Advertising Claims

Subscribe to Advertising Claims

The Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulates cancer drugs and devices, both for use by humans and pets. Such drugs and devices must obtain FDA approval or clearance before they can be marketed or sold to consumers, so that the FDA can ensure each product is safe and effective for its intended use. The FDA is concerned about the marketing and selling of products that have not been approved, particularly because such products may contain dangerous ingredients or may cause harm by negatively impacting beneficial treatments. Often such products are advertised as “natural” or are labeled as a dietary supplement, which may be a tip-off to consumers that the products have not been approved by the FDA.

cancer pic
Copyright: tashatuvango / 123RF Stock Photo

The FDA has identified the following advertising phrases as “red flags” that may signify a fraudulent product:

  • Treats all forms of cancer
  • Miraculously kills cancer cells and tumors
  • Shrinks malignant tumors
  • Selectively kills cancer cells
  • More effective than chemotherapy
  • Attacks cancer cells, leaving healthy cells intact
  • Cures cancer

Additionally, the FDA has stated that the following catch phrases should tip-off consumers to a potentially bogus health-related product:

  • One product does it all
  • Personal testimonials
  • Quick fixes
  • “All natural”
  • “Miracle cure”
  • Conspiracy theories

In April, the FDA sent 14 warning letters to companies that it determined were making fraudulent claims on their websites related to purported cancer treatments. Fraudulent claims are those that deceptively promote a product as effective against a specific condition—in this instance, cancer—that has not been scientifically proven to be safe and effective for its claimed purposed. According to the FDA, if the companies to which it sent letters do not comply with its warnings, the FDA may take further legal action in order to ensure that such products do not reach consumers.

The FDA requests that consumers avoid use of potentially unsafe or unproven products and to discuss any cancer treatments with their healthcare providers (or, in the case of pets, with their veterinarian and veterinary oncologist). As always, companies that market or sell products requiring FDA approval should ensure that such products are fairly advertised, are properly labeled, are effective and safe for their intended use, and are indeed approved as required.

 

On May 15, 2017, the FTC filed a Complaint in Federal Court against Strategic Student Solutions and a number of related companies that claim to provide debt relief services. According to the Complaint, rather than providing the advertised services, the defendants pocketed thousands of dollars in fees from consumers without providing any debt relief services. In essence, despite promising to reduce or eliminate student debt, the defendants simply took consumers’ money without providing any debt reduction service, leaving consumers in a worse financial situation. The Federal Court for the Southern District of Florida recently granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction preventing the defendants from engaging in these business practices.

According to the Complaint, the defendants targeted consumers struggling with student loan debt and charged consumers up to $1200 in initial fees and an additional $49.99 per month with the promise that defendants would enroll the consumer in a loan forgiveness or payment reduction program. The defendants also allegedly promised that they would apply any fees paid to them to the consumers’ debt in the loan forgiveness program and that if consumers simply made monthly payments to defendants for three years the loan would be forgiven. According to the FTC, none of this was true—other than the fees paid by consumers to defendants. In fact, rather than forgiveness or reduction, many consumers allegedly had their debt increase while using defendants’ “services.” And when a consumer attempted to cancel their participation in the defendants’ program, the defendants allegedly lied to consumers by stating if they cancel, they will not be able to enroll in a different loan forgiveness program.

After making these false promises, according to the Complaint, the defendants had consumers sign contracts with disclaimers contradicting the sales pitch. For example, the contracts stated “I understand that the fees paid to Strategic Student Solutions is [sic] for Document preparation and consultation services only and will not be applied to my student loan balance.” However, as detailed previously on this blog, the FTC does not give much weight to disclaimers buried in a contract, especially where it is directly contrary to explicit advertising claims.

The FTC alleges that defendants’ scheme violated the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Credit Repair Organizations Act and is seeking restitution for the money taken from consumers and a permanent injunction ceasing defendants’ scheme.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently filed a Complaint in the Southern District of California against six entities and four individuals, accusing them of deceiving customers with their use of “free” and “risk-free” trial period advertising related to cooking products, golf-related products, and online subscription services on their websites, in TV infomercials, and via email.

risk-free trial offer
Copyright: kchung / 123RF Stock Photo

The FTC’s Complaint alleges that the defendants violated section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts, by misrepresenting the trial offers applicable to their products.  Specifically, the FTC accuses the defendants of advertising their products as having a “risk-free” trial period when, in reality, the consumers are required to return the product at their expense before the trial period ends in order to avoid being charged additional amounts for the product.  The FTC also accuses the defendants of failing to adequately disclose the material terms and conditions of the trial offer, of their continuity/subscription plan offers, and of their refund and cancellation policy.  For example, the FTC takes issue with the defendants’ failure to clearly disclose that they would start charging the consumer if he/she did not cancel the trial period or return the product.

In addition to violations of the FTC Act, the FTC’s Complaint also alleges violations of the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (“ROSCA”).  The FTC describes ROSCA as an act that “prohibits any post-transaction third party seller (a seller who markets goods or services online through an initial merchant after a consumer has initiated a transaction with that merchant) from charging any financial account in an Internet transaction unless it has disclosed clearly all material terms of the transaction and obtained the consumer’s express informed consent to the charge.”  The FTC’s Complaint against the defendants focuses on section 4 of ROSCA, which prohibits the sale of products through an improper “negative option” feature.  A “negative option” feature is a provision in an offer to sell goods or services under which the consumer’s silence is taken as an acceptance of the offer.  It is improper to utilize a “negative option” feature unless the seller satisfies the following requirements: (1) clearly and conspicuously disclose all material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s billing information, (2) obtain the consumer’s express written consent before charging the consumer, and (3) provide a simple mechanism for the consumer to stop recurring charges.  The FTC’s Complaint alleges that, in violation of section 4 of ROSCA, the defendants did not meet any of those three requirements with respect to their cooking and golf-related goods and services.

The FTC seeks an injunction preventing future violations of the FTC Act and ROSCA as well as other relief necessary to redress injury to consumers.  It is clear that the FTC looks closely at advertisements claiming to offer “free” and “risk-free” trial periods and that companies should make sure to adhere to the FTC’s and ROSCA’s requirements.

 

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.

 

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 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.

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.

Sunscreen
Copyright: farakos / 123RF Stock Photo

Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a decision against California Naturel, Inc. related to its advertising of “all natural” sunscreen on both its website and the product packaging itself. On its website, California Naturel was not only advertising its sunscreen as “all natural” but was describing the sunscreen as containing “only the purest, most luxurious and effective ingredients found in nature.” The FTC found that this advertising conveyed that California Naturel’s sunscreen contains only ingredients that are found in nature.  But because California Naturel admitted that eight percent of its sunscreen formula consists of a synthetic ingredient, the FTC determined that California Naturel’s advertising constituted false and misleading advertising and that such advertising is likely to materially impact consumers’ purchasing decisions.

In response to California Naturel’s arguments, the FTC decided that the product’s ingredient list and the disclaimer on California Naturel’s website were insufficient to cure the deceptive advertising. With respect to the ingredient list, the FTC noted that the synthetic ingredient was buried within a list of over 30 ingredients and that nothing identified the ingredient at issue as synthetic. With respect to the website disclaimer, the FTC found that it was not prevalent enough given its location at the bottom of the website—particularly in contrast to the prevalence of the “all natural” advertising elsewhere on the website and on the product packaging itself.

Under its authority to issue a remedy for false and misleading advertising, the FTC issued an order prohibiting California Naturel from advertising its products as “all natural” or making other similar representations. More information about the FTC’s decision against California Naturel can be found here.

Ever been skeptical of symptom relief claims made by medicine made of things like crushed bees or poison ivy?  It seems you are not alone–the FTC is skeptical too, and a recent FTC announcement may leave marketers scrambling to change the claims made on homeopathic drugs.

Homeopathy, dating to the 1700s, is based on the theory that disease symptoms can be treated by minute doses of substances that produce similar symptoms when provided in larger doses to healthy people.  While many people believe in these remedies, the efficacy claims for these products are generally not supported by modern scientific methods and are generally not accepted by modern medical experts.

Last week, the FTC released an Enforcement Policy Statement on Marketing Claims for OTC Homeopathic Drugs.  In the statement, the FTC provided specific guidelines for marketing the efficacy of homeopathic remedies.  The FTC acknowledged it has historically not pursued many enforcement actions against homeopathic marketers, but stressed that the same rules apply to marketing homeopathic drugs as other health-related products, and indicated its lax enforcement may be a thing of the past.

Copyright: <a href='//www.123rf.com/profile_kerdkanno'>kerdkanno / 123RF Stock Photo</a>Generally, an advertiser is required to have adequate substantiation for any claim, but the substantiation that qualifies as “adequate” is more demanding for health-related claims.  For health-related claims, an advertiser must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence” to support the claim.  And for claims that a product can treat or prevent a disease or its symptoms, the FTC has required support in the form of well-designed human clinical testing.  This is a real problem for homeopathic drugs—most have absolutely no scientific support for their treatment claims (let alone the human clinical testing required).

So what is a marketer to do – how can you identify what the homeopathic drug supposedly treats without saying (expressly or implicitly) that it is effective at doing so?  After all, for the vast majority of homeopathic drugs, the case for efficacy is based solely on traditional homeopathic theories and there are no valid studies using current scientific methods showing the product’s efficacy.  So just making a treatment claim could violate the regulations.  The answer according to the FTC: disclaimer, disclaimer, disclaimer.

The FTC is recommending that homeopathic drug marketing include disclaimers that consist of at least two components: (1) a statement that there is no scientific evidence that the product works and (2) a statement that the treatment claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts.  And it is not enough to put these disclaimers in the fine print.  As stated by the FTC any disclaimer “should stand out and be in close proximity to the efficacy message; to be effective, it may actually need to be incorporated into the efficacy message.”  The FTC also warns against marketers attempting to spin this into a positive; says the FTC: “Marketers should not undercut such qualifications with additional positive statements or consumer endorsements reinforcing a product’s efficacy.”

The FTC’s new guidance helps define clear rules and puts marketers on notice of the pitfalls of marketing homeopathic products.  If in doubt about whether a advertising message is misleading, consider consulting an attorney and obtaining consumer surveys to ensure the advertisement is clear and not misleading.