Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
e-Commerce Docket Sheet
(Editor's note: This month's Docket Sheet features recent e-commerce related actions from the Federal Trade Commission.)
QVC to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle Charges
That It Aired Deceptive Claims
Television home-shopping giant QVC recently agreed with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to pay $7.5 million to settle FTC charges that it made “false and unsubstantiated claims” about three dietary supplement types ' a violation of an FTC order, and about an anti-cellulite skin cream ' a violation of the FTC Act.
The FTC alleged that QVC violated a 2000 Commission order barring the company from making deceptive claims for dietary supplements. The Commission says that QVC aired about 200 programs that included false and unsubstantiated claims about For Women Only weight-loss pills, Lite Bites weight-loss food bars and shakes, and Bee-Alive Royal Jelly energy supplements.
The complaint also charged that QVC violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making unsubstantiated claims about Lipofactor Cellulite Target Lotion.
Under the settlement, QVC will pay $6 million to consumers and a $1.5 million civil penalty. The settlement also expands the prior FTC order, barring QVC from making unsubstantiated claims that any drug or cosmetic eliminates or reduces a user's cellulite.
“QVC aired ads that weren't true and violated an FTC order,” FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Acting Director Eileen Harrington said in a news release detailing the settlement. “Simply put, we aren't going to let QVC get away with this. The company is responsible for the product claims made on its programs, and we expect that going forward, QVC will do a better job for its audience and make sure that its programs are truthful and not deceptive.”
The FTC alleges that the advertisements included unsubstantiated claims, such as that:
- The weight-loss supplements could cause people to lose significant amounts of weight, maintain weight loss for a long time and prevent carbohydrates from being stored as fat;
- The weight-loss supplements could prevent dietary fat from being absorbed in peoples' bodies;
- The energy-enhancing supplements could reduce fatigue and increase energy in people with severe fatigue and other physical ailments; and
- Lipofactor lotion could reduce cellulite, including measurable decreases in the sizes of individuals' arms, legs and abdomens.
The Department of Justice's Office of Consumer Litigation filed the complaint in federal district court at the FTC's request in March 2004; attorneys from both agencies worked on the litigation.
The Commission vote authorizing a new settlement order to be filed was 4-0. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered the new order on March 4, 2009.
A copy of the consent decree is available at www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/9823152/090319so9823152.pdf.
Credit Repair Companies Charged with Deceiving Consumers
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently brought charges against seven related companies for violating federal law by falsely promising removal of consumers' negative credit-report information, including accurate, current, information, and charging an up-front fee but failing to provide written disclosures. The FTC says the claims were made in print ads, radio spots and through ads on a Web site related to house-buying in New Jersey.
The government says that its intent is to stop the firms from violating the law and to pay consumers restitution.
According to the FTC, the defendants charge consumers up to $2,000, including $300 in advance, promising to improve credit scores.
Besides facing deceptive-marketing charges under the FTC Act, the defendants are charged with violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act by misrepresenting their services, charging in advance for credit-repair services, and failing to provide consumers with written contracts and other materials that contain written disclosures required by law or deviating from the required wording for the disclosures.
The Commission voted 4-0 to file the complaint, which was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. A copy of the complaint is available at www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823211/090317ucacmpt.pdf.
The FTC also issued an advisory warning consumers that only time, a conscious effort and a personal debt-repayment plan can improve a credit report.
(Editor's note: This month's Docket Sheet features recent e-commerce related actions from the Federal Trade Commission.)
QVC to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle Charges
That It Aired Deceptive Claims
Television home-shopping giant QVC recently agreed with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to pay $7.5 million to settle FTC charges that it made “false and unsubstantiated claims” about three dietary supplement types ' a violation of an FTC order, and about an anti-cellulite skin cream ' a violation of the FTC Act.
The FTC alleged that QVC violated a 2000 Commission order barring the company from making deceptive claims for dietary supplements. The Commission says that QVC aired about 200 programs that included false and unsubstantiated claims about For Women Only weight-loss pills, Lite Bites weight-loss food bars and shakes, and Bee-Alive Royal Jelly energy supplements.
The complaint also charged that QVC violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by making unsubstantiated claims about Lipofactor Cellulite
Under the settlement, QVC will pay $6 million to consumers and a $1.5 million civil penalty. The settlement also expands the prior FTC order, barring QVC from making unsubstantiated claims that any drug or cosmetic eliminates or reduces a user's cellulite.
“QVC aired ads that weren't true and violated an FTC order,” FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Acting Director Eileen Harrington said in a news release detailing the settlement. “Simply put, we aren't going to let QVC get away with this. The company is responsible for the product claims made on its programs, and we expect that going forward, QVC will do a better job for its audience and make sure that its programs are truthful and not deceptive.”
The FTC alleges that the advertisements included unsubstantiated claims, such as that:
- The weight-loss supplements could cause people to lose significant amounts of weight, maintain weight loss for a long time and prevent carbohydrates from being stored as fat;
- The weight-loss supplements could prevent dietary fat from being absorbed in peoples' bodies;
- The energy-enhancing supplements could reduce fatigue and increase energy in people with severe fatigue and other physical ailments; and
- Lipofactor lotion could reduce cellulite, including measurable decreases in the sizes of individuals' arms, legs and abdomens.
The Department of Justice's Office of Consumer Litigation filed the complaint in federal district court at the FTC's request in March 2004; attorneys from both agencies worked on the litigation.
The Commission vote authorizing a new settlement order to be filed was 4-0. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered the new order on March 4, 2009.
A copy of the consent decree is available at www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/9823152/090319so9823152.pdf.
Credit Repair Companies Charged with Deceiving Consumers
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently brought charges against seven related companies for violating federal law by falsely promising removal of consumers' negative credit-report information, including accurate, current, information, and charging an up-front fee but failing to provide written disclosures. The FTC says the claims were made in print ads, radio spots and through ads on a Web site related to house-buying in New Jersey.
The government says that its intent is to stop the firms from violating the law and to pay consumers restitution.
According to the FTC, the defendants charge consumers up to $2,000, including $300 in advance, promising to improve credit scores.
Besides facing deceptive-marketing charges under the FTC Act, the defendants are charged with violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act by misrepresenting their services, charging in advance for credit-repair services, and failing to provide consumers with written contracts and other materials that contain written disclosures required by law or deviating from the required wording for the disclosures.
The Commission voted 4-0 to file the complaint, which was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. A copy of the complaint is available at www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0823211/090317ucacmpt.pdf.
The FTC also issued an advisory warning consumers that only time, a conscious effort and a personal debt-repayment plan can improve a credit report.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.