Avoiding Deceptive Pricing Practices Under Federal and State Consumer Protection Laws
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general regulate how companies advertise the prices of their products. For those companies with a national reach, this complex web of federal and state rules can make it difficult to design a single, persuasive advertising campaign that does not trigger an investigation for deceptive pricing somewhere in the country.
January 25, 2022 at 01:44 PM
5 minute read
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general regulate how companies advertise the prices of their products. For those companies with a national reach, this complex web of federal and state rules can make it difficult to design a single, persuasive advertising campaign that does not trigger an investigation for deceptive pricing somewhere in the country.
Nevertheless, in my experience, some claims for deceptive pricing are entirely avoidable. Below, please find five tips to help companies avoid liability for deceptive pricing in advertising.
- Substantiate First, Advertise Second
Substantiation is the process of gathering extrinsic evidence to support all claims made in a proposed ad in the event of a government investigation or litigation. Advertisers are required to substantiate all claims (both express and implied) contained in an ad before its release, including pricing. For example, claims that a product or service that would ordinarily cost a consumer $250 if purchased from a competitor but is available from the advertiser for $199.99 requires the advertiser to be "reasonably certain that the higher price he advertises does not appreciably exceed the price at which substantial sales of the article are being made in the area." Under the principles of substantiation, an advertiser is responsible for all reasonable interpretations of its ad, including pricing. How much substantiation is needed depends on the nature of the claims made in the ad, but as a general rule, advertisers must have a "reasonable basis" for all representations made.
- Price Discounts Must Be Genuine
Everyone loves a deal. Companies are aware of this, which is why bargain advertising is so prevalent in advertising campaigns. Combined with suggestions to "act now" to take advantage of a "limited-time offer," this advertising technique can overcome the sensibilities of even the most sophisticated consumers fearful of having to pay more for a product or service later. The experience of buying a car has given rise to the perception that it is acceptable as a matter of course to advertise and compare the sales price to the higher "sticker price" at which the product or service is ordinarily available. However, before including such price comparisons, it is important for an advertiser to prove that the former price "is the actual, bona fide price at which the article was offered to the public on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time." See 16 C.F.R. Section 233.1(a). Advertising a "sales price" that is actually the regular price at which a product is typically offered is a recipe for disaster. As a result, companies must carefully evaluate all advertised discounts for genuineness prior to advertising.
- Make Sure That "Free" Means Free
The use of the phrase "free" is not free from government regulation. In other words, special rules govern when it is permissible to advertise a product or service as free. For example, in a buy one/get one free campaign, the word "free" indicates that the consumer "is paying nothing for that article and no more than the regular price for the other." In this context, the phrase "regular price" means the price at which articles of the same quantity/quality have been "openly and actively" sold for a "reasonably substantial period of time" (typically 30 days) in the same geographic market or trade area. "Free" offers must also be limited in duration and not maintained in perpetuity. For example, under FTC regulations, "a single size of a product or a single kind of service should not be advertised with a 'free' offer in a trade area for more than six months in any 12-month period."
- Do Not Over-Rely on Disclaimers
Advertisers cannot use disclaimers to cure an otherwise deceptive ad. Rather, the purpose of disclaimers, when used properly, is to condition the claims made in the main body of the ad to avoid creating a misleading impression. Advertisers should be particularly cautious when using disclaimers connected to price-point advertising (advertising a product or service for a specified price). Some states, like Pennsylvania, limit the use of disclaimers in price-point advertising for certain services, like automobile repair or maintenance services, by requiring the advertised price to include "charges of any type which are necessary or usual prior to delivery of the vehicle or service to the purchaser." In order to be valid, advertisers must display disclaimers in a "clear and conspicuous" manner.
- Monitor Consumer Complaints
Consumers use a multitude of methods to complain about the products and services they buy. The more traditional methods consist of complaints to the Better Business Bureau, the FTC, and the consumer protection bureaus of offices of attorneys general. In the internet age, complaints may materialize on social media sites maintained by the company and dedicated consumer websites like Yelp.com. Since all of these complaints are available to the government, it is important for companies who advertise to monitor and analyze complaints of deceptive pricing to head off an investigation before it begins.
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 AllLegal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
4 minute readBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readThree Reasons CLOs Are Critical to the Successful Adoption of Generative AI
Election Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Is It Time for Large UK Law Firms to Begin Taking Private Equity Investment?
- 2Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
- 3Class Action Litigator Tapped to Lead Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Houston Office
- 4Arizona Supreme Court Presses Pause on KPMG's Bid to Deliver Legal Services
- 5Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
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