Will It Still be “In” When It Gets Here? Online Fashion Retailer Agrees to Largest Ever Settlement for Slow Deliveries
Time 2 Minute Read

On April 21, the FTC announced a record-setting $9.3 million settlement with online retailer Fashion Nova for violating the decades-old Mail Order Rule by failing to meet advertised shipping times and failing to adequately compensate consumers affected by the delays.

In its complaint, the FTC alleged that Fashion Nova often failed to deliver on its “2-Day shipping,” “Fast Shipping” and “Expect Your Items Quick!” promises. The complaint also alleges that Fashion Nova did not take appropriate action when shipments were delayed, issuing gift cards rather than Rule-required refunds to unhappy customers.

The FTC’s Mail Order Rule requires sellers to have a reasonable basis for any shipping time advertisements. Recognizing that there are sometimes delays, the Rule requires a seller to promptly notify customers when the seller will not meet its shipping estimate and to provide the option of a refund. The FTC’s settlement will provide money to aggrieved consumers who received gift cards instead of refunds.

The FTC advises that sellers keep in mind the following: First, have a reasonable basis for shipping representations. Retailers do not have to be perfect, but they must have objective reasons for believing that products will arrive as advertised. Second, if a product will not arrive on time, retailers must give customers the option between consenting to the delay or receiving a refund. And third, in the context of the Mail Order Rule, neither gift cards nor store credits are “refunds.”

In light of this substantial settlement, retailers should evaluate their advertising claims and shipping programs to ensure that they do not incur unnecessary liability by failing to comply with the Mail Order Rule.

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