FTC Action Against Lord & Taylor Social Media Campaign Has Repercussions for Broadcasters
Consumer protection is always in style at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC”). When 50 fashion “influencers” flooded Instagram, all wearing the same dress in photos tagged “@lordandtaylor”, and an article featuring the same dress appeared in the online fashion magazine Nylon, some at the FTC suspected an advertising campaign masquerading as a social media dialogue. While this matter arose in a “new media” context, and therefore impacts all businesses’ online activities, broadcasters are doubly affected—online and on-air—by the FTC’s action.
As we describe in more detail in our Client Advisory Lord and Taylor Case Shows the Importance of Transparency in Advertising, the FTC’s investigation into a supposedly viral phenomenon unveiled an integrated advertising campaign. Among other things, Lord & Taylor formally contracted with fashion influencers, giving them the dress for free and compensating them to “product bomb” Instagram with photos of themselves wearing the dress on one particular weekend. Lord & Taylor approved the influencers’ posts and required them to include the @lordandtaylor tag and #DesignLab hashtag. Lord & Taylor also contracted with Nylon to run an article about its new Design Lab collection, featuring the dress in the article and on Nylon’s Instagram page as well. Again, Lord & Taylor reviewed the content before it was published. However, Lord & Taylor did not require the influencers or Nylon to disclose their connection to Lord & Taylor or that they had been compensated for posting the photos and comments.
In December 2015, the FTC released its Enforcement Policy Statement on Deceptively Formatted Advertisements. The Policy Statement provides an overview of how the FTC intends to apply its consumer protection principles to “native advertising”—online advertising material that resembles editorial content, product reviews, or other content which could mislead consumers into believing that the advertising isn’t really advertising. It also notes some factors that have contributed to a rise in native advertising online, such as the increased ability of publishers to quickly and cheaply reformat and reuse content, evolving business models around monetization of content, and the ability of consumers to skip or block ads placing pressure on advertisers to capture consumers’ attention. However, the Policy Statement concludes that “[a]lthough digital media has expanded and changed the way marketers reach consumers, all advertisers, including digital advertisers, must comply with the same legal principles regarding deceptive conduct the Commission has long enforced.”
In setting out what those legal principles are, the FTC referred back to many cases involving a wide variety of media, including television infomercials that blurred the line between advertising and editorial content. The FTC brought numerous cases in the 1980s and 1990s against infomercials that looked like investigative news reports or consumer product review content and required the addition of conspicuous “PAID ADVERTISEMENT” disclosures at the beginning and throughout the program where product ordering information was presented.
The FTC’s approach to digital marketing is similar. In its Native Advertising: A Guide For Businesses released along with the December Policy Statement, the FTC noted “[t]he more a native ad is similar in format and topic to content on the publisher’s site, the more likely that a disclosure will be necessary to prevent deception.” In the Lord & Taylor case, the Nylon article used language similar to traditional editorial content recommending certain fashion choices. Specifically, it stated: “[W]e’re taking out the guess work and introducing you to spring’s must-have line: Lord & Taylor’s Design Lab.” The FTC faulted Lord & Taylor for not requiring a disclosure that the article was paid-for advertising.
In addition, the FTC’s updated Endorsement Guides published in 2009 require that when advertisers recruit endorsers and provide them with free merchandise or other compensation, they must require their endorsers to clearly and conspicuously disclose their connection to the advertiser and, further, to monitor those endorsements for accuracy and inclusion of the required disclosure language. Here, while Lord & Taylor did review and even edit the endorsements, it did not require any disclosure of the endorser’s relationship with Lord & Taylor. We have written extensively about the Endorsement Guides and how they apply to broadcasters, including common situations that arise in on-air “banter”, here and here.
As a result of its investigation into Lord & Taylor’s advertising of the Design Lab line, the FTC and Lord & Taylor agreed to a settlement which imposes a number of conditions beyond mere compliance on Lord & Taylor going forward. These include filing various reports with the FTC, preserving documents for later FTC review should it be necessary, and providing copies of the settlement agreement to all those who have anything to do with creating similar advertising campaigns. The case is an important reminder to all advertisers that, as the FTC has said, “[r]egardless of the medium in which an advertising or promotional message is disseminated, deception occurs when consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances are misled about its nature or source, and such misleading impression is likely to affect their decisions or conduct regarding the advertised product or the advertising.”
Do your online and on-air promotions meet this test?