United States: AD-ttorneys@Law - July 18, 2017


A recent investigation by Public Citizen identifies more than 40 influencers who ignored recent compliance requests

The Uninfluenced

Last fall, national advocacy group Public Citizen sent a report to the Federal Trade Commission alleging that more than 100 "influencers" – actors, musicians, athletes and other high-profile individuals – and marketers had failed to disclose compensation for product endorsements on Instagram in violation of the FTC Act.

The FTC responded in April 2017 by sending compliance reminder letters to more than 90 influencers and advertisers, including luminaries such as Allen Iverson, Victoria Beckham and Jennifer Lopez.

The Brush-Off

Despite this scrutiny, according to Public Citizen, almost none of the influencers heeded the FTC's warning with any consistency. Public Citizen again wrote to the FTC on June 26, 2017, noting that despite the FTC's "attempt to educate paid influencers and brands about the importance of using disclosures, influencers on Instagram continue to mislead consumers by posting paid endorsements without a proper disclosure." In the letter, Public Citizen raised its concerns regarding noncompliance, noting that "it is fair to conclude that the FTC's reminder letters have not been effective, and influencers and advertisers are disregarding both the FTC's letter and guidelines."

The Policy

It's easy to see how Instagram's format can blur the line between endorsement and advertisement. Influencers simply post a picture of a product as part of their overall presence on the site, blending in their recommendation with other news and self-promotion. The casual nature of the dialogue that ensues between the influencer's followers and fans further disguises the nature of the endorsement. The FTC's letter made clear that it expects brands and influencers to make proper disclosure of material connections on Instagram.

The Takeaway

Compliance with the FTC's Endorsement Guides remains an enforcement priority for the Commission, particularly as it pertains to social influencers. In fact, the April letters marked the first occasion on which FTC staff reached out directly to social influencers to ensure they understand their disclosure obligations. To date, the FTC has not publicly commented on Public Citizen's June 26 letter, and it is unclear whether or how the FTC will respond to it. Regardless, advertisers should remain vigilant to ensure that social influencers disclose any material connections with the advertiser and should monitor social media posts for compliance.


FTC creates comprehensive six-step compliance plan

Changing Topography

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), enacted in 1998, created guidelines limiting the collection of personal information from children online. But 1998 was eons ago in Internet time; the online landscape has evolved and matured in ways that the authors of COPPA could never have anticipated. Because more users than ever, including children, provide information online in new and unanticipated ways, the FTC updated COPPA in July 2013.

To help businesses comply with COPPA in this ever-changing technological landscape, the Commission recently unveiled a new step-by-step plan to help businesses determine whether they are subject to COPPA and, if so, how to comply. The new guidance makes clear that the "website and online services" covered by COPPA are broadly defined to include mobile apps that send or receive information online, Internet-enabled location-based services, voice over Internet protocol devices, and connected toys or other Internet of Things devices.


The new guidance also introduces into the COPPA fold two relatively new methods for obtaining parental consent. Knowledge-Based Authentication (KBA) is a method that generates multiple-choice questions that significantly lower the chances that a child less than 12 years of age would be able to guess the answers and bypass parental consent. The second method, Face Match to Verified Photo Identification (FMVPI), compares a verified snapshot of the parent's photo ID with a photo taken by the would-be user of their own face. A mismatch denies access to the user. Both KBA and FMVPI are now accepted by the FTC as COPPA-compliant consent technologies.

The Takeaway

The FTC's new six-step compliance plan provides valuable advice to the business community regarding whether COPPA applies, and how to ensure compliance. Any business can use the plan to determine whether their company is subject to COPPA, to create a compliant privacy policy and to secure parental consent before gathering a child's personal data. Exceptions to the guidelines are also covered. Businesses that collect personal information online should take advantage of this valuable resource.


First spoofing fine leveled by FCC signals tough stance on high-volume callers

The Threat

Robocalls are commonly understood as a low-grade nuisance – an unwanted interruption of dinner or a favorite TV show. But according to the Federal Communications Commission, robocalls can actually pose a serious threat to public safety. If a robocalling campaign is large enough, it could disrupt critical phone communications – paging systems for hospitals, emergency rooms and other medical services, for example.

In late 2015, the FCC was contacted by Skop, a Virginia-based medical paging service provider, which reported widespread disruption of its emergency medical paging service by a flood of robocalls. According to Skop, the disruption threatened the safety of countless patients.

Within a few months of Skop's call, the FCC received another complaint from well-known travel website company TripAdvisor, which was reporting a surge of consumer complaints about robocalls made under its moniker but without TripAdvisor's knowledge or consent. Both the FCC's and TripAdvisor's investigations traced the Skop and TripAdvisor calls to a Florida corporation run by Adrian Abramovich. Abramovich was doing business under the names Marketing Strategy Leaders and Marketing Leaders.

The Scheme

The campaign was quite simple: Marketing Strategy Leaders or Marketing Leaders allegedly made robocalls that were spoofed to appear to be local phone numbers, thus making it more likely that consumers would answer. Once consumers answered, they were allegedly presented with a prerecorded message instructing them to "Press 1" to hear more about an exclusive vacation deal offered by well-known travel websites like TripAdvisor. The targeted individual was then routed to a call center where live operators attempted to sell them one or more discounted vacation packages, usually involving a time-share presentation. These operators were not affiliated with the well-known travel website presented to the consumer during the prerecorded message.

While the content of the calls was rather commonplace, the sheer volume of robocalls was astounding. In late 2016, in the space of only three months, Marketing Strategy Leaders made nearly 100 million calls to unsuspecting consumers. A large sample of these calls were investigated by the FCC's Enforcement Bureau and determined to be spoofed. When the dust from the investigations cleared, the FCC found itself dealing with one of the largest spoofed robocall operations ever recorded.

First Impression

On June 22, 2017, the FCC released a notice of apparent liability for forfeiture finding that Abramovich and his companies had violated the Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009, which outlaws "[causing] any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value." The FCC also cited Abramovich and his companies for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and for committing wire fraud.

The proposed forfeiture against Abramovich – $120 million – was the first the FCC had levied for spoofing under the TCPA, making the case a matter of first impression for the FCC.

By its own account, the FCC tried to strike a balance in its assessment. The maximum forfeiture under the statute – up to $11,052 for each spoofing violation, or three times that amount for each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $1,105,241 – would have yielded an outrageous figure, given the sheer number of calls in this case.

The Takeaway

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said that the magnitude of the fine levied in this case "shows just how serious we are in stamping out the largest spoofed robocall campaign we have yet to investigate." This case should serve as a cautionary tale to companies engaged in outbound telemarketing. The FCC has made it clear that it will not tolerate spoofing, nor will it look kindly on high-volume campaigns that could pose a threat to public safety.

Business Coaching Defendants Settle Deceptive Marketing Charges With the FTC

Two separate complaints diffused nearly decade-long operations


Eight companies, including Lift International LLC and Thrive Learning LLC, their various dba companies and the seven individuals who controlled them, recently settled FTC charges that they fleeced thousands of consumers of millions of dollars through outlandish promises and false testimonials.

According to the FTC's complaint filed in early June, from 2008 to early 2017, Lift International and Thrive Learning offered what they claimed was personalized business coaching services through a number of telemarketing companies. The coaching programs were aimed at consumers who wished to operate at-home Internet businesses.

Foul Practices

The FTC complaint charges defendants with using a variety of deceptive sales tactics to convince consumers to purchase the services. For example, the defendants allegedly promised consumers that they were likely to earn substantial income, when in fact, consumers who purchased the services were left with large debt, no viable business and no income. The FTC also alleged that the defendants falsely represented that their training programs were personalized and open only to qualified participants, which was not the case. Additionally, defendants represented that they needed consumers' financial information to determine if consumers qualified which, according to the FTC, was not true. Consumers who took the bait were targeted with more sales calls to buy more purported business services, according to the FTC complaint.

The FTC also alleged that some of the defendants engaged in credit card factoring – an illegal practice where companies provide other entities with access to their merchant accounts, so that telemarketers that cannot obtain a merchant account can process sales.


The FTC's complaints against the defendants charged that the companies' practices violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Faced with these suits, the defendants – a baffling array of interlocking business entities and individuals – chose to settle, agreeing to lifetime bans from selling similar services in the future. The final total settlement was $79.5 million for all defendants collectively. The full judgment was partially suspended due to an inability to pay. However, the defendants were ordered to immediately pay approximately $2.1 million and surrender certain assets. The judgment will become immediately enforceable in the event that defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.

The Takeaway

Regulators like the FTC remain on the lookout for fraudulent telemarketing practices and will pursue violators to the fullest extent of the law. When these types of schemes are discovered, the marketers who ran them are often required to disgorge 100 percent of the profits earned, and in the most egregious cases, are banned from engaging in similar business activities in the future.

Seventh Circuit Shuts the Door on Class Action Defense Strategy

Deposits made in court accounts do not render actions moot

With treble damages and attorneys' fees compounding already high dollar judgments, defendants in TCPA class actions understandably try their best to escape litigation before class certification is decided. But a recent decision in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals made clear that one such attempt to block class actions from moving forward will not work.

In 2016's Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, the Supreme Court considered whether an unaccepted offer of judgment made by the defendant under Rule 68 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure was enough to moot the class representative's individual claim or the claims of the class. The Court found that an unaccepted offer did not commit either party, and allowed the putative class action to proceed. However, the Court left one question open – whether "the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."

Unresolved Question

This open issue was predictably enticing for defense counsel in Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., which was resolved in the Seventh Circuit on June 20. The defendant argued that, under Rule 67, a deposit of an amount necessary to satisfy a claim – in a bank account held by the court – would moot the class representative's claim, effectively unraveling the class.

The Seventh Circuit decided, in a unanimous panel decision, that the argument advanced in Fulton Dental did not fit the hypothetical situation left open by the Supreme Court in the earlier case. The Campbell-Ewald decision raised the hypothetical of a deposit made to an account held by the plaintiff, not an account held by the court.

The Seventh Circuit held that deposits governed by Rule 67 did not grant ownership of the funds to the plaintiff, and that these deposits were therefore no different than an unaccepted offer – which the Supreme Court had disposed of in Campbell-Ewald. The question raised by the Supreme Court in that case remains open.

The Takeaway

Recent cases in the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts of Appeal (2016 and 2017, respectively) reached contradictory conclusions about how such a situation might affect the overall litigation. Given the creativity demonstrated by defendants in their attempts to shake loose of class actions, we can expect further discussion of the open Rule 68 question in the future.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions