3. Learning Objectives
v The Federal Trade Commission
v Anticompetitive behavior and deceptive
practices
v Consumer protection laws
48 - 3
4. Overview
v Before 1914, the rule was caveat emptor –
let the buyer beware
v In some ways, that
rule remains, but
consumers now
demand a certain
level of protection
from unscrupulous
businesses
48 - 4
5. The FTC
v Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914
enabled the creation of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) as independent agency
v FTC’s principal missions are to keep the
U.S. economy both free and fair
v FTC enforcement devices: issuing trade
regulation rules, facilitating voluntary
compliance, and adjudicative proceedings
48 - 5
6. FTC Trade Regulation Rules
v FTC trade regulation rules have the force of
law and FTC can proceed directly against
those who engage in prohibited practices:
w Adjudicative proceeding
w Civil penalty up to $10,000 for each knowing
violation of a rule
w Court proceedings to obtain consumer remedies,
such as damages, refund of money, return of
property, or the reformation or rescission of
contracts
48 - 6
7. FTC Voluntary Compliance
v FTC promotes voluntary compliance with
best practices and regulations by issuing
advisory opinions and industry guides
w Advisory opinion: commission’s response to a
private party’s inquiry about the legality of a
proposed business action
w Industry guides: FTC interpretations of the laws
it administers
48 - 7
8. FTC Adjudicative Proceedings
v FTC may take internal administrative action
against those who violate regulations
v FTC gathers evidence about possible
violations from private parties, government
entities, and FTC investigations
48 - 8
9. FTC Adjudicative Proceedings
v If FTC proceeds against alleged offender
(respondent), it files a formal complaint and
the case is heard in a public administrative
hearing called an adjudicative proceeding
w FTC administrative law judge presides
v Judge’s decision may be appealed: first to
FTC’s five commissioners, then to federal
courts of appeals and U.S. Supreme Court
48 - 9
10. Adjudicative Orders
v Most common penalty resulting from a final
decision against the respondent is an FTC
cease-and-desist order
w Civil penalty for noncompliance with cease-and-
desist order is < $10,000 per violation (per day)
v A consent order is an order approving a
negotiated settlement in which respondent
promises to cease certain activities and/or
pay certain fees
48 - 10
11. FTC Act Section 5
v FTC Act Sec. 5 authorizes commission to
prevent unfair methods of competition
v Thus FTC may regulate anticompetitive
practices made illegal by the Sherman Act,
Clayton Act, and Robinson-Patman Act, as
well as anticompetitive behavior not covered
by other antitrust statutes and potential or
incipient antitrust violations
48 - 11
12. Deceptive Acts or Practices
v FTC Act Sec. 5 prohibits unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in commercial settings
v Commission must prove the activity is
deceptive or unfair
v To be deceptive under FTC Policy
Statement on Deception, an activity must:
(1) involve a material misrepresentation, omission,
or practice; (2) that is likely to mislead a
consumer; (3) who acts reasonably under the
circumstances
48 - 12
13. Reasonable Consumer Test
v A seller violates Section 5 of the FTC Act if
a statement, omission, or practice is likely to
mislead reasonable consumers under the
circumstances (reasonable consumer test)
w Actual deception is not required
Statements of
opinion, sales talk,
or sales puffery are
not deceptive
48 - 13
14. False Claims as Anticompetitive
Behavior
v Companies may sue another alleging the
other is making false claims:
w Pizza Hut sued Papa John’s alleging that the
“Better Pizza. Better Ingredients” claim was
false and misleading
w Storage bag manufacturer S.C. Johnson
sued The Clorox Co. alleging that Clorox
claims that Clorox-manufactured storage
bags would not leak like other storage bags
48 - 14
15. Kraft, Inc. v. Federal Trade Comm
v Facts:
w Kraft, Inc. advertised that Kraft Singles (process
cheese food slices with at least 51% natural
cheese) contained 5 oz. milk in each slice
w True statement
w FTC brought Sec. 5 suit for deceptive advertising
against Kraft alleging that the milk equivalency
claim was false and misleading because 30% of
calcium in milk is lost through processing
w ALJ found in favor of FTC and ordered Kraft to
cease and desist the milk equivalency claim for
individually wrapped process cheese food slices
48 - 15
16. Kraft, Inc. v. Federal Trade
Commission
v Procedural History:
v Kraft appealed to FTC
commissioners, which
affirmed and extended
coverage from the
individually wrapped slices
to “any product that is a
cheese, related cheese
product, imitation cheese,
or substitute cheese”
48 - 16
17. Kraft, Inc. v. Federal Trade
Commission
v Legal Analysis and Holding:
w Kraft appealed to Court of Appeals
w Implied claims (milk equivalency) reasonably clear
from advertisements and Commission may rely on
its reasoned analysis to determine what claims
are conveyed in challenged advertisement
w Even literally true statements can be misleading
w FTC has discretion to issue “fencing-in” multi-
product orders, thus Commission’s order upheld
48 - 17
18. Unfair Acts or Practices
v Section 5 prohibits unfair acts or practices
v FTC focuses on harm to consumers, which
must be: substantial, not outweighed by
any offsetting consumer or competitive
benefits produced by the challenged
practice, and a harm that consumers could
not reasonably have avoided
w See FTC Consumer Information webpage
48 - 18
19. Telemarketing and Consumer
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act
v FTC issued 1995 Telemarketing Sales Rule
(TSR) prohibiting deceptive and abusive
telemarketing acts or practices
w Telemarketing: plan, program, or
campaign conducted to induce purchase
of goods or services by using one or
more telephones and more than one
interstate telephone call
48 - 19
20. Telemarketing and Consumer
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act
v A telemarketer or seller engages in a
deceptive practice if it fails to disclose
certain information to customers before he
pays for telemarketed goods or services
w Information covers total cost, conditions on
use or purchase, refund or exchange policy
v Abusive practice: telemarketer threatens or
intimidates a customer, or calls repeatedly
48 - 20
21. Telemarketing and Consumer
Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act
v Other restrictions apply to
telemarketers
w Internet use regulated as well
under 2004 CAN-SPAM Act
v FTC and state attorneys
general may enforce the
Telemarketing Act and
the TSR against violators
with civil penalties
48 - 21
22. Do-Not-Call Registry
v FTC and FCC (Federal Communications
Commission) created national
Do-Not-Call Registry which prohibits
telemarketers from placing calls to listed
numbers
v Registry became so popular that commercial
telemarketers initiated litigation questioning
legal validity: Mainstream Marketing
Services, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
48 - 22
23. Do-Not-Call Registry
v In
Mainstream Marketing Services, Inc. v. Federal
, the federal court of appeals upheld the do-
not-call registry against challenges based on
lack-of-statutory authority and the First
Amendment
48 - 23
24. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
v If the seller provides a written warranty for a
consumer product costing > $15, Act
requires simple, clear, and conspicuous
presentation of certain information:
w Persons protected
w Products, parts, characteristics covered
w What warrantor will do in case of product defect
w Warranty duration
w Consumer procedures in event of defect or failure
48 - 24
25. Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
v Act requires disclosure of limitations
v Warranty must be available to consumer to
review prior to sale
48 - 25
26. Truth In Lending Act
v Applies to creditors who extend credit to
consumers for amounts < $25,000
v Consumer credit
enables the purchase
of goods, services, or
real estate used
primarily for personal,
family, or household
purposes
48 - 26
27. Truth In Lending Act
v Detailed disclosure provisions apply to three
types of credit:
w Open-end credit covers repeated transactions
and a finance charge computed on an unpaid
balance
w Closed-end credit: covers consumer loans from a
finance company for a specific time period
w Credit card applications and solicitations
v Required disclosures include finance charge,
billing statement, annual percentage rate,
due date, late charge, billing rights, etc.
48 - 27
28. Truth In Lending Act
v Provisions deal with consumer credit
advertising, such as preventing a creditor
from “baiting” customers
v Regulates the home equity loans, including
advertisements, terms, and actions a creditor
may take against a defaulting consumer
v Provisions cover credit cards
48 - 28
29. Fair Credit Reporting Act
v Applies to consumer reporting agencies that
regularly compile credit-related information
on individuals for the purpose of furnishing
consumer credit reports to users
v Agency must adopt procedures to:
w Ensure users of information employ information
only for certain limited business purposes
w Avoid including obsolete information in a report
w Ensure maximum possible accuracy
48 - 29
30. Fair Credit Reporting Act
v Also imposes disclosure duties on users of
credit reports (e.g., lenders, employers)
v If user obtains an investigative consumer report,
user must inform person under investigation
about report request and the possible sensitive
information in the report
v FCRA violations also violate FTC Act Sec. 5
48 - 30
31. Fair Credit Reporting Act
v Person disputing accuracy
or completeness of credit
report’s information may
compel a reinvestigation
by credit reporting agency
v Credit bureau must delete
information from file if
information inaccurate or
unverifiable
48 - 31
32. Fair Credit Reporting Act
v If user rejects credit or insurance application,
user must inform applicant of reasons for
rejection or higher rates charged
v See Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr
in which Supreme Court ruled that
insurance companies using credit reports
may be liable for willful violations of FCRA if
they show reckless disregard for the law
48 - 32
33. Fair Credit Reporting Act
v Criminal penalties
possible for persons who
knowingly and willfully
obtain consumer
information from credit
bureau under false
pretenses
v See
Fair Credit Reporting Act
48 - 33
34. Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACT)
v A series of amendments to the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, FACT permits victims of
identity theft to file theft reports with
consumer reporting agencies
v Requires agencies to include “fraud alerts” in
credit reports about consumers who believe
they are victims of the fraudulent use of their
financial information
v See FTC ID Theft information
48 - 34
35. Equal Credit Opportunity Act
v Prohibits credit discrimination on the bases
of sex, marital status, age, race, color,
national origin, religion, and obtaining
income from public assistance
v Applies to all entities that regularly arrange,
extend, renew, or continue credit
v See FTC Equal Credit Opportunity webpage
48 - 35
36. Fair Credit Billing Act
v Provisions cover credit card billing disputes
w Cardholder must give issuer written notice of
alleged error in billing statement within 60 days of
time the statement is sent to cardholder
w Card issuer must either (1) correct cardholder’s
account, or (2) send cardholder written statement
justifying billing statement’s accuracy
v See FTC Fair Credit Billing webpage
48 - 36
37. Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act
v Applies to debts that involve money,
property, insurance, or services obtained by
a consumer for consumer purposes
v Prohibits debt collectors from contacting third
parties such as debtor’s employer, relatives,
or friends, and limits a collector’s contacts
with debtor
v See FTC Fair Debt Collection webpage
48 - 37
38. Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act
v Prohibits certain methods of debt collection:
w Harassment, oppression, or abuse
w False or misleading misrepresentations
w Unfair practices
48 - 38
39. Product Safety Regulation
v Most important federal product safety law is
the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)
which established the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC)
48 - 39
40. Product Safety Regulation
v CPSC (1) issues consumer product safety
standards, (2) issues bans of certain
hazardous products; (3) may bring civil suits
in federal district court to eliminate dangers
presented by imminently hazardous
consumer products, and (4) after receiving
notice of hazards, may issue orders to
private parties to address “substantial
product hazards”
48 - 40
41. Test Your Knowledge
v True=A, False = B
w The FTC has rulemaking and enforcement
powers, but must file a case in a federal
court.
w FTC gathers evidence about possible
violations solely from government entities and
FTC investigations.
w A consent order is an order approving a
negotiated settlement in which respondent
promises to cease certain activities and/or
48 - 41
pay certain fees
42. Test Your Knowledge
v True=A, False = B
w FTC Act Sec. 5 prohibits unfair or deceptive
acts or practices in commercial settings.
w The FTC Telemarketing Act prohibits
telemarketing to individual citizens.
w If a seller gives a written warranty for a
consumer product costing > $15, the warranty
must have simple, clear, and conspicuous
presentation of warranty details.
48 - 42
43. Test Your Knowledge
v Multiple Choice
w Deceptive practices under Sec. 5 must:
(a) involve a material misrepresentation
(b) the representation must be likely to mislead
a consumer
(c) the consumer must act reasonable under the
circumstances
(d) all of the above
(e) all of the above plus result in a sale
48 - 43
44. Test Your Knowledge
v Multiple Choice
w Jordan is late on paying a store charge card.
Jordan received a call claiming that the store
would have Jordan arrested for fraud unless
payment was made in five days. Which of
the following is true?
(a) Jordan must pay the bill or be arrested
(b) The store violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act
(c) Jordan must file a lawsuit against the store
48 - 44
45. Test Your Knowledge
v Multiple Choice
w Which of the following is not a consumer
protection law?
(a) Fair Credit Reporting Act
(b) Federal Registration Act
(c) Truth in Lending Act
(d) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(e) Equal Credit Opportunity Act
48 - 45
46. Thought Questions
v A customer is the most important visitor on our
premises, he is not dependent on us. We are
dependent on him. He is not an interruption in our
work. He is the purpose of it. He is not an outsider in
our business. He is part of it. We are not doing him a
favor by serving him. He is doing us a favor by giving
us an opportunity to do so.
w Mahatma Gandhi
What is your experience
as a customer?
48 - 46
Editor's Notes
Examples of misleading or deceptive statements: Seller states, “This equipment is new.” Seller knows the equipment has been refurbished . Dialogue: Buyer states, “Has this car ever been in a crash?” Seller replies, “The lady that owned this car was so sweet; she only drove it to and from the grocery store. Do you see any marks?” Dialogue: Buyer states, “Has this car ever been in a crash?” Seller replies, “I’ll check on that.” Seller never checks and never responds to Buyer. Examples of sale puffery or opinion: “ This car is the best you’ll ever drive.” “ Better ingredients. Better pizza.”
“ Better ingredients, better pizza.” is the claim that Papa John’s Pizza makes. Pizza Hut filed a federal false-advertising lawsuit against Papa John's in Dallas in 1998, claiming that scientific evidence showed Papa John's methods and ingredients made no difference in the pizza's taste. After a rather strange trial, a jury ruled that Papa John's claims of better sauce and dough were false or misleading. The judge barred the pizza chain from using the &quot;Better ingredients. Better pizza&quot; slogan and awarded Pizza Hut $467,619 in damages. However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court because the jurors were asked whether the ads were likely to deceive consumers, but they were never asked whether consumers actually relied on the claims in deciding what pizza to buy. The U.S. Supreme Court in March 2001 refused to hear Pizza Hut's false-advertising claim against rival Papa John's. The court's ruling left in place the 5th Circuit decision that allowed Papa John's to keep its $300 million advertising campaign. PIzza Hut Inc. v Papa John's International Inc., 121 S.Ct. 1355 (2001). S.C. Johnson v. The Clorox Co. , 241 F.3d 232 (2nd Cir. 2001): manufacturer of Ziploc Slideloc bags brought suit against Clorox, the manufacturer of GLAD-LOCK resealable storage bags, challenging the truthfulness of Clorox television commercials and print advertisements. The court concluded that the television advertisements were literally false and awarded permanent injunctive relief to S.C. Johnson until Clorox was able to portray in a &quot;truthful and fair way&quot; the differences between its product and the Slideloc product.
The hyperlink is to the case opinion on the Justia.com website. Individually wrapped slices of cheese and cheeselike products come in two major types: process cheese food slices (must contain at least 51 percent natural cheese per federal regulation) and imitation slices (little or no natural cheese). Kraft, Inc.’s “Kraft Singles” are process cheese food slices. In the early 1980s, Kraft began losing market share to other firms’ less expensive imitation slices. Kraft responded with advertisements designed to inform consumers that Kraft Singles cost more because each slice is made from 5 ounces of milk. These advertisements, which ran nationally in print and broadcast media between 1985 and 1987, also stressed the calcium content of Kraft Singles. One version of the commercials showed milk being poured into a glass that bore the label “5 oz. milk slice.” The glass was then transformed into part of the label on a package of Singles. In March 1987, Kraft added, as a subscript in the television commercial and as a footnote in the print media version, the disclosure that “one ¾ ounce slice has 70% of the calcium of five ounces of milk.” The Federal Trade Commission instituted a deceptive advertising proceeding against Kraft under § 5 of the FTC Act. According to the FTC’s complaint, the advertisements made the false implied claim that a Singles slice contains the same amount of calcium as 5 ounces of milk (the milk equivalency claim). The FTC regarded the milk equivalency claim as false even though Kraft actually uses 5 ounces of milk in making each Singles slice because roughly 30 percent of the calcium contained in the milk is lost during processing. The administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded that the advertisements made the milk equivalency claim, which was false and material. He concluded that Kraft’s subscript and footnote disclosures of the calcium loss were inconspicuous and insufficient to dispel the misleading impression created by the advertisements. The ALJ ordered Kraft to cease and desist making the milk equivalency claim regarding any of its individually wrapped process cheese food slices or imitation slices.
Kraft appealed to the FTC commissioners (referred to here as “the Commission”). The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision but modified it. According to the Commission, the advertisements made the false and material milk equivalency claim. The Commission modified the ALJ’s orders by extending their coverage from Kraft’s individually wrapped slices to “any product that is a cheese, related cheese product, imitation cheese, or substitute cheese.”
Kraft appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Court: “[A]n advertisement is deceptive under [§ 5 of the FTC Act] if it is likely to mislead consumers, acting reasonably under the circumstances, in a material respect….Commission relies on two sources of information: its own viewing of the ad and extrinsic evidence…most convincing extrinsic evidence is a [consumer] survey…The Commissioners, Kraft argues, are simply incapable of determining what implicit messages consumers are likely to perceive…We hold that the Commission may rely on its own reasoned analysis to determine what claims, including implied ones, are conveyed in a challenged advertisement, so long as those claims are reasonably clear from the face of the advertisement….[Kraft relies on] the faulty premise that implied claims are inescapably subjective and unpredictable…. The implied claims Kraft made are reasonably clear from the face of the advertisements, and hence the Commission was not required to utilize consumer surveys in reaching its decision…. Kraft asserts that the literal truth of the . . . ads— [Kraft Singles] are made from five ounces of milk and they do have a high concentration of calcium—makes it illogical to render a finding of consumer deception. The difficulty with this argument is that even literally true statements can have misleading implications…. The Commission’s cease and desist order prohibits Kraft from running the Skimp and Class Picture ads, as well as from advertising any calcium or nutritional claims not supported by reliable scientific evidence. This order extends not only to the product contained in the deceptive advertisements (Kraft Singles), but to all Kraft cheeses and cheese-related products. First Amendment infirmities arise, according to Kraft, from the sweep of the order: by banning commercial speech that is only potentially misleading, the order chills some non-deceptive advertising deserving of constitutional protection…. We reject Kraft’s argument…. The FTC has discretion to issue multi-product orders, so-called “fencing-in” orders, that extend beyond violations of the Act to prevent violators from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future…. the Commission [reasonably] found that Kraft’s conduct was deliberate because it persisted in running the challenged ad copy despite repeated warnings from outside sources that the copy might be implicitly misleading…. Commission’s order upheld and enforced.
Link is to the Federal Register pdf reflecting the Telemarketing Sales Rule. NOTE: Why can’t we stop telemarketing? According to companies using telemarketing, such a broad prohibition would violate the right to Free Speech guaranteed by the Constitution. So far, telemarketers have won on this claim. The Do-Not-Call Registry was implemented to curb telemarketers as a “compromise.”
In the CAN-SPAM Act, Congress outlawed various commercial e-mail practices, including the use of a false or misleading statement on the “from” line of a commercial message and the use of false or misleading subject headings in a commercial message. Among other regulations (we all wish would work), the CAN-SPAM Act also required that a sender of commercial e-mail use a functioning reply address or “opt-out” mechanism by which consumers could elect not to receive more messages from that sender, and that the sender send no further messages to a consumer more than ten days after the consumer has opted out.
Link is to the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
The hyperlink is to the case opinion on the FTC website. On October 4, 2004, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the Tenth Circuit opinion that held that the Do-Not-Call Registry is constitutional. See the Do-Not-Call Registry Timeline at the Electronic Privacy Information Center http://www.epic.org/privacy/telemarketing/dnc/
Investigative consumer report includes information about a p erson’s character, reputation, personal traits, or mode of living, and is based on interviews with neighbors, friends, and associates.
Individual who is not satisfied with the agency’s investigation may file a brief statement setting forth the nature of her dispute with the agency. If so, any subsequent credit report containing the disputed information must note that it is disputed and must provide either the individual’s statement or a clear and accurate summary of it.
The hyperlink is to the Supreme Court’s opinion. In Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr concerned two insurance companies that used credit reports as a basis for setting initial insurance premiums and do not tell consumers that credit reports are used. The court stated that the companies do not violate the notice provisions of FCRA unless there the consumer is harmed willfully. The Court established the parameters of a willful violation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in a case against GEICO that whenever a consumer “would have received a lower rate for his insurance had the information in his consumer report been more favorable, an adverse action has been taken against him.” Because a better credit score would have placed Edo with GEICO General, not GEICO Indemnity, the appeals court held that GEICO’s failure to give notice was an adverse action. The Ninth Circuit also held that an insurer “willfully” fails to comply with FCRA if it acts with “reckless disregard” of a consumer’s rights under the statute—a conclusion inconsistent with the position taken by certain other federal courts of appeal. The case against Safeco Insurance was consolidated with the case against GEICO on appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stated: “To sum up [what has been determined so far], the difference required for an increase can be understood without reference to prior dealing (allowing a first-time applicant to sue), and considering the credit report must be a necessary condition for the difference.”
The link is to the text of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. See the summary of the consumer rights at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/fcrasummary.pdf
Link is to the FTC webpage summarizing the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
Link is to the FTC Fair Credit Billing Act summary webpage.
Link is to the FTC Fair Debt Collection Act summary webpage.
Link is to the Consumer Product Safety Commission home page.
False. FTC enforcement devices include issuing trade regulation rules, facilitating voluntary compliance, and adjudicative proceedings. False. FTC gathers may gather evidence about possible violations from private parties as well as government entities and FTC investigations. True.
True False. According to companies using telemarketing, such a broad prohibition would violate the right to Free Speech guaranteed by the Constitution. However, FTC issued 1995 Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) prohibiting deceptive and abusive telemarketing acts or practices. True. Details include p ersons protected; products, parts, characteristics covered; what warrantor will do in case of product defect; warranty duration; and procedures consumer must follow in event of defect or failure
The correct answer is (c). To be deceptive under FTC Policy Statement on Deception, an activity must: (1) involve a material misrepresentation, omission, or practice; (2) that is likely to mislead a consumer; (3) who acts reasonably under the circumstances
The correct answer is (c). To be deceptive under FTC Policy Statement on Deception, an activity must: (1) involve a material misrepresentation, omission, or practice; (2) that is likely to mislead a consumer; (3) who acts reasonably under the circumstances
The correct answer is (b).
Opportunity to the nexus between consumer practices and privacy issues. See Federal Trade Commission – Identity Theft Survey Report (Sept. 2003) (available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/09/synovatereport.pdf