Advertising, Marketing & Privacy Law Practice

RSS Feed Email Print
Share
View divider Overview divider Attorneys divider Matters divider a-ampblog.gif divider PDF Version

The five lead attorneys in the group collectively have practiced in this area for more than 100 years.

Practice Areas
Advertising, Marketing & Privacy Law Practice
Advertising and Entertainment Disputes
Advertising & Promotions Counseling
Advertising & Promotions Transactions
Sweepstakes and Promotions
Privacy and Data Security
Technology Transactions, Licensing, and Outsourcing
Copyright Litigation
Trademark Litigation
Resource Center
Topics
advertising   behavioral advertising   cause marketing   CFPB   children   COPPA   copyright   deceptive advertising   domain names   false advertising   FDA   FDA regulations   FTC   game of chance   gaming   gift cards   gift certificate   misappropriation   mobile applications   NAD   online behavioral advertising   patent marking   privacy   promotions   public domain   publicity   search engine ads   social media   sweepstakes and contests   telemarketing   text message   trademark   trademark and unfair competition   UDRP  
Other Winston & Strawn Blogs
ADVERTISING, MARKETING & PRIVACY LAW NEWS
Welcome to the blog hosted by Winston & Strawn’s Advertising and Promotions Law practice group. In this blog, we cover news regarding recent developments in advertising, promotions, entertainment, and privacy law, as well as practical implementation tips and lessons learned from the cases discussed. To learn more about any of the cases or issues covered, please don’t hesitate to contact one of us or your regular Winston contact. To subscribe to these updates, please see the RSS icon at the top right of the page.
About the Bloggers
Blog Tools Recent Postings | All Postings | Power Search | Special Alerts | Attorney Login
June 15, 2012
Federal Judge Requires Further Briefing by the FTC in No-Fault Deceptive Marketing Settlement with Acai Berry Advertiser

New Jersey District Court judge Renee Bumb ordered the FTC to respond to concerns regarding the proposed $11.5-million deceptive marketing settlement with Circa Direct LLC, an Internet advertiser of acai berry weight loss products. Like many settlements of government investigations, Circa Direct settled the FTC’s deceptive marketing investigation without an admitting liability. Judge Bumb worried: “settlement without an admission of liability forecloses a determination of the truth of the FTC’s allegations and leaves the public with no better appreciation of the truth of the matter than when the litigation began.” Following the Southern District of New York’s November 2011 decision to reject a $285 settlement between Citibank and the SEC, Judge Bumb explained that she would not approve the FTC’s settlement unless the FTC convinces her that the settlement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the public’s interest. The FTC has already persuaded Judge Bumb that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable; but without an admission of liability or a full explanation of the facts leading to the settlement, the court has refused to accept that the parties’ settlement is in the public’s interest. Until it receives further FTC arguments, the court will not “abdicate its… responsibility to conduct meaningful judicial review” of the settlement.
 
This is not the first time that Judge Bumb has requested additional arguments by the parties before allowing the FTC’s settlement with Circa Direct. On February 22, 2012, the judge ordered the parties to explain the proper standard of review of the parties’ original settlement order and whether the order satisfied that standard. The FTC’s response did not fully satisfy the judge, leading to the current request for additional briefing from the FTC. The judge has not requested further submissions from Circa Direct.
 
TIP: Historically, FTC settlements almost always included affirmative language that the investigated company did not admit fault. Judge Bumb’s order signals a continuing judicial trend of disfavoring settlements with this language. Moving forward, the FTC will likely reject settlement offers that include such affirmative no-fault language.



Stephen E. Wieker ; Brian L. Heidelberger; Anthony E. DiResta
Email comments to the authors