Case in point, Georgia-based distributor of water filtration systems, iSpring Water Systems LLC, has been accused by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of making false claims that its products are made in the United States, when they are, in fact, made entirely in China. Astoundingly, this is not the first time iSpring has attempted to profit off of the American name, as the current mislabeling is actually a violation of a 2017 FTC order prohibiting iSpring from making unqualified “Made in USA” claims for its products.

As part of the FTC settlement, iSpring has agreed to pay a $110,000 civil penalty, admit that it, along with its company owner and officer Zhuangyong Chen and vice president Pearl Cai, made false claims that the water filtration systems it sells are “designed and crafted in USA,” among other claims, and to notify all impacted consumers.

Some might be surprised to learn that the rules regarding product origin claims are not so black and white, and are governed by both the FTC and the U.S. Customs Service. For example, where an imported product incorporates materials and/or processing from more than one country, Customs considers the country of origin to be the last country in which a “substantial transformation” took place. Thus, a product with parts from say Mexico or Canada, may, under certain circumstances, be marked “Made in USA.” The FTC offers some guidance in this regard; however, product marketers and distributors should speak to a qualified attorney prior to making country of origin claims; especially if that country is the United States.

Fake reviews have been a pretty standard marketing tool for some time; with product owners paying companies to post rave reviews of its product and poor reviews of competing goods. Fake reviews are so ubiquitous that, according to Saoud Khalifah, founder and CEO of Fakespot, a site that flushes out fake reviews, up to 70% of reviews on Amazon are fake. This staggering figure is perhaps why the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has finally decided (likely to the dismay of product owners) to take action.

On February 19, the FTC filed a complaint against Cure Encapsulations, Inc. and its owner Naftula Jacobowitz, alleging that the defendants violated the FTC Act by, among other fraudulent actions, paying amazonverifiedreviews.com to create and post approximately 30 Amazon reviews a day of their “weight loss” product, Garcinia Cambogia. The FTC argued that such practices constituted “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” In light of the quick settlement by the defendants, there was no 5-star argument to refute the allegation.

The proposed court order settling the complaint prohibits the defendants from making claims for any dietary supplement, food, or drug unless they have competent and reliable scientific evidence in the form of human clinical testing supporting the claims. The order also requires the defendants to notify Amazon, Inc. that they purchased reviews of their product and to identify to Amazon the fake reviews. Finally, the order imposes a judgment of $12.8 million, to be suspended upon payment of $50,000 to the FTC, in light of the defendant’s current financial status.

While $50,000 may not seem so bad as compared to how much money can be made due to sales generated by fake product reviews, a deeper pocketed company could have been on the hook for the full $12.8 million.

This is the first time the FTC has gone after a company for paid reviews, and more actions should be anticipated now that the foundation has been laid.

In addition to bogus reviews on Amazon, fake review websites such as tvstuffreviews.com and freakinreviews.com, often featuring “as seen on tv” and weight loss products, are quite prevalent. Sites such as these look like a source of legitimate reviews; however, the “reviewers” have likely never actually tested or investigated the products they are allegedly reviewing. As such, it is probably just a matter of time before enough complaints generate an FTC investigation into the financial sources behind those reviews.

Be sure to consult an experienced attorney if you have questions or concerns about your marketing methods or how to spot and remove fake reviews.

Allstar is alleged to have violated multiple consumer protection laws by its deceptive advertising practices involving products including, among others: Snuggie, Perfect Bacon Bowl, Magic Mesh Door, Perfect Brownie Pan, and Cat’s Meow. According to the FTC complaint, consumers who purchased Allstar’ s products thought, for example, that they were getting two Snuggies for the low price of $19.95, but in reality, were charged processing-and-handling (P&H) fees for both items, bringing the total purchase price to $35.85. Further, customers were not given the option to decline the promotional buy-one-get-one-free (BOGO) offer.

With the multimillion dollar settlement and refund checks making national news, consumers and regulatory bodies may be on the lookout for similar marketing strategies by other leading marketers. To be sure, FTC law enforcement actions led to more than $6.4 billion in refunds for consumers during the one-year period from July 2016-June 2017. As such, marketers should be cognizant of what product offerings may raise red flags, particularly since consumer protection laws are typically broad generalizations rather than prohibitions on specific marketing strategies.

Accordingly, while some disclosures need to be more conspicuous than they once were, BOGO offers still generally have the green light. That being said, there are three main areas of concern: the use of the word “free” (especially with a modifier such as “absolutely”); P&H disclosures; and the ability to opt out of the free offer.

First, use of the word “free” could garner some unwanted attention and scrutiny from regulatory agencies. Even when the only cost for the additional item may be processing and handling, and the additional item is technically free, if the charges for P&H are as costly as the product itself, and nonrefundable if the product is returned, that offer would likely constitute deceptive advertising tactics. It is therefore recommended that distributors avoid BOGO offers with costly P&H charges. However, those who insist on a BOGO offer while still charging significant P&H fees should use alternative language to convey that the second item is “free.” Not so creatively, for example, “As a bonus, we will also send you this second [product]. Just pay an additional [amount] for processing and handling.”

To further steer clear of FTC scrutiny, P&H fees should be shown on the screenshot in the commercial (preferably stated in the script as well), on the website’s order page, and in a confirmation email to the consumer. According to compliance guidance provided by the New York Attorney General, the amount of any processing and handling or other fees (excluding taxes) is a material term that must be disclosed in an advertisement if the total amount of such fees exceeds the amount consumers would reasonably expect to pay for processing and handling. Expectations take into account the applicable shipping method for a product of similar price, size, and weight. Finally, a consumer should be provided with the option to opt out of the BOGO offer and be allowed to purchase a single item.

As laws can vary from state to state, be sure to consult with an attorney experienced in consumer protection regulations prior to launching a marketing campaign for a new product.

According to the FTC complaint, the brothers advertised and sold Infinity and Olympus Pro trampolines through various websites. These e-commerce websites displayed logos and seals for the Bureau of Trampoline Review, Trampoline Safety of America, and Top Trampoline Review. As a result, consumers were led to believe that these review sites containing ratings based on safety and performance, were comprised of unbiased, expert reviews. In reality, these organizations were made up by the brothers.

Not only did the websites for these “independent” bodies promote the products being sold by the brothers, but they also made representations regarding product safety. The Trampoline Safety of America site stated the organization included structural engineers. The Bureau of Trampoline Review website stated that safety was one of the bureau’s primary focuses, and that trampolines were put through rigorous testing such as having cars dropped on them. Allegedly, the only product to pass the car test was one of the brands sold by the brothers.

This of course is not the first time that product owners have created fake review sites; however, the safety claims contained in the brothers’ websites take these reviews to a dangerous new height. Despite this, the FTC surprisingly did not impose a monetary penalty. Perhaps no injuries resulted from the brothers’ claims on the review sites, and therefore the FTC was lenient. Instead, the brothers must refrain from engaging in these deceptive practices and must provide compliance reports and remain subject to compliance monitoring. As such, the pair has already made changes to the review sites, including identifying their company as being the owner and author.

Fake review sites and false claims are very common in the consumer product industry, and should they become the focus of an investigation, a company exposes itself to hefty monetary penalties. Be sure to contact an attorney prior to making product claims or participating in review sites.

Please email us if you have any questions or if you would like more information regarding the content above.

Ohlhausen will be bringing a new focus to the FTC; specifically, an emphasis on pursuing claims based on actual consumer harm, not just whether a regulatory violation occurred. For example, on a recent $2.2M settlement with Vizio regarding the software in its T.V.s that tracked viewing activity of 11 million consumers without their knowledge, Ohlhausen agreed that although Vizio’s actions were deceptive, she seemed to oppose the notion that television viewing activity constitutes sensitive information. Ohlhausen also stated that the FTC needs to reexamine how it defines “substantial injury” to consumers and focus on the misuse of historically sensitive private consumer information, including health and financial information, information on children and social security numbers.

Not wasting anytime in this regard, Ohlhausen just announced that Jessica Rich, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, is leaving the agency on February 17 and is being replaced by Thomas Pahl. During Rich’s tenure, the FTC brought numerous actions against businesses that resulted in billions of dollars being returned to consumers. These awards may soon be a thing of the past as Pahl, like Ohlhausen, supports deregulation.

While deceptive marketing practices will still be on the FTC’s radar, the good news for marketers is that Ohlhausen is not a proponent of how cavalierly investigations have been initiated; nor does she believe in the total disgorgement of profits of companies found to be in violation of (some) consumer protection laws.

Ohlhausen is just the interim chair, but it is rumored that Trump has a couple of like-minded candidates for the permanent position, including Sean Reyes, a former attorney general of Utah. Dietary supplements are the largest industry in Utah (worth over $7B annually). If selected, Reyes could be much welcome news for nutraceutical marketers. In fact, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch helped draft the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act which regulates product claims, labeling, etc., and he is a strong supporter of the industry.

Regardless of who is chosen to permanently chair, recent moves should be encouraging to most product marketers and nutraceutical producers alike, though they may be less protective of consumer interests.

For questions or more information regarding the above content, email DLG@DigitalLawGroup.com