On November 5, 2019, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a guide entitled “Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers”[1] and a video “Do you endorse things on social media?” to alert influencers to the laws governing endorsement or recommendation of products or services and provide social media influencers with “tips on when and how to make good disclosures.”[2] The FTC’s written guide states that “[a]s an influencer, it’s your responsibility to make these disclosures, to be familiar with the Endorsement Guides, and to comply with laws against deceptive ads.”[3] The guide explains to influencers that disclosures must be made when an influencer has a “material connection,” that is “any financial, employment, personal, a family relationship with a brand” and that receiving “free or discounted products or other perks” requires a disclosure.[4] In addition, the FTC notes that “tags, likes, pins, and similar ways of showing you like a brand or product are endorsements.”[5] The FTC guide also instructs influencers that “[i]f posting from abroad, U.S. law applies if it’s reasonably foreseeable that the post will affect U.S. consumers. Foreign laws might also apply.”[6] The FTC notes that disclosures must be in simple and clear language that is placed “so it’s hard to miss” and should be placed with the endorsement itself. Disclosures that “appear only on an ABOUT ME or profile page, at the end of posts or videos, or anywhere that requires a person to click MORE” will not be sufficient.[7] The FTC gave the following guidance with regard to endorsement posts in photographs, video and live streaming:
Continue Reading FTC’S New “Disclosures 101” Publication And Video Is A Shout Out To Influencers
“Good Genes?”: Maybe Not. FTC Takes Action Against Sunday Riley and Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC For Employees False Reviews
Sunday Riley launched her skincare firm Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC (“SRMS”) in 2009 and its skincare products, including Good Genes, Power Couple, U.F.O., C.E.O., Luna and Tidal, have enjoyed tremendous success, having been featured, promoted, and sold online through Sephora and its website, www. Sephora.com. On October 21, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a consent order in an action for violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act against Ms. Riley and SRMS for posting false reviews of its Sunday Riley products and falsely representing that the false reviews reflected the opinions of ordinary customers of the products.[1] The FTC’s proposed continuing consent order provides: (1) Riley and SRMS are prohibited from misrepresenting the status of any endorser or person providing a review of a product, including misrepresenting that an endorser or reviewer is an independent or ordinary user of the product; (2) Riley and SRMS are required to clearly disclose any unexpected material connection between SRMS and anyone reviewing a product; (3) Riley and SRMS are required to instruct employees, officers and agents as to their responsibilities for disclosing their connections to SRMS and any Sunday Riley product they endorse and that SRMS obtain signed acknowledgments from any endorser; and (4) Riley and SRMS are required to submit compliance reports to the FTC within one‑year of the order and to create records for twenty years and retain them for five years.[2]
Continue Reading “Good Genes?”: Maybe Not. FTC Takes Action Against Sunday Riley and Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC For Employees False Reviews
No Future for Fur in the Golden State?
UPDATE: On October 12, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 44 and Governor Newsom stated in social media: “I just signed #AB44 — one of the strongest animal rights laws in US History — making California the first state in the nation to ban new fur sales.” The ban goes into effect in 2023 and fur retailers have more than two years to sell any furs they still have in their inventory. After the law goes into effect, manufacturers and retailers will face fines of $500 to $1,000 for every violation of the law.
Before the 1849 California Gold Rush, American, English and Russian fur hunters were drawn to Spanish (and then Mexican) California in a California Fur Rush, to exploit its enormous fur resources. Before 1825, these Europeans were drawn to the northern and central California coast to harvest southern sea otters and fur seals, and then to the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta to harvest beaver, river otters, marten, fisher, mink, gray fox, weasels, and harbor seals. It has been said that California’s early fur trade, more than any other single factor, that opened up the West to world trade.
Continue Reading No Future for Fur in the Golden State?
See You Later Alligator? After A While Crocodile? Will Penal Law 653o(b)(1) Take Effect?
Section 653o of the California Penal Code makes it a misdemeanor to import into the state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or sell within the dead body or a product thereof, of a variety of animals. Commencing on January 1, 2020, Section 653o(b)(1) shall make it “unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with an intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of a crocodile or alligator.” This bans any shipment of alligator or crocodile into, possession of alligator or crocodile with an intent to sell, or to sell within California. A number of bills to either delay the effectiveness of the law or repeal it recently have been killed or tabled by the California Legislature.
Continue Reading See You Later Alligator? After A While Crocodile? Will Penal Law 653o(b)(1) Take Effect?
FTC Swats Public Relations Firm and Publisher for Misleading Olympic-Themed Mosquito Repellant Product Endorsements and Native Advertisements
On November 20, 2018, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) proposed two FTC consent orders against two Georgia-based companies, Creaxion Corporation (“Creaxion”) and Inside Publications, LLC (“Inside”) and their principals[1] concerning the promotion and advertising of Health Pro Brands, Inc.’s new FIT Organic mosquito repellant during the 2016 Zika virus outbreak and allegations that they had misrepresented paid athletes’ endorsements as independent consumer opinions and commercial advertising as independent journalistic content.[2] The proposed FTC consent orders prohibited Creaxion and Inside from making any false representations in the future and required that they ensure all endorsers disclose all material connections going forward and monitor compliance by any endorsers.
Continue Reading FTC Swats Public Relations Firm and Publisher for Misleading Olympic-Themed Mosquito Repellant Product Endorsements and Native Advertisements
Kim Kardashian West Won the First CFDA Influencer Award: Will A CGI Supermodel Be Next?
It is no secret that the world of fashion is full of surprises. On Monday, June 4, 2018, Kim Kardashian West won the Council of Fashion Designer of America (“CFDA”) first-time Influencer Award and commented: “I’m kind of shocked I’m winning a fashion award when I’m naked most of the time.”[1] Fashion advertising and marketing rely more and more upon social media and influencers for the ability to connect with consumers in an authentic manner.[2] As a result, fashion models and celebrity influencers are in high demand. Now, a new group of unique model influencers are taking the fashion world by storm. Yet, it is unlikely that any of these new influencers will ever win the CFDA Influencer Award.
Continue Reading Kim Kardashian West Won the First CFDA Influencer Award: Will A CGI Supermodel Be Next?
Do We Need A Truth In Advertising Act? The Industry and Retailers Self-Regulate Photoshopping Ads
Digitally altered images of models have been a controversial advertising issue for decades. In Great Britain, the Advertising Standards Authority Ltd., which is the governing regulatory advertising body, in 2011 banned skincare advertisements featuring digitally altered images because the advertisements exaggerated the effects of the skincare and makeup products and were held to be misleading “per se.”[1] In France, as of October 1, 2017, “it [was] mandatory to use the label ‘retouched photo’ alongside any photo used for commercial purposes where the body of a model has been modified by image-editing software to either slim or flesh out her figure” and any violation might result in a fine of up to €37,500.
Continue Reading Do We Need A Truth In Advertising Act? The Industry and Retailers Self-Regulate Photoshopping Ads
Brands Beware!!!! FTC Scrutinizing Influencer Posts for Compliance with Endorsement Guides
In response to a petition from a coalition of consumer groups last year complaining about the need for disclosures by social media influencers, the FTC recently announced on April 19, 2017 that it had issued more than ninety letters reminding influencers and brands that “if there is a ‘material connection’ between an endorser and the marketer of a product – in other words, a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give the endorsement – that connection should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, unless the connection is already clear from the context of the communication containing the endorsement.” The FTC explained that material connections could “consist of a business or family relationship, monetary payment, or the provision of free products from the endorser.” A copy of the form of the letter, which explains that clear and conspicuous disclosures are required can be found here.
Continue Reading Brands Beware!!!! FTC Scrutinizing Influencer Posts for Compliance with Endorsement Guides
“Oh Yes [the Court] Did” — District Court Grants Motion to Dismiss ADA Complaint Until the DOJ Issues Implementing Regulations and Renders Technical Assistance
On March 20, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero for the Central District of California in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, granted defendant Domino’s Pizza LLC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and ruled that the plaintiff’s class action complaint alleging that the pizza maker’s website, www.dominos.com, and mobile website were not accessible using a screen reader designed for the blind and visually-impaired and therefore in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“UCRA”). The dismissal of the complaint without prejudice was based upon the District Court’s finding that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has not yet promulgated concrete guidance regarding the accessibility standards an e-commerce webpage must meet under the ADA and that this violated Dominos’ due process rights.[1]
Continue Reading “Oh Yes [the Court] Did” — District Court Grants Motion to Dismiss ADA Complaint Until the DOJ Issues Implementing Regulations and Renders Technical Assistance
Who’s Got the Spirit?! Supreme Court Decides Star Athletic, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.; New Two-Part Test Seeks to Clear Up the “Mess” But Questions Still Remain About the Subjective Nature of the Separabilty Analysis
On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas in Star Athletic, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., held that “a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two-or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work — either on its own or fixed in some tangible medium of expression — if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated.”[1] The Court set forth a new two-part separability test, resolving a split between circuit courts and upholding the previous Sixth Circuit decision that the stripes, chevrons and other visual elements of Varsity Brands’ cheerleading uniform are eligible for copyright protection.[2] The Court noted that the Copyright Act does not protect “useful articles”[3] but that “the design of a useful article” may be “considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural feature” to the extent that “it can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article.”[4] The Court specifically limited the scope of copyright protection, if any, to the designs, excluding the shape, cut and dimensions of the uniforms.[5] The decision also clearly emphasized that it was not deciding whether Varsity’s surface decorations are in fact copyrightable (i.e., satisfy the “modicum of creativity” standard set forth in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, Co., 499 U.S. 341, 358-359 (1991)), and that this determination is remanded for the district court to decide.[6]
Continue Reading Who’s Got the Spirit?! Supreme Court Decides Star Athletic, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.; New Two-Part Test Seeks to Clear Up the “Mess” But Questions Still Remain About the Subjective Nature of the Separabilty Analysis