Divided FTC Finalizes “No-Fault, No-Money Settlement” Agreement with Skincare Brand, Sunday Riley
Time 2 Minute Read

On Friday, November 6, 2020, the FTC finalized its settlement with Sunday Riley Skincare, a cult-favorite skincare brand known for its high-end products. The action comes after the agency’s initial announcement in October 2019 that employees of the brand, under direction of CEO, Sunday Riley, posted thousands of fake reviews of the brand’s products online over the course of almost two years.

The FTC vote to approve the final consent agreement was 3-2, with the two Democratic commissioners dissenting. The agreement prevents the company and its employees from posting reviews without disclosing any material brand connections, including employment status. As with the FTC’s initial proposal, the settlement agreement does not provide for monetary relief.

The FTC’s divided decision signals competing views on the agency’s role in enforcement of the promotion of competition and protection of consumers in the online marketplace. The majority statement explains that the final consent agreement “holds Ms. Riley personally liable, prohibits both Ms. Riley and Sunday Riley Modern Skincare from making future misrepresentations (including through fake reviews), and requires them to instruct employees and agents about their legal responsibilities.”

The dissenting statement bemoans what it sees as a “permissive approach to fake reviews,” arguing that the “no-money, no-fault settlement” is a “serious setback for the FTC’s credibility as a watchdog over the digital marketplace.” The authors urge the Commission to:

  • Issue a Policy Statement on Equitable Monetary Remedies expressing the Commission’s intent to pursue monetary settlements where there are allegations of dishonesty and fraud;
  • Codify the Commission’s Endorsement Guides, including by requiring endorsers to disclose material connections to sellers; and
  • Pursue civil penalties where parties engage in conduct known to have been previously condemned by the FTC.

Key Takeaways:

  • Make sure you have robust compliance programs to oversee user-generated content and employee endorsements, including up to the executive level; and
  • With new Democratic leadership expected in January 2021, our retail clients should expect a more active FTC that is less willing to entertain arguments that non-monetary sanctions alone can address consumer harm.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 3 Minute Read

The FTC has made its position on violations of “Made in USA” standards clear, and Williams-Sonoma received an expensive repeat reminder. On Thursday, April 25, the agency announced a settlement with the home goods retailer, directing it to pay an unprecedented civil penalty of $3.175 million for violating a 2020 FTC order requiring the company to clearly and accurately identify which products are, in fact, made in the USA. “Made in USA” denotations, as pointed out by the FTC, are more than formality: rather, to label something as “Made in USA,” the business must adhere to specific criteria – namely, that the product’s final assembly or processing, and all significant processing, takes place in the US, and that all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the US.

Time 3 Minute Read

In January 2023, the FTC announced a proposed rule that would ban employers from imposing noncompetes on employees. After collecting over 26,000 public comments during the 90-day notice and comment period, the FTC announced a special Open Commission Meeting set to take place on Tuesday, April 23, 2024 to discuss the implications of the proposed rule. While closed to public comment, the public is still able to view the meeting via webcast. 

Time 4 Minute Read

Last week, the FTC sent high profile warning letters to two trade associations, the American Beverage Association (AmeriBev) and the Canadian Sugar Institute, and 12 registered dieticians regarding inadequate disclosures in the dieticians’ social media posts. While the specific influencer posts varied across dietician, they all related to the safety of aspartame, an artificial sweetener, and other messaging regarding the benefits of consuming sugar-containing products. Further, some dieticians even went so far as to call the World Health Organization’s warnings regarding aspartame and artificial sweeteners as based on “low-quality science” and “clickbait” evidence. While some of the dieticians included words like “#Ad” or “Sponsored” in their posts, according to the FTC most failed to provide obvious disclosures informing consumers that they were watching an ad that had been paid for by an industry association. The FTC’s warnings alleged that inconspicuous messaging surrounding these partnership deals led to consumer confusion regarding who ultimately was responsible for the influencers’ nutrition messaging. And according to the FTC, the fact that these influencers are registered dieticians increases the public’s confidence in the information they disperse, thus heightening the need for them to be clear about their partnership affiliations.

Time 2 Minute Read

The FTC took action last week against a group of New England-based clothing accessories companies for making false claims that certain of its products were “Made in USA.”

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page