Two plaintiffs learned the hard way that not all environmental marketing claims are treated the same. A federal judge in Missouri recently dismissed a proposed class action by the shoppers against H&M over the company’s marketing of its “Conscious Choice” fashion line.Continue Reading Lizama et al. v. H&M: A Lesson in Artful Crafting of Green Claims

Last week, Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act of 2022, a new bill that seeks to significantly restrict targeted advertising practices. The proposed legislation prohibits “advertising facilitators” (defined as entities who receive consideration for disseminating ads and collect or process personal information in connection with such dissemination) from targeting ads to individuals based on their personal information. In addition, the bill prohibits advertisers from targeting, or using an advertising facilitator to target, ads based on personal information that the advertiser obtained from a third party (i.e., anyone other than the individual to whom such information pertains), or that identifies a person as a member of a protected class. These restrictions also apply to practices that target groups of individuals and groups of connected devices, in addition to an individual person or connected device.
Continue Reading Proposed Federal Legislation Seeks to Ban Targeted Advertising

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently settled an enforcement action against an advertiser for $753,000 for deceptive “Assembled in USA” product claims, the first such settlement following the FTC’s recent adoption of a new rule addressing unqualified “Made in USA” labeling claims.  (See Made in USA Labeling Rule.)
Continue Reading FTC Cracks Down On Violations of Newly-Codified “Made in USA” Claims Rule

The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) recently revised its children’s advertising guidelines to address the increased prevalence of online media directed to children. Of note, the guidelines now apply to content directed to children under 13 -in line with COPPA- rather than the previous applicability to children under 12.
Continue Reading CARU Revises its Guidelines to Address Increase in Online Media

Florida recently amended its existing telemarketing laws, the Florida Do Not Call Act and the Florida Telemarketing Act.  SB 1120, which went into effect July 1, 2021, imposes significant additional restrictions (and additional penalties for violations) on businesses making calls to Florida residents or Florida area codes.
Continue Reading Florida Expands Telemarketing Laws

As anyone who has been through a corporate sale process can tell you, there is no such thing as a “standard” M&A transaction.  Every deal is different and presents a unique set of challenges.  This is especially true of transactions involving lead generation companies, which can be very different than businesses in other industries.  Amongst other differences, companies in this space utilize a wide variety of customized commercial arrangements and are subject to numerous industry-specific regulatory requirements that buyers need to be aware of before making an investment in this space.  In this article, we highlight the top 10 issues that buyer should diligence when considering acquiring a lead generation company.  Sellers in this space should focus on eliminating any issues in these areas as well to make them a more attractive acquisition target.
Continue Reading Top 10 Diligence Issues in Lead Generation Mergers and Acquisitions

Tapjoy, Inc. (“Tapjoy”), a mobile advertising company, settled FTC allegations that it failed to provide promised in-game rewards to consumers. Tapjoy operates an advertising platform that works within mobile games and offers in-game virtual currency to users who complete the activities of third-party advertisers (i.e. purchase products, sign up for a free trial, take a survey). Despite hundreds of consumer complaints, Tapjoy failed to deliver on its promises to consumers who earned in-game rewards.
Continue Reading Mobile Advertising Company Gets Flack from FTC for Failure to Deliver Upon Advertised Promises

This article was originally posted in Food Manufacturing on January 6, 2021.

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of putative class actions targeting the food and beverage industry increased in 2020 and show no signs of slowing down in 2021. The number of class actions filed against beverage companies in New York increased while the number of cases filed in California decreased. While the Northern District of California, which had become known as the “food court” remained a popular jurisdiction for these suits, filings in New York outpaced those in California. The factual basis of the claims also continues to evolve. Early cases challenged the description of food and beverages as “all natural” when the products contained additives allegedly rendering the “all natural” representation false and misleading.
Continue Reading Food & Beverage False Advertising and Labeling Class Actions: What You Need to Know for 2021

Brands and influencers could unknowingly be violating the FTC’s endorsement rules by using TikTok to promote paid posts and sponsored content without including the necessary disclosures. TikTok offers native direct download and social sharing tools that enable users to share TikTok videos on other social media platforms without the caption and hashtags from the original video description, which may include disclosures that were included as required by the FTC to identify paid advertising.
Continue Reading Native TikTok Tools May Create Liability for Brands and Influencers

Enter for a chance to win!  Advertising lawyers are forever reminding their clients to be clear that when a promotion is a sweepstakes, messaging needs to be clear that it is a random drawing and not a giveaway.  Recently, fashion brand Draper James reminded us all why that distinction is so important.
Continue Reading Sweepstakes or Giveaway? Make Sure Your Advertising Is Clear!

We previously wrote about California Senate Bill 206, the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” back in April, and now Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed that bill into law.[1] The law becomes effective on January 1, 2023. After numerous revisions to the bill since our last post, here is a quick look at the final product.

The new Fair Pay to Play Act allows California student-athletes to earn compensation from licensing their name and image and to obtain professional representation by lawyers and agents to assist with that effort, all without losing scholarship eligibility or amateur status under the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s (NCAA) Division I and II eligibility criteria. Importantly, the law specifically prohibits colleges, athletic associations and intercollegiate conferences from paying such compensation to prospective student-athletes.
Continue Reading California’s Fair Pay to Play Act: This is Only The First Quarter