FTC Uses Civil Penalty Authority in Rayon-as-Bamboo Cases
Time 2 Minute Read

Several retailers recently settled cases with the FTC over allegations they deceptively marketed “bamboo” textiles. These cases come as some of the first, if not the first, instances of the FTC using its revived civil penalty authority to punish initial offenses by retailers.

According to the FTC’s complaints, the retailers advertised numerous textile products as made of bamboo when in fact they may have originated from bamboo but had been manufactured and processed into rayon. The retailers are alleged to have failed to identify these products as made of rayon in violation of the Textile Act.

The companies also were alleged to have misleadingly advertising their bamboo products as eco-friendly, when, per the FTC, the rayon manufacturing process “involves the use of hazardous chemicals,” and leads to the release of “hazardous air pollutants.”

If we stopped there, these cases would be similar to the FTC’s bamboo cases from nearly a decade ago. The really interesting part of these cases, however, is the $5.5 million combined settlement. As we wrote about last October, over the past six months, the FTC has sought to resurrect its civil penalty authority—last used in the 1980s—allowing the agency to seek civil penalties for a first violation of the FTC Act where the FTC has already issued a written decision that certain conduct is unfair or deceptive, and the particular company knew the conduct was unfair or deceptive. And in these cases, the basis for the FTC’s authority is a 2010 warning letter sent to 78 retailers about this exact conduct, instructing the retailers to “stop labeling and advertising rayon textile products as bamboo.”

These cases, then, signal that the FTC is willing to use prior correspondence and decisions—likely made before the return of civil penalty authority was even contemplated—as the basis for establishing an entity’s knowledge of the wrongfulness of certain conduct, allowing the FTC to seek civil penalties for a first offense. As a result, retailers should review past interactions with the FTC, and proceed with the understanding that future, similar violations could lead to a seven-figure fine.

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