Business Blog Posts

Make your claims crystal clear

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:00:05 +0000

Make your claims crystal clear wfg-adm109 August 29, 2012 | 11:00AM

Make your claims crystal clear

Lesley Fair

Earlier this year, the FTC settled five law enforcement actions against companies making allegedly deceptive energy savings claims for their replacement windows. Now the FTC has sent letters to 14 window manufacturers and one window glass manufacturer, warning that they may be making unsupported energy savings representations for their products.

According to the letters, FTC staff saw some statement on the companies’ websites that looked a lot like the ones challenged in the earlier cases. No, there hasn’t been a decision about whether the companies have violated the law, but the letters urge them to take another look at their claims with some basic principles in mind:

Energy-savings claims must be backed by scientific evidence.
Be specific about the type of savings consumers can expect.
Avoid deception when making "up to" claims.
Avoid deception when selecting home characteristics for modeling.
Clearly and prominently disclose any assumptions.
Exercise care in using testimonials or "case studies."
Manufacturers may be liable for misleading or unsubstantiated claims made to dealers or retailers, in addition to claims made directly to consumers.

If you sell windows or make similar energy-savings promises, 5 lawsuits and 15 warning letters should emphasize the importance of taking "panes" to back up what you say with solid science.

Looking for more information about crafting ad claims related to energy or the environment? Bookmark the BCP Business Center's Environmental Marketing section.

Big COPPA problems for TinyCo

Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:11:11 +0000

Big COPPA problems for TinyCo wfg-adm109 September 17, 2014 | 10:11AM

Big COPPA problems for TinyCo

Lesley Fair

Fans of Tiny Pets, Tiny Zoo, Tiny Village, Tiny Monsters, and Mermaid Resort will be relieved to know that adorable Sully the Dog and arch-nemesis Duke Spendington haven’t been named in their individual capacities. But the developer of those kid-directed apps – San-Francisco-based TinyCo, Inc. – just settled an FTC lawsuit alleging the company violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. One interesting allegation: In exchange for in-app currency to buy game enhancements, TinyCo encouraged kids to turn over their email addresses, but the company didn't get parental permission as required by COPPA.

TinyCo offers a number of kid-directed apps through popular app stores. For example, users of Tiny Pets could “Help your best friend Sully the Dog save the pets of TinyLand from the evil Duke Spendington. Hide them in your tree house by building homes for them.” (Darn that Duke Spendington!) The apps are free and have been downloaded millions of times, but users can make in-app purchases to enhance game play.

Under COPPA, operators of commercial websites or online services directed to children under 13 must – among other things:

post on their sites clear, understandable privacy policies explaining their information practices,
provide direct notification to parents about the information they collect from kids and how it’s used and disclosed, and
get verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing that data.

According to the FTC, TinyCo didn’t live up to its legal responsibilities. Here’s just one example. Next to a fill-in box was this enticing offer: “Get 5 Acorns for adding your email!” The practical effect was to illegally collect children’s addresses without their parents’ permission in exchange for game goodies. Users of other TinyCo apps were encouraged to turn over their email “for information and promotions,” a practice the FTC says also violated COPPA. As a result, TinyCo collected tens of thousands of email addresses.

In addition to a $300,000 civil penalty, the settlement mandates a major COPPA clean-up and the destruction of all information TinyCo collected from kids under 13.

On the fence about whether COPPA applies to your company? The Rule covers the operators of two kinds of sites and services: 1) those directed to children under 13, and 2) those geared to general audiences when they have “actual knowledge” they're collecting information from kids in that age group. While the FTC's just-announced settlement with review site Yelp is an example of that second group, the TinyCo case offers insights into when a site or service is “directed to children.” Section 312.2 of COPPA cites some factors, including:

subject matter, visual content, use of animated characters or child-oriented activities and incentives, music or other audio content, age of models, presence of child celebrities or celebrities who appeal to children, language or other characteristics of the Web site or online service, as well as whether advertising promoting or appearing on the Web site or online service is directed to children.

In this case, the FTC looked to the colorful characters and locales of TinyCo apps, including “adorable animals,” “lovable cubbies,” “magical monsters,” baby dinosaurs, zoos, treehouses, and a “resort” inspired by the Little Mermaid fairy tale. The complaint also cites the simple language of the games, which would be easy for kids under 13 to understand.

Although the FTC applied COPPA’s “directed to children” standard – which doesn’t include an element of actual knowledge – TinyCo knew that kids were using their apps because parents of young children had contacted them to complain. But the FTC says even that didn’t motivate the company to ask itself, “Hmm. Did we collect information from kids without parental permission?” So aside from the COPPA compliance message, there’s another moral of the story for app developers: Read – and heed – what customers are saying to you.

The FTC has free resources to help keep your site or service COPPA-compatible.

Lice, Lice, Baby

Wed, 28 May 2014 16:10:58 +0000

Lice, Lice, Baby wfg-adm109 May 28, 2014 | 12:10PM

Lice, Lice, Baby

Lesley Fair

Dare us to describe the legal ramifications of a recent advertising settlement involving health claims in the style of a cringeworthy rap from 1990? Cue up the bass line ‘cause here we go.

Yo, FTC, let’s kick it.
Lice, Lice, Baby. Lice, Lice, Baby.
Advertisers, stop! Support your claims with back-up
Or face an enforcement crack-up.
You need proof. There’s no exception.
The law bans every kind of deception.
To say your products prevent infestation,
You need scientific substantiation.
Lice, Lice, Baby. Lice, Lice, Baby.

OK, we promise never to do that again. You're welcome.

The FTC’s proposed settlement with Lornamead, Inc., makers of the Lice Shield product line, offers a chorus for businesses who want to keep their claims in tune.

Lots of stuff on the market promises to treat a lice infestation once the creepy-crawlies have found their way onto a kid’s head. But Lornamead's Lice Shield products – a shampoo-conditioner combo, a leave-in spray, a stick, and a spray for hats and helmets – claimed to prevent infestations in the first place. According to ads: "THE BEST WAY TO TREAT LICE IS TO AVOID GETTING THEM. Be prepared with Lice Shield. Scientifically shown to repel head lice, reducing a child's chance of catching lice during an outbreak. Safe & pesticide free. Formulated with a proprietary blend of essential oils to repel lice. . . . School lice outbreaks are a fact of life, but now you can reduce the risk of infestation. Don't Get Lice, Get Lice Shield."

Don’t just take our word for it, the company said. “Scientific studies have shown that the use of Lice Shield Shampoo and Conditioner in 1 and Lice Shield Leave in Spray decreases the chance of lice infestation by over 80%.” Another ad included a statistical chart to underscore the “scientifically proven” point. (You'll remember from sophomore Stats class that "p-value" is a term related to the evaluation of whether test results are the product of cause-and-effect vs. random chance.)

The complaint charges that the company didn’t have substantiation to prove that using its products would prevent head lice infestations, reduce the likelihood of infestation by over 80%, or reduce the risk of infestation during an outbreak. The FTC also alleges the company didn't have proof to support the representation that spraying Lice Shield Gear Guard onto hats, helmets, etc., reduces the likelihood of getting lice. What about Lornamead’s claim that scientific tests prove that its products significantly reduce the likelihood of a head lice infestation? The FTC challenged that as false.

To settle the case, the company will turn over $500,000 and has agreed to support future claims with sound science. They’ll need at least one human clinical trial to substantiate claims that a drug, cosmetic or pesticide will: 1) prevent a head lice infestation; 2) eliminate or reduce the risk of an infestation by a specific percentage or amount; or 3) repel all lice or a specific percentage or amount of lice from a person’s head. Other health-related claims will have to meet the “competent and reliable scientific evidence” standard. In this context, that means "tests, analyses, research, or studies that have been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by qualified persons, and that are generlly accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results." The deadline for filing comments about the proposed settlement is June 27, 2014.

A key consideration for advertisers itching to learn more about making health claims: Don’t just labor in the lab. Of course, it’s important to back up your claims with sound science and an evaluation of laboratory testing may be an important part of that. But lice – and the consumers attempting to head off an infestation – live in the real world. If you rely on a study to support your ad claims, make sure it yields real results for people buying your product.

Advertise auto promotions car-fully

Tue, 23 Dec 2014 18:45:00 +0000

Advertise auto promotions car-fully jonmorgan December 23, 2014 | 1:45PM

Advertise auto promotions car-fully

Lesley Fair

“$1 gets you out of your current loan or lease!” According to Trophy Nissan in the Dallas area, consumers could end their loan or lease for a buck – less than the cost of one of those air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror. Trophy also promised to “match your tax refund so you can use it for a down payment!” Those are just two of the claims the FTC challenged as deceptive in a proposed settlement with the dealership. If you have clients in the automotive industry, make sure they’re up to speed on this case and other recent law enforcement actions concerning car advertising.

One of Trophy Nissan’s TV ads featured a spokesperson waving a dollar as he said, “Stuck with a high car payment? Owe more on your vehicle than it’s worth? Trophy Nissan can set you free for a buck! During our Nissan Now event, you can get out of your current loan or lease for just $1.00.” Consumers wearing their reading glasses might – or might not – have caught a fine-print super, a portion of which was similar in color to the background. It read “With Approved Credit. Any Negative Equity applied to new loan. Offer ends [unreadable]. See dealer for details.” Ads on Trophy’s Facebook and Twitter pages made the $1 claim with no additional terms or conditions – fine print or otherwise.

According to the FTC, what Trophy didn’t clearly disclose was that the deal would end up costing people way more than a dollar. Consumers with outstanding loan balances on trade-ins would still have to pay every penny they owed on that loan. And consumers with leases were liable for any lease termination fees. So much for Trophy’s $1 claim.

What about the “Max your Tax” promotion? A statement at the bottom of the ad revealed in tiny type that Trophy would match tax refunds only up to $1000.

The FTC’s lawsuit also challenges ads that used big print to offer eye-catching lease prices while burying important terms and conditions in fine print or failing to disclose required information. For example, one ad that ran in a Spanish-language newspaper touted a $100 lease for a Nissan Sentra S. But buried at the bottom in tiny type – and in English – was the fact that consumers would have to pay $3,264 up front.

The five-count complaint alleges multiple violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act. In addition, the FTC says Trophy used certain triggering terms under the Consumer Leasing Act, but then didn’t clearly and conspicuously disclose key information required by the CLA and Reg M. The lawsuit also charges that the dealership included Truth in Lending Act triggering terms, but failed to clearly disclose information mandated by TILA and Reg Z.

If you or your clients offer consumer financing, is it time for a credit check? Among other things, the complaint offers businesses a reminder of some of the terms that trigger the legal obligation to clearly and conspicuously disclose certain information.

You can file online comments by January 22, 2015.

Out of the mouths of babes? FTC says Amazon kept kids’ Alexa voice data forever – even after parents ordered deletion

Wed, 31 May 2023 17:56:23 +0000

Out of the mouths of babes? FTC says Amazon kept kids’ Alexa voice data forever – even after parents ordered deletion lfair May 31, 2023 | 1:56PM

Out of the mouths of babes? FTC says Amazon kept kids’ Alexa voice data forever – even after parents ordered deletion

Lesley Fair

“Stop it!” Moms and Dads may have to repeat that instruction to their kids, but when parents said it to Amazon in an effort to get the company to delete children’s voice data obtained through its Alexa voice assistant, Amazon should have honored those requests immediately. But according to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice on the FTC’s behalf, Amazon responded by deleting files in some databases while maintaining them elsewhere – meaning the information was available for Amazon to use for its own purposes. The lawsuit alleges Amazon violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule by flouting parents’ deletion requests, retaining kids’ voice recordings indefinitely, and not giving parents the straight story about its data deletion practices. Amazon also allegedly violated the FTC Act by falsely representing that Alexa app users could delete their geolocation information and voice recordings and by engaging in unfair privacy practices related to deletion, retention, and employee access to data. The $25 million settlement with Amazon sends a clear message about the consequences of putting profits over privacy.

In addition to the massive amount of other information Amazon collects about customers, the company has found a direct route into millions of consumers’ homes through its Alexa-powered devices, which respond to users’ spoken requests. First some background about how consumers of all ages interact with the Alexa technology. When Alexa devices detect someone saying the “wake” word, Alexa begins recording what it hears in two formats: an audio file and a text transcript. Alexa then responds by performing the requested tasks.

Given Alexa’s access to so much highly personal data, privacy is an important consideration for many Alexa users. Not surprisingly, Amazon made privacy a centerpiece of its marketing. For example, on Amazon.com’s Alexa Privacy Hub, the company claimed “Alexa and Echo devices are designed to protect your privacy” and “Alexa and Echo devices provide transparency and control.”

Users also can interact through the Alexa app, which can collect their geolocation information. Amazon repeatedly assured Alexa app users that they could delete their geolocation information. But even when consumers clicked on the appropriate delete buttons, the FTC says Amazon deleted the data from certain locations but retained data elsewhere, in direct contravention of its privacy promise. Amazon first discovered the problem in early 2018, but the FTC says it wasn’t until September 2019 that Amazon finally took some corrective action. “Some” being the operative word here because as the complaint alleges, due to faulty fixes and process fiascos, it wasn’t until early 2022 that Amazon finally got the problem fully under control.

Amazon made similar promises that Alexa users could “view, hear, and delete [their] voice recordings . . . at any time.” But as the complaint explains, once again Amazon deleted the files in certain locations, but retained transcripts of the recordings elsewhere in a form the company could use for product development. Adding insult to privacy injury, for at least a year, Amazon gave 30,000 employees access to Alexa users’ voice recordings – even though many of those staffers had no business need for the files.

Now to how the FTC says Amazon’s misrepresentations and compliance failures resulted in violations of COPPA. Given Alexa’s presence in consumers’ homes, and Amazon’s sale of child-centric products like Echo Dot Kids Edition, FreeTime on Alexa, and FreeTime Unlimited on Alexa, many users of the technology are under 13. In fact, more than 800,000 children interact directly with Alexa using their own Amazon profile, which links to their parent’s profile and contains the child’s name, birth date, and gender. As with adults, Amazon saved children’s voice recordings as audio and text files and used persistent identifiers to connect those files to the child’s Amazon profile.

The complaint alleges three ways in which Amazon’s practices usurped parents’ rights under COPPA to maintain control over their kids’ personal data. First, Amazon programmed Alexa to keep kids’ recordings forever, a practice that violated Section 312.10 of the COPPA Rule. That provision mandates that companies may keep kids’ data “for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which the information was collected.” After that, according to the plain language of the Rule, they “must” securely delete it.

Second, Section 312.6 of COPPA gives parents “the opportunity at any time . . . to direct the operator to delete the child’s personal information.” But according to the complaint, children’s voice recordings were subject to the same ineffective deletion procedures as adults’ recordings. So even when parents told Amazon to delete those files, Amazon retained transcripts stored with persistent identifiers linked to the child’s account.

Another fundamental COPPA privacy protection is Section 312.4’s requirement that companies “provide notice and obtain verifiable parental consent prior to collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children.” By failing to follow through with its stated practices, Amazon didn’t give parents complete and truthful notice about their ability to have their children’s personal information deleted – falling short of what COPPA requires.

In addition to imposing a $25 million civil penalty, the proposed settlement prohibits Amazon from making misrepresentations about geolocation and voice information. The company also can’t use geolocation, voice information, and children’s information for the creation or improvement of any data product after customers have directed Amazon to delete that data. What’s more, Amazon must delete kids’ inactive Alexa accounts, notify users about the FTC-DOJ lawsuit, and implement a privacy program specifically focused on the company’s use of geolocation information.

Here are some pointers other businesses can take from the action against Amazon.

COPPA compliance demands continuous vigilance. For companies covered by COPPA, compliance isn’t a one-and-done, check-the-box set of technicalities. Rather, the Rule creates substantive rights for parents and mandates ongoing legal responsibilities for businesses. Just one example is the requirement that companies clearly explain to parents up front their right to have their kids’ information deleted and the accompanying obligation to honor those requests. But even if parents don’t exercise their deletion rights, companies can’t hold on to the data “just because.” Once the purpose for which it was collected has passed, companies must securely delete it. And both for specific parental requests and COPPA’s general data deletion requirement, make sure you also delete relevant files stored in back-ups, separate databases, or other locations.

Voice recordings are biometric data deserving of scrupulous care. As the FTC’s May 2023 Policy Statement on Biometric Information establishes, voice recordings – and transcripts of recordings – fall within the category of data derived from biometric sources that “raise significant consumer privacy and data security concerns.” Now factor in biometric data about kids and those concerns are elevated to the nth degree.

Don’t secretly use customers’ personal information – especially data about kids – to feed your algorithms. Through this law enforcement action and the proposed settlement with Ring, the FTC is sending an unmistakable message to companies developing artificial intelligence: You can’t placate consumers with promises of privacy when you intend to use their data for other purposes. This principle takes on added significance in the context of kids. Children’s speech patterns are markedly different from adults, so Alexa’s voice recordings gave Amazon a valuable data set for training the Alexa algorithm and further Amazon’s commercial interest in developing new products. That’s just one reason why Amazon’s hollow promise to honor parents’ deletion requests was particularly troubling.

Mind your net impression: when seafood is not wild, fresh-caught, or local

Wed, 18 Sep 2024 11:20:36 +0000

Mind your net impression: when seafood is not wild, fresh-caught, or local jensor September 18, 2024 | 7:20AM

Mind your net impression: when seafood is not wild, fresh-caught, or local

Julia Solomon Ensor

Ahoy there, restaurant owners and other friends! Gather around to hear about the restaurant that tricked people into thinking its shrimp and fish were wild caught right nearby, when, actually, they were farmed, frozen, and shipped in from afar.

Imagine a waterfront restaurant with beachy décor. Fishing nets hang from the ceiling and pictures of shrimp and fishing boats cover the wall. You sit down at a table draped in red, white, and blue, and your server, dressed in a shirt that says, “We catch ‘em, you eat ‘em!” hands you a menu. It says, “Eat local! Try our seasonal fresh catch of the day!” You order that seasonal fresh catch and enjoy the sunset. While you’re waiting for your food, you check out the restaurant’s Instagram account and scroll through post after post of fishermen hooking glimmering fish and scooping nets full of shrimp out of the sea.

Given this scene, would you be surprised to find out that the seasonal fresh catch was actually farmed seafood, frozen overseas and shipped in?

The restaurant never said it outright. But, by using photos of fishermen and fishing boats, and saying things like “Eat local,” and “We catch ‘em,” the decorations, menus, and social media may give people what the FTC calls a net (seriously) impression that the restaurant serves fresh, local fish and shrimp. If that isn’t true, the restaurant needs to reel it in. Not only is it illegal to mislead customers about where the seafood is from, it’s also not fair to other restaurants that tell the truth and play by the rules.

Want to make sure you’re not trawling for trouble? Here’s some advice:

False implied claims are illegal. Everyone knows you can’t just lie in your ads. But, sometimes people try to bend the rules by using pictures, symbols, or other things to make people believe something about what they are selling without actually saying the words. That’s an implied claim. If it’s not true, it’s just as illegal as an outright lie.

Ads are everywhere, and you’re responsible. Ads aren’t just commercials, social media posts, websites, or labels. Other things like menus, restaurant décor, or even t-shirts and hats worn by servers or customers can be ads too. The same rules apply. Don’t make claims you can’t back up.

Look at the big picture. Take a minute to step back and think about how all your ads work together. What would a reasonable person think you are trying to say about the things you sell or the food you serve? Are all those things true? If not, make some changes.

1,000 posts, but who’s counting? (We are, actually.)

Thu, 08 Mar 2018 14:37:40 +0000

1,000 posts, but who’s counting? (We are, actually.) lfair March 8, 2018 | 9:37AM

1,000 posts, but who’s counting? (We are, actually.)

Lesley Fair

When the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection started the Business Blog in 2010, we promised readers “a minimum of ho-hum, a maximum of how-to, and as little yadda yadda yadda as a legal website can manage.” More than 1,000 Business Blog posts later and we’re still striving to keep things engaging and enlightening (although being a legal website and all, we’ve succeeded is cutting out only two of the yaddas).

The FTC’s unique dual mission is to protect consumers and promote competition. In addition to law enforcement, a critical part of our job is to help consumers access accurate information. Another component is to offer companies guidance about complying with the law. There’s a time for case precedent and C.F.R. cites, but occasionally it’s best to conduct that conversation in an informal voice – and the Business Blog is Exhibit A.

We’ve rapped about lice, parodied Poe, and took to the dance floor for a disco-inspired primer on employers’ responsibilities under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We aim to keep the content informative and the popular cultural references at least remotely relevant. We do our best to be scrupulously accurate about the law, but we’re also happy when readers ask “Are you sure this is a government blog?”

But the Business Blog is only one part of the Bureau of Consumer Protection’s Business Center. For the convenience of business owners, advertisers, marketing executives, and the attorneys who represent them, we divide the resources of the Business Center into five sections:

Advertising & Marketing. That’s where we cover topics like health claims, endorsements, Made in USA, and telemarketing.
Credit & Finance. That’s the financial hub, addressing debt collection, credit, billing, and payments.
Privacy & Data Security. Look there for information about – obviously – consumer privacy and data security, but also credit reporting, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield.
Selected Industries. This page links to one-stop portals for businesses covered by particular FTC rules – for example, auto dealers, members of the funeral industry, or companies that sell clothing and textiles.
Protecting Small Businesses. The newest addition to the site, that’s where we curate just-the-facts tips on cybersecurity and scams targeting small businesses.

Visit a page relevant to your line of work and you’ll see a similar structure throughout. For example, on the Data Security page, showcased at the top is featured guidance – our newest or most popular publications. These are informal staff brochures written in a get-to-the-point style for executives who put the busi- in business. Scroll down for more titles. Some offer basic advice to businesses of any size and in any sector. (Start with Security and Data Breach Response are two example.) Others focus on developing areas of the marketplace – like Careful Connections: Building Security in the Internet of Things and Mobile Health App Developers: FTC Best Practices. Scroll all the way down for videos, FTC-produced two-minute drills on timely topics.

The right side of each page has informative features, too. At the top are the five most recent ICYMI Business Blog posts related to the topic. Below that is the real treasure trove – Legal Resources. Looking for every data security case the FTC has brought in the past decade, a link to last week’s PrivacyCon 2018, or that ancient FTC report about “the wireless World Wide Web”? (Give us a break. It was 2002.) Legal Resources is where you’ll find it.

We’re often asked what kind of approval a company needs to link to our site or distribute FTC materials. The simple answer is none. The FTC’s website policy spells out the specifics, but it boils down to this: Just about everything on ftc.gov and business.ftc.gov is in the public domain and isn’t subject to copyright restrictions. We’re delighted when businesses, consumer advocates, government agencies, and others share our resources on their own sites or via social media.

Finally, if we’ve learned anything from advertisers in the past 103 years, it’s to listen to our target market. It’s only fitting that, as the FTC and our partners across the country join to celebrate the 20th National Consumer Protection Week, we ask you this question: What can we do to make the Business Center – and the next 1,000 Business Blog posts – responsive to your needs?

Be discreet when you delete your fleet

Mon, 27 Aug 2018 14:13:15 +0000

Be discreet when you delete your fleet lfair August 27, 2018 | 10:13AM

Be discreet when you delete your fleet

Lesley Fair

Thinking about replacing a company car or truck? Unless you take some security steps before selling the vehicle, you could be leaving behind a water bottle or two, some change under the seat – and a massive amount of corporate and personal data.

Systems in newer cars do a great job keeping you and your employees connected while on the road. But like laptops and smartphones, your company cars may be storing more information than you realize – data that could be accessible to the next person in the driver seat. That could include contact lists and other data downloaded when you synced your phone, log-ins for apps, location data, and even garage entry codes for your office or home.

To be on the safer side, here are steps to take before turning in your old company car:

Clear the stored data. Some vehicles have a factory reset option that will return the settings to their original state.
Clear any connections between your old car and your devices – for example, apps that let you locate the car in a parking lot or control vehicle functions remotely.
Cancel or transfer subscription services like satellite radio or wi-fi hotspots.

Of course, the process varies by make and model. So take one last nostalgic read through the owner’s manual for details. Still have questions? Contact the dealer or visit the manufacturer’s website.

Talking turkey

Tue, 20 Nov 2018 17:17:53 +0000

Talking turkey lfair November 20, 2018 | 12:17PM

Talking turkey

Lesley Fair

Whether it’s a spare can of cranberry sauce or an extra turkey platter, thoughtful Thanksgiving hosts make contingency plans for the holiday. This year, if the dinner discussion veers into controversial territory – like the pumpkin pie vs. pecan pie debate – here’s a suggested topic of conversation you can have at the ready.

Some people call them “grandparent scams,” but it’s any form of fraud where a scammer impersonates a family member and calls with an urgent plea for emergency cash supposedly to get medical care, pay for bail, or extricate themselves from a dangerous situation. The scammer’s goal is to trick the concerned relative into sending money before they’ve had a chance to think things through.

With grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins gathered around the table, Thanksgiving is the perfect time to warn your family about this form of fraud. The best response to calls of this kind is to resist the urge to act immediately, no matter how dramatic the story may be. Take the time to investigate whether there really is an emergency. Call the relative at a number you know to be genuine and check the story out with another trusted family member even if (especially if) the caller begs for confidentiality.

Con artists are cagey and have a variety of stock responses to family members’ suspicions – “I know I don’t sound like myself, Grandpa. I’m in the hospital with a broken nose.” or “Don’t tell Mom. Let’s keep this our secret.” Another tactic favored by fraudsters: trying to “sell” the story by enlisting a fellow crook to impersonate a doctor, lawyer, or police officer.

One tip-off that fraud is afoot is an insistence on getting money immediately. Scammers are partial to payment by wire and we warned you recently about their growing fondness for payment by gift cards. This Thanksgiving before anyone leaves the table, make sure they know that no one in your family will ever call with an emergency request that they immediately wire money, pay with a gift card, or send cash.

Report this form of fraud and any other suspected rip-off to the FTC at www.ftc.gov/complaint.

It’s a fact: No changes to FTC “Lighting Facts” requirements

Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:26:41 +0000

It’s a fact: No changes to FTC “Lighting Facts” requirements lfair March 25, 2019 | 2:26PM

It’s a fact: No changes to FTC “Lighting Facts” requirements

Colleen Tressler

Word has it there’s been some confusion as to whether the FTC’s “Lighting Facts” label requirements are still in place. So we thought it would be a good idea to shed some light on the issue. The FTC’s requirements at 16 C.F.R. Part 305 still apply and, what’s more, nothing has changed: The FTC’s black and white Lighting Facts labels, like the one below, must still appear on packages for general service lamps and specialty consumer lamps.

Confusion may have arisen due to the closure of the voluntary DOE LED Lighting Facts® program, which is separate from the FTC labels. On March 1, 2018, the DOE stopped accepting new lighting facts products for that agency’s program.

The end of DOE’s program does not affect the existing consumer Lighting Facts labels that the FTC Rules require.