Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On August 22, the DOJ and the FTC jointly announced a permanent injunction and civil penalty of $650,000 against a company that offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services for alleged violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, the CAN-SPAM Rule, and the FTC Act. The case, which was filed in the District Court for the Central District of California, asserts that millions of commercial emails sent to consumers did not give the recipients requisite notice of the option to opt-out of future such emails, in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act and Rule. The order enjoined the company from sending commercial emails that do not provide notice of the recipient’s ability to opt-out of future emails, it also enjoins the company from otherwise violating the CAN-SPAM Act, and subjects it to a civil penalty judgment of $650,000.
On August 22, the FTC announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California recently issued a temporary restraining order against a business opportunity operation for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices. According to the FTC’s complaint, the operation made claims in violation of the FTC Act, the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule, and the Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 by, among other things; (i) making false claims that they offered a “venture capital-backed” and “artificial intelligence-integrated” e-commerce business opportunity for consumers to buy into; (ii) falsely promoting themselves as e-commerce experts and self-made millionaires who have assisted others in generating tens of millions of dollars; (iii) relying on false business projections, including that customers would make a “$4k-$6k consistently monthly net profit”; (iv) false claims about the use of AI tools to maximize revenues; and (v) false endorsements, including false claims of success on social media by an affiliate marketer. The court’s temporary restraining order prohibited the operation from conducting business, froze its assets, appointed a temporary receiver, and required the operation to turn over business records to the FTC. Beyond the temporary restraining order, the FTC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary relief, and additional relief as determined by the court. The FTC also highlighted that its ability to provide these refunds would not be possible if the action hadn't predated the 2021 Supreme Court ruling (covered by InfoBytes here) that the FTC lacks authority under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act to seek monetary relief in federal court. The FTC used the opportunity to encourage Congress to restore its ability to seek monetary relief in federal court.
On August 10, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra discussed the digital market before the 2022 National Association of Attorneys General Presidential Summit. In his remarks, Chopra first discussed the evolution of advertising models over time, describing how the persuasion of advertising continues to be used to target an individual based on “voluminous amounts of personal data.” Chopra also discussed HUD’s 2019 complaint against a social media platform, stating that it “illustrates the stark differences between traditional advertising and today’s digital marketing.” According to Chopra, the social media platform “helped advertisers limit the audience for ads and enabled advertisers to target specific groups of people to the exclusion of protected classes.” Chopra further noted that “state attorneys general have already begun to recognize that these platforms are not passive advertisers.” Chopra also noted that the CFPB recently issued an interpretive rule explaining that the service provider exemption for “time or space” will typically not apply to the digital marketing services offered by major platforms (covered by InfoBytes here). Chopra described that though “they may be providing space for ads, these firms are commingling many other features that go well beyond the exemption.” To conclude, Chopra expressed that “banking is under threat.” He described that “sensitive data is viewed as more valuable to firms than our actual selves,” and that “advances in technology should help our economy and society advance, rather than incentivizing a rush to seize our sensitive financial data and to allow tech giants to evade existing laws that other firms must comply with.”
On August 10, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule addressing when the CFPA’s UDAAP provisions cover digital marketing providers that commingle the targeting and delivery of advertisements to consumers with the provision of advertising “time or space.” Currently, traditional marketing firms are exempt from the CFPA provided they allow banks and other financial institutions “time and space” in traditional media outlets such as television and newspapers to advertise products. The Bureau stated, however, that digital marketers go beyond this approach when they harvest large amounts of information about consumers and use this data to shape their marketing content strategy.
Under the interpretive rule, this exception does not apply to firms that are materially involved in the development of content strategy. Due to the different nature of the services provided, behavioral marketing and advertising for financial institutions could subject marketers to legal liability depending on how those practices are designed and implemented, the Bureau said. Because “[d]igital marketing providers are typically materially involved in the development of content strategy when they identify or select prospective customers or select or place content in order to encourage consumer engagement with advertising,” the Bureau explained that digital marketers “engaged in this type of ad targeting and delivery are not merely providing ad space and time,” and therefore do not qualify under the “time or space” exception. The interpretive rule noted, among other things, that while a covered person may specify certain parameters of the intended audience for a financial product, the digital marketers’ ads and delivery algorithms “identify the audience with the desired characteristics and determine whether and/or when specific consumers see an advertisement.”
“When Big Tech firms use sophisticated behavioral targeting techniques to market financial products, they must adhere to federal consumer financial protection laws,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in the announcement. “The CFPB, states, and other consumer protection enforcers can sue digital marketers to stop violations of consumer financial protection law: Service providers are liable for unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act. When digital marketers act as service providers, they are liable for consumer protection law violations,” the Bureau added.
On February 25, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection announced the addition of two additional defendants in an action taken against a Utah-based company and its affiliates (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using deceptive marketing to persuade consumers to attend real estate events costing thousands of dollars. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection claimed that the defendants violated the FTC Act, the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), and Utah state law by marketing real estate events with false claims and using celebrity endorsements. The defendants allegedly promised consumers they would (i) earn thousands of dollars in profits from real estate investment “flips” by using the defendants’ products; (ii) receive 100 percent funding for their real estate investments, regardless of credit history; and (iii) receive a full refund if they do not make “a minimum of three times” the price of the workshop within six months. In October 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granted a temporary restraining order against the defendants, prohibiting the defendants from continuing to make unsupported marketing claims and from interfering with consumers’ ability to review their products.
On November 6, the FTC announced a final order with a skincare company, resolving allegations that the company misled consumers by posting fake reviews on a retailer’s website and failed to disclose company employees wrote the reviews. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2019, the FTC filed the complaint against the company asserting that (i) the product reviews posted on the company’s website were not “independent experiences or opinions of impartial ordinary users of the products” and therefore, were false or misleading under Section 5 of the FTC Act; and (ii) the failure to disclose the reviews were written by the owner or employees constitutes a deceptive act or practice under Section 5 of the FTC Act, because the information would “be material to consumers in evaluating the reviews of [the company] brand products in connection with a purchase or use decision.”
The Commission, in a 3-2 vote, approved the final order, which prohibits the company from misrepresenting the status of an endorser, including misrepresentations that the endorser or reviewer is an “independent or ordinary user of the product.” The order requires the company and owner to “clearly and conspicuously, and in close proximity to that representation, any unexpected material connection between such endorser and (1) any Respondent; or (2) any other individual or entity affiliated with the product.” The final order does not include any monetary relief for consumers.
In dissent, two Commissioners objected to the final order, stating that the agency is “doubling down on its no-money, no-fault settlement with [the company], who was charged with egregious fake review fraud.” The dissent urged the Commission to publish a statement on monetary remedies in order to restate “legal precedent into formal rules” and designate specific misconduct as penalty offenses through Section 5(m)(1)(B) of the FTC Act, which allows the agency “to seek penalties against parties who engage in conduct known to have been previously condemned by the Commission.”
On May 20, the FTC announced that it and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection amended their complaint against a Utah-based company and its affiliates (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly using deceptive marketing to persuade consumers to attend real estate events costing thousands of dollars. The amended complaint adds additional defendants and new charges asserting the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah issued a temporary restraining order against the defendants after the FTC and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection accused the defendants of violating the FTC Act, the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA), and Utah state law, by marketing real estate events with false claims and celebrity endorsements. Among other things, the defendants allegedly told consumers they would (i) earn thousands of dollars in profits from real estate investment “flips” by using the defendants’ products; (ii) receive 100 percent funding for their real estate investments, regardless of credit history; and (iii) receive a full refund if they do not make “‘a minimum of three times’” the price of the workshop within six months. The amended complaint alleges that, in addition to the claims made at the real estate events, the defendants reiterated the false or misleading statements in the course of their telemarketing activities in violation of the TSR.
On March 5, the FTC announced settlements with four groups of affiliate marketers that, among other things, allegedly violated the FTC Act by using deceptive marketing tactics and earnings claims to persuade consumers to pay thousands of dollars each for business coaching and investment “mentoring” services. The FTC alleged in the first complaint that certain defendants sold membership packages for an online business coaching scheme, and then, when the business coaching scheme went out of business, created their own branded programs and systems that claimed consumers would be able to start their own online marketing businesses and earn substantial income. The defendants also allegedly encouraged consumers to open multiple credit lines to finance the purchases of these programs. The FTC claimed that the defendants “used straw signers and shell companies and provided banks and payment processors with ‘dummy’ websites to evade scrutiny by bank underwriters and obtain multiple merchant accounts to process credit card payments from consumers.” According to the FTC’s second complaint, the other defendants made deceptive earnings claims in order to recruit consumers into the now-defunct business coaching scheme and earned millions of dollars as a reward. In both complaints, the FTC claimed that most consumers who purchased the products suffered large losses and mounting debts.
Under the terms of the settlements, each of the defendants is permanently banned from selling or marketing any business coaching programs or money-making methods, and must pay judgments of (i) $3.35 million to be paid in full for potential consumer redress (order here); and (ii) monetary judgments totaling $38.1 million, which will be partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay (orders here, here, and here).
On February 19, the FDIC issued a notice and request for comment regarding modernizing “its signage and advertising requirements to better reflect how banks and savings associations currently operate and how consumers use banking services.” The Request for Information (RFI) solicits input on how the agency “can revise and clarify its sign and advertising rules related to FDIC deposit insurance.” Major changes to these rules have not been made since 2006, and the agency states that “the rules do not reflect evolving banking channels and operation.” Accordingly, the RFI also requests suggestions about how the FDIC can use technology or other solutions to help consumers distinguish FDIC-insured entities from nonbanks, and to prevent consumers from being harmed by non-insured entities’ potentially misleading or fraudulent representations. The RFI lists 21 questions to focus the public input. Comments must be received by March 19.
On November 5, the FTC released advertising disclosure guidance for online influencers, titled “Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers,” which outlines the FTC’s rules for disclosure of sponsored endorsements and provides influencers with tips and guidance covering effective and ineffective disclosures. The guidance reminds influencers that (i) they should disclose any financial, employment, personnel, or family relationship with the brand; (ii) disclosures should be “hard to miss,” by being placed on pictures, stated in the videos, and repeated throughout livestreams; and (iii) language in disclosures should be simple and clear, and in the same language as the endorsement itself.
For more information on the FTC’s activity covering testimonials and social media influencers, review the recent Buckley Insight, which summarizes several FTC enforcement actions involving online reviews and social media and provides key takeaways for companies considering online advertising and social media campaigns.