If the summer slide and the start of school kept you too busy to follow what’s going on in the food scene, we hear you!  Catch up on key developments below in this issue of our Food Industry Litigation and Regulatory Highlights.

The Courts Were Kind to the Food Industry This Summer

This summer brought a series of class action victories to the food industry, including a trio of decisions from the Second and Ninth Circuits, both long-time hot beds for false advertising class actions, as well as four dismissals from the Southern District of New York.

At the appellate level, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action challenging Starbucks’ claim that its drinks are the “best coffee for you” and that its coffee is “watched over … from the farm to you,” despite the use of pesticides to kill roaches at certain retail locations.  The Court ruled that the challenged claims were not specific enough to misrepresent a quality or characteristic of Starbucks’ coffee, and that no reasonable consumer would interpret them to suggest anything about the use of pesticides in Starbucks’ stores.

The Ninth Circuit decertified a class of consumers claiming that Coca-Cola falsely labels its drinks as having no artificial flavors when they contain phosphoric acid, ruling that consumers lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief.  According to the Court, the plaintiffs’ claims that they “would consider purchasing” Coke in the future if certain disclosures were included or if the product’s labels were truthful were insufficient to show an actual or imminent threat of future harm. Continue Reading Food Industry Litigation and Regulatory Highlights, July – September 2021

Last week, we posted about an NAD case involving green claims that Georgia-Pacific made for its Quilted Northern Ultra Soft & Strong Bathroom Tissue. In that post, we examined issues related to how a company substantiates claims about its present achievements and future goals. Today, we’ll look at the same case, but focus on issues related to “sustainability” claims (and some broader principles that apply outside the “green” context).

The FTC’s Green Guides state that advertisers should not make broad, unqualified general environmental benefit claims.” Such claims “are difficult to interpret and likely convey a wide range of meanings” beyond what an advertiser can support. Because advertisers must be able to support all reasonable interpretations of a claim – not just the one they intended – this can be a problem. Instead, advertisers “should use clear and prominent qualifying language that limits the claim to a specific benefit or benefits.”

The front of the Quilted Northern packages prominently advertised: “Premium comfort made sustainably.” Georgia-Pacific argued that other statements on the front of the package – such as “3 trees planted for every tree used” and “energy efficient manufacturing” – served to qualify the claim to specific benefits. NAD didn’t agree, in part, because while the claim appeared at the top of the package, the qualifying language appeared at the bottom, and there were a lot of other things in between.

Quilted Northern Package

The same “sustainability” claim appeared on the back of the package. Right below that, however, Georgia-Pacific included qualifying language. NAD noted that the claim and qualifiers “appear in the same style of font over a unified background, suggesting that the statements should be read together.” Thus, “in this context, in direct proximity and integrated with qualifying language, consumers viewing the product label are not likely to miss or ignore that the claim is tied to the specifically described benefits.”

If you’re making green claims, this case demonstrates how difficult it can be to make these types of claims in a way that withstands scrutiny. If you aren’t making green claims, congratulations on reading this far. This case is still important because it illustrates some of the boundaries of what you can do with disclosures. The more your disclosure is separated from the claim, the harder it may be for you to argue that the disclosure effectively qualifies the claim.

Last week, we wrote about FTC Chair Khan’s memo describing her plans to transform the FTC’s approach to its work. This week, she followed up with a no-less-ambitious statement laying out her vision for data privacy and security, which she appended to an agency Report to Congress on Privacy and Security (“report”). Together, these documents outline a remarkably far-reaching plan to tackle today’s data privacy and security challenges. As noted in the dissents, however, some of the stated goals may exceed the bounds of the FTC’s current legal authority.

Continue Reading FTC Chair Khan’s Vision for Privacy – and Some Dissents

On September 29, 2021, the Senate Commerce Subcommittee held a hearing titled Protecting Consumer Privacy. The senators addressed the potential $1 billion earmarked to strengthen the FTC’s privacy work, the future of a federal privacy and data protection law, and a myriad of other privacy related topics such as children’s privacy.

Prepared Statements. In their opening testimonies, the witnesses emphasized different types of needs for the FTC.

  • David Vladeck, a former Director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, strongly advocated for a federal privacy law and additional funding for the FTC to support increased efforts on technology-centered consumer protection enforcement. In his remarks, Vladeck noted that the FTC has been wholly understaffed and underfunded for forty years, despite the agency’s ever increasing responsibilities and the complexity of issues it now faces. Additionally, Vladeck emphasized the need to increase the FTC’s enforcement powers by giving the FTC rulemaking authority under the APA and civil penalty authority.
  • Morgan Reed, the president of The App Association, focused more on the need for a federal privacy law to reduce the compliance costs for small businesses. He reiterated that the patchwork of state laws increases risk and costs for small businesses.
  • Maureen Olhausen, a former Acting FTC Chairman and Commissioner, shifted the conversation from funding for the FTC to the importance of a federal privacy law. She noted that “the FTC lacks explicit authority to enforce statutory privacy requirements or promulgate privacy regulations,” and that a federal privacy law should address this gap, allowing for enforcement, along with state attorneys general.
  • Ashkan Soltani, a former FTC Chief Technologist, primarily concentrated on the urgent need for expertise at the FTC. He emphasized the importance of hiring technologists and experts, but also paying them competitive rates to retain talent. The FTC is understaffed to handle litigation matters or to monitor compliance with consent orders, particularly those that require technical fluency.

Discussing the Federal Privacy Bill. The senators appeared to be in consensus that there is a need for a federal privacy law. Senator Wicker called on the Biden Administration to provide a liaison to Congress to prioritize the enactment of a law.

  • Right to Cure. Reed was adamant that a right to cure provision be written into the bill to protect small businesses from being punitively fined for unintentional mistakes such as not responding to an email within 30 days.
  • Private Right of Action. The witnesses went back and forth on the correct approach to a private right of action. While Soltani supported a private right of action as a means to “make up for the concern that there’s not enough enforcement capacity,” Olhausen was concerned that the private right of action would not result in consumer redress, but rather attorney’s fees. Reed stated that he preferred injunctive relief as a type of private right of action. Similarly, Soltani noted that in his experience, core behavior changes come not from fines, but injunctions and restrictions imposed on the business.
  • Preemption. Vladeck, Reed, and Olhausen supported federal preemption. Soltani agreed that a federal privacy law should only be a floor, and not a ceiling. In other words, a federal privacy law should preempt less rigorous laws to set a baseline standard, but states could enact additional measures and add further protections for their constituents.
  • Carve-out. The witnesses went back and forth on whether size of business should factor into whether an entity would be covered by the bill. Vladeck emphasized that small businesses can create big harms; therefore, the legislation needs to be focused on consumer harm rather than the size of the company. Reed agreed, but reiterated the need for a right to cure for small businesses.

Funding for the FTC. Senators focused on whether the FTC needs $1 billion to achieve its goal of protecting consumers. Vladeck wholeheartedly agreed and said that an additional $100 million a year would be a good start for the FTC. For example, on the recent Google litigation, Vladeck theorized that Google had 1,000 privacy attorneys, whereas the FTC had less than 100. Vladeck noted that the funding would be earmarked for hiring more attorneys, engineers, and technologists, as well as setting up a new bureau of privacy.

Children’s Privacy. The witnesses received several questions on their thoughts on protecting children’s privacy in the aftermath of reports on how social media impacts children’s mental health. Vladeck specifically advocated for lowering the scienter standard that the FTC has to prove to show that a developer knew their technology was tracking children. This mirrors the EU’s “constructive knowledge” standard that is used for children’s privacy. Additionally, Vladeck suggested getting rid of COPPA’s safe harbor program and rethinking the age limit. All witnesses agreed that children were vulnerable to targeted ads. In response to Senator Markey’s concern for children’s privacy, all witnesses responded that they would approve of another children’s privacy bill if Congress could not enact a sweeping data protection and privacy law for adults.

The Senate yesterday confirmed current FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra as the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The 50-48 vote to confirm was along party lines and followed Vice President Harris’s breaking of a 50-50 tie to invoke cloture and end debate on Chopra’s nomination.

With Chopra’s departure from the FTC to head the CFPB, the Commission will for now have two Democratic and two Republican Commissioners, deadlocking on key contested enforcement and regulatory initiatives. As we have discussed at length in a series of posts, Chair Khan has previewed a number of regulatory and enforcement initiatives – with Republican Commissioners Christine Wilson and Noah Phillips raising questions and often issuing dissents. Commission decisions on Chair Khan’s initiatives could be stalled until President Biden’s nominee for the fifth Commissioner slot, privacy expert Alvaro Bedoya, is confirmed.

During his tenure as a Commissioner at the FTC, Chopra pushed for aggressive enforcement and greater penalties against companies and individuals. He also vocally advocated for creatively using FTC authority to fill a perceived gap caused by the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management that the FTC lacked authority under Section 13(b) to obtain equitable monetary relief. Chopra is expected to bring this same enforcement-minded approach to the CFPB.
When Chopra testified before the Senate Banking Committee back in March 2021, he outlined his priorities and concerns about a range of different industries. From big tech to fintech, student loans to auto loans, and interest rate regulations to the housing market, Chopra signaled that more aggressive enforcement is likely coming from the CFPB.

Chopra is anticipated to hit the ground running—exploring all the tools at the CFPB’s disposal to closely monitor financial institutions, credit bureaus, debt collectors, and tech companies. Particularly with his history as the CFPB’s student loan ombudsman, and his focus on for-profit colleges, Chopra will also likely take a close look at loan servicers and others in the education industry subject to CFPB enforcement.


Ad Law News and Views

As more companies develop Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”) goals and advertise their progress towards those goals, we’re starting to see more challenges to those ads. Most of the challenges come from plaintiffs’ attorneys or competitors, but today’s post is about an inquiry that NAD initiated itself into claims that Georgia-Pacific made for its Quilted Northern Ultra Soft & Strong Bathroom Tissue.

The decision covers a lot of ground. For today, though, we’ll focus on an issue that we previewed earlier this year – the distinction between claims about what a company has already done versus what it plans to do.

Georgia-Pacific advertises that “3 trees [are] planted for every tree used.” In support of its claim, the advertiser explained that when it produces its paper products, it sources trees from “working forests” where a tree is regrown for each tree used. In addition, it has an agreement with the Arbor Day Foundation in which the Foundation has agreed to plant two trees for every tree used during the production process. Based on this evidence and a spreadsheet showing how the company tracked how many trees were used and planted, NAD determined that the claim was substantiated.

Georgia-Pacific also advertised that it planned “to plant 2 million new trees by the end of 2021.” Aspirational claims can be tricky. Because they inherently involve things that have not yet occurred, it can be harder to substantiate them. Still – as the pending lawsuit against Coca-Cola demonstrates – that doesn’t mean that they are off-limits to a challenge. NAD noted that if an “aspirational claim includes specific, objective goals . . . it is incumbent on an advertiser to provide evidence that it is committed to its stated goal and has taken action to realistically reach it.”

In this case, the evidence Georgia-Pacific presented to support its “3 trees planted for every tree used” claim also helped to support the aspirational claim. Its tracking document showed how many trees had been used in 2021 and projections of how many more would be used. When considered in conjunction with the evidence that Georgia-Pacific planted three trees for each of those used, NAD determined that the claim was supported by a reasonable basis in evidence.

Whether you’re talking about what you’ve done, what you’re doing, or what you plan to do for the environment, it’s important to have evidence to back that up. What you need for future aspirational claims may vary, but make sure you have a reasonable plan to achieve your goal and that you can demonstrate that you’ve made some progress on that path. Simply having an aspiration is not going to be enough.

Next week, we’ll look at another type of claim addressed in the decision – claims about “sustainability.”

As of September 27, 2021, the European Commission requires controllers and processors to rely on the recently updated Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) for any new contracts governing personal data transfers from the EEA. (Existing contracts can continue to use old SCCs until December 27, 2022.)  This post provides an overview of what’s in the new SCCs and how they compare to the old clauses they replace.

The Need for New Standard Clauses.  Like the old SCCs, the new SCCs are model data transfer provisions designed to provide an “adequate” level of data protection in countries that have not received an adequacy determination (“third countries”).

A lot has changed, however, since the European Commission developed the old SCCs; and the SCCs were due for an update.  The old SCCs were based on the GDPR’s predecessor, the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC, and only addressed controller-to-controller transfers (issued in 2001) and controller-to-processor transfers (2010), respectively. The previous SCCs did not cover processor-to-processor transfers or processor-to-controller transfers, and gave limited choices for governing law and venue to resolve disputes, among other limitations.

In the intervening years, data transfers have increased in complexity and volume. The GDPR imposes its more comprehensive obligations on controllers and processors. And the Schrems II decision, which invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, requires analysis of surveillance practices and other conditions in third countries such as the United States.

Key Changes.  The new SCCs apply to a more complete range of data relationships and are divided into four different modules:

  • (Module 1) controller to controller;
  • (Module 2) controller to processor;
  • (Module 3) processor to sub-processor; and,
  • (Module 4) processor to controller.

These modules are covered by a single draft of the SCCs (unlike the old SCCs, which were issued in two separate decisions, which were a source of much confusion).

The new SCCs more closely mirror the GDPR’s requirements and address important issues raised in the Schrems II ruling. Schrems II focused on the potential harm to EEA data subjects whose information was transferred outside of the EEA and could be accessed by third-country authorities in bulk and without sufficient safeguards. The European Commission included several contractual terms in the new SCCs to address these concerns, such as:

  • Clause 14: Parties provide contractual warranties regarding protections for personal data in cases of access by authorities;
  • Clause 15: Data importer agrees to further obligations in cases of a request for disclosure by authorities, including to notify the data exporter, review the legality of the request for disclosure, appeal if the request is unlawful under international law, and provide the minimum information possible to a request;
  • Annex II: SCCs provide an opportunity to list all supplemental technical and organizational measures used to protect personal data.

What About the UK?  It is important to note—since the UK recently left the EU and the transition period for its withdrawal expired at the end of 2020—the SCCs do not automatically apply to the UK GDPR. However, the Schrems II decision does apply to UK law because it was handed down in 2020 during the Brexit transition period. The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is expected to come out with guidance in the coming months for revisions to the SCCs under the UK GDPR that incorporate the Schrems II provisions.

Practical Impact.  Any contracts that were finalized prior to September 27, 2021 can continue to rely on the old SCCs until December 27, 2022 as long as the data processing obligations remain unchanged.

It would be worthwhile for data importers to take stock of their data collection practices and review their responsibilities under the new SCCs. This is a good time for companies to determine whether their DPAs have terms that are inconsistent with the new SCCs and, if they do, to resolve those inconsistencies. For companies that have global DPAs, an SCC-driven review presents a good opportunity to update the DPA to account for new contract requirements from the CPRA, VCDPA, and ColoPA. For example, the CPRA requires third party contracts to include provisions limiting personal information sales to specified purposes. Both VCDPA and ColoPA require controllers to have contracts with specific instructions on how the processors must process data such as the type and duration of processing.

On September 22, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) issued an invitation for public comments as part of its first “preliminary” rulemaking activities.  Established by the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) ballot initiative last November, the CPPA has the authority to write rules that address some of the most technical and controversial topics addressed in the CPRA.

The CPPA’s rulemaking process kicks off a little more than a year after the Office of the California Attorney General’s first set of final rules implementing the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) went into effect.  The Attorney General Office’s approach to CCPA regulations focused primarily on developing a standardized approach to implementing core CCPA compliance concepts: notice, responses to and verification of consumer requests, the service provider definition and obligations, and non-discrimination standards.

The CPRA puts thornier issues into play for rulemaking: assessing risks to consumer privacy, standards for using automated decisionmaking, limiting uses of sensitive personal information, and further defining what it means to “combine” consumer personal information.

Given the challenge ahead, it is not surprising that the CPPA indicated that it is not interested in re-litigating old battles addressed in the CCPA regulations, stating it is “particularly interested in comments on new and undecided issues not already covered by the existing CCPA regulations.”

Here’s a preview of key rulemaking topics under consideration at the CPPA:

  • Opt Out Rights
    The CPRA expands consumers’ rights related to their personal information held by businesses, including adding a new right to opt out of “sharing” of personal information for cross context behavioral advertising, and a new right to limit the use and disclosure of sensitive personal information. The CPPA requests comments on how to allow consumers to limit use of sensitive personal information, how to apply opt-out rights to certain minors, and how to enable consumers who have opted out to consent to uses of their personal information.  The CPPA also requests comment on how to interpret certain exemptions to the right to limit use and disclosure of sensitive personal information.The CPPA also delves directly into a debate on global privacy controls, asking “what requirements and technical specifications should define an opt-out preference signal sent by a platform, technology, or mechanism.”
  • Intentional Interaction Standard
    Closely related to the CCPA’s opt-out right, an important, broad exemption to a “sale” involves an “intentional interaction” in which a consumer demonstrates through an interaction that the consumer agrees to the transfer of their personal information to a third party.  The CPPA solicits comment on whether it should further refine the definition of “intentionally interacts.”
  • Risk Assessments
    The CPPA has the authority to require businesses that engage in activities that present a significant risk to consumer privacy or security to perform regular cybersecurity audits and privacy risk assessments (similar to DPIAs required by GDPR and data protection assessments under Virginia’s and Colorado’s privacy laws – the VCDPA and ColoPA, respectively).The CPPA solicits comments on the meaning of “significant risk” and the types of requirements that should apply to these regular audits and assessments.  The CPPA also asks whether activities deemed an undue risk should be restricted or prohibited.
  • Automated Decisionmaking
    The CPPA solicits feedback on how it should implement its authority regarding automated decisionmaking technology, including how to define “automated decisionmaking,” the types of disclosures that should be provided to consumers, and any rights to opt out. Like risk assessments, this concept could mimic existing EU law.  Article 22 of the GDPR restricts automated processing that produces legal effects or has a similarly significant effect on the individual.  The VCDPA and ColoPA import similar concepts through their provisions on “profiling.”  It remains to be seen whether the CPPA will interpret its automated decisionmaking authority consistent with GDPR, Colorado, and Virginia.
  • Service Provider Restrictions on Combining Data from Multiple Customers
    The CPPA seeks comments on the definition of “business purposes” for which service providers and others may “combine” personal information obtained from different sources.  Although this issue was addressed in the AG’s rulemaking process, the invitation for comment raises the question on whether the CPPA may further limit a service provider’s ability to combine personal information.  Further restrictions could have a broad impact on everything from security to the development and improvement of artificial intelligence systems.

Aside from these significant topics, the CPPA will also address technical issues that can have a material impact on business compliance processes.  These include:

  • Right to Correct:  The CPPA solicits feedback on necessary adjustments to the CCPA rules to incorporate the new consumer right to correct inaccurate personal information.
  • Lookback:  The CPPA requests comment on how to operationalize the twelve-month lookback, focusing in particular on what it means for a company to deny a request for information from beyond twelve months based on the “impossible” or “disproportionate effort” standards described in the CPRA.
  • Audit Authority:  The CPPA seeks feedback on its authority to audit compliance with CPRA.
  • Definitions:  The CPPA solicits feedback on any necessary changes to CPRA definitions, including the definition of personal information, sensitive personal information, “specific pieces of information obtained from the consumer” (e.g., what must be provided in response to an access request), deidentified, unique identifier, precise geolocation, and dark patterns.

Responses to the CPPA’s request for comments are due by November 8, 2021.  If you are interested in submitting comments to the CPPA, please reach out to attorneys in the Privacy and Information Security practice group at Kelley Drye for assistance.

On Wednesday, FTC Chair Lina Khan sent a memo to FTC staff and Commissioners making her Acting Bureau Directors permanent and outlining her vision and priorities for the FTC. The memo provides much-anticipated guidance to both the FTC and the public regarding the direction she will take to running the agency and fulfilling its mission. It also hints at structural changes we may see in the coming months.

The memo calls for a fundamental shift in how the FTC approaches its work. Recognizing that the FTC has “navigated various periods of change and transformation” during its 107-year history, it states that “[a]t its best, the agency has focused on tackling urgent problems, learning from new evidence, and course-correcting where needed.” It expresses confidence that “American consumers, workers, and honest businesses [can] depend on the Commission to champion a fair and thriving economy for all,” but says that achieving these goals will require the FTC to adjust its approach and “focus on key strategic priorities and operational objectives.”

Although the memo is divided into multiple sections (Strategic Approach, Policy Priorities, and Operational Objectives), it boils down to these key takeaways:

  • The FTC will take a “holistic” approach to competition and consumer protection, focusing on the greatest harms to consumers, workers, and businesses, moving away from existing “siloes” between Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection, and applying an integrated approach to cases, rules, research, and other efforts.
  • The FTC will focus on the “root causes” of harm, including “gatekeepers” that use their critical market position to “hike fees, dictate terms, and protect and extend their market power,” contract terms (such as non-competes and repair restrictions) that perpetuate market abuses, and harms directed at marginalized communities. It will avoid a “one-off…whack-a-mole” approach that imposes “significant enforcement burden with few long term benefits.” Merger enforcement will be a major focus and is already drawing on resources from other parts of the agency.
  • The agency will incorporate a “greater range of analytical tools and skillsets” into its work – focusing not just on enforcement but on research and rulemaking to understand the marketplace and target harmful practices before they occur. To accomplish this work, the agency will bring on additional technologists, data and financial analysts, and experts from “outside disciplines” (the suggestion being that there will be fewer attorneys, as well as perhaps more short-term employment arrangements).
  • To “democratize” the agency and ensure that it is reaching communities across the country, the agency will “expand [its] regional footprint” and “fill out [its] ranks by “taking advantage of a national pool of qualified candidates.” In other words, more personnel will be allocated to the agency’s existing regional offices (and potentially new ones).

The memo provides more detail as to the Chair’s ambitious agenda than anything she has said or written since her appointment in June. It also builds on themes – strategic use of resources, focus on “root causes” of harm, breaking down siloes – that have long been important priorities at the agency, given its small size and vast mission. But her plans and proposals leave many questions unanswered. For example:

  • What does Khan think about the new $1B privacy bureau that the House of Representatives just voted to create for the agency? The memo doesn’t even mention it, even as it mentions specific proposals related to mergers and contract terms.
  • Her call for greater coordination between the Bureaus has been a refrain among agency leaders for decades, but it is difficult to fix this problem under the current agency structure. Is Khan planning to make any organizational and structural changes to break down the walls between the Bureaus?
  • The memo suggests that Khan will significantly reshape the FTC’s workforce by allocating more staff to the regional offices and increasing the proportion of non-lawyers (technologists, analysts, outside experts) at the agency. Will she make these changes incrementally or through reassignments and buyouts, and how will this affect the agency’s expertise, morale, and productivity?
  • In shifting more resources towards rulemaking and research, Khan seems to want to transform the FTC from an enforcement agency into a regulatory one. However, one major obstacle is that the FTC’s inherent rulemaking authority (so-called Magnuson-Moss rulemaking) is highly cumbersome, taking as long as nine years to produce rules. While the agency recently amended its rules to expedite certain steps, rulemakings under this process will still take years to complete. Will the FTC really be able to regulate effectively under these procedures?
  • Finally, the memo contains some references that clearly have significance but are puzzling. For example, it refers to “the growing role of private equity and other investment vehicles” that may distort ordinary incentives and facilitate abuses that harm marginalized communities. Is private equity and investment really within the ambit of the FTC, and is Khan coordinating with SEC and other financial regulators? Also, her pointed reference to protecting “workers and independent businesses as well as consumers” requires more explanation than is given in the memo. In addition, it’s not clear what exactly she means by “one off…whack-a-mole” enforcement. If she means that the FTC should stop bringing cases against smaller entities as opposed to “gatekeepers,” that will leave consumers exposed to considerable fraud and deception.

We will closely watch FTC developments to see how these plans unfold.  It could be a bumpy ride in the next few months with staff turnover, proposed rules and studies, and warning letters and civil investigative demands (CIDs) that raise new or different concerns. Keep your eye on this space for updates.

Over the past ten years, new technologies have forced a dizzying pace of evolution in advertising and marketing.  All of this change begs the question:  what will the next ten years bring?  How will AI eliminate inefficiencies and create new challenges?  In what ways will advertising enable access to content and enable consumer purchase decisions?  What role will biometric data play in accessing, personalizing, and securing products and services?  And how will companies meet the expectations of post-Millennial generations?

These questions have been addressed thoughtfully by Kate Scott Dawkins of Essence Global.   Kate’s insights are summarized in her article The “Dynamic” Future of Advertising.


She will be a featured speaker at next week’s NAD conference, which offers a three days of great content.  The conference agenda and registration page can be accessed here.


The full Essence Global report Advertising in 2030 – Expert Predictions on the Future of Advertising is available here.