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.

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.

One likely result is that companies will get sued by its competitors. Such a lawsuit will cost money to defend, cause a distraction to the company, and has the potential to embarrass the company with consumers.

Another potential result is more troubling – an enforcement action by the FTC. Such actions, like competitor lawsuits, are expensive to defend, cause distraction, and have the added problem of communicating to consumers that the government thinks the company is making false statements.

A recent FTC enforcement action decision reinforces the necessity for companies to validate the advertising claims made about their products, particularly if such claims relate to health benefits.

In May 2015, the FTC filed a lawsuit against COORGA Nutraceuticals Corporation and its owner claiming that the Defendants violated the law in claiming that their “Grey Defense” dietary supplements reversed or prevented gray hair. The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming recently granted summary judgment in favor of the FTC, issued an injunction against the company and its owner, and asked the Defendants to pay nearly $400,000.

COORGA marketed Grey Defense to consumers as not only a product that could stop, reverse and prevent the natural graying of hair, but also that it was scientifically proven to do so. The Court found that the COORGA did not have the required scientific evidence to support such claims.  In addition to finding that the company was liable, the Court also found the owner liable because he controlled COORGA’s advertising.  The Court took COORGA’s owner to task for “arrogantly” relying on internet research to validate the company’s claims.  The Court found that this conduct constituted “reckless indifference” and issued an injunction against the company relating to advertising claims across a broad range of products in addition to finding Defendants liable for $391,335.

As this and other FTC enforcement cases make clear, a company must ensure that if it makes scientific claims about its products that it has the testing to back up those claims.

The FTC has long required that if an advertiser makes a specific, verifiable claim, the advertiser needs to have adequate substantiation for the claim before it is made. One of the more interesting and recognizable examples of this rule came on December 1, 2015, when the FTC announced a proposed settlement with Tommie Copper for its claims that its products—copper-infused compression clothing—relieve pain.  Tommie Copper’s advertisements claimed that its copper-infused compression clothing provides pain relief from a number of conditions.  In fact, the company proclaimed that its products provide pain relief comparable to, or better than, drugs or surgery.  For example, its infomercials featured Montel Williams declaring “Tommie Copper truly is pain relief without a pill.”  The advertisements also claimed relief from chronic pain and pain caused by multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and fibromyalgia, relying on some purported customer testimonials.

Copyright: dolgachov / 123RF Stock Photo (Not actually Tommie Copper apparel)

But, based on the 2015 proposed settlement, it appears that Tommie Copper did not have much support for these lofty claims.

The settlement, which will cost Tommie Copper at least $1.35 million, served as a reminder that before making any advertising claim, the advertiser must have adequate substantiation for the claim.  And the bar is higher for medical claims.  As the proposed settlement explains, before the company can make health-related claims related to chronic or severe pain, diseases, drugs, and surgery, it must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence” to support the claims.  FTC v. Tommie Copper, Inc., 7:15-cv-09304-VB, Dkt. 4-1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2015).

The proposed settlement specifically defined “competent and reliable scientific evidence” as “human clinical testing . . . based on standards generally accepted by relevant medical experts” that is “(1) randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled; and (2) . . . conducted by researchers qualified by training and experience to conduct such testing.”  Id.  The proposed settlement also prohibits the use of other health-related claims without substantiation from tests, analysis, research, or studies conducted by qualified persons in a manner that is generally accepted in the profession to be accurate and reliable. Id. The monetary judgment in the proposed settlement is a whopping $86.8 million, although Tommie Copper need only pay $1.35 million now.  The remainder of the judgment is suspended based on, among other things, the company’s representations regarding its finances.

Though the facts and circumstances of every advertisement will determine what amount and type of substantiation is required, this settlement shows the FTC will require “competent and reliable scientific evidence” when making health-related claims to consumers.