Regulatory: Analyzing the FTC’s updated digital advertising guidelines
After much anticipation from the marketing community, on March 12, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finally unveiled .com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising, its eagerly awaited revised dot-com disclosures guidance.
March 27, 2013 at 03:30 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the second in a series of three articles about Federal Trade Commission and state attorney general regulatory and enforcement trends. Read part one.
After much anticipation from the marketing community, on March 12, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finally unveiled “.com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising,” its eagerly awaited revised dot-com disclosures guidance.
The FTC undertook revisions to these guides in light of the significant technological and industry changes that have occurred since it first issued the guidance in 2000. In particular, the updated “.com Disclosures” was intended to provide the industry with more specific guidance on the FTC's requirements that disclosures be made clearly and conspicuously on digital and mobile platforms with space-constrained screens and real estate.
For those who had hoped the new guidance might provide some relief
from the challenges of applying traditional disclosure requirements to their digital and mobile campaigns, the result is disappointing. Far from relaxing the 2000 guides in light of the challenges of adapting brands to digital media, the FTC has sent a message that space constraints and small screens are no excuse for the failure to make adequate disclosures. The overarching message is clear—advertisers will either have to find a way to make the required disclosures clearly and conspicuously, notwithstanding space and screen constraints, or refrain from advertising their offer in that particular medium or platform.
Many of the general principles regarding what constitutes clear and conspicuous disclosure remain relatively unchanged. For example, the FTC cites the following general principles for determining whether a disclosure is clear and conspicuous: prominence, placement in the ad and its proximity to the claim being modified, prominence of the disclosure, whether the disclosure is unavoidable, the extent to which other elements of the ad might distract attention from the disclosure, whether the disclosure needs to be repeated because, for example, there are multiple paths through which consumers may enter the site, and whether the disclosure is presented in language that is understandable.
There are, however, a number of new directives, examples and warnings relating specifically to digital and mobile media to which brands should pay particular attention, as they may require immediate changes in the way brands are currently structuring and conducting their digital campaigns.
The FTC strongly encourages optimization of websites for mobile devices. The agency recognizes that because of their small screens, smartphones and tablets often require the user to scroll vertically or horizontally. Placing the disclosure in a different column from the claim it modifies may therefore result in the consumer missing the disclosure entirely. The FTC warns that unless a website defaults to a mobile-optimized version, it is the advertiser's responsibility to ensure that the disclosures are clear and conspicuous regardless of the device on which they are displayed, and that if the disclosure is too small to be read on a mobile screen or presented in a long line of text that does not wrap around and fit on the screen, the disclosure will likely not be deemed adequate.
The new guidance continues to permit the use of hyperlinks to disclose information that is not integral to the claim, but there are many cautions surrounding such use. The new guidance effectively rules out the use of hyperlinks to disclose any basic cost information or any safety or health information. In addition, if the information being disclosed is integral to the truthfulness of the claim, use of a hyperlink would not be appropriate.
If sites use hyperlinks, the link itself must be in close proximity to the triggering claim and must be properly labeled to convey the importance, nature and relevance of the information to which it links. Marketers should particularly note that the FTC expressly calls out many common labels, universally used by marketers to label hyperlinks—such as “more information,” “details,” the “fine print” and similarly generic titles— and deems them to be inadequate. Going forward, advertisers will have to label hyperlinks more specifically to indicate the precise nature of the information that they link to. For example, if the information being linked to concerns details on how to claim a rebate, the label would have to say something like “rebate details,” rather than simply “details.” This is an area where marketers would be wise to begin immediately conducting an audit of their current hyperlink practices to ensure that their links are properly labeled.
The new guidance also strongly signals that marketers that elect to rely on hyperlinks may have the burden of demonstrating through empirical data, such as click-through rates, that the links are in fact effective. The FTC strongly encourages marketers to monitor click-through rates and to use other tools to ensure that consumers are seeing the disclosures and spending enough time on the page to actually read them. It's a safe bet that the FTC will begin looking for this type of data in future enforcement actions.
The FTC also warns marketers to be sensitive when selecting techniques for displaying disclosures to be sure that they are incapable of being blocked and are generally supported by most browsers and devices. Again, the agency suggests that the burden is on the marketers to determine through research that the techniques they choose to display disclosures are, in fact, effective.
Finally, the updated guidance reflects a subtle but important shift in the FTC's thinking as to when required disclosures need to be made. Although historically the FTC has required marketers to make disclosures before the consumer commits to the purchase, i.e. before checkout, the guidance provides that disclosures should be made before the consumer “makes the decision to buy,” which the FTC construes as before the consumer places the item in the shopping cart. This belief that disclosures should be made earlier in the purchase path is a theme we have seen in many recent enforcement actions. Therefore, marketers would be well-advised to review the timing of their disclosures in relation to the entire order path.
Compliance with the “.com Disclosures” will no doubt be a challenge for marketers as they continue to expand their efforts into the digital and mobile space. Corporate counsel should begin reviewing and auditing clients' marketing activities in light of the updates, as it is likely that enforcement actions by the FTC are not far behind.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Industry Eyes Legislation to Clarify Regulatory Framework
SEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Trending Stories
- 1How Some Elite Law Firms Are Growing Equity Partner Ranks Faster Than Others
- 2Fried Frank Partner Leaves for Paul Hastings to Start Tech Transactions Practice
- 3Stradley Ronon Welcomes Insurance Team From Mintz
- 4Weil Adds Acting Director of SEC Enforcement, Continuing Government Hiring Streak
- 5Monday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250