The Advertising Law Blog provides commentary and news on developing legal issues in advertising, promotional marketing, Internet, and privacy law. This blog is sponsored by the Advertising, Marketing & Promotions group at Olshan. The practice is geared to servicing the needs of the advertising, promotional marketing, and digital industries with a commitment to providing personal, efficient and effective legal service.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has announced its intent to withdraw its Compliance Policy Guide 400.400 (1988) (“CPG 400.400”) for homeopathic drug products pursuant to which such products have been permitted to be marketed without having to comply with the new drug, adulteration and misbranding requirements that are otherwise applied to all drug products. Under CPG 400.400, homeopathic drug products were permitted to be manufactured and marketed without the FDA approval applicable to all other drug products. However, due to certain incidents involving improperly manufactured homeopathic drug products, in 2017 the FDA announced its intention to switch to a risk-based enforcement approach for unapproved homeopathic drug products.
Influencer marketing is one of the most popular marketing tools for companies in today’s market. Influencers can make substantial sums of money for just one post. While this is a great way for influencers to earn a living and for companies to get their message across to today’s consumers, there are risks involved with social media marketing if not executed properly. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), among other responsibilities, works to stop deceptive advertising. As we have previously reported, everyone involved in social media marketing needs to be sure that influencers comply with the FTC’s Enforcement Guidelines (the “Guidelines”).
Liu v. SEC will also likely affect Federal Trade Commission’s powers
NCAA Clears The Way For Monetizing Athletes’ Names, Images and Likenesses by 2021
In today’s global marketplace, it is more important than ever for a brand owner to be aware of international considerations while building and marketing the brand in the United States. There are many similarities in the laws across the various jurisdictions in the world, although there are also significant differences, and a brand owner can run into serious or unintended consequences when expanding the brand into other countries. Brand owners should not assume that activities permitted or appropriate in the United States are also permitted and appropriate elsewhere. Many of these issues were discussed recently in Moscow at a conference of international intellectual property lawyers at which I presented, as the United States representative, on a panel entitled “Brand Protection Strategy in the United States and Russia.” The conference was a commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Russian law firm Gorrodissky & Partners.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced that it is seeking public comment on ways to improve its existing regulations for negative option marketing, namely, the need for amendments to its Rule Concerning the Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans (the “Negative Option Rule” or “Rule”).
ESPN reported that the World Boxing Organization (WBO) ordered an immediate rematch for Olshan client Krzysztof Glowacki against current WBO cruiserweight (200-pound) champion, Mairis Briedis.
The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (“NAD”) recently recommended that Bayer Healthcare LLC (“Bayer” or the “advertiser”) discontinue particular comparative superiority claims for Aleve, including “Proven Better on Pain than Tylenol,” following a challenge by Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., maker of Tylenol products. The decision shows the scrutiny NAD will give to broad and unqualified superior efficacy claims.
California’s onerous privacy regulations will soon be in effect. Unless exempted, businesses that collect personal data from residents of California need to make sure they are in compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act, California Civil Code §§1798.100-1798.199 (“CCPA”) by January 1, 2020. If you have not yet done so, we urge you to take appropriate steps now to avoid potential liability for failure to comply with this new law.
Ariana Grande has filed a lawsuit against Forever 21 and its related beauty brand, Riley Rose (founded by the daughters of Forever 21 founder, Do Wan Chang), alleging that the fast fashion and beauty brands capitalized on the success of Ms. Grande’s Thank U, Next album by posting images of Ms. Grande on the brands’ social media accounts as well as images of a model bearing a striking resemblance to Ms. Grande.