Retailers Must Be Careful With Private Label Credit Card Advertising
Time 2 Minute Read

The FTC unanimously approved a consent order this week requiring Credit Karma, LLC to pay $3 million dollars for allegedly advertising to consumers that they were “pre-approved” for credit card offers, when in reality, the customers were not pre-approved, and in fact, were frequently rejected.

Credit Karma’s advertising—which purportedly took place over three years between February 2018 and April 2021—consisted largely of emails and webpages telling consumers they were “pre-approved” for various credit cards. The agency’s complaint cites internal A/B testing performed by Credit Karma showing that the pre-approval claim resulted in an increase in click rates when compared to the claim that consumers had "Excellent" odds of approval. According to the FTC, even when Credit Karma recognized that approval was not guaranteed, it represented that consumers had a 90% chance of approval, or used unclear and difficult-to-find disclaimers. The FTC’s enforcement action was pursuant to Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive acts and practices; in the FTC’s view, Credit Karma’s “pre-approved” statements constituted false, misleading, and unsubstantiated claims.  

The credit cards themselves were not offered or issued by Credit Karma, but rather, by third-party financial services companies. So when customers actually clicked through the advertisements to apply, they frequently found themselves rejected. This calls to mind a popular arrangement for retailers: private label credit cards offered by third-party financial institutions.

This case serves as a useful reminder to retailers who offer these private label credit cards: like with any products, your credit card ads need to be truthful and substantiated. Even where a third-party financial services company may review eligibility and issue the card, retailers still must ensure that all associated marketing for the card complies with advertising laws and best practices.

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