are now potentially subject to First Amendment challenges if the government’s restrictions impose unwarranted burdens on a merchant’s ability to communicate information concerning the merchant’s products or services.  As a result, this “sleeper” decision from the Roberts Court marks yet another step in the continuing expansion of the Court’s use of the First Amendment to limit the ability of government to regulate economic activity.

The case itself is arcane in its details.  The matter involves a New York statute that was a duplicate of a federal measure that Congress enacted in 1981 but which Congress let expire in 1984.  The New York statute has the same effect as a contractual prohibition that previously had been incorporated into credit card companies’ contracts with merchants, but which the credit card companies dropped under pressure from antitrust lawsuits brought by merchants upset with the credit card companies’ efforts to prevent merchants from steering customers toward using cash instead of credit cards.

The New York statute establishes that “[n]o seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means.”

On its face, this statutory language has nothing to do with speech.  The statute simply prohibits a merchant from imposing a “surcharge” on a customer who elects to use a credit card instead of cash.

However, both the five-justice majority for the Court led by Chief Justice Roberts as well as a concurring opinion by Justice Breyer held that this statutory provision regulates more than mere conduct – what price a merchant may impose – but it also regulates speech.  The Court held that the operation of the New York statute regulates “how sellers may communicate their prices”:

“A merchant who wants to charge $10 for cash and $10.30 for credit may not convey that price any way he pleases. He is not free to say ‘$10, with a 3% credit card surcharge‘ or ‘$10, plus $0.30 for credit‘ because both of those displays identify a single sticker price–$10–that is less than the amount credit card users will be charged. Instead, if the merchant wishes to post a single sticker price, he must display $10.30 as his sticker price.”

The Court then concluded that “[i]n regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves, §518 regulates speech.”

This short assertion – that the statute regulates speech, rather than conduct – opens up the entire panoply of the First Amendment’s commercial speech doctrine.  As a result, and as the Supreme Court directed, the State of New York must now attempt to defend the statute, either on the grounds that it is a valid, non-discriminatory “disclosure” requirement, or on the grounds that it is “narrowly tailored” to serve a “substantial government interest.”  The trial court which heard the case initially concluded that the New York statute could not survive these First Amendment tests.  On remand from the Supreme Court, it will now be up to the Second Circuit to determine whether the trial court judge was correct.

In any event, the ruling now given by the Supreme Court to the first question – does the statute regulate speech – has the potential to open up constitutional challenges against various and sundry economic regulations that could be said to regulate the “communication” of a price as opposed to the “price” itself.  Hence, statutes or regulations that prohibit “Ladies Night” discounts at bars or clubs might now be said to regulate the “communication” of such discounted prices, rather than prohibiting the prices themselves, and as a result, the prohibitions against such prices might now be challenged on First Amendment grounds.  Similarly, local ordinances requiring the imposition of a 5 cents surcharge on customers who want their groceries in a plastic bag might well be challenged on First Amendment grounds, on the strength that such ordinances regulate how merchants “communicate” their prices, as opposed to the conduct of the price itself.  Additionally, regulations that prohibit merchants from imposing differential pricing based where a customer comes from – such as prohibitions against “residents” discounts – also now may be challenged on First Amendment grounds.

As Justice Breyer remarked in his concurrence in the Expressions Hair Design case, “virtually all government regulation affects speech.”  (Justice Breyer’s point was actually that it is less important whether a government provision regulates speech than it is to consider how much speech, and what kind, is affected by the regulation.)

In light of that observation – that government regulations fundamentally affect speech of all kinds – this latest case from the Supreme Court opens up a new tool for businesses to consider when challenging a regulation that affects their abilities to communicate with their customers.  This new decision means that businesses might now require the government to prove that an economic regulation that previously was subject only to highly deferential “rational basis” review is instead justifiable under more rigorous “substantial interest” scrutiny.

In this regard, the Court’s decision in Expressions Hair Design will come to be seen as a watershed moment for those wishing to challenge government regulation of economic activity.

Made in the USA Banner
Copyright: lifeking / 123RF Stock Photo

In the last two months, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has reached two settlements related to complaints it initiated against companies regarding “Made in the USA” advertising claims.

First, in February, the FTC announced that it had reached a settlement with a Georgia-based water filtration systems company named iSpring Water Systems, LLC.  According to the FTC, iSpring advertised its water filtration systems on its website and through third parties as “Built in USA” (and other similar claims).  The FTC found such advertising false or misleading because the water filtration systems were either entirely imported or contained significant parts that had been imported, thus violating the FTC’s long-standing requirement that “all or virtually all” of the product be made in the USA in order to be advertised as such.  The settlement allows iSpring to make certain qualified claims, with a clear and conspicuous disclosure, but prohibits iSpring from advertising contrary to the FTC’s “all or virtually all” requirement.  More information regarding the settlement is available on the FTC’s blog.

Second, earlier this month, the FTC announced that it had reached a settlement with a Texas-based pulley company named Block Division, Inc.  According to the FTC, Block Division advertised its pulleys in various media using “Made in USA” text and graphics.  The FTC found such advertising misleading given that the pulleys had significant and essential parts that had been imported.  Further, some of the pulleys contained steel plates stamped as “Made in USA” before they were imported.  The settlement allows Block Division to make certain qualified claims, again with a clear and conspicuous disclosure, but prohibits Block Division from advertising contrary to the FTC’s “all or virtually all” requirement.  More information regarding the settlement is available on the FTC’s blog.

Both of these FTC actions and resulting settlements demonstrate that the FTC takes “Made in the USA” claims seriously and will enforce its requirements regarding such advertising.  A prior blog post outlines those requirements in more detail.

In December 2016, the Consumer Review Fairness Act became law. On February 21, 2017, the FTC published guidance for businesses in following the new law. The law protects the consumer’s right to express and share his or her honest review of a company or its products, even if the review is negative. To accomplish this, the law targets contractual provisions used by companies to stifle negative reviews. The law specifically prohibits any such provisions, whether in online terms and conditions or in some other contract.

18572446 - stylized illustration of somone with a hood gesturing symbol of silence with finger on lips

The law makes it illegal for a company to use a contract provision in a “form contract” that:

  1. Prohibits or restricts the ability of an individual who is a party to the contract to review the company’s products, services, or conduct;
  2. Imposes a penalty or a fee against an individual giving a review; or
  3. Requires individuals to give up their intellectual property rights in the content of their review.

The law provides that any such provisions in a form contract are void, barring some specific exceptions. The law also exposes companies using prohibited contractual provisions to FTC enforcement actions, including potential financial penalties.

To ensure compliance and avoid enforcement actions, the FTC recommends that businesses: (1) “review their form contracts and online terms and conditions; and (2) remove any provision that restricts people from sharing their honest reviews, penalizes those who do, or claims copyright over people’s reviews (even if you’ve never third to enforce it or have no intention of enforcing it.)”

As stated by the FTC: “The wisest policy: Let people speak honestly about your products and their experience with your company.”

In April 2016, the FTC filed a Complaint against Dr. Joseph Mercola and his companies alleging that their indoor tanning system advertisements violated section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in commerce, and section 12(a) of the FTC Act, which prohibits the dissemination of false advertisements in commerce for the purpose of inducing the purchase of foods, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics.  According to the FTC, indoor tanning systems qualify as “devices” under the FTC Act.

tanning bed
Copyright: kzenon / 123RF Stock Photo

In its Complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants disseminated a number of false, misleading, deceptive, and unsubstantiated advertisements on the Mercola.com website, in search engine advertising, in a YouTube video of Dr. Mercola himself, and via newsletters.  Such advertisements include:

  • Tanning with Mercola brand indoor tanning systems is safe;
  • Tanning with Mercola brand indoor tanning systems will not increase the risk of skin cancer as long as consumers top using the system when their skin is only the slightest shade of pink and not burned;
  • Tanning with Mercola brand indoor tanning systems does not increase the risk of skin cancer, including melanoma skin cancer;
  • Tanning with Mercola brand indoor tanning systems reduces the risk of skin cancer;
  • The FDA has endorsed the use of indoor tanning systems as safe;
  • Research proves that indoor tanning systems do not increase the risk of melanoma skin cancer;
  • Certain Mercola brand tanning systems will pull collagen back to the surface of the skin, increase elastin and other enzymes that support the skin, fill in lines and wrinkles, and reverse the appearance of aging;
  • Tanning with Mercola brand tanning systems provides various benefits to consumers, including increasing Vitamin D and providing Vitamin D-related health benefits; and
  • The Vitamin D Council recommends Mercola brand tanning systems (without disclosing that the defendants arranged for the Vitamin D Council to be compensated for its endorsement).

Today, the FTC announced that, as a result of a settlement agreement reached with Dr. Mercola and its companies, the FTC is mailing $2.59 million in refunds to more than 1,300 purchasers of Mercola indoor tanning systems. According to the FTC, the average refund check is $1,897.  Additionally, under the settlement agreement, the defendants are banned from selling indoor tanning systems in the future.

More information regarding the FTC’s views on indoor tanning advertising can be found on the FTC’s website and blog.  According to the FTC, no government agency recommends indoor tanning and the FDA requires indoor tanning equipment to contain signs warning users of the risk of cancer.  In addition, the FTC actively investigates false, misleading, and deceptive advertisements related to indoor tanning.

Several large retailers likely thought that they were finally clear of legal problems relating to advertising sale prices for products that were not truly on sale.  With a post on September 28, 2016, https://advertisinglaw.foxrothschild.com/?s=class+action, Dennis Hansen discussed these class action lawsuits, several which have settled for millions of dollars.  For example, JC Penny paid $50 million to settle a class action suit against it alleging that its advertised and listed sale prices were not actually sale prices, but were more akin to regular prices.  However, the bad news for these retailers continues as local government enforcement actions have now been brought.

The Los Angeles city attorney brought claims against Kohl’s, JC Penny, Macy’s and Sears based upon the same alleged conduct.  These lawsuits could subject these retailers to additional substantial penalties, on top of the money already spent on the consumer class actions.  Additionally, the Alameda County Attorney’s office recently brought claims against My Pillow for making health claims in its advertising that are allegedly not supported by any scientific research or studies.  My Pillow settled with Alameda County, agreeing to pay over $1 million in fines.

These actions brought by local governments are unique in that false advertising claims are usually left to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC”), consumer class actions, or lawsuits brought by competitors.   The FTC, however, does not have the resources to bring claims against all improper advertising, even focusing on just advertising relating to health claims.  However, these local government enforcement actions can somewhat fill that gap and give more effect to state statutes regulating advertising, such as California’s statute regarding what is a sale price.  As a result, it is important to make sure that you are aware of the advertising statutes in each state in which you are advertising, particularly if you are frequently listing a product as being on sale.  For example, in California, a sale price cannot be compared to a previous price (such as 50% off) unless that previous price was the actual market price of the product within the previous three months.  And, as always, all advertising claims, especially health claims, should be substantiated so that if a competitor, the government, or a consumer class action lawyer brings a claim, you are able to quickly show that the advertising is accurate.

What comes to mind when you hear the term “LifeProof”? Does it immediately make you think of something that protects from all of life’s hazards or does it merely suggest that something can withstand various accidents? That is what the Ninth Circuit in California is deciding in Seal Shield LLC v. Otter Products LLC, et. al. after hearing oral arguments on the topic in January. The issues central to the case hammer home the importance of using your trademarks in the right way—as a trademark identifying a brand—or a source—and not as term that merely describes the product.

In this case, Seal Shield and Otter Products both claim rights to the same term—LIFEPROOF. Seal Shield argues that it was the first to use it, so it should have the rights. Otter Products counters and argues that Seal Shield did not use it in the right way—that Seal Shield only used it to describe the product and not as a trademark.

Copyright: 91foto / 123RF Stock Photo
Copyright: 91foto / 123RF Stock Photo

Seal Shield sued Otter Products and TreeFrog Developments (which was acquired by Otter Products) after TreeFrog Developments obtained a federal trademark for LIFEPROOF in 2010. Seal Shield brought a suit in 2013 and argued that it had senior rights to the name LIFEPROOF and requested that the court cancel Otter Products’ trademark as a matter of law. In ruling in favor of Otter Products, the district court held that as a matter of law Seal Shield did not have proprietary rights to the LIFEPROOF name because the way Seal Shield used the name (as a tagline or slogan with its Klear Kase protective cases) was merely descriptive.

Seal Shield appealed the district court decision arguing that its use of LIFEPROOF is not merely descriptive but is suggestive. Specifically, Seal Shield argued that LIFEPROOF falls short of explicitly describing the various features that are included under the mark LIFEPROOF and it takes a mental leap to associate the word LIFEPROOF with a protective case that protects from all of the elements and human error, meaning the mark is suggestive. Seal Shield also argued the mere fact that the USPTO granted TreeFrog Developments federal registration of LIFEPROOF demonstrates that such mark is protectable.

For its part, in addition to a myriad of other arguments, Otter Products contends that Seal Shield’s use of the LIFEPROOF mark is merely descriptive and that it failed to show any consumer evidence of secondary meaning—such as a survey showing that consumers associate their use of LIFEPROOF with the goods of one maker rather than merely describing the product. And to address the seeming inconsistency, Otter Products contends that Seal Shield cannot rely on Otter Products’ federal registration as evidence that the mark LIFEPROOF is distinctive because, as Otter Products argues, it uses the mark as a trademark and not merely to describe the goods.

The court will rule on this appeal later this year. You may think it’s counter-intuitive for Otter Products to argue that Seal Shield’s use of the LIFEPROOF mark is merely descriptive while at the same time maintaining a federal registration for that same mark that is inherently distinctive and suggestive; however, this demonstrates that the way you use mark is a key component on whether a mark will obtain trademark protection.

The FTC recently cracked down on Breathometer, Inc., the maker of an app-supported smartphone breathalyzer, for false and deceptive advertising.

The advertised purpose of the product is to keep people safe—to let someone know when he/she has had too many to drive, and provide an estimate on when sobriety will return.  The device, which connects to an app on a smartphone, allows the user to blow into it and receive a blood-alcohol content reading on their phone.  The accuracy of the reading, however, is in dispute – and it appears the advertisements may have overstated the accuracy of the BAC reading.

In its advertising, Breathometer touted “FDA registered, Law enforcement grade accuracy” and “‘police grade’ precision.”  The advertising went on to claim that the accuracy was proven by “government-lab grade testing.”  According to the FTC’s complaint, these claims were not supported, or outright false.  The FTC alleged that the product was not adequately tested for accuracy and that the company was aware that the device regularly understated users’ BAC – in other words, informing drunk people that they were sober to drive.

Now a settlement with the FTC has imposed strict restrictions on the conduct of the company and its founder going forward.  The company and its founder are prohibited from making claims regarding the accuracy of the product without the support of specifically outlined testing demonstrating it “meets the accuracy specifications set for evidential breath alcohol testers that have been approved by the Department of Transportation.”  In fact, without such testing support, the company cannot advertise that the product detects BAC at all, and is prohibited from “re-enabling the Breathometer app’s breathalyzer functions” which were previously shut down.

In addition, the company must give a full refund to everyone who bought the product – wiping out approximately $5.1 million in revenues.  The company is required to specifically notify its customers by email of their right to a refund, and post refund information on its website.

Registering your brand name as a trademark domestically or internationally can be a long, confusing process involving obscure governmental agencies requiring various fees at seemingly random intervals. Some of these demands are legitimate (International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization notification that payment of a 2nd part fee is due in Swiss francs): but many others are NOT (WPAT s.r.o. invoice for 2738$ “on or before”, 2798$ “after”).

These solicitations arrive because the process of registering a trademark creates a public record. This means that anyone who infringes a registered trademark is not allowed to complain they did not know about the trademark but it also lets potential scam artists know that you have a trademark you care enough about to spend money registering.

But be careful not to be misled by the flurry of official looking invoices! Like this one:

Don't pay this invoice!
Don’t pay this invoice!

The United States Patent and Trademark Office warns against such scams, listing a number of examples (the above image was taken from their website).

If you have hired a trademark attorney to register your brand name for you, you need never pay any of the invoices yourself. Trademark attorneys will pay the legitimate ones on your behalf. In the United States and in most other countries, legitimate communications will be directed only to the trademark attorney and not to the trademark owner. When in doubt, just forward the communication to your trademark attorney.

If you are trying to negotiate the process yourself or just want to be able to spot wrongdoers, here is our list of red flags:

  1. Who dd it come from? Scammers like to use slight deviations from the correct names of the legitimate agencies. For example instead of “The United States Patent and Trademark Office”, the notice will come from entities such as the “Trademark and Patent Office” or the “United States Trademark Registration Office”.
  2. Where dd it come from? The real United States Patent and Trademark Office is located in Alexandria, Virginia. Beware of solicitations directing funds be sent to an address in New York or Philadelphia Pennsylvania. And, especially not Slovakia!
  3. Read the fine print. Some of the communications helpfully state that they are not legitimate (in a tiny difficult-to-read font, embedded in the middle of a long paragraph with otherwise unalarming factual information): “THIS PUBLICATION IS AN ELECTIVE SERVICE WHICH NEITHER SUBSTITUTE THE REGISTRATION NOR PROLONGS THE VALIDITY OF THIS TRADEMARK OR PATENT WITH U.S.P.T.O.”
  4. Watch the grammar! Typos, grammar and spelling errors are common in these types of scams. See the example in our red flag number 3…
  5. Check the website address. The real United States Patent and Trademark Office operates from the address USPTO.gov. Addresses such as patenttrademarkoffice.org, on the other hand, take you to a website that explains, in the “About Us” tab: “Headquartered in New York City, the Patent Trademark Office is the nation’s premier Trademark and Patent renewal service.” (ha!). Likewise, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) operates from the address WIPO.int. Be suspicious of any address ending in a .com, .org or .us.
 Don’t fall prey to these confusing communications!