This is a guest post by Thomas Cohn. Thomas A. Cohn is a partner in Le Clair Ryan’s New York office, and he is the former Regional Director of the FTC’s Northeast Region. He can be reached at (212) 430-8060 and thomas.cohn@leclairryan.com.
Affiliate Marketers, and “Reasonable Monitoring”
In January 2012, six online marketers settled FTC charges stemming from their use of fake news websites to market acai berry supplements and other weight loss products. If you’re an affiliate marketer or you’re thinking about building an affiliate program into your business plan, the cases merit your attention. Assuming the product is advertised truthfully by the affiliate and consumers are treated right by the advertiser, affiliate marketing can be a win-win situation.
But what happens when affiliates are let loose without adequate direction or supervision to ensure what they’re saying is truthful and non-misleading? Some appear willing to cross the legal line as long as it results in the ka-ching of a sale. They drive as much traffic as possible to the seller’s site by any means — legit or not — that will achieve the goal.
According to the FTC, sometimes those means have included false and deceptive claims about what the product can do. Affiliates also have used fake blogs, bogus news sites, and other deceptive formats that mislead people about the source of the information or that fail to disclose a material connection between the affiliate marketer and the seller, as explained in the FTC Endorsement Guides.
That’s what the FTC says happened in the cases it recently settled. According to the lawsuits, affiliate marketers set up fake news sites with titles like News 6 News Alerts, Health News Health Alerts, or Health 5 Beat Health News. The sites claimed to document a reporter’s first-hand experience with acai berry supplements, typically touting a 25-pound loss in four weeks. According to the FTC, many of the sites falsely represented that the reports had run on major media outlets — ABC, Fox News, CBS, CNN, USA Today, Consumer Reports. But, as the FTC charged, they were nothing more than ads deceptively enticing people to buy the featured product from online merchants who paid the affiliates for driving traffic to their sites.
The message for affiliate marketers: You can be held legally responsible for the deceptive claims you make — and non-compliance can be costly. The proposed settlements impose monetary judgments in the full amount of the commissions the affiliates got for driving traffic to the sellers’ sites. Due to the defendants’ financial condition, the judgments will be partially suspended, but not before the boat, the Beamer, and other assets are sold in partial payment.
The message for companies using affiliates: When you pay third parties to act on your behalf, you can’t wipe your hands of responsibility for what they do to sell your products. First, take steps to ensure the advertising messages they disseminate on your behalf are truthful. Give them detailed guidance about what should — and shouldn’t — be said about your product. Second, do some quality control on the back end once buyers have been directed to your site through affiliate marketing. Look at the affiliates and the ads that generate the largest number of referrals to see what claims they’re making. If you spot something amiss or hear concerns from consumers, follow up to find out what’s going on and take appropriate action. Reputable marketers can and should play an important role in bringing more order and accountability to the affiliate marketing industry.
Ever-tougher court orders
In January 2012 the FTC announced that an operation that marketed acai berry supplements, “colon cleansers,” and other products using allegedly fraudulent free trial offers and phony endorsements from Oprah Winfrey and Rachael Ray will pay $1.5 million as part of a settlement. The money will be made available for consumer refunds.
The case against Phoenix-based Central Coast Nutraceuticals, Inc. (“CCN”) is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts to protect consumers from fraudulent internet marketing, as well as false and misleading health claims. The settlement order bans the defendants from so-called “negative-option” sales, such as continuity plans and free or introductory price trial offers, in which consumers pay nothing up front or only a small fee to receive a product, but are then automatically charged a higher price unless they take steps to cancel the shipments, or return the product before the end of the trial period.
The 2010 FTC complaint alleged that two individuals and five related companies deceptively claimed that their Acai Pure supplement would cause rapid and substantial weight loss, and that their Colotox colon cleanser would prevent colon cancer. Also, despite claiming to offer a “free” trial for a nominal fee and full refunds upon request, the defendants allegedly repeatedly made unauthorized charges to consumers’ bank accounts, and made it all but impossible to avoid paying full price for the products, typically $39.95 to $59.95.
At the request of the FTC in August 2010, a federal court halted the allegedly illegal conduct of the CCN defendants, imposed an asset freeze, and appointed a receiver to oversee the corporate defendants.
The settlement order against the defendants includes an $80 million judgment, which represents the total amount of consumer injury caused by their scheme. The monetary judgment will be suspended when the FTC receives assets worth approximately $1.5 million from the defendants.
The settlement order requires Gibson to pay the FTC the balance of his investment account; transfer to the FTC $500,000 after mortgaging his home in Phoenix, or transfer the property to a court-appointed liquidator if he cannot obtain the mortgage; and divest himself of his interest in a Hawaii vacation property. It also requires the court-appointed receiver to transfer to the FTC the estimated $600,000 that will remain in the accounts of CCN and the affiliated corporate defendants after their outstanding expenses are paid. If it is later determined that the financial information the defendants provided was false, the full amount of the judgment will become due.
In addition to banning the defendants from selling any products or services with a negative option feature, the settlement also prohibits them from, among other things:
*making deceptive statements that there is no cost for a trial purchase; that all consumers who request full refunds will get them; that celebrities endorse their products; that consumer testimonials reflect typical consumer experiences; about the total amount consumers will pay; or about any other material fact regarding any goods or services sold by the defendants;
*failing to make adequate disclosures about the material terms and conditions of any offer;
*charging consumers’ credit cards, or debiting their bank accounts without their consent;
*making any claim that a product can diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent any disease, including cancer, unless the claim is approved by the FDA;
making any claim that a product can cause weight loss, unless the claim is supported by two well-controlled human clinical studies;
*making claims about the health benefits of any supplement, food, or drug without competent and reliable scientific evidence, and misrepresenting any tests or studies; or
*making deceptive or false statements or failing to disclose material facts, to a payment processor or financial institution.
Under the settlement order, the defendants also are required to monitor the activities of any affiliate marketers selling products or services on their behalf, including reviewing any marketing materials used to ensure that they comply with the order.
Victimized consumers flooded law enforcement agencies and the BBB with thousands of complaints about the company. The defendants’ marketing traded on the rampant popularity of acai berry supplements. The BBB named fake “free” trial offers – including those for acai supplements offered by the defendants in this case – as one of the “Top 10 Scams and Rip-Offs of 2009.” The bottom line here? Tougher than ever injunctive provisions, monetary provisions, and substantiation requirements.
Lessons Learned, and Best Practices
What do the above cases illustrate? That the FTC will continue to place a high priority on all marketing [online and offline] of health products making weight loss claims, or any claims to prevent or cure serious diseases. In addition, the FTC has made as an ongoing top priority, the prosecution of cases in the “poverty vertical.” This means any offers for goods or services that prey on vulnerable consumers during the economic downturn. This includes any debt or credit related offers [debt consolidation, mortgage modification, foreclosure rescue, grant assistance, etc.], and any work from home, multi-level marketing, or other business opportunities with “get rich quick” promises.
Furthermore, the FTC is anticipated to go after more and more third parties who “assist and facilitate” those allegedly defrauding consumers. This could mean list brokers, lead generators, payment processors, or any other service provider that looks the other way or turns a blind eye to its business partners’ deceptive practices against consumers.
To avoid FTC scrutiny, the best defenses are clear:
- Keep it real: no fake news, blogs, review, or endorsements.
- Tailor your ad claims to closely fit your substantiation for them;
- Make sure all disclaimers and disclosures are clear and conspicuous, and in close proximity to the claims they modify;
- Provide excellent customer service: liberal refund policies will reduce both chargebacks and complaints to FTC, BBB or state AGs;
- Especially disclose all continuity/rebill/negative-option/trial period terms in a way that’s both clear/conspicuous, AND understandable to the reasonable consumer, BEFORE payment authorization.
- Which verticals are best for avoiding FTC scrutiny? There are none anymore: while beauty may have received less attention than the areas mentioned in the above cases, there is no assurance that the FTC won’t bring cases in this vertical, too, if the claims are aggressive and objective, and the substantiation doesn’t fit.
- Just consider the $25 million order against Reebok, for its strong claims about its toning shoes, which the FTC alleged were not substantiated sufficiently. It was the specific percentage numbers used in its toning claims, that got Reebok in trouble here.
- Finally, monitor your business partners more closely than ever before. Attention should be paid to the way affiliate marketers (or any others!) advertise your products to consumers. You are responsible for any misrepresentations and false claims made by marketers to sell your products. The initial advantage gained from false or deceptive marketing can eventually turn out to be very expensive, as the above FTC cases illustrate.
This is a guest post by Thomas Cohn. Thomas A. Cohn is a partner in Le Clair Ryan’s New York office, and he is the former Regional Director of the FTC’s Northeast Region. He can be reached at (212) 430-8060 and thomas.cohn@leclairryan.com.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for educational purposes only as well as to offer general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the author. The blog post should never be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.