Federal Trade Commission

Subscribe to Federal Trade Commission

We recently wrote about some of the challenges for e-cig advertising based on Federal and state actions to restrict the sale of flavored vaping products. Even though advertising for e-cigarettes is not currently illegal at the Federal level (see our articles here and here that discuss the disclaimer that must accompany those ads and the requirement that ads should not make health claims or target children), there are moves to change that position (including the announcement we wrote about last month of an anticipated ban on flavored vaping products). While changes to those rules have not yet been implemented , a recent set of letters from a Congressional committee to the manufacturers of e-cigs suggests that they stop marketing vaping products (or at least report to the committee whether or not they have stopped such advertising) while various government reviews of health issues associated with vaping and the marketing of vaping products are taking place. Among these reviews is a just-announced proceeding by the Federal Trade Commission to look at the marketing practices of e-cig companies. The detailed questions sent to the e-cig companies indicate that the FTC intends a very thorough review of all aspects of these marketing programs.

These Federal actions have been combined with announcements in many states looking toward significant regulation of the vaping industry. As we wrote last month, Michigan’s governor has announced a ban on the sale of flavored e-cig products. The text of the order implementing that announcement has now been released. Other states are following suit, with a ban in Massachusetts reportedly in place, and actions in Washington State and Ohio being considered. Many municipalities are also looking at similar restrictions.
Continue Reading More Challenges for E-Cigs Ads – Congress and FTC Looking at Marketing Practices While States Impose Bans

There is nothing new about the FTC bringing enforcement actions based on deceptive advertising practices.  Those cases are the FTC’s bread and butter.  But in recent years the FTC has been pushing forward with cases that address the increasingly complex network of entities involved in marketing, including companies that collect, buy, and sell consumer information and play other behind-the-scenes roles in marketing campaigns.  The FTC has also taken a strong interest in deceptively formatted advertising, including “native” advertising that does not adequately disclose sponsorship connections.  A recent Court of Appeals decision highlights the potential for any internet company to be liable for a deceptive advertising campaign that it had a hand in orchestrating – even if the company itself does not create the advertising material.

The decision in this case, FTC v. LeadClick Media, LLC, comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and is a significant victory for the FTC and its co-plaintiff, the State of Connecticut.  Specifically, the decision holds that online advertising company LeadClick is liable for the deceptive ads that were published as part an advertising campaign that it coordinated, even though LeadClick itself did not write or publish the ads.  In addition, the Second Circuit rejected LeadClick’s argument that its ad tracking service provided it with immunity from the FTC’s action under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA).
Continue Reading Second Circuit Holds Marketing Campaign Organizer Liable Under FTC Act for Deceptive Representations of Its Marketing “Affiliates”