We’re glad you’re visiting the BCP Business Center and thanks for your questions. Here are answers to some of your AQs. (Calling them FAQs on a site devoted to truth in advertising doesn’t seem quite right.)
It may be tempting for a payment processor to look the other way about a client’s business practices, figuring it’s the merchant’s job to get proper consumer authorization for charges submitted for processing. But donning blinders can lead to regrettable results, as an FTC action against a payment processor shows.
When consumers comparison shop, cost is crucial. That’s why it’s so important for companies to make sure what they say about their prices is accurate. If businesses need a timely reminder, the FTC’s proposed $5 million settlement with CVS Caremark drives that point home.
The terms of an FTC settlement apply just to that business, of course. But clued-in companies know there’s a lot that can be learned from someone else’s alleged misstep. The FTC’s law enforcement action against Upromise is no exception.
Upromise offers users a service where they can save for college by getting rebates when they buy merchandise from participating retailers. But as the FTC charged in a recent law enforcement settlement, when it comes to consumer privacy and data security, the college savings membership program may want to consider a refresher course.
If you’re in the textile industry or sell home HVAC equipment (and especially if you’re in the textile industry and sell HVAC equipment, in which case we’re dying to know what your store looks like), you’ll want to jot down some important dates from the FTC.
It’s great to ring in the New Year, but there’s one thing savvy businesses don’t want to ring: a phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry or a company’s entity-specific list. A recent FTC law enforcement action — and stats from the FTC’s just-released Report to Congress on Do Not Call — emphasize the need for compliance.
Have you been mulling over the impact of facial detection and recognition technologies? We have — and we’d like to hear more about how you see things.
The Benedictine monks of St. Joseph Abbey, the Louisiana Embalming and Funeral Directors Act, and the policy goals of the FTC’s Funeral Rule. Not a likely trifecta, but an amicus brief filed by the FTC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit raises interesting issues about the relationship between the three.
When the FTC brings a law enforcement action, we hope companies take notice. But sometimes there’s a nugget or two that businesses can glean from a decision by the FTC staff to close an investigation. A recent letter from the staff of the Bureau of Consumer Protection to Hyundai Motor America ticks a lot of timely boxes — bloggers, the Super Bowl, and the FTC’s Endorsement Guides — and is worth a read if your company has added social media to your marketing arsenal.
If your company has an online presence, you’re probably familiar with ICANN — the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — the group that oversees Internet domain names. ICANN has announced a plan to dramatically increase the number of generic top-level domain names.
The FTC v. Lane Labs story started with shark cartilage and the latest chapter involves a contempt ruling from a federal judge. If the FTC’s advertising substantiation doctrine is relevant to your company or your clients — and it should be — you’ll want to keep tabs on the case.
As anyone who’s watched TV in the past decade knows, Kevin Trudeau is — to use the term coined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit — an “infomercialist.” The Seventh Circuit’s recent opinion in FTC v. Trudeau offers interesting insights into order enforcement and upholds a multimillion dollar judgment for consumers.
This time of year retailers look forward to the sweet harmony of silver bells, laughing voices, and the cha-ching of registers. Here are some steps you can take to ensure a happier holiday for your business — and your customers.
Visiting the BCP Business Center for the latest dos ‘n’ don’ts about making those peepers of yours positively pop? We didn’t think so. But there’s a makeover lesson nonetheless in three FTC law enforcement settlements with online retailers who sold “circle contacts” without a prescription, in violation of the Contact Lens Rule.
The terms of the FTC’s proposed settlement apply only to Facebook. But to paraphrase noted legal scholar Bob Dylan, companies that want to stay off the law enforcement radar don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. What practical pointers can your business take from the Facebook case and other recent FTC actions dealing with consumer privacy?
The FTC’s complaint against Facebook outlines eight separate areas where the FTC says Facebook’s privacy practices were deceptive or unfair. What provisions does the proposed order put in place to protect people in the future?
One key provision is a broad ban on deception. Facebook can’t misrepresent the privacy or security protections that apply to any “covered information.” The order defines that as information “from or about” an individual consumer like:
When it comes to privacy promises, what you say you do with people’s personal information has to line up with your day-to-day practices. That’s the message of the FTC’s proposed settlement announced today with Facebook.
In its pending action against Sonkei Communications and two of its officers, the FTC has charged that the defendants sold robocall services to telemarketers who pitched things like home security systems, grant procurement programs, and credit card services.
This Thanksgiving, enjoy an extra slice of pie, take a longer nap, and watch the parades and games for a few more hours because that COPPA comment that was due on November 28th now has to be filed by December 23rd.