FTC advertising guidelines

Subscribe to FTC advertising guidelines

This week, I spent some time at the Podcast Movement Annual Convention, this year held in the DC area.  While the convention is always a good time to catch up with industry friends and to spot new trends (AI was, of course, a topic that was discussed on several panels as it is at virtually every media conference these days), it was also a reminder that with all that has been going on at the FCC and with other regulations, we have not written much about podcasting in the recent past.  Previously, we have covered many issues related to the use of music in podcasts (see, for instance, our articles here, here, and here).  We’ve written about other legal issues that need to be considered in connection with podcasting including getting releases from guests, making sure that ownership of the podcast is clear (an issue potentially of more importance if the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements in employment contracts goes into effect, as it could result in more changes in employment of employees working on podcasts, though the effective date of any noncompete ban is questionable based on a court action this week that throws out that ban – a decision likely to be appealed), and other issues that I covered in the slides from a presentation presented at the Podcast Movement conference several years ago that remain relevant.   Today, I thought that I would revisit another topic from my prior coverage of podcast legal issues, one that was given new urgency by another recent FTC ruling – sponsorship identification. 

Broadcasters are familiar with the FCC requirements for the identification of those who provide something of value to a station in exchange for any on-air content.  Fines can be issued (and big payments under consent decrees have resulted see, for instance, the cases we noted here and here) from broadcasters who do not follow the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules.  But broadcasters are not as familiar with the fact that the FTC also has rules about sponsorship identification requirements that go beyond the FCC’s obligations, looking at questions including the truthfulness of endorsements and testimonials for products and services.  FTC enforcement can be as severe, if not more severe, than that of the FCC (see, for instance, the FTC’s fines we wrote about two years ago on Google and a broadcaster for having DJs talk about their use of Pixel phones that they had not in fact used).  The FTC last week expanded on its policies by adopting a final rule prohibiting the purchase and sale of fake reviews and testimonials concerning products and services, and allowing the agency to seek civil penalties against knowing violators.  Among other things, the new rule prohibits activities including the buying or selling of fake consumer reviews or testimonials, buying positive or negative consumer reviews, using certain insiders to create consumer reviews or testimonials without clearly disclosing their relationships, creating a company-controlled review website that falsely purports to provide independent reviews, using certain review suppression practices, and selling or purchasing fake indicators of social media influence.  We plan to write more about this FTC decision in the near future, but it is important to note that these FTC policies apply with equal force to podcasters and any other online communications medium.Continue Reading Podcasters and Broadcasters – Disclose Those Sponsors! 

May is relatively light on scheduled regulatory deadlines for broadcasters, but the following dates are worthy of note.  In addition, always remember to keep in touch with your legal and regulatory advisors to make sure that you don’t overlook any regulatory deadlines that are specific to your station.

Comments are due on May 15, with reply comments due on June 13, on the FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting comment on a variety of proposed rules implementing the Low Power Protection Act (LPPA).  The LPPA provides certain low power television stations in small markets with a “limited window of opportunity” to apply to become Class A television stations with primary status, protecting them from interference from new or improved full-power stations.  The FCC is seeking comment on interpreting the eligibility requirements for stations seeking this status.Continue Reading May Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – Rulemaking Comments on Various TV Issues and More

In a Federal Trade Commission notice published last week, the agency warned the advertising industry that penalties could be coming for the use of deceptive endorsements.  The FTC not only released the notice, but it also sent a letter (a version of which is available here) to hundreds of businesses (a list is here) – advertisers, advertising agencies, and a few media companies – reminding them of the FTC’s concerns about deceptive endorsements in advertising.  While the FTC makes clear that this list of recipients of the letter does not indicate that any of them did anything wrong, it does make clear that the FTC takes this issue very seriously and wants to highlight the issue for the entire advertising ecosystem.  The letter reminds businesses that violations can lead to fines of up to $43,792 per violation and other penalties.

What are the FTC concerns?  The FTC said that prohibited practices “include, but are not limited to: falsely claiming an endorsement by a third party; misrepresenting whether an endorser is an actual, current, or recent user; using an endorsement to make deceptive performance claims; failing to disclose an unexpected material connection with an endorser; and misrepresenting that the experience of endorsers represents consumers’ typical or ordinary experience.”  In other words, when an endorser says something about a product, the FTC is expecting that the endorser used the product and the statements that it makes about the product are accurate and reflect what consumers can expect from that product.  This is not the first time that the FTC has raised these issues.
Continue Reading FTC Reminds Advertisers That Deceptive Endorsements in Advertising Can Lead to Penalties

Last week, FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly was in the news for sending a letter to the major record labels asking for information about their practices in paying broadcast stations for airing the label’s music.  The letter follows correspondence last year between the Commissioner and the RIAA (the Recording Industry’s trade group) asking for similar information, which the RIAA claimed that it did not have.  This process began after a Rolling Stone magazine article suggested that “payola” was still a common practice in the broadcast industry.  These actions, and the press reports that followed, raise a couple of interesting questions including what the FCC rules are on payola, and how broadcast practices compare to those of online companies.

The Communications Act prohibits the practice of “payola” by requiring, in Section 317, that when any content is aired on a station in exchange for anything of value, the station must disclose that “consideration” has been paid by the person or entity that pays for the consideration.  Thus, “payola” arises when a broadcast station employee or contractor receives or is promised anything of value in return for putting any content on the air, and that payment is not disclosed to the public.  Payola usually occurs when someone makes a gift or payment to a person involved in station programming (i.e., station employees, program producers, program suppliers) in exchange for favorable on-air exposure of a product or service.  While the term “payola” is most often associated with the receipt by a station announcer or music director of money, trips or other value for playing songs on the station, the same prohibition applies whenever any station programming personnel receive anything of value in exchange for airing any content where a sponsorship identification is not broadcast.  For examples of fines for airing programming for which consideration was received without acknowledging the receipt of valuable consideration, outside the context of music, see our articles here, here and here. 
Continue Reading FCC Commissioner Asks Record Labels for Information About Payola Practices – What are the FCC Rules?  How Do These Practices Compare to Online Music Providers?

We’ve written many times about the legal concerns about advertising for various vices – including e-cigs (see, for instance, our article here) and CBD (see for instance our articles here and here). The issues with these products never seem to go away, and in recent days, they have become even more pronounced. On e-cigs and vaping products, we have advised that ads need to avoid health claims, must contain an FDA-required warning that they contain nicotine and can be addictive (see our articles here and here), and that they should not be aired during programming targeting children (see our article here). We recently also added a warning that action might be coming against flavored vaping products. This week, the headlines are full of news announcing a new Federal ban on flavored vaping products that may go into effect in the next few months, following a state ban that was recently instituted in Michigan. On CBD, in addition to concerns about laws that still make the product illegal in many states, we’ve discussed concerns about whether the product is legally produced from hemp (see our article here), and highlighted prohibitions on health claims (see our article here) and ads directed to an underage audience. This week, we saw another set of warnings from the FTC targeting advertisers making specific health claims about their products. These actions should serve as a warning to broadcasters and other media companies to proceed very carefully, only after receiving legal advice, before jumping into advertising for these products.

On the vaping front, Michigan recently became the first state to totally ban flavored e-cigarettes – including mint and menthol flavored vaping products. See the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services “Finding of Emergency” here, and the Governor’s announcement here. While there was some indication that the vaping industry might fight that ban, with the news yesterday that the Trump administration plans to ban these products on a Federal level (see this statement from the FDA indicating that it will soon announce specific rules for the Federal ban on these products), broadcasters need to be concerned about running advertising for products that may be considered illegal. With the recent rash of other serious health consequences of vaping, it is quite possible that further regulation of these products will follow, and so may lawsuits from the vaping industry. In the interim, the FDA notes that it will be running advertising to combat underage vaping and to warn about the potential health issues, so look for those advertising opportunities.
Continue Reading New Concerns About Ads for E-Cigs and CBD

The developments surrounding the regulation of cannabis products, and the impact of that regulation on the ability of broadcasters and other media companies to run ads for these products, continue on an almost daily basis.  Of course, the developments don’t all point in a single direction.  As described below, at the same time as the FDA schedules a hearing to look at cannabis products and the rules that should apply to them, the FTC and FDA together have written warning letters to CBD marketers advising them to stay away from making specific health claims about their products and to avoid promoting edible products.  What does this mean for media companies that have been approached to advertise these products?

We very recently wrote about the murky state of the law on CBD advertising (mentioning our continuing concerns about marijuana advertising even in states where it has been “legalized”).  In that article, we warned that broadcasters should be particularly concerned about selling advertising that markets CBD products to be ingested, or advertising which makes unsupported health claims.  In a joint action announced last week, the FTC and the FDA wrote letters to three sellers of CBD products, warning those companies that their marketing raised legal issues.  In these letters, the FTC expressed concern that the marketing contained health claims that could not be substantiated, and the FDA was concerned about the marketing of supplements and other CDB products to be taken orally that had not been approved by the FDA as either foods or medicines.  At least one of the letters cited a “salve” that presumably was not to be ingested, so the concern there seemed to be solely the specific health claims made for the product.  These letters reinforce the concerns that we expressed about advertising that contains specific health claims or which deals with products to be taken by mouth (either as dietary supplements, medicines or in other foods) – so stations should be especially wary of such ads. 
Continue Reading FDA Schedules Hearing on Cannabis; FTC and FDA Send Cease and Desist Letters to Sellers of CBD Products – What is the Effect on Advertising?

On December 1, 2009,  FTC revised Guidelines went into effect updating policies dealing with advertising using testimonials and endorsements, specifically affecting celebrity endorsements and sponsorship disclosure.  These revised guidelines directly impact the established practices of broadcasters and new media companies.  These revised endorsement and testimonial guidelines effectively ban the old standard “results not typical” disclaimer so commonly in use in connection with a great deal of testimonial advertising, confirm independent liability for the “endorser” (including celebrities) for false product or service claims, and expand and clarify the need for disclosure of “material connections”, that is consideration (money and other “freebies”) received by new media companies in connection with reviews or other online coverage of products or services.  It is vital that media companies, in particular new media, understand the key provisions of these guidelines to make sure that they don’t become a target of any FTC enforcement action.  The FTC has indicated that for now at least, its focus will be on enforcement in the new media world (bloggers, social media, viral campaigns) and other “non-traditional” advertising (celebrity guests on news and entertainment shows, endorsements by media personnel such as on-air DJ’s).

Like all FTC Guidance concerning advertising, the revised guidelines are specific regulations, but instead they set out standards (in essence a safe harbor) that outline how the FTC will review advertising to determine if it is “false and deceptive” or otherwise misleading to the consumer in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.  The revised guidelines provide specific examples as to how they will apply to insure sufficient disclosure so that the listener has all the background necessary to be able to evaluate the strength of the endorsement for him or herself.  For broadcast advertising, the new guidelines make clear that endorsers can themselves be liable for misleading statements made during a product pitch.  So a radio announcer paid to try a diet plan or some other product and to report about its results on the air needs to be sure not only that his statements are truthful, but that the “results” claimed are in line with what the advertiser can actually prove for the product through clinical study and research.  The radio pitchman cannot turn a blind eye to claims that are inherently incredible.  In the past, a simple disclosure that "your results may vary" or "these results are not necessarily typical" was sufficient.  Today, that disclaimer is no longer enough.  Instead, the new guidelines state that any testimonial about the results of using a product be accompanied with a disclosure of the results that a typical user can expect to get from the product.  So the announcer must be informed as to what results can be expected by the typical user, and that these results are objectively verifiable, so that the proper disclosure can be made.  As the announcer (or the station) can now be liable for statements made in such testimonials, stations should take care to be prepared to make the required disclosures. Continue Reading New FTC Guidelines on Endorsements and Sponsorship Disclosure – Broadcasters and New Media Companies Beware