President Signs the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act

This week, President Obama signed the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act. The Act prohibits a post-transaction third-party seller — a company that sells goods or services online through an initial merchant after a consumer has initiated a transaction — from charging a consumer for any good or service, unless the seller does the following: (a) clearly and conspicuously discloses the material offer terms, including a description of what is being sold, the cost, and that the third-party seller is not affiliated with the initial merchant; and (b) receives express consent for the charge from the consumer. Sellers must obtain the full account number directly from the consumer — it is unlawful for an online seller to transfer a consumer’s financial account number to a third-party seller.

The Act also regulates negative option plans under which a seller interprets the consumer’s silence or failure to reject goods or services, or to cancel the sales agreement, as acceptance of the offer. Companies who use negative option plans must do the following: (a) clearly and conspicuously disclose the material terms of the transaction before obtaining the consumer’s billing information; (b) obtain a consumer’s express informed consent before charging the consumer; and (c) provide a simple mechanisms for a consumer to stop the recurring charges.

Commerce Department Releases Online Commercial Privacy Framework in Report

Today, the U.S. Department of Commerce released its version of an online commercial data privacy framework in a report entitled Commercial Data Privacy and Innovation in the Internet Economy: A Dynamic Policy Framework. The report is the result of a review by the Commerce Department’s Internet Policy Task Force, launched in April of 2010, which included staff from National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the International Trade Administration, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology. The report comes two weeks after the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a preliminary staff report also on recommendations for an online privacy framework.

The report presents possible approaches to develop an online data privacy framework and proposes questions for further comment. The report includes four broad categories of

Continue Reading...

Congress Passes Bill to Limit Sharing of Consumer Information

The “Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act”, which would ban online sales companies from enrolling consumers in services without their consent and bring an end to the practice of “data pass,” was passed by Congress yesterday. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) introduced the bill in May after a year-long investigation into the practices of certain online “negative option” plans. In these programs, retailer websites were sharing customers’ billing information, including credit and debit card numbers, with third parties who would enroll the customers in membership programs with monthly fees billed to the same credit or debit cards. Consumers were required to contact the third party companies to cancel their memberships in the programs.

In a statement released by the FTC today, Chairman Liebowitz said, “We’re pleased Congress passed this legislation…Consumers should be able to make informed decisions, so the terms and conditions of any offer must be disclosed clearly and conspicuously.” The Act requires the following:

  1. Online sellers of goods and services who market on the site of a merchant after a consumer has initiated a transaction are prohibited from charging a consumer unless the material terms of the transaction are clearly and conspicuously disclosed and the seller has obtained the consumer’s consent before charging his or her credit or debit card. Consent requires that the consumer provide the seller with full and complete credit or debit card information.
  2. Online sellers are prohibited from transferring consumer credit or debit card information to third parties.
  3. Sellers are prohibited from charging under a negative option plan unless the material terms are disclosed, consent is obtained, and consumers are provided a simple means of cancellation.

Online retailers should take care to review their current billing policies in light of the requirements contained in this bill.

Canada Closer to Product Safety Legislation

After much anticipation, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act (“CCPSA”) has finally been passed by the Canadian Parliament and could become effective within the next few months. Upon Royal Assent and Proclamation, which have been accelerated, the legislation will come into force, although an exact time frame has not yet been disclosed.

  • The new legislation will replace the Hazardous Products Act and includes numerous new provisions, such as:
  • Ability for the government to order a recall rather than just request one;
  • Requirement that industry report serious incidents or deaths related to consumer products and provide timely information about important product safety issues;
  • Requirement that manufacturers or importers provide test results on products when requested;
  • Increased civil penalties for non-compliance; and
  • Extensive recordkeeping requirements.

Although the legislation was intended to be fairly consistent with U.S. law, companies will inevitably face different approaches as the legislation gets implemented. Consumer product companies doing business in Canada should consider how they may need to revise existing safety review procedures to ensure compliance with Canadian law.
 

Anti-Corporate Activists Target Corporate Advertising and Communications

Advertisers beware. Anti-corporate activists, no longer content to ask for petition signatures on a street corner, are using guerilla tactics to sabotage corporate communications and advertising campaigns. In recent months, such groups have launched various advertising hoaxes designed to challenge the advertiser’s message and its brand.

It is difficult for advertisers to combat such attacks given the myriad marketing outlets provided by the web. Advertisers should not just accept this new reality without action, though. From a legal perspective, advertisers can take some proactive steps prior to and following an advertising campaign launch to help minimize their risks.

  • Insist on confidentiality. Confidentiality provisions are common in agreements with advertising agencies, but many advertisers rely solely on their advertising agencies to handle talent and vendor agreements during a campaign. Insist that any person involved in the creation or execution of the campaign, including a participant in a casting call, is required to maintain confidentiality. 
  • Don’t forget about social media. Social media outlets are convenient, free ways for anyone to spread their message. In an agency, talent or related contractor agreement, include restrictions on sharing information via social media in confidentiality clauses. Further, include a take down provision to require anyone who breaches their confidentiality obligations to immediately remove the offending content.
  • Examine agency agreements. In any major advertising campaign, things can go wrong. The advertiser and the agency are better off knowing up front who is responsible for the costs should such events occur. This is easily addressed in the agency agreement between the parties and can help minimize disruption to both businesses and the business relationship overall should such an incident occur. 
  • Monitor and Address. Set up alerts to monitor fake or unauthorized advertising. Anyone can set up a Twitter or Facebook account that appears to be legitimate corporate content. Advertisers should monitor the web for this behavior either actively or passively through a tool such as Google alerts. In addition, have an action plan in place to address fake or unauthorized content, which should include filing complaints with service providers used by the wrongdoers.

FTC Commissioner Discusses CFPB at Privacy Conference

FTC Commissioner Julie Brill spoke about the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) during a keynote address she delivered at the International Association of Privacy Professionals Second Annual Conference on December 7th. While describing how Congress enacted the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) to protect consumers’ personal information, Brill stated that the FTC and CFPB “need to make sure our current rules continue, in this technologically advanced age, to protect consumers’ rights under the FCRA.” Given that the FTC already has several staff members involved in setting up the CFPB, it is no surprise that the FTC plans to work in tandem with the CFPB to enforce existing consumer protection laws and to understand new uses of data in connection with such efforts.

During the address, Brill also outlined the major components of the FTC’s preliminary staff report on privacy, "Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change” which includes a proposal for a Do Not Track mechanism that would permit consumers to control their tracking preferences at every website they visit. For a more detailed discussion of the FTC’s Report, including the concepts behind Do Not Track, please click here to read the Kelley Drye client advisory.

Visit our sister blog, www.ConsumerFinanceLawBlog.com for more commentary on the development of the CFPB.

CPSC Outlines Key Provisions of Consumer Product Safety Complaint Database

As discussed in the November 28, 2010 blog post, the CPSC recently approved the structure for a consumer incident database mandated by the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. The database will allow consumers to submit reports regarding harm or potential harm caused by consumer products, allow consumers to search for complaints and recall information about consumer products, and permit manufacturers to comment on complaint information found in the database. The new database will be available on the CPSC's website in March 2011. More information about the CPSC's final rule and structure of the database is available in Kelley Drye and Warren's December 9, 2010 client advisory.

The CPSC's final rule will become effective 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register. In the meantime, manufacturers and private labelers of consumer products should develop internal procedures for handling reports and the related potential product liability consequences.
 

A Detailed Overview of the FTC's Proposed Privacy Framework

Further to our December 1, 2010 post "FTC Releases Proposed Framework for Protecting Consumer Privacy", Kelley Drye has issued a client advisory with a more detailed discussion of the FTC's proposed privacy framework.

Senate Passes Legislation to Eliminate $150 Exemption for Fur Products

Last night, the U.S. Senate passed by unanimous consent the Truth in Fur Labeling Act (H.R. 2480).  The legislation, identical to the legislation that previously passed the House of Representatives, will now go to the White House for signature.  President Obama is expected to sign, and the bill will then become effective in 90 days.

The bill will eliminate the current exemption from the Fur Products Labeling Act if the cost to a manufacturer of fur trim used on a garment (not including the cost of adding the trim to the product) or a manufacturer’s selling price of a fur product is $150 or less.  The bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to review the labeling requirements of the Fur Products Labeling Act in 2011. 

Manufacturers, importers, and retailers of fur products should consider current practices in anticipation of the elimination of the $150 exemption and closely monitor the FTC's upcoming review. 

 

Facebook Eases the Requirements for Running Promotions

Last year, Facebook introduced Promotions Guidelines that governed how companies can run sweepstakes and contests on the Facebook platform. Among other things, the Guidelines stated that a company could not administer a promotion -- in other words, collect entries, conduct drawings, judge entries, or run any other aspect of a promotion -- on the platform unless the company first obtained written permission from Facebook. Written permission was only granted to companies that spent money advertising on Facebook.

Yesterday, Facebook updated the Promotions Guidelines. The most significant change is that companies no longer need to obtain written permission before administering a promotion on the Facebook platform.

Companies still have to comply with a number require requirements, though. For example: (a) people can only enter on the canvas page of an application or the application box in a tab on a Facebook Page; (b) companies have to include specific disclosures on the entry form and in the official rules; (c) companies cannot condition entry on taking certain actions on Facebook; and (d) promotions cannot be open to people who are under 18 or to residents of certain countries. The complete Guidelines and a list of do’s and don’ts are available on the Facebook site.

The revised Guidelines -- particularly the absence of requirement that Facebook approve promotions -- will make it much easier for companies to run promotions on the platform.
 

California Law Governing Automatic Renewals Goes Into Effect

Starting this week, companies that offer subscription services that automatically renew at the end of the initial term will have to comply with a new law in California.

The law generally requires that companies: (1) clearly and conspicuously disclose the material offer terms before a consumers subscribes; (2) obtain a consumer’s affirmative consent to the terms before the consumer is charged; (3) provide a confirmation to the consumer that includes the terms, a description of the cancellation policy, information on how to cancel, and, if the offer includes a free trial, that the consumer may cancel before being charged; and (4) provide an easy-to-use method for canceling.

The material terms include: (1) that the subscription will continue until the consumer cancels; (2) a description of the cancellation policy; (3) information about the recurring charges; (4) the length of the renewal term; and (5) the minimum purchase obligation, if any. These terms must generally be presented either in larger type than the surrounding text or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text in a manner that clearly calls attention to the terms.

As we’ve mentioned in previous posts, companies that offer automatic renewals and free trials have come under increased scrutiny by states and the FTC. Most complaints arise when consumers don’t realize that the plans are going to automatically renew or consumers are impeded from canceling. Accordingly, it is important to ensure that consumers understand the offer terms and have an opportunity to cancel.
 

 

FTC Releases Proposed Framework For Protecting Consumer Privacy

 This post was written by the Kelley Drye & Warren Privacy and Information Security Practice Group.

Today, the FTC issued its highly-anticipated preliminary staff report on privacy, “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change.”  The report proposes a new privacy framework for businesses and policymakers and addresses the Commission’s view that self-regulation has, up to now, failed to provide adequate consumer protection.  The framework would be applicable to the online and offline data handling practices of consumer data that can be reasonably linked to a specific consumer, computer, or device.  The report is largely based on a series of three public roundtables held over the past year that explored current privacy approaches. 

The proposed framework set forth in the report includes three primary recommendations: (1) Privacy by design; (2) Simplified choice for consumers on how their data is handled; and (3) Greater transparency for consumers on privacy practices:

1)      Privacy By Design – Incorporate consumer privacy protections into everyday business and each stage of product or service development.  Specifically, the report recommends that this process should:

  a)      Provide for reasonable security for consumer data;

  b)      Limit personal data collection to only data needed for a specific business purpose;

  c)      Limit personal data retention to only the period of time needed to fulfill the specific business purpose;

  d)      Securely dispose of personal data no longer being used; and

  e)      Implement reasonable procedures to promote personal data accuracy.

Additionally, the report recommends that a business’s internal privacy practices should include:

a)      Dedicated personnel to oversee privacy issues;

b)      Employee training on privacy issues; and

c)      Privacy reviews for new products or services.

2)      Simplified Choice – Provide consumers with simpler, more streamlined choices about privacy practices. The report recommends that businesses should:

a)      Identify “commonly accepted” data practices for which consumer choice is not necessary, e.g., product fulfillment, improvement of internal business operations, fraud prevention, legal compliance, and first-party marketing; and

b)      Identify data practices that are not “commonly accepted,” and provide consumers with clear descriptions of these practices in context with the request (e.g., at the time when the consumer provides his or her information or through a universal mechanism);

c)      Offer consumers greater choice, particularly with data practices not “commonly accepted,” such as behavioral advertising. To this end, the Commission staff supports a “Do Not Track” tool that allows the consumer to decide whether to receive targeted ads.

3)      Greater Transparency – The report recommends the following measures for companies to take to make their data practices more transparent to consumers:

a)      Make privacy policies easy to understand and useful as a consumer tool to compare businesses’ practices;

b)      Provide consumers with access to data that companies maintain about them;

c)      Obtain affirmative consent for material, retroactive changes to data policies; and

d)      Educate consumers about commercial data privacy practices.

The proposals within the preliminary report are not directly enforceable regulations, but they are instructive and provide insight on what businesses can expect in privacy enforcement trends in the future. The report invites public comment with a filing deadline of January 31, 2011. 

Kelley Drye will be circulating a client advisory with a more detailed discussion of the FTC’s proposed privacy framework shortly.

The Importance of Identifying the Correct Relief in FTC Litigation

For nearly 30 years, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") has sought, and federal courts have awarded, monetary redress for consumers in actions brought under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"). A recent article authored by John Villafranco and Dan Blynn entitled, "Consumer Redress Under Section 13(b): Correcting the Record," which was published in the November 2010 issue of Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society's Regulatory Focus magazine, clarifies what a court can and cannot award in Section 13(b) litigation.

The article (i) identifies the types of equitable monetary relief that typically are awarded in such actions, and distinguishes between equitable restitution (which may be awarded) and legal restitution (which may not); (ii) discusses the concept of “tracing,” which is a necessary prerequisite to an award of restitution; and (iii) explains why disgorgement of a defendant’s net profits generally will be the only proper form and measure of consumer redress in Section 13(b) litigation.

Whether a court awards restitution or disgorgement in a Section 13(b) action can have a substantial impact on the amount of money that a defendant who violates the FTC Act might be ordered to pay in consumer redress. For example, a company that spends a significant amount of money on product advertising, marketing, and promotion might have low net profits (the measure of a disgorgement award) despite, at the same time, having high gross revenues from product sales (typically awarded in restitution). In that case, the difference between an award of disgorgement or restitution could be the difference in a redress award totaling thousands rather than millions of dollars. Thus, companies and individuals who are named defendants in Section 13(b) actions should be aware of what form of consumer redress is awardable in such litigation and how that redress is measured, as it could impact settlement negotiations with the FTC and litigation strategy generally.