Advertising

Subscribe to Advertising via RSS

The incoming administration promises big changes to federal consumer protection administration and enforcement. On January 5, 2017, Crowell & Moring’s Advertising & Product Risk Management Group hosted a webinar in which they discussed likely changes on the horizon to the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Please click here to

…

At this year’s National Advertising Division (NAD) annual conference in New York City held on September 29-30, the hot news was old news—speakers from NAD, FTC and various stakeholders emphasized a back-to-basics focus.

For instance, Crowell & Moring’s Chris Cole moderated a panel on product demonstrations. The panel discussed recent NAD decisions, but these recent decisions revolved around the fundamental principles that product demonstrations must accurately reflect how the advertised product works, and must be adequately substantiated.

Even panels on “newer” advertising forms, like native advertising, came back to the concept that consumers should be provided enough information to know who is the author or promoter behind an “info-tisement,” so that they can weigh the information accordingly. Again, the themes of reasonable consumer expectations, accurate information, and adequate support reigned supreme.Continue Reading Highlights from NAD and CARU Annual Conference in NYC: New Technology, But Old Principles

The choices facing American consumers are no longer just “paper or plastic” or “do you want fries with that?” Today, when strolling the aisles of a grocery store, customers have the option to buy local, organic, gluten-free, low-carb, or any other of a dozen choices. The local coffee shop offers a selection of responsibly-sourced coffees, shade grown coffees, and beans from Ethiopia, Yemen, or Guatemala. What savvy companies and marketers have realized is that American consumers like choice and they like to feel good about the products they buy.

And global trends— like safety concerns about foreign-made products, interest in supporting a flagging U.S. economy, or just plain patriotism—may encourage consumers to change their buying patterns—in favor of American goods. Smart manufacturers and marketers understand this and know that customers may be willing to pay a premium for American quality goods. And so, unsurprisingly, smart companies are doing what they can to make and market products as “Made in America.”Continue Reading “Made in America” Claims: the Landscape, FTC Guidance, and Tips for Manufacturers and Marketers

A California state court recently issued a preliminary ruling proposing to assess a statutory penalty against online discount retailer Overstock.com in the amount of $6.8 million for engaging in allegedly false and misleading discount advertising.1 Overstock.com was alleged to have advertised discounted prices that were pegged to the company’s own uncorroborated estimate of undiscounted retail value, rather than on actual data. The case highlights the risk that both online and brick-and-mortar retailers face if they advertise “discounts” from “regular” prices that have never actually been offered in commerce, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission guidelines against deceptive advertising (“FTC Guides”). The case also signals a major new threat to retailers engaging in these kinds of marketing strategies, which are common in the industry.

The Overstock.com case began in 2010, when a group of California district attorneys filed a private action under California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Their complaint alleged that Overstock.com “routinely and systematically made untrue and misleading comparative advertising claims” by comparing its retail prices to “advertised reference price(s)” (ARPs) that were not the prevailing market prices for its products. The district attorneys claimed that Overstock.com instead used misleading internal formulas designed to “inflate the comparative prices and artificially increase the discounts it claimed to be offering consumers.” The complaint also alleged that because Overstock.com was no longer merely a reseller of distressed merchandise, but was now actively engaged in original design, production and sale of a wide variety of products, it could not possibly advertise a “discount” for such products that were never sold at an undiscounted price.Continue Reading California Court Proposes to Assess $6.8 Million Penalty Against Online Discount Retailer For Engaging in Commonly Used Pricing Claims