Friday, November 22, 2024
Lawyers Run The WorldFTC Focus Turns to Deceptive Use of Search Terms

FTC Focus Turns to Deceptive Use of Search Terms

-

- Advertisment -spot_img

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits ‘‘unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” Traditionally, the Commission has focused upon direct advertising claims, both express and implied. However, two recent matters place online marketers on notice that the Commission is now closely scrutinizing indirect advertising through the use of purchased search terms.

Lumos Labs, Inc.

On January 5, 2016, the FTC announced a settlement agreement with the owners of Lumosity. The creators and marketers of the Lumosity “brain training” program agreed to settle charges alleging that they deceived consumers with unfounded claims that Lumosity games can help users perform better at work and in school, and reduce or delay cognitive impairment associated with age and other serious health conditions.

Interestingly, the complaint describes both the advertisements themselves, as well as the search terms Lumosity purchased and utilized in order to direct consumers to its website.

Specifically, the complaint states:

“Defendants have employed an extensive search engine campaign, including through Google AdWords, and have purchased hundreds of keywords, including many variations of words related to memory, attention, intelligence, brain, cognition, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease.”

The FTC alleges that the use of these keywords constitutes a deceptive trade practice.

Stratford Career Institute

In conjunction with a recent regulatory sweep of academic degree and certification programs, the FTC also refers to false and misleading search terms in its complaint filed last month against Stratford.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Stratford’s extensive advertising for its high school program included multiple references to a “high school diploma” leading to an increase in earning potential, access to better jobs and promotions, and the ability to apply for higher education. The FTC’s complaint alleges that Stratford’s high school program fell short of its promises, meaning thousands of students nationwide paid as much as $989 for a diploma that could not meet their educational or career needs.

The Commission not only refers to the Stratford website, brochures, commercials, and letters to prospective applicants, the complaint also alleges that the school purchased online advertising tied to search terms like “official high school diploma,” “real high school diploma online,” and “legal high school diploma” in order to direct potential students to the Stratford website.

Clearly, the Commission is broadening its definition of unfair and deceptive trade practices to include both direct and indirect advertising.

Consult with an experienced advertising law attorney if you utilize search terms to direct consumers to your website. Keywords must meet the same regulatory standards as terms directly stated to consumers via other advertising methods.

Information conveyed in this article does not purport to cover every issue associated with the deceptive use of purchased search terms. This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute, nor should it be relied upon, as legal advice. No person should act or rely on any information in this article without seeking the advice of an attorney.

Richard B. Newman
Richard B. Newmanhttp://www.hinchnewman.com
Richard B. Newman is an Internet Lawyer at Hinch Newman LLP focusing on advertising law, Internet marketing compliance, regulatory defense and digital media matters. His practice involves conducting legal compliance reviews of advertising campaigns across all media channels, regularly representing clients in high-profile investigative proceedings and enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general throughout the country, advertising and marketing litigation, advising on email and telemarketing best practice protocol implementation, counseling on eCommerce guidelines and promotional marketing programs, and negotiating and drafting legal agreements.

What's your opinion?

Latest news

Disney Gets Dirty: Playing in Programmatic’s Muddy Waters

Once upon a time, Disney stood as the epitome of wholesome family entertainment. But now, the House of Mouse...

The Trade Desk’s Ventura: Shaking Up CTV or Just Stirring the Pot?

Connected TV (CTV) just got a wake-up call—or maybe a Molotov cocktail. The Trade Desk has announced Ventura, its new...

From Big Ideas to Tiny Banners: How #Adtech Shrinks the Dream

When I resurrected this newsletter from the ashes of my previous endeavor—dusted it off like some overambitious Frankenstein experiment—I...

The Ad Tech Racket: How The Trade Desk is Taxing Your Campaigns Into Oblivion

Let’s talk about The Trade Desk (TTD) and their latest contribution to the world of advertising—what can only be...

PubMatic Bets Big on Elon’s X: Bold Innovation or PR Suicide?

PubMatic has officially stepped into the lion’s den, announcing its partnership with Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) as its...

The AdTech Wizard of Odds: Gareth Holmes on Streaming Ads, Helicopters, and Unleashing Sweden’s Secret Sauce 

Adtech is often described as a wild west, but Gareth Holmes makes it sound more like Cirque du Soleil—complete...

Must read

The Trade Desk’s Ventura: Shaking Up CTV or Just Stirring the Pot?

Connected TV (CTV) just got a wake-up call—or maybe...

From Big Ideas to Tiny Banners: How #Adtech Shrinks the Dream

When I resurrected this newsletter from the ashes of...

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you