FTC to Hold Public Workshop on Proposed Business Opportunity Rule Changes
Posted by: Andy Lustigman
April 22, 2009

The Federal Trade Commission has announced that it will hold a day-long public workshop on June 1, 2009 in Washington, DC, to explore proposed changes to the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule

Continue Reading

FTC Names New Consumer Protection Chief
Posted by: Andy Lustigman
April 15, 2009

Signaling an increased activism on consumer protection issues, newly appointed FTC Chair Jon Leibowitz appointed Georgetown Law Professor David C. Vladeck as the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. According to the FTC, Vladeck is a thirty-year veteran of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, a public interest law firm founded by Ralph Nader and Alan Morrison. Vladeck replaces former Director Lydia Parnes and acting Director Eileen Harrington. This appointment is consistent with the anticipated increase in scrutiny on privacy, online advertising, and marketing practices.

Continue Reading

Yo Quiero Taco Bell Now Yo Quiero Mi Dinero!
Posted by: Jill Abitbol
April 09, 2009

In January, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Taco Bell is liable for the $42 million in breach-of-contract damages award to two Michigan admen who created the Chihuahua idea that served as the foundation for the fast-food chain's hit $500 million ad campaign in the 1990s. The campaign starring the talking dog as a beret-wearing revolutionary or sombrero-sporting bandit was a huge success.

Continue Reading

Webloyality.com Settles Class Action and agrees to payments up to $10,000,000
Posted by: Adam Solomon
April 09, 2009

Proposed settlement in class action against Webloyalty regarding company's internet marketing enrollment process.

Continue Reading

New York Attorney General Settles with Chase to End Monthly Fees
Posted by: Adam Solomon
April 09, 2009

Chase agrees to refund $4,400,000 in a settlement reached with the New York Attorney General.

Continue Reading

New Jersey Sues Verizon Over Deceptive FiOS Sales and Marketing Practices
Posted by: Adam Solomon
April 09, 2009

The New Jersey Attorney General filed suit against Verizon alleging that its marketing, sales, billing and customer service practices for its FiOS television, telephone and internet services are deceptive and misleading.

The Complaint alleges that Verizon violated the Consumer Fraud Act through unconscionable commercial practices, misrepresentations and knowing omissions of material facts, as well as the Advertising Regulations.

The complaint specifically alleges Verizon engaged in the following conduct:

• Quoting one price for FiOS Service in door-to-door solicitations, direct mail advertising and otherwise, then billed consumers at a higher price;
• Charging consumers an activation fee, after the salesperson in the door-to-door solicitation waived the fee;
• Charging consumers for services, such as movie packages, that were never ordered;
• Representing that movie packages were free, then billing consumers for such services;
• Advertising promotional gifts, yet failing to provide consumers with the opportunity to contract for the types of FiOS service necessary to obtain the promotional gifts;
• Using the term "additional charges apply" in advertisements, without providing a description of those charges;
• Failing to provide consumers with the rewards letter or other instructions necessary to receive their promotional gifts;
• Failing to provide consumers with a copy of their signed contract;
• Representing that consumers are entitled to receive promotional gifts, but failing to provide promotional gifts;
• Providing consumers with promotional gifts only after significant delay and/or after consumers made repeated calls or other contacts with Verizon;
• Billing consumers at a price other than that initially quoted;
• Billing, on a monthly basis, inconsistent amounts to the same consumers with the same services;
• Failing to honor a consumer's request to cancel the FiOS service; and
• Making it very difficult (i.e. long delays, varied telephone numbers) for consumers to reach a customer service representative in order to address or resolve issues as to promotional gifts, services and/or billing.

Permalink

FTC Unilaterally Rescinds Enforcement Policy Regarding the Advertising of Books and Publications.
Posted by: Sheldon Lustigman
April 03, 2009

Without the benefit of public comment, The FTC has announced that it is rescinding the agency's enforcement policy regarding the advertising of books and publications, known as the Mirror Image Doctrine. Previously, advertisers could be assured that if the advertising only reflected the opinion of the author of the book as to the contents of the publication, (i.e. was the mirror image of the publication), they could be safe that the FTC would not ordinarily bring an enforcement action because there was not adequate substantiate for the truth of the claims set forth in the book. This important area is now up in the air.

Continue Reading

Makers of Tide and AJAX Asked to Come Clean
Posted by: Jill Abitbol
April 02, 2009

Six state and national environmental health groups, including the Sierra Club and the American Lung Association, lead by Earthjustice, a non-profit public interest law firm based in Oakland, California, filed a lawsuit in New York state court this month to force major U.S. manufacturers-Church & Dwight, Colgate-Palmolive and Proctor & Gamble as well as England-based Reckitt Benckiser Group-to disclose ingredients in their household cleaning products.

Continue Reading

FTC Staff Issues Report that Offers Guidance on Online "Negative Option" Marketing
Posted by: Adam Solomon
April 02, 2009

FTC continues enforcement of negative option internet marketers. FTC issues a report that identifies five principles for marketing online negativeoption offers based upon recent FTC cases.

Continue Reading

Supreme Court Wyeth Decision Puts Pre-emption At Risk
Posted by: Andy Lustigman
April 02, 2009

On March 4, 2009 the U.S. Supreme Court decided the controversial case of Wyeth v. Levine in favor of patient-plaintiff Diana Levine. The Court rejected Wyeth's argument that the FDA's approval of its labeling pre-empted a claim for personal injury arising from a failure to warn. The decision is a major set-back for the pharmaceutical industry and the reliance on compliance with FDA standards in defending private actions. Indeed, as a result of the ruling, the Supreme Court has subsequently vacated an important appellate court decision which had barred a consumer fraud claim based on FDA approval and oversight.

Continue Reading