Hunton Retail Law Resource

In 1973, Congress amended the FTC Act by adding §13(b), giving the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) equitable powers to remediate any violation of any law under its purview.  Using that power, the FTC has sought equitable monetary relief, including restitution and disgorgement. The lower courts routinely authorized such relief and Congress seemingly acknowledged the FTC’s power when it reauthorized the FTC Act. Despite those headwinds, today the Supreme Court unanimously held in a highly-anticipated case, AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, that the FTC cannot seek or obtain equitable monetary relief pursuant to §13(b).

On February 12, 2020, the FTC announced its intention to review its Endorsement Guides (formally known as the “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising”). These guides, first enacted in 1980 and revised in 2009, provide guidance to businesses, influencers and endorsers on how to make sure endorsements or testimonials abide by the requirements of the FTC Act. While advisory in nature, the Commission can take action under the FTC Act if an endorsement or testimonial is inconsistent with the Guides.

On February 3, 2020, the FTC announced a $350,000 settlement with Shop Tutors Inc., d/b/a LendEDU, a website that ranks and rates consumer financial products such as student and personal loans. The FTC’s complaint alleged that LendEDU and its principals violated the FTC Act by misleading consumers into believing that their website offered consumers “objective,” “accurate” and “unbiased” information, despite the fact that the company was alleged to be selling rankings and ratings to the highest bidder. The FTC also alleged that LendEDU touted unbiased positive reviews of its website, when the vast majority of those reviews had been written by persons closely associated with the company or were altogether fabricated.

These past two weeks, several consumer actions made headlines that affect the retail industry.

Competitor Pacified After Infant Cereal Maker Discontinues Advertising Claims

Beech-Nut Nutrition Company said it will stop advertising claims connected to infant cereal products that a competitor challenged before the NAD. The challenged claims include “0” grams of sugar, “natural,” “complete” nutrition, and “formulated to be gentle on baby’s tummy,” among others. The NAD will treat the discontinued claims as if it had recommended they be discontinued and Beech-Nut complied.

This past week, several consumer actions made headlines that affect the retail industry.

App Operator Im-Pacted by FTC Settlement

The Federal Trade Commission has reached a $948,788 settlement with app developer Pact, Inc. over claims that it engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices. Pact users enter into “pacts” to exercise and/or eat better. The app charges between $5 and $50 per missed activity for users who fail to meet their weekly goals. Users who meet their weekly goals were supposed to be rewarded with a share of the money collected from those who did not.

The FTC alleged that Pact charged “tens of thousands” of consumers even if they met their goals or cancelled their participation in the service. Customers had a difficult time getting refunds or even determining how to cancel. The FTC’s complaint alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

Under the terms of the settlement, Pact must disclose its billing practices, and is prohibited from misrepresenting its billing practices or engaging in unfair billing practices. A judgement of $1.5 million will be partially suspended upon Pact’s payment of $948,788. 

On August 7, 2017, the FTC announced that it obtained a court order temporarily halting an online marketing scheme that deceptively lured shoppers into expensive negative option plans. The FTC alleged in its complaint that defendants used initial low-cost “trial” offers to hook consumers into expensive monthly shipments for tooth-whitening products without properly disclosing the terms and conditions of the deal or properly obtaining their consent.

On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Federal Credit Union (“Alcoa”), on behalf of itself, credit unions, banks and other financial institutions, filed a nationwide class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (“Chipotle”). The case arises from a breach of customer payment card data. The putative class consists of all such financial institutions that issued payment cards, or were involved with card-issuing services, for customers who made purchases at Chipotle from March 1, 2017, to the present. Plaintiffs allege a number of “inadequate data security measures,” including Chipotle’s decision not to implement EMV technology. 

On May 12, 2017, a massive ransomware attack began affecting tens of thousands of computer systems in over 100 countries. The ransomware, known as “WannaCry,” leverages a Windows vulnerability and encrypts files on infected systems and demands payment for their release. If payment is not received within a specified time frame, the ransomware automatically deletes the files. A wide range of industries have been impacted by the attack, including retailers and other businesses, hospitals, utilities and government entities around the world.

In a 2-1 vote on January 19, 2017, with Commissioner Ohlhausen dissenting, the FTC took action against Uber Technologies for allegedly making exaggerated claims about potential earnings and the costs of Uber’s Vehicle Solutions Program. Uber has agreed to pay $20 million in driver redress to resolve these charges.

On December 12, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission announced a summary decision against California Naturel, Inc., holding that advertising sunscreen as “all natural” violates Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act because 8 percent of the product is comprised of the synthetic ingredient dimethicone. 

On November 15, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission released a new policy statement announcing how the agency will examine over-the-counter (“OTC”) homeopathic drugs going forward. The policy statement explains that the FTC will hold OTC homeopathic products to the same standards as non-homeopathic drugs making similar wellness claims in terms of efficacy and safety.

This past week, several consumer actions made headlines that affect the retail industry.

This past week, several consumer actions made headlines:

Hyundai and Kia Set State Attorneys General Investigations for $42.1 Million

Hyundai Motor Co. and Kia Motor Corp. have agreed to pay $42.1 million to settle claims by the Attorneys General of 33 states and the District of Columbia that the companies misrepresented mileage and fuel economy ratings for certain vehicles. Hyundai issued a statement regarding the settlement, noting that it contains no admission of any wrongdoing. The companies previously paid $100 million to settle claims that they had misrepresented emissions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and $225 million to a consumer class for overstating the fuel efficiency of their vehicles.

The following consumer protection actions made headlines this week:

Mylan Reaches $465 Million Settlement Over Medicaid Classification

On October 7, 2016, Mylan Inc. announced that it had agreed to pay $465 million to resolve a DOJ investigation into Mylan's classification of EpiPen as a generic drug that resulted in Medicaid and Medicare receiving a significantly smaller rebate on every prescription since 2007. The DOJ, on behalf of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), investigated whether EpiPen should have been classified as a "branded" drug, which would have given CMS at least a 23.1 percent rebate, as compared to the 13.1 percent rebate CMS received for Mylan's self-classification of EpiPen as a generic drug. Mylan believed that although the injector pen device was patented, the relevant consideration for CMS classification is that the active ingredient in EpiPen is off-patent. The DOJ agreement resolves the government’s classification concerns, but does not address potential private class action litigation.

On September 12, 2016, the House of Representatives passed the Consumer Review Fairness Act (the “Fairness Act”), aimed at preventing companies from penalizing consumers who post negative reviews online. The law is a response to non-disparagement clauses such as the one challenged by the FTC in litigation filed last year against Roca Labs, Inc.

This past week, several consumer, self-regulatory and regulatory actions made headlines:

Full Throttle: Ninth Circuit Dismisses FTC Data Suit Against AT&T

On August 29, 2016, the Ninth Circuit dismissed a suit brought by the FTC against AT&T Mobility LLC, ruling that the telecommunications company is exempt as a “common carrier” from enforcement under the FTC Act. The FTC claimed that AT&T had not properly informed customers with grandfathered unlimited data plans that their internet speed would be reduced after using a certain amount of data in a billing cycle. While the district court denied AT&T’s motion to dismiss, the Ninth Circuit reversed that ruling, finding that, based on the language and structure of the FTC Act, the common carrier exception was a status-based, not activity-based, exemption and that AT&T, as a common carrier, was not covered by Section 5.

As reported on the Privacy & Information Security Law blog, on July 29, 2016, the FTC announced that it had issued an opinion and final order concluding that LabMD, Inc. (“LabMD”) violated the unfairness prong of Section 5 of the FTC Act by failing to maintain reasonable security practices to protect consumers’ sensitive personal information. The unanimous decision reverses a November 2015 administrative law judge’s initial decision that, as we previously reported, dismissed the FTC’s charges against LabMD for failing to show that LabMD’s allegedly unreasonable data security practices caused, or were likely to cause, substantial consumer injury.

This past week, several consumer protection and regulatory actions made headlines:

Class Plaintiffs Just Keep Swimming Against Safeway in Underfilled Tuna Case

On July 13, 2016, Safeway escaped negligent misrepresentation claims in a putative class action consumer suit alleging that Safeway violated federal guidelines when it chronically underfilled two of its private label canned tuna products. Safeway filed a limited motion to dismiss the class plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims. The court found that, though duplicative, unjust enrichment was properly plead, but the negligent misrepresentation claim failed because class plaintiffs could not show that they suffered any loss other than an economic loss. Unfortunately for the grocer, eight other claims in the suit survived, including various breaches of warranty, unjust enrichment and California unfair competition counts. 

This past week, several consumer protection and regulatory actions made headlines:

Technology

Volkswagen to Pay an Additional $86 Million to California

On July 6, California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced that Volkswagen (“VW”) will pay the state an additional $86 million in a second partial settlement over VW’s emissions “defeat devices.” This civil penalty sum is the largest amount ever recovered by California from an automaker, and comes on the heels of the recently announced $14.7 billion settlement negotiated by the EPA and the FTC over the German automaker’s emissions-cheating scandal. The $86 million is part of a total $603 million VW has agreed to pay to resolve consumer-protection claims with 46 jurisdictions. As part of the settlement, VW agreed to strict injunctive terms, including prohibitions on false advertising and affirmative disclosure of defeat devices.

On June 28, 2016, in two related settlements, German auto-manufacturer, Volkswagen AG (“VW”), has agreed to pay $14.7 billion to resolve allegations that the company cheated diesel emissions tests for nearly 500,000 2.0 liter diesel vehicles sold over six years. One settlement partially resolves EPA allegations for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act’s federal emissions standard; the other partially resolves FTC claims that VW violated the FTC Act by deceptively and unfairly advertising its “clean diesel” vehicles. VW also will pay damages to 44 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The announced settlements do not resolve pending civil claims concerning VW’s 3.0 liter diesel vehicles, or potential criminal liability.

On March 29, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed suit against Volkswagen Group of America (“VW”), which includes Volkswagen of America and Audi of America, for its “Clean Diesel” advertisements.

The complaint alleges VW’s “Clean Diesel” ads made various deceptive claims, including that its diesel technology produced “30% fewer emissions” and reduced “nitrogen-oxide emissions by 90%.” The FTC alleges that the vehicles with VW’s “Clean Diesel” technology were also equipped with a “defeat device” designed to calibrate the vehicle’s emission system to produce legally-compliant emissions during standard emissions testing.

This past week, the following regulatory and consumer actions made headlines:

National Advertising Division Weighs in on “Scary Bleach” Claims

After a challenge by The Clorox Company, the National Advertising Division (“NAD”) recommended that Church & Dwight, the maker of OxiClean White Revive non-chlorine bleach, modify its television ad campaign suggesting that chlorine bleach could be “scary.” The commercials in question highlighted garment care labels directing consumers to “use only non-chlorine bleach, when needed,” thus implying that Chlorox’s product was damaging to the kinds of white garments depicted in the ads. The NAD found that Church & Dwight was required to provide a reasonable basis for its use of care labels in its ads, particularly advertising claims that denigrated Chlorox’s product. This decision followed on a 2014 NAD recommendation that Church & Dwight avoid conveying the unsupported message that chlorine bleach is damaging to white garments.

Each week, we will present a summary of key consumer protection developments affecting the retail industry. This past week, the following regulatory and consumer actions made headlines:

FTC Continues Focus on False Weight Loss Claims, Settles with Sale Slash for $43 million

After a nearly year-long litigation, California company Sale Slash LLC has agreed to pay $43 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company deceptively sold “bogus” weight loss pills, including through unauthorized celebrity endorsements. As part of the settlement, Sale Slash may not represent that its products are endorsed by any specific individual, or claim that its products aid in weight loss or are safe for consumers unless the claims are supported by “competent and reliable scientific evidence.”

On April 23, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Nomi Technologies (Nomi) has agreed to settle charges stemming from allegations that the company misled consumers with respect to opting out of the company’s mobile-device tracking service at retail locations. The settlement marks the FTC’s first § 5 enforcement action against a retail tracking company.

On Friday, January 30, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion in POM Wonderful, LLC, et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, affirming the Federal Trade Commission's ruling in 2013 that a series of advertisements for POM’s pomegranate juice and supplements were deceptive and thus violated the FTC Act. However, the court provided some limited, yet important, relief to POM Wonderful and the other petitioners. The D.C. Circuit’s decision provides important guidance to companies advertising consumer products.

Read the full client alert.

Most marketers and retailers know that the consumer protection laws require that their advertising claims be substantiated, truthful and not misleading. But the new year is a good time to take stock of advertising campaigns, practices and procedures to make sure they pass muster under the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) latest guidance. The FTC’s recent enforcement actions provide a starting point.

Read the full client alert.