[{"description":"Le bailleur doit adresser les justificatifs des charges liées au bail commercial au locataire qui en fait la demande et non seulement les tenir à disposition. L’envoi tardif de l’état récapitulatif annuel n’impose pas la restitution des provisions, si elles sont","id":2874915,"title":"Bail commercial : précisions sur l'obligation de communication et de reddition des charges","link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-affaires/bail-commercial-precisions-obligation-communication-reddition-charges_f73d0dbe3-fe57-400a-a729-faab969bdd1a"},{"link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-social/revalorisation-allocations-activite-partielle-apld-decret-paru_f07ee32e6-4b43-4f94-a81d-374973d1f4e9","id":2874914,"title":"Revalorisation des allocations d’activité partielle et APLD : le décret est paru"},{"id":2874913,"title":"La modification de la méthode de calcul de la rémunération variable requiert l'accord du salarié : illustration","link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-social/modification-methode-calcul-remuneration-variable-requiert-accord-salarie-illustration_fbc6e90ee-b059-4bf5-81b4-5beac4094169","description":"Dans un arrêt du 7 janvier 2026, la Cour de cassation a considéré que l'ajout de nouveaux comptes commerciaux à l'assiette de calcul de la rémunération variable prévue au contrat de travail constitue une modification de ce"},{"description":"Le tribunal qui condamne le dirigeant d'une société en liquidation judiciaire à supporter l'insuffisance d'actif de cette dernière doit prendre en compte le nombre et la gravité des fautes de gestion commises, mais pas le patrimoine et les revenus du","link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-affaires/condamnation-dirigeant-combler-passif-n-tenir-compte-situation-financiere_f4fa34219-7740-47fa-af0b-01f4c82d050f","title":"La condamnation d'un dirigeant à combler le passif n'a pas à tenir compte de sa situation financière","id":2874912},{"description":"Operation Main Street targets scams against small business lfair June 18, 2018 | 10:20AM Operation Main Street targets scams against small business By Lesley Fair Small business keeps America in business. But while you have your shoulder to the wheel and nose to the grindstone, it can be tough to keep an eye out for scammers. That’s why the FTC and law enforcement partners across the country have your back. Just one example is Operation Main Street: Stopping Small Business Scams, a coordinated initiative involving 24 civil and criminal actions against B2B fraudsters . In addition to ongoing litigation and recent settlements, the FTC filed a new case as part of Operation Main Street. The FTC has gone to court to challenge the conduct of nine U.S.- and Canada-based individuals and corporations operating as Premium Business Pages. (They also use the names Ameteck Group, The Local Business Pages, and Data Net Technologies.) The FTC says the defendants call small businesses claiming to be collecting on past-due bills for online directory listings, search engine optimization services, web design, or web hosting. Pay now, the callers threaten, or your account will be turned over to “collections” or will be “red flagged” – actions the callers warn could have a negative impact on the company’s credit. But in truth, the targeted small businesses never ordered the products or services in the first place. Another tactic the FTC says the defendants use is to offer “discounts” or to “waive” fees on the supposedly overdue amount. But if business owners pay, they can expect more calls from defendants’ telemarketers. In some cases, the telemarketers claim the payment was only the first installment. In other instances, the FTC says they perform the equivalent of telemarketing “ventriloquism,” pretending to be from a different company, but using the same bogus “overdue invoice” gambit. A federal judge has granted the FTC’s request for a temporary restraining order. Other law enforcers are also taking aim at scammers who target small business. The Attorneys General of Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, New York, Tennessee, and Texas took action as part of Operation Main Street. From bogus business directories to government imposter fraud, the breadth of the challenged conduct illustrates the many shady faces of B2B fraud. Other noteworthy developments are two criminal cases brought as part of Operation Main Street. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York – with assistance from the New York Division of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service – announced the arrest of a person allegedly operating a $3 million fake invoice scam. In addition, the U.S. Attorney for Maryland brought a criminal action of particular interest to FTC watchers. Last year the FTC settled a lawsuit against an outfit that bilked small businesses and nonprofits out of more than $50 million in a scam involving unordered light bulbs and cleaning supplies. The U.S. Attorney’s Office just reached a plea agreement with a leader of that operation. He’ll face sentencing soon. But law enforcement is only one part of Operation Main Street. Education is a key component, too. The FTC just issued a new publication, Scams and Your Small Business , with to-the-point tips on how you can spot the signs of a scam and what to do if con artists have targeted your company. In addition, the Better Business Bureau has issued a research report on small business scams, based on information from 1200 small businesses. According to the BBB, 67% of those surveyed perceive scammers as a growing risk to their company. The top five scams they identified: 1) bank/credit card company imposters; 2) directory listing and advertising services; 3) fake invoices/supplier bills; 4) fake checks; and 5) tech support scams. What can your business do to magnify the impact of Operation Main Street? Educate your employees. The FTC has you covered with that new","id":2874855,"title":"Operation Main Street targets scams against small business","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/06/operation-main-street-targets-scams-against-small-business"},{"description":"Enforcing the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act: The FTC’s settlement with Evoke Wellness and what it means for businesses kkrown June 11, 2025 | 10:01AM Enforcing the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act: The FTC’s settlement with Evoke Wellness and what it means for businesses The FTC is cracking down on companies attempting to deceive people seeking treatment for addiction. An example of this effort is the FTC’s recently filed settlement to resolve allegations that Evoke Wellness (“Evoke”) and two of its executives used illegal tactics to trick people seeking substance use disorder (“SUD”) treatment services. According to the FTC’s complaint , Evoke ran a two-phased scheme involving false advertisements and deceptive telemarketing. First, Evoke placed Google search ads that included the phone numbers for Evoke’s treatment facilities and call center. The problem? According to the FTC, the search ads effectively impersonated other treatment clinics people search for online. The FTC charges that, when people clicked on the phone number in an ad, Evoke’s telemarketers were standing by to carry on the deception — leading callers to believe they had reached the specific facilities they had searched for. Then, the telemarketers would redirect them to Evoke treatment centers instead. The FTC claims Evoke’s practices violated the FTC Act and the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act of 2018 (OARFPA), which gives the FTC extra tools to address unfair or deceptive acts or practices related to any SUD treatment service or product. Businesses involved in the marketing or sale of services or treatments to address opioid or other addiction should consider the following: Check your online profile. Take this opportunity to run a Google search for your business’s name to make sure nobody’s impersonating your business or sending people searching for it to a different site. If someone’s using your business’s name without permission, we want to hear about it. Report it at ReportFraud.ftc.gov . The FTC will use all tools at its disposal to fight deceptive claims for addiction treatment products or services. OARFPA gives the FTC the ability to seek civil penalties, refunds for consumers, and other enhanced remedies from people or businesses that use unfair or deceptive acts or practices to market or sell SUD treatment services or products. The FTC is committed to addressing the opioid crisis and will use all available means to aggressively pursue unscrupulous marketers targeting people seeking treatment. Tell the truth in your ads. Whatever your product or service, use truthful, non-misleading ads to attract customers. In this case, the FTC claimed Evoke drove traffic to their telemarketers by planting misleading ads designed to draw in customers searching for other businesses. Compete honestly. Misleading ads hurt consumers and competitors, and the FTC will continue to pursue businesses that break the","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/06/enforcing-opioid-addiction-recovery-fraud-prevention-act-ftcs-settlement-evoke-wellness-what-it","title":"Enforcing the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act: The FTC’s settlement with Evoke Wellness and what it means for businesses","id":2874856},{"description":"The lesson of the MARS Rule: Not one penny up front lfair January 26, 2018 | 12:51PM The lesson of the MARS Rule: Not one penny up front By Lesley Fair Like calling an NFL lineman “Tiny,” we appreciate an ironic name as much as the next person. But it’s different when a company calls itself – among other things – Consumer Defense, Preferred Law, and Modification Review Board and then makes allegedly deceptive claims regarding loan modification services to consumers struggling to hold onto their homes. An FTC lawsuit filed against a related group of 14 companies and individuals charges them with violations of the FTC Act and the MARS Rule (Regulation O). According to the FTC, the defendants preyed on struggling homeowners with promises that their expert legal advice could stop consumers from going into foreclosure and that they could get affordable mortgage modifications. Advertising on TV and radio, online, through direct mail, and on the phone, the defendants often claimed that these modifications would not only save consumers’ homes, but also big bucks – for example, by slashing interest rates in half and reducing monthly payment by hundreds of dollars. Touting a track record as high as 98%-100%, the defendants typically charged cash-strapped consumers $3,900 in monthly installments of $650. Some contracts with consumers made representations like this: Based on the past performance of American Home Loan Counselors with the assistance of Preferred Law’s federal legal services, and our knowledge of your factual situation, MRB [Modification Review Board] hereby GUARANTEES that a modification or home foreclosure alternative pursuant to the HAFA program will be secured for you conditioned upon the following terms . . . . (The “conditions” were things like paying required fees and returning documents in a timely fashion.) The FTC says that the defendants strung consumers along for months with misleading promises that modification packages were in the works. As part of the ploy, the defendants allegedly directed homeowners not to pay their mortgages and not to communicate with their lenders. The defendants insisted that consumers pay them , of course. But according to the FTC , in numerous instances, the defendants failed to get any relief for their customers. The complaint alleges that consumers learned from their lenders that the defendants didn’t provide complete modification documents, submitted irrelevant requests for information, or never even contacted the lender in the first place. The lawsuit charges that by turning over what little cash they had to the defendants and getting next to nothing in return, many consumers ultimately lost their homes. Of course, there are federal programs to assist struggling homeowners, like Making Home Affordable (MHA). The FTC alleges that the defendants used doctored logos and other tactics to suggest a false affiliation with government programs. The complaint alleges the defendants violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting their services, touting a false affiliation with or endorsement by the federal government, claiming to have special relationships with the consumers’ mortgage companies, and telling people they should stop making their mortgage payments. The lawsuit also charges multiple violations of the MARS Rule, which makes it illegal – among other things – to ask for or receive upfront payments before there’s a written agreement between the consumer and the loan holder or servicer. The FTC says the defendants also failed to make specific disclosures required by the Rule, including (to name just a few) “[Name of Company] is not associated with the government, and our service is not approved by the government or your lender.&rdquo “Even if you accept this offer and use our service, your lender may not agree to change your loan.” “You may stop doing business with us at any time. You may accept or reject the offer of mortgage assistance we obtain from your lender [or","id":2874857,"title":"The lesson of the MARS Rule: Not one penny up front","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/01/lesson-mars-rule-not-one-penny-front"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/01/three-ways-your-business-can-mark-identity-theft-awareness-week","title":"Three ways your business can mark Identity Theft Awareness Week","id":2874858,"description":"Three ways your business can mark Identity Theft Awareness Week lfair January 29, 2024 | 10:39AM Three ways your business can mark Identity Theft Awareness Week By Lesley Fair January 29th kicks off 2024’s Identity Theft Awareness Week , but consumer-conscious companies promote identity theft awareness – and prevention – 52 weeks a year. As the FTC, federal and state agencies, consumer groups, and others sponsor events across the country and online, here are three things your business can do to promote identity theft awareness to customers, employees, and members of your community. Implement sound data security practices. Discussions of information security sometimes focus on arcane technological issues, but let’s not lose sight of what’s in it for many data crooks: getting their hands on the personal data necessary to commit identity theft. The FTC has brought close to 150 cases challenging companies’ lax data security. The lawsuits recount the lapses that caused the breaches in the first place – poor password policies, negligent network monitoring, slipshod supervision of contractors, and insufficient employee training, to name just a few examples. But the court papers may not tell the whole story about the devastating consequences those corporate deficiencies inflict on consumers. People injured by identity theft often must devote months – or years – trying to restore their reputations and clean up the mess made of their personal finances. A simple way your business can be part of the solution is not to be part of the problem. Don’t collect personal information if you don’t have a genuine business need, safely store what you must maintain, and dispose of it securely when that business need passes. The FTC has guidance for companies – including cybersecurity resources for small businesses – to help you safeguard consumer data. Lend a hand to people who have experienced identity theft. Assisting people who are trying to recover from identity theft isn’t just good customer relations. It’s the law. If a consumer spots charges on their account they didn’t make and it appears that an unauthorized transaction occurred at your company, Section 609(e) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires you to provide them with relevant records. The law allows you to get proof of their identity (like a driver’s license), but it’s illegal to re-victimize them by making them jump through hoops to get the documentation they need. According to an FTC law enforcement action , a national retail chain didn’t honor that FCRA provision and paid a $220,000 civil penalty. Read Businesses Must Provide Victims and Law Enforcement with Transaction Records Relating to Identity Theft for more about legal compliance. And here’s a suggestion we’re passing along from a national retailer. When people come to their Customer Service Counters to retrace their steps in search of a lost wallet or missing credit card, the company has copies of FTC brochures at the ready, including Lost or Stolen Credit, ATM, and Debit Cards and What To Know About Identity Theft . Spread the word about identity theft awareness through your social networks.  Identity theft doesn’t just harm consumers. It’s bad for business, too. In addition to the billions of dollars lost every year to fraudsters, identity theft takes a tremendous toll on the well-being and peace of mind of affected customers, employees, friends, and family. That’s why we want to enlist you in the effort to raise awareness about how to prevent identity theft and streamline the recovery process. The FTC has sharable Identity Theft Awareness Week resources – including videos and other visuals – you can post on social media. We also have a new publication, How To Spot, Avoid, and Report Identity Theft in Your Language , available in multiple languages . In addition, during Identity Theft Awareness Week , the FTC and partners will be hosting podcasts and"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/01/testing-testing-review-session-coppa-schools","id":2874859,"title":"Testing, testing: A review session on COPPA and schools","description":"Testing, testing: A review session on COPPA and schools lfair January 23, 2015 | 9:19AM Testing, testing: A review session on COPPA and schools By Lesley Fair We often get questions about how the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act applies in the school setting. The COPPA Rule gives parents control over what information “an operator of a Web site or online service” – yes, that includes apps – can collect from their kids under 13. Among other things, COPPA requires entities covered by the law to notify parents and get their approval before they collect, use, or disclose personal information from children. So how does COPPA apply to schools? Here’s the short answer: Schools – which are usually part of the local government – don’t fall within the legal definition of who’s covered by COPPA because they aren’t commercial “operators.” That said, schools sometimes allow, or even require, students to use sites and services that are covered by COPPA and which must provide notice and get verifiable parental consent. This question isn’t new. When the FTC issued the original COPPA Rule in 1999, it addressed how schools may serve as an intermediary between operators and parents in the notice and consent process or as the parent’s agent, acting on the parent’s behalf. Here’s what we said about the subject back then in the Statement of Basis and Purpose for COPPA: “Numerous commenters raised concerns about how the Rule would apply to the use of the Internet in schools. Some commenters expressed concern that requiring parental consent for online information collection would interfere with classroom activities, especially if parental consent were not received for only one or two children. In response, the Commission notes that the Rule does not preclude schools from acting as intermediaries between operators and parents in the notice and consent process, or from serving as the parents’ agent in the process. For example, many schools already seek parental consent for in-school Internet access at the beginning of the school year. Thus, where an operator is authorized by a school to collect personal information from children, after providing notice to the school of the operator’s collection, use, and disclosure practices, the operator can presume that the school’s authorization is based on the school’s having obtained the parent’s consent.” (Need the citation for that? It’s 64 Fed. Reg. 59888, 59903.) However, the school’s ability to consent on a parent’s behalf is limited to the educational context – in other words, it applies only when an operator collects personal information from students just for an educational purpose, and for no other commercial purpose. Thus, in addition to the central role schools play in creating an engaging learning environment, they also have a part to play in protecting student privacy. Recently, FTC staff received questions about whether COPPA covers providers of online tests – in particular, tests that two consortia of state educational agencies are developing. The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is a nonprofit that describes itself as “an alliance of states working together to develop common assessments serving nearly 24 million students.” The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium is made up of member states and other government agencies. The idea is that the tests will be given online to school kids across the country. While we encourage all types of entities to respect children’s privacy, the FTC’s enforcement authority doesn’t extend to information collection by state governments or most nonprofits. So these specific consortia, and the development and administration of their tests, are not covered by COPPA. It’s important to keep in mind that schools administer tests for many reasons – to evaluate students’ and schools’ performance,"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/06/back-business-1-wheres-your-data","title":"Back to business #1: Where’s your data?","id":2874860,"description":"Back to business #1: Where’s your data? lfair June 14, 2021 | 2:24PM Back to business #1: Where’s your data? By Lesley Fair As many companies shift to an in-person workplace, you and your employees face the opportunities and challenges of the new new normal. Today is the first in a five-part Back to Business blog series to help ease the transition back to the office, including steps you can take to reduce the risk that COVID scammers, data thieves, and financial fraudsters will follow you there. One consideration for companies: assuring you’re in control of sensitive information. Here are some tips on maintaining appropriate data security standards as your employees return to the workplace. Update your data inventory. Important business records need to be on your system and not on the personal laptops, tablets, or phones of staff members. Work with your employees to make sure need-to-keep documents are where they need to be and that confidential information that shouldn’t be in employees’ personal possession is securely removed. Don’t forget paperwork and print-outs. Have your employees printed confidential business documents while they were working from home? Where is that paperwork now – disposed of securely or displayed on the fridge on the reverse of a shopping list or crayon drawing? Make sure your security discussions include sensitive documents that were created at home. Conduct a security double-check on new platforms and software. To keep the business up and running during the COVID crisis, many companies had to move quickly to adopt new platforms and software, many of which have become indispensable productivity tools. If you continue to use them, now is a good time to make sure you’ve configured them to comply with your security standards. Consider an in-house security refresher. Some people on your staff have spent more than a year without locking desk drawers or securing their computers at the end of the work day. Plan supplemental training to reinforce security basics. The FTC has resources for small businesses , so you don’t have to start from scratch. Evaluate and adjust your practices in light of your company’s COVID experience. The past 15 months have given you a new perspective into your company’s information practices. While those lessons are fresh in your mind, reassess your security procedures and revise your policies. While you’re at it, take advantage of your company’s most valuable resource by asking employees at every level and in every department for their advice about what the past year has taught them about best security practices. Resilient companies understand the need to expect the unexpected and build contingencies for the next weather emergency, power outage, or other operational threat. Next in the Back to Business series: Slamming the office door on B2B COVID scams    "},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/07/575-million-equifax-settlement-illustrates-security-basics-your-business","title":"$575 million Equifax settlement illustrates security basics for your business","id":2874851,"description":"$575 million Equifax settlement illustrates security basics for your business lfair July 22, 2019 | 6:48AM $575 million Equifax settlement illustrates security basics for your business By Lesley Fair Patch your software. Segment your network. Monitor for intruders. According to tech experts, those are security basics for businesses of any size. But when you’re industry giant Equifax – a company in possession of staggering amounts of highly confidential information about more than 200 million Americans – it’s almost unthinkable not to implement those fundamental protections. An FTC, CFPB, and State AG settlement of at least $575 million illustrates the injury to consumers when companies ignore reasonably foreseeable (and preventable) threats to sensitive data. Read on for security tips for your business and what consumers can do to get compensation for their losses and sign up for free credit monitoring. The Equifax data breach has been in the headlines, but what happened behind the scenes? According to the complaint , in March 2017, US-CERT – Homeland Security’s cyber experts – alerted Equifax and other companies about a critical security vulnerability in open-source software used to build Java web applications. The alert warned anyone using a vulnerable version of the software to update it immediately to a free patched version. It didn’t take long before the press reported that hackers had already started to exploit the vulnerability. Equifax’s security team got the US-CERT alert on March 9, 2017, and sent it to more than 400 employees with instructions that the staffers responsible for the affected software should patch it within 48 hours, as required by the company’s Patch Management Policy. Within a week, Equifax performed a scan intended to search for vulnerable forms of the software remaining on its network. But the scan Equifax conducted wasn’t up to the task, which ultimately proved devastating to consumers. According to the complaint, the company used an improperly configured automatic scanner that failed to detect that the vulnerable software was alive and well on a part of the company’s Automated Consumer Interview System (ACIS). The lawsuit alleges that Equifax didn’t detect the “open sesame” vulnerability in its system for months. How sensitive was the data stored on the ACIS portal? If it’s been a while since you’ve made that hands-on-face shriek from “Home Alone,” now may be the time because it was the portal where Equifax collected information about consumer disputes, including documentation uploaded by consumers. In addition, Equifax used that platform for consumer credit freezes, fraud alerts, and even requests for a free annual credit report. Thus, millions of consumers interacted with the ACIS portal every year. The complaint outlines the specifics, but suffice it to say that for infocrooks looking for Social Security numbers, dates of birth, credit card numbers, expiration dates, and the like, the data on ACIS was Grade A primo stuff. Compounding the injury to consumers was the fact that ACIS was originally built in the 1980s and even in-house Equifax documents referred to it as “archaic” and “antiquated technology.” What’s more, the complaint alleges that when Equifax sent that email to more than 400 of its employees warning them about the need for the patch, the company didn’t alert the staff member responsible for the part of ACIS with the vulnerability. Equifax failed to discover the unpatched vulnerability for more than four months. In late July 2017, the company’s security team spotted suspicious traffic on the ACIS portal. They blocked it, but identified additional questionable traffic the next day. That’s when Equifax took the platform offline and hired a forensic consultant who determined that hacker s had already exploited the vulnerability. But it gets worse. The consultant figured out that once inside the ACIS system, attackers"},{"title":"The many facets of advertising diamonds with clarity","id":2874852,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/05/many-facets-advertising-diamonds-clarity","description":"The many facets of advertising diamonds with clarity lfair May 3, 2019 | 10:58AM The many facets of advertising diamonds with clarity By Lesley Fair and Robert Frisby Last month the FTC sent staff warning letters to eight firms advertising simulated or laboratory-created diamonds. According to the letters , the companies had promoted their products without adequately disclosing that they weren’t mined diamonds. Since then, industry members have been talking about the best ways to ensure compliance with the FTC’s Jewelry Guides , which are designed to help companies avoid confusing or deceiving consumers. We posed some of the questions we’ve heard to FTC attorney Robert Frisby. Our company sells simulated or laboratory-created diamonds as alternatives to mined diamonds. Should we disclose that our products aren’t mined? ROBERT:   Yes. To avoid the risk of deceiving consumers about the type of jewelry you offer, advertisers selling simulated or laboratory-created diamonds should disclose that the products aren’t mined diamonds. Describing simulated or laboratory-created diamonds merely as “diamonds,” without more, would likely convey the false impression to consumers that they’re buying mined diamonds. Using a brand name that includes the word “diamond,” without qualifying your claim with a clear explanation, would present the same problem. (In this context, a “qualified” claim means a claim that is appropriately limited, explained, or narrowed.) Similarly, describing a simulated or imitation diamond like cubic zirconia as a “laboratory-created diamond” without a clear qualification would likely lead consumers to the inaccurate conclusion that the product has the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as a laboratory-created or mined diamond. What terms should we use to disclose that our simulated or laboratory created-diamonds aren’t mined diamonds? ROBERT:   Use terms that clearly convey to consumers that the item is a simulated or laboratory-created diamond, rather than a mined diamond. Although the FTC’s Jewelry Guides don’t specify the wording you should use to make this disclosure, the Jewelry Guides state that the terms “laboratory-grown,” “laboratory-created,” “[manufacturer name]-created,” “imitation’’ or ‘‘simulated” would be appropriate to describe the nature of the product and to disclose the fact that it’s not a mined diamond. The Guides give advertisers flexibility to use another “word or phrase of like meaning” to make the disclosure. However, if you choose to use alternative phrases, exercise care to ensure that consumers understand them. How and where should we disclose that simulated or laboratory-created diamonds are not mined diamonds? ROBERT:   What matters is that consumers see the disclosure, read it, and understand what it means. That’s why advertisers should make those disclosures clearly and conspicuously, and in close proximity to where the ad uses the term “diamond” to describe the jewelry. In addition, the disclosure should appear early in the product description. Putting it at the end of a lengthy block of text or on a different webpage – for example, on an FAQ or “diamond education” page – won’t suffice because consumers might skip over it. However, in a particular ad, you may not have to make the same disclosure repeatedly if the nature of the items offered for sale is clear from the context. In social media advertising, can we make disclosures through hashtags? ROBERT:   Exercise care when using hashtags to disclose information that is necessary to avoid deception. A hashtag at the end of a social media post might not convey the information effectively, especially if appears in a string of other hashtags or if the other hashtags arguably contradict it. For example, a list of hashtags including both #diamonds and #labgrown"},{"description":"FTC to law violators: Don’t bank on bankruptcy lfair February 19, 2019 | 1:14PM FTC to law violators: Don’t bank on bankruptcy By Lesley Fair A recent ruling by a Florida Bankruptcy Judge sheds light on a tenacious team within the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. But first, let’s set the time machine to 2008 when the FTC entered into a settlement with BlueHippo, a computer financing company that pitched electronics to consumers with “less than perfect credit, bad credit, no credit.” The FTC sued BlueHippo for a host of illegal practices, many related to the company’s refund policies. The defendants settled that case, agreeing to pay as much as $5 million in consumer redress. But just a year later, the FTC went back to court, alleging that BlueHippo was already in violation of the order because it didn’t clearly disclose the terms of its refund policy. According to the FTC, rather than giving consumers their money back, BlueHippo purported to offer “store credit,” but failed to disclose that major strings were attached. Consumer didn’t learn about the onerous policies until they tried to use their “credit,” only to have BlueHippo tell them they’d have to shell out more cash first. As a result, more than 55,000 people paid money to BlueHippo, but got nothing in return. The trial judge granted the FTC’s contempt motion against the corporate defendants and BlueHippo CEO Joseph Rensin, but entered a remedy of only $609,000. After the FTC appealed, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court, which entered a judgment against Mr. Rensin for $13.4 million , the financial harm the court determined that consumers suffered as a result of the scheme. Mr. Rensin refused to pay the contempt judgment, and according to the FTC, he tried to evade it by filing for bankruptcy. That’s when the FTC’s bankruptcy team stepped in. At a trial before the Bankruptcy Judge, Mr. Rensin argued (among other things) that he was unaware of certain aspects of his company’s refund policies and that his in-house counsel had been responsible for them – testimony the Court expressly rejected as not credible. Mr. Rensin also claimed that the $13.4 million he owed was dischargeable in bankruptcy. The FTC disagreed, citing a provision in the law that a debt is not discharged “to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud . . . .” The Bankruptcy Judge held, “What constitutes ‘false pretenses’ in the context of § 523(a)(2)(A) has been defined as ‘implied misrepresentations or conduct intended to create and foster a false impression.’” You’ll want to read the Memorandum Opinion for the details, but the Court concluded that consumers “relied on what BlueHippo told them, which was fatally misleading and amounted to fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment.” The FTC’s bankruptcy team also argued that an additional provision applied: § 523(a)(6), which “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt . . . for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.” The Bankruptcy Judge concluded that the FTC “met its burden in proving that Mr. Rensin’s conduct was wrongful and without just cause and thus was malicious within the meaning of § 523(a)(6). Mr. Rensin used BlueHippo to create a series of transactions aimed at defrauding consumers for the purpose of filling the coffers of BlueHippo. There was nothing defensible about his actions.” What’s more, the Court ruled, “Based on the credible evidence admitted in this case, not only did Mr. Rensin go along with this fraud, but he was at the helm of and guided BlueHippo in its every action in connection with this fraud.” The Court put it this way: As the captain of the ship, with not only direct oversight but","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/ftc-law-violators-dont-bank-bankruptcy","title":"FTC to law violators: Don’t bank on bankruptcy","id":2874853},{"id":2874854,"title":"Stemming unproven stem cell therapy claims","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/10/stemming-unproven-stem-cell-therapy-claims","description":"Stemming unproven stem cell therapy claims lfair October 18, 2018 | 11:27AM Stemming unproven stem cell therapy claims By Lesley Fair Old West nostrum sellers used to market treatments for a broad range of diseases with the slogan “Good for what ails ya.” California-based Regenerative Medical Group used a current buzzword in science – stem cell therapy – to peddle what they claimed were treatments for conditions as varied as cerebral palsy and autism to Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and macular degeneration. But according to the FTC , they didn’t have proof to back up their expansive promises. “What ails ya?” For consumers struggling with serious diseases, the lawsuit demonstrates the FTC’s concern with “what fails ya” – in other words, unproven “cures” that lack scientific support. Advertising online and through social media, the defendants, including owner Bryn Jarald Henderson, D.O., promoted stem cell treatments derived from the amniotic fluid of women who have given birth via C-section. Their marketing claims were – to say the least – dramatic. According to a promotional letter from Dr. Henderson, “Lives are being saved, the blind see, the crippled walk and the patients with heart, lung, kidney and nerve diseases can alter the course of their suffering with a simple therapy [that] lasts for years and impacts their lives NOW!” The defendants’ ads also made express claims about specific intractable medical conditions: “Stem Cell Treatments have been shown to improve sight in patients with Macular degeneration.” “We can make blinded People see again!” “We can reverse Autism symptoms.” “Can stem cell therapy help patients with chronic kidney disease? Yes it can. It can make new cells that replace damaged cells and reverse chronic kidney disease symptoms.” “Cure for Parkinson’s? The only Medical Group worldwide that treats Parkinson’s with amniotic Stem Cells!” For stroke victims with damaged brain tissue, “Stem Cell treatment acts as a form of medical time machine, reversing the damage that has already been made.” One of the company’s YouTube videos featured an 11-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who purportedly spoke “her first words” after receiving treatment from the defendants. Regenerative Medical Group and Dr. Henderson charged consumers between $9,500 to $15,000 for an initial treatment with recommended “boosters” going for between $5,000 to $8,000. What’s more, they claimed that what they offered was comparable to or even better than conventional medical care. That’s what the defendants said, but what’s the real story on stem cells? In fact, there are many different kinds of stem cells – amniotic stem cells are only one variety – and they vary widely in potency. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) website, “Much work remains to be done in the laboratory and the clinic to understand how to use these cells for cell-based therapies to treat disease.” Furthermore, the vast majority of amniotic stem cell research has been conducted on animal models. According to the FTC, there are no human clinical studies showing that amniotic stem cell therapy treats any diseases in humans and certainly not the long list of conditions the defendants claimed to cure. The proposed settlement requires the defendants to have human clinical testing to support future claims related to the treatment of any disease or health condition. Based on the defendants’ financial status, the $3.3 million judgment – which represents what patients paid for the treatments – will be partially suspended when the defendants turn over $525,000. That money will be returned to consumers. The company also has to send a letter about the lawsuit to their customers and others who have expressed an interest in their stem cell therapy treatments. What does the FTC"},{"id":2874762,"title":"QOSD Sénat : Moyens affectés à l'entretien des voiries communales (2025-06-26)","link":"http://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2025/qSEQ25060636S.html","description":"QOSD (Réponse reçue) - 2025-06-26"},{"description":"2023-09-22 : Vous souhaitez créer une micro-entreprise ? Selon l'activité que vous exercez, vous pouvez être soumis à l'obligation de souscrire certaines","title":"Assurances du micro-entrepreneur (auto-entrepreneur)","id":2874729,"link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/vosdroits/F23667"},{"title":"5 mythes sur le droit du travail qui mènent les entreprises","id":2874706,"link":"https://www.juriguide.com/2026/05/09/mythes-droit-travail-france/","description":"Décryptez 5 idées reçues courantes sur le droit du travail français qui piègent employeurs et salariés. Évitez les erreurs coûteuses. Lancez-vous! L’article 5 mythes sur le droit du travail qui mènent les entreprises est apparu en premier sur Juriguide"},{"link":"https://www.juriguide.com/2026/05/09/juriguide-prix-abonnement/","title":"Juriguide abonnement prix 2026, le guide pour bien choisir","id":2874705,"description":"Les tarifs Juriguide : 3 mois offerts + 14 jours gratuits, jusqu'à 1800€ d'économies vs concurrents. Comparez les abonnements juridiques maintenant ! L’article Juriguide abonnement prix 2026, le guide pour bien choisir est apparu en premier sur Juriguide"},{"title":"L'apprenti peut-il rompre immédiatement son contrat en cas de faute grave de l'employeur ?","id":2874700,"link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A18884?xtor=RSS-112","description":"Dans un avis rendu le 15 avril 2026, la Cour de cassation donne des précisions sur les modalités de rupture du contrat d’un apprenti qui invoque des manquements ou des fautes graves de son"},{"description":"Prix du gaz, titres de séjour, échange de permis européen ou étranger, déclaration des revenus 2025... Découvrez toutes les actualités de ce mois de","id":2874701,"title":"Ce qui change en mai 2026","link":"https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/actualites/A18238?xtor=RSS-112"},{"description":"Vous êtes soumis à l'impôt sur le revenu (IR) ? Depuis le 9 avril, vous pouvez remplir votre déclaration des revenus de l’année 2025. Entreprendre Service Public vous indique les dates limites pour déclarer vos revenus professionnels de l'année","id":2874699,"title":"Impôts 2026 : quelles sont les dates limites pour déclarer vos revenus professionnels ?","link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A18254?xtor=RSS-112"},{"description":"Chaque entreprise doit souscrire une déclaration annuelle de liquidation de la taxe sur les salaires avant le 15 janvier inclus. Selon le montant payé par votre entreprise l'année dernière, vous devez également la payer à cette date. Cette taxe est due par les entreprises non soumises à la TVA employant des","title":"Déclaration annuelle de liquidation et paiement de la taxe sur les salaires avant le 15 janvier","id":2874698,"link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A17059?xtor=RSS-112"},{"id":2874695,"title":"Urssaf : évolution du service Tese","link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A18600?xtor=RSS-112","description":"Le Tese (Titre emploi service entreprise) est un dispositif instauré par l’Urssaf afin de simplifier les formalités sociales liées à l’emploi de salariés. Ce service évolue au 1 er janvier 2026."},{"title":"Quand opter pour le paiement trimestriel des cotisations en 2026 ?","id":2874696,"link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A17932?xtor=RSS-112","description":"Les entreprises de moins de 11 salariés peuvent opter jusqu'au 31 décembre 2025 inclus pour le paiement trimestriel de leurs cotisations sociales en"},{"description":"Le plafond annuel de la Sécurité sociale (PASS) sert de base pour calculer le montant des indemnités journalières pour maladie, accident du travail ou maternité, les pensions d'invalidité, les retraites, etc. Il est réévalué chaque année au 1 er janvier. Le Bulletin officiel de la Sécurité sociale du 21 octobre indique que le PASS affichera au 1 er janvier 2026 une augmentation de 2 % par rapport à son niveau de","link":"https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/actualites/A15386?xtor=RSS-112","id":2874697,"title":"Sécurité sociale : quel sera le plafond annuel en 2026 ?"},{"link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-social/semaine-jurisprudence-sociale-cour-cassation_f67d9a152-08b5-419e-909e-4ff774067e87","title":"Une semaine de jurisprudence sociale à la Cour de cassation","id":2874302,"description":"Nous avons sélectionné pour vous les derniers arrêts les plus marquants mis en ligne sur le site de la Cour de"},{"link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-social/indemnite-precarite-reste-due-salarie-cas-requalification-ulterieure-cdd-cdi_fd852d13e-e2fb-4fcc-b560-fbc308cc2533","title":"L’indemnité de précarité reste due au salarié, même en cas de requalification ultérieure du CDD en CDI","id":2874300,"description":"L’indemnité de précarité versée au salarié à l’issue de son contrat à durée déterminée lui reste acquise, y compris si ce contrat est ultérieurement requalifié en contrat à durée indéterminée. C’est ce que la chambre sociale de la Cour de cassation rappelle dans un arrêt du 24 septembre"},{"link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-social/aides-financieres-apprentissage-modalites-versement-revues_fb049d1aa-afd2-4b2c-b660-824b9a4d9585","title":"Aides financières à l'apprentissage : les modalités de versement sont revues","id":2874301,"description":"Pour les contrats d'apprentissage de moins d'un an et ceux rompus avant la date anniversaire, le montant de l'aide unique et de l'aide exceptionnelle est calculé prorata"},{"description":"Une ordonnance du tribunal judiciaire de Paris condamne un employeur à consulter son CSE sur le déploiement d'une plateforme d'accès aux outils d'IA génératives, mais refuse ce droit concernant la nouvelle version d'un outil conversationnel RH. Ce type de contentieux se multiplie devant les tribunaux","id":2874299,"title":"Intelligence artificielle (IA) : attention à la consultation du CSE","link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-social/intelligence-artificielle-attention-consultation-cse_fe521409d-fdbc-4df6-8e85-6b4665cba9c2"},{"description":"Game on: FTC loot box workshop set to start lfair August 7, 2019 | 9:21AM Game on: FTC loot box workshop set to start By Lesley Fair The time has come to take a closer look at loot boxes. The FTC’s workshop, Inside the Game: Unlocking the Consumer Issues Surrounding Loot Boxes , begins at 10:00 ET today. Moments before the start time we’ll post a link to the live webcast . FTC staff will be tweeting from @FTC using the hashtag #LootboxFTC. Interested in putting your perspectives on the public record? File a comment online by October 11, 2019.","id":2874227,"title":"Game on: FTC loot box workshop set to start","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/game-ftc-loot-box-workshop-set-start"},{"description":"Extension mention: New deadline for Safeguards Rule comments lfair May 21, 2019 | 12:27PM Extension mention: New deadline for Safeguards Rule comments By Lesley Fair Racing to finish your comment about proposed changes to the Safeguards Rule by the impending deadline? You can take a breather because the FTC has extended the deadline by 60 days. The Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program. As part of its ongoing review of rules and guides, the FTC proposed changes to the Rule in March 2019 and asked for your feedback. At the request of commenters, you now have until August 2, 2019, to file your comment, which will be placed on the public record. If you’re interested in the Safeguards Rule, you’re probably also following changes the FTC has proposed to the Privacy Rule , which requires financial institutions to tell customers about their information-sharing practices and to let customers opt out of having their information shared with certain third parties. Those comments are still due on June 3, 2019. Save yourself a step and file online.","title":"Extension mention: New deadline for Safeguards Rule comments","id":2874228,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/05/extension-mention-new-deadline-safeguards-rule-comments"},{"description":"Forum on new forms of financing is strictly business lfair March 5, 2019 | 10:49AM Forum on new forms of financing is strictly business By Lesley Fair When it comes to getting the working capital your company needs, you’re strictly business. Yes, you confer with traditional financial institutions, but like many small businesses, you also may look into online loans and other newer options. Financing for smaller enterprises is the topic of an upcoming FTC workshop. Mark May 8, 2019 , on your calendar for Strictly Business: An FTC Forum on Small Business Financing . Small businesses are the heart of the American economy and like larger companies, they often need financing to operate and expand. One recent innovation: the online marketplace for small business financing, including term loans, lines of credit, and cash advances. Some options may provide benefits to small business – for example, quicker access to capital – but some products raise consumer protection concerns, like high costs and potentially unclear terms. The FTC is convening this event to hear from stakeholders and get a 360° picture of the developing marketplace. Right now, we’re putting together potential panels. If you’d like to be considered as a panelist, email smallbizfinance@ftc.gov with a brief statement about your perspective on the issues. Strictly Business is free and open to the public – and there’s no need to pre-register. The May 8th forum is scheduled for the FTC Constitution Center auditorium, located at 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, D.C. (We’re at the L’Enfant Plaza Metro stop.) Can’t make it to Washington? Watch the webcast live. Follow the Business Blog for upcoming details about the","title":"Forum on new forms of financing is strictly business","id":2874229,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/03/forum-new-forms-financing-strictly-business"},{"description":"Will your research take centerstage at PrivacyCon 2021? lfair December 16, 2020 | 10:08AM Will your research take centerstage at PrivacyCon 2021? By Lesley Fair It’s an annual celebration of the innovative, the audacious, and the avant garde. The Met Gala? Not quite. It’s the FTC’s sixth PrivacyCon , scheduled to convene virtually on July 27, 2021 . PrivacyCon brings together researchers, academics, consumer advocates, industry members, and law enforcers to discuss what’s new and noteworthy in data security and consumer privacy. Interested in showcasing your research at PrivacyCon? The FTC just issued a Call for Presentations explaining the process for submitting your work for consideration. As the Call for Presentations explains, we’re looking primarily for empirical research and demonstrations (as opposed to opinion pieces about policy) completed since January 1, 2020. The universe of topics is broad, but some possibilities include: privacy and security issues related to working from home; the effectiveness of consumer privacy and security disclosures: algorithmic bias and ensuring fairness in algorithm use; and privacy-enhancing technologies for consumers. The deadline for submissions is April 9, 2021, and FTC staff hopes to notify applicants by May 14th if their research has been selected. Consult the Call for Presentations and the PrivacyCon2021 event page for more information. And mark July 27th on your calendar to watch the webcast live. Questions? Email us at research@ftc.gov .","id":2874221,"title":"Will your research take centerstage at PrivacyCon 2021?","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/12/will-your-research-take-centerstage-privacycon-2021"},{"description":"What’s on the regulatory review roll? FTC announces Franchise Rule workshop lfair September 4, 2020 | 1:36PM What’s on the regulatory review roll? FTC announces Franchise Rule workshop By Lesley Fair Etymologists – the word origin people – trace “franchise” back to a mash-up of French terms meaning both “forthright expression” and “membership.” Five hundred years later and those two concepts remain intertwined in the FTC’s Franchise Rule. Join us virtually on November 10, 2020 , as we host an online public event, Reviewing the Franchise Rule: An FTC Workshop . In place since 1978, the goal of the Franchise Rule is to provide people thinking about buying a franchise with information they need to weigh the risks and benefits of a potential investment. At the heart of the Rule is the Franchise Disclosure Document. The document must include key information about the franchise and it must appear in a standardized format to make it easier for prospective franchisees to compare offers. Last year, as part of the ongoing review of all its rules and guides, the FTC announced that the Franchise Rule was next under the magnifying glass and asked for your feedback. We received 39 public comments reflecting a wide range of viewpoints. All commenters agreed there’s a continuing need for the Rule, but some commenters proposed changes, including to the substance and form of required disclosures. Based on your input, we’re convening Reviewing the Franchise Rule to discuss the future of the Rule. You’ll want to read the just-released Federal Register Notice for details, but topics on the table include financial performance representations (franchise insiders call them “Item 19 disclosures”), the use of disclaimers, and the format of the Franchise Disclosure Document. Follow the Business Blog for updates about the agenda. But for now, if you’d like to throw your hat in the ring as a possible panelist, email us at franchiserule@ftc.gov by October 1, 2020. We’ll also keep the public record open until December 17, 2020, so you can respond to issues raised at the workshop. (The Federal Register Notice explains the procedure.) Mark your calendar for 1:00 ET on Tuesday, November 10th, when Reviewing the Franchise Rule  convenes. We’ll post a link on the event page a few minutes before the start time so you can watch the webcast live.","id":2874222,"title":"What’s on the regulatory review roll? FTC announces Franchise Rule workshop","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/09/whats-regulatory-review-roll-ftc-announces-franchise-rule-workshop"},{"title":"July 21st FTC PrivacyCon goes virtual","id":2874223,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/july-21st-ftc-privacycon-goes-virtual","description":"July 21st FTC PrivacyCon goes virtual lfair June 16, 2020 | 1:02PM July 21st FTC PrivacyCon goes virtual By Lesley Fair The experts who have headlined the FTC’s first four PrivacyCon events are among the innovators whose research has allowed many of us to work remotely in recent months. So there’s a certain symmetry to the FTC’s announcement that the fifth annual PrivacyCon will convene virtually on July 21, 2020 . Aside from shifting to an online-only platform, everything else about PrivacyCon will remain the same. The event will feature the latest research conducted by globally recognized experts. And you’ll be able to participate by watching the webcast live from a link we’ll post moments before the start of the July 21st confab. Follow the Business Blog for an upcoming announcement about the agenda and panelists."},{"id":2874224,"title":"Deceptive pain claims remain a bane","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/04/deceptive-pain-claims-remain-bane","description":"Deceptive pain claims remain a bane lfair April 20, 2020 | 1:13PM Deceptive pain claims remain a bane By Lesley Fair For decades the FTC has been warning people about online ports, portals, and pop-ups that can be conduits for questionable claims. But companies shouldn’t think we’ve taken our eye off another potential doorway for deception: direct mail. According to an FTC lawsuit , a group of seven U.S. and Canadian defendants used glossy magazine-style mailers to advertise that Neurocet, Regenify, and Resetigen-D could treat a list of diseases, maladies, and conditions long enough to fill Gray’s Anatomy – the book and the show. The defendants pitched Neurocet as an answer to the kinds of chronic pain that often besets older consumers, including arthritis, back pain, and headaches. What’s more, they promised that Neurocet provides relief that lasts 26 times longer than popular pain medications and is even stronger than morphine, leading to reduced inflammation and greater mobility and flexibility. And just to gild the pain relief lily, they said their claims were supported by scientific or clinical proof. They advertised Regenify and Resetigen-D to repair cell damage everywhere in the body, turning back the clock on damage to skin, tissue, bones, and organs while also improving memory and brain function by as much as 97.4%. That’s just for starters. The ads also pitched the products as a treatment for arthritis, tinnitus, asthma, high cholesterol, psoriasis, and eczema. Oh, and users would lose weight and gain muscle. Skeptical? Don’t be, implied the defendants. Ads for Regenify and Resetigen-D featured glowing testimonials from people who had supposedly tried the products. They also trotted out purported endorsements from gastroenterologists, neurologists, nephrologists, pulmonologists, cardiologists, rheumatologists, and pretty much every other kind of –ologist who’s ever donned a white coat. The complaint charges the defendants with making “false or unsubstantiated claims.” Others might use stronger language to describe the practice of targeting older consumers in this fashion, especially considering the defendants didn’t have scientific support for their representations and used purported endorsements from medical professionals and consumers that were flat-out fictitious. The proposed stipulated order puts provisions in place to protect consumers in the future and requires the defendants to turn over $1.3 million, which may be used for consumer refunds. If you think you’ve seen a lot of cases from the FTC recently challenging misleading pain relief claims and deceptive treatments for maladies afflicting older Americans, you’re right – and there are good reasons why that’s the case. First, as the opioid crisis demonstrates, millions of people are desperate for relief from chronic pain. Second, with the Boomer Consumer demographic bump, more people are struggling with age-related medical conditions for which there are no easy cures. And third, the Venn diagram of those two groups overlaps substantially. That’s why the FTC continues the fight against bogus treatments and cures, and why we wage the war regardless of whether marketers convey their questionable claims online, in direct mail, via telemarketing, or in soci al media.  "},{"title":"FTC alleges deception in “unbiased” review site’s ratings and rankings","id":2874225,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/02/ftc-alleges-deception-unbiased-review-sites-ratings-rankings","description":"FTC alleges deception in “unbiased” review site’s ratings and rankings lfair February 3, 2020 | 11:10AM FTC alleges deception in “unbiased” review site’s ratings and rankings By Lesley Fair Top picks, star ratings, in-depth reviews. Many consumers don’t buy anything without consulting third-party review sites or checking out the opinions of other customers. But how often are those ratings the product of buying and selling between the “independent” site and companies willing to pay for better play? And are those reviews really from satisfied customers or are they from employees acting on instructions to stuff the ballot box with five-star ratings? Those are the allegations in a lawsuit against LendEDU , a site the FTC says falsely claimed to offer “objective” evaluations of financial products. Does the proposed settlement in this case suggest it’s time to review your own review practices? Many consumers comparison-shopping for student loans, personal loans, and credit cards visited LendEDU based on its promise of “honest,” “accurate,” and “unbiased” ratings and reviews. For example, LendEDU’s student loan refinancing page offered a rate table, rankings, star ratings, and reviews of what it claimed were the best or top companies. LendEDU and its corporate officers hammered home the message that due to their “strict editorial integrity,” those ratings “are completely objective and not influenced by compensation in any way.” False, says the FTC. According to the complaint , LendEDU boosted companies’ numerical ranking and position on rate tables based on payments to LendEDU. For example, in an email to a student loan refinancing company whose rating had fallen from #1 to #3, LendEDU’s CEO said it could retake the top spot by paying LendEDU $9.50 per click. LendEDU’s Vice President of Product later contacted the same company, suggesting it increase the payment to $16.50 per click: “We want to keep [your company] positioned as the #1 lender on our site, but we need to justify the move from a business perspective.” The company ultimately agreed to pay $15 per click, and LendEDU kept the company in the top spot. The complaint alleges that LendEDU offered another student loan refinancing company the #3 position for a payment of $16 per click. The contract expressly provided for a ranking “[n]o lower than position 3.” The complaint recounts other examples of how the FTC says LendEDU finagled the ratings for pay. What were consumers told about these arrangements? Up until mid-2016, nothing. Then LendEDU added a fine-print sentence at the bottom of its website that the “site may be compensated through third party advertisers.” Around March 2019 – after LendEDU learned of the FTC’s investigation – it listed elsewhere on its site the companies that “may provide compensation to LendEDU.” But the FTC says those “disclosures” were placed where consumers were unlikely to see them. That’s not the only way LendEDU allegedly deceived consumers. On its own site and on third-party review platforms, supposedly satisfied customers raved about their experience with LendEDU. For example, on Trustpilot, 123 of 126 reviews gave LendEDU the highest five-star rating. Here’s what three purported consumers had to say: Kenny: “LendEDU showed me the light at the end of the tunnel. I was drowning in student loan debt then they showed up with a lifeboat and a warm blanket. The website was easy to navigate and with the help of their customer service team, I saved a lot of money refinancing. I can’t thank them enough and would recommend to anyone! Scott: “Extremely user friendly and easy to use. . . . It was a pleasant surprise to be able to find personal finance education. As a student, high schools don’t really provide any basic financial course and credit cards are so easy to obtain. It was"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/11/you-dont-say-ftc-workshop-listens-voice-cloning","id":2874226,"title":"You Don’t Say: FTC workshop listens in on voice cloning","description":"You Don’t Say: FTC workshop listens in on voice cloning lfair November 4, 2019 | 1:17PM You Don’t Say: FTC workshop listens in on voice cloning By Lesley Fair Imagine people who have lost the ability to speak communicating in a digital version of their own voice. With just a brief recorded snippet, researchers can use artificial intelligence and text-to-speech synthesis to create a near-perfect voice clone. But it takes even less time to imagine how fraudsters could use that technology to further their scams. On January 28, 2020, FTC staff will examine the consumer protection implications at You Don’t Say: An FTC Workshop on Voice Cloning . Think of the typical family emergency scam where a con artist calls someone, pretending to be a relative in distress. Or consider its shady corporate cousin: the CEO scam. That’s when a crook, impersonating a company higher-up, calls an employee to transfer money for a purported business purpose. Those scams already steal millions from consumers each year. But what if the fraudster could use technology to clone the voice of a real person? You Don’t Say will explore the many ways the technology can be positively used – healthcare, entertainment, and other consumer-oriented applications – and potentially abused. Panelists will consider ethical concerns related to the use of cloned voices and the impact on the trustworthiness of oral communications. You Don’t Say will take place at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. The event is free and open to the public. We’ll also webcast it live on January 28th beginning at 12:30 Eeastern Time. Follow the Business Blog and the You Don’t Say event page for agenda"},{"title":"Identity theft? Show me the records","id":2874220,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/12/identity-theft-show-me-records","description":"Identity theft? Show me the records lfair December 18, 2017 | 10:29AM Identity theft? Show me the records By Amanda Koulousias There’s been a lot of talk about identity theft lately. Maybe you’ve even heard from customers affected by it. Your help can make a big difference. In fact, did you know that your business is required to provide identity theft victims with copies of records relating to the theft? The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Section 609(e) requires you to provide identity theft victims – or law enforcement at the victim’s request – with a copy of records relating to the theft. Following a written request from an identity theft victim, you must provide the records within 30 days, free of charge and without a subpoena. This is sometimes called “the business records turnover provision.” Identity theft victims may need the records to document the crime or clear up their good name. You want to help them and you know you need to comply with the law. So, make sure you have policies in place for responding to victims’ requests for records. Based on what we’ve learned, here are a few things to keep in mind when responding to a business records turnover request Take stock. Know what types of records you have. Think about applications, account statements, receipts, customer service notes associated with a transaction, and records showing where merchandise was purchased or shipped. If you know what you have, then you can better ensure that victims are provided all types of records related to the identity theft Think broadly. The FCRA’s business record turnover provision applies to all different types of identity theft, including new accounts opened, as well as purchases on existing accounts. That’s why it’s important to evaluate your policies periodically to make sure they include new types of identity theft as they emerge. Don’t be afraid to duplicate. Under the FCRA you must provide records even if the victim has received the records before. Here’s an example: Suppose a victim sends in a request for records after receiving a late notice on a billing statement. What should you do? Produce all records related to the unauthorized charges, including copies of billing statements, even though the victim may have already received them. Why? Victims may not have kept the copies they previously received, especially if the identity theft happened some time ago. Denying the victim’s request because the victim previously had access to the records does not comply with Section 609(e). You may be wondering if there’s any time you can refuse to provide records in response to a 609(e) request. If you’re not sure of the victim’s identity, the FCRA allows you to ask for proof of identity, such as a copy of a government-issued identification. You also may ask for proof of a claim of identity theft, such as an Identity Theft Report issued by the FTC or a police report. An FTC Identity Theft Report subjects the person filing the report to criminal penalties if the information is false, and businesses can treat it as they would a police report. After receiving those documents, if, in good faith, you can’t verify the victim’s identity or believe the request for records was based on a misrepresentation, you may decline to provide the records. For more information about complying with 609(e), read Businesses Must Provide Victims and Law Enforcement with Transaction Records Relating to Identity Theft."},{"description":"Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent a warning letter to national mortgage services provider Mortgage Connect urging the company to conduct a comprehensive review of its employment contracts—including any noncompete agreements or other restrictive covenants—to ensure they are appropriately tailored and comply with the law. The letter responds to material made public in an ongoing lawsuit where Mortgage Connect seeks to enforce a noncompete agreement against a former worker and the competitor who hired her. Information in the lawsuit appears to show that Mortgage Connect may have used unjustifiable noncompete agreements in employment contracts, with potential adverse effects on workers and competition, the Chairman’s letter states. The letter encourages Mortgage Connect to review and discontinue the use of any noncompete or other agreements that are not reasonably necessary and to notify relevant workers of their discontinuance. The Chairman’s letter is the latest action demonstrating the FTC’s commitment to actively investigate potentially anticompetitive noncompete agreements and bring enforcement actions to restore competition. In February, the FTC launched a  Joint Labor Task Force that will prioritize rooting out and prosecuting deceptive, unfair and anticompetitive labor-market practices that harm American workers. The FTC also  recently ordered Rollins Inc.—one of the largest pest-control companies in the United States—to stop enforcing noncompete agreements against more than 18,000 employees","title":"FTC Chairman Ferguson Issues Noncompete Warning Letter to Mortgage Connect","id":2874219,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-chairman-ferguson-issues-noncompete-warning-letter-mortgage-connect"},{"link":"http://www.senat.fr/questions/base/2025/qSEQ25060619S.html","id":2874050,"title":"QOSD Sénat : Contribution des collectivités locales au budget 2026 (2025-06-19)","description":"QOSD (Réponse reçue) - 2025-06-19"},{"description":"2023-09-22 : Un micro-entrepreneur est soumis à une obligation d'assurance en fonction de l'activité qu'il","link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/vosdroits/F23668","id":2873906,"title":"Un micro-entrepreneur doit-il être obligatoirement assuré ?"},{"description":"En raison de la hausse des prix du carburant, le décret du 17 avril met en place une aide exceptionnelle pour les entreprises de transport","link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A18882?xtor=RSS-112","id":2873865,"title":"Hausse des prix du carburant : une aide exceptionnelle pour les entreprises de transport"},{"link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A18873?xtor=RSS-112","id":2873863,"title":"Financement du CPF : évolution du montant de la participation obligatoire","description":"Le décret n° 2026-234 du 30 mars 2026 relève la participation obligatoire au compte CPF à 150 € . Cette participation peut être prise en charge par"},{"description":"Dans un arrêt du 25 mars 2026, la Cour de cassation indique qu’il n’y a pas de violation au droit à la déconnexion du salarié dès lors qu’il prend spontanément la décision de se connecter en dehors de ses heures de","id":2873864,"title":"Un employeur viole-t-il le droit à la déconnexion du salarié qui se connecte spontanément ?","link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A18871?xtor=RSS-112"},{"description":"Afin d’encourager le recrutement des talents neuroatypiques (autisme, troubles Dys , troubles déficit de l'attention avec ou sans hyperactivité), un guide national « La neurodiversité en entreprise : repenser, recruter, déployer, développer » vient d’être publié. Il s’adresse aux employeurs et vise à développer le levier de performance que constitue l’insertion de ces profils dans le monde du","link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A18863?xtor=RSS-112","title":"Comment intégrer et valoriser les profils neuroatypiques dans votre entreprise ?","id":2873860},{"link":"https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/actualites/A17364?xtor=RSS-112","id":2873861,"title":"CPF : la participation forfaitaire obligatoire augmente","description":"Vous envisagez de suivre une formation en vue d'une évolution professionnelle et vous souhaitez utiliser votre compte personnel de formation (CPF) ? La participation financière obligatoire des salariés augmente à partir du 2 avril. Service Public fait le"},{"link":"https://entreprendre.service-public.gouv.fr/actualites/A18267?xtor=RSS-112","id":2873862,"title":"Affectation du solde de la taxe d’apprentissage sur SOLTéA : le calendrier 2026","description":"Le solde de la taxe d’apprentissage (TA), déclaré et versé par l’employeur dans la DSN d'avril, vise à développer les formations initiales technologiques et professionnelles ainsi que l'insertion professionnelle. Le calendrier 2026 de la campagne de répartition de ce solde vient d’être"},{"link":"https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/actualites/A18808?xtor=RSS-112","title":"Ce qui change en mars 2026","id":2873859,"description":"Élections municipales, finances, travail, famille, etc. Service Public vous présente les changements qui interviennent au mois de"},{"id":2873779,"title":"Summary report: Reality check on simplifying excise procedures","link":"https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/news/summary-report-reality-check-simplifying-excise-procedures-2026-05-08_en","description":"A reality check on simplifying excise procedures took place on 23"},{"description":"Le versement d’une rémunération à un gérant de SARL suppose qu’elle soit fixée par les statuts ou décidée par les associés. À défaut, la société peut obtenir en référé le paiement d'une provision et l'interdiction faite à l'intéressé de s'octroyer d'autres rémunérations non","title":"Une SARL peut agir en référé contre son gérant s'il s'est versé une rémunération non autorisée","id":2873772,"link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-affaires/sarl-agir-refere-contre-gerant-verse-remuneration-autorisee_f5cbfa61e-fb79-4ad9-b43e-b55196142c97"},{"description":"La période de suspension du contrat de travail du salarié résultant d'un arrêt de travail consécutif à un accident de trajet ne peut être prise en considération pour calculer l'ancienneté propre à déterminer le droit à l'indemnité légale de licenciement et son montant. C’est ce que précise la Cour de cassation dans un arrêt en date du 11 mars","link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-social/indemnite-legale-licenciement-absences-accident-trajet-doivent-deduites-anciennete_f43eb6ec5-7ccd-445f-8963-4274d4281d79","id":2873771,"title":"Indemnité légale de licenciement : les absences pour accident de trajet doivent être déduites de l’ancienneté"},{"id":2873769,"title":"Agrément des services de prévention et de santé au travail : le contenu des dossiers est actualisé","link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-social/agrement-services-prevention-sante-travail-contenu-dossiers-actualise_f4ae9563a-5bdb-42cd-9292-612100a0e36d"},{"description":"Ne méconnaît pas le principe d'égalité ni ne porte atteinte au droit de propriété du bailleur la jurisprudence qui reconnaît le caractère imprescriptible de l’action en reconnaissance d’un bail commercial à l’issue d’un bail","title":"L’imprescriptibilité de l’action en constatation du bail commercial conforme à la Déclaration de 1789","id":2873770,"link":"https://open.lefebvre-dalloz.fr/actualites/droit-affaires/imprescriptibilite-action-constatation-bail-commercial-conforme-declaration-1789_f94681b40-4721-4111-bf4e-0f08fbb6c80c"},{"description":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans lfair January 30, 2015 | 9:12AM Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans By Lesley Fair She’s got a competition clutch with four on the floor And she purrs like a kitten ‘til the lake pipes roar. And if that ain’t enough to make you flip your lid, There's one more thing. I got the pink slip, Daddy. Back in the days of the Beach Boys’ “Little Deuce Coupe,” the only risk to a car title – the pink slip – was when hot rodders bet them on drag races.The FTC just announced its first two settlements with car title lenders that underscore additional risks to consumers’ pink slips and wallets. What should other companies consider if they want to avoid crossing the yellow line? The complaints challenge allegedly illegal practices by First American Title Lending of Georgia, which operates over 30 locations in that state, and Finance Select, which does business as Fast Cash Title Pawn at five Georgia locations and two in Alabama. What’s a car title loan? It’s typically a high-cost, short-term loan secured with a consumer’s free-and-clear car title. The lender holds on to the title as long as payments keep coming in. Of course, if consumers don’t pay, the lender takes the car. Car title loans tend to run between $1,000 and $10,000. They have high interest rates – the typical APR can be a whopping 300% – and short repayment periods, sometimes only 30 days. Each payment after that first month is called a “renewal.” Given that many consumers who take out car title loans are in financial distress, it’s not surprising that loans may extend over a much longer period. According to the FTC, the average is more like eight renewals. In addition to holding the consumer’s car title, the lender charges monthly fees, sometimes as much as 25% of the amount borrowed per month. That means that after eight renewals, a consumer taking out a $1,000 loan could wind up paying $2,000 in fees. The FTC says the companies’ ads lured consumers in with promises of “zero” interest, but then failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose hidden conditions attached to those eye-catching deals. For example, First American Title Lending touted “0% interest” in big headlines on websites, billboards, newspaper ads, yard signs, and elsewhere. What consumers weren’t clearly told was that they’d only get the 0% rate if they were new customers, if they paid by money order or certified funds, and if they paid in full within 30 days. If it took them longer to pay – the norm in the industry – consumers would have to pony up hefty finance charges calculated back to Day 1 of that \"0% interest\" loan, as well as the fees that started on Day 31. According to the complaint, Fast Cash Title Pawn similarly advertised “0% Title Loans,” sometimes adding “1st 30 days 0%,” without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the substantial strings that were attached – including that if the consumer didn’t pay in full within 30 days, they’d have to pay the finance charge for the first 30 days in addition to charges that kicked in on Day 31.  The lawsuits allege that the companies’ practices violate the FTC Act.  The FTC says First American Title Lending also violated the Truth in Lending Act and Reg Z. Under the proposed settlements, the companies will have to clearly disclose all the qualifying terms associated with getting a loan at the advertised rate and what the finance charge would be after an introductory period ends. The orders also prohibit misrepresentations about material terms of any loan agreement. The FTC’s message to members of the industry is that they’re not flying (driving?) under the radar. Truth-in-advertising standards apply to car title loans, too. What's more, companies will be held to well-established principles of","id":2873683,"title":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/01/pink-slip-slip-first-ftc-cases-challenging-deceptive-car-title-loans"},{"description":"Buyers burned by BurnLounge wfg-adm109 March 19, 2012 | 4:50PM Buyers burned by BurnLounge By Lesley Fair If you or your clients work in the multi-level marketing (MLM) arena, a decision by a federal judge in the FTC's lawsuit against BurnLounge, Inc., merits your attention. The defendants — the company, the CEO, and top salesmen — used claims of hefty profits to sell opportunities to run online digital music stores.  According to the FTC, the outfit masqueraded as a legitimate MLM program, but really was an illegal pyramid scheme. After a nine-day trial, the court ordered a total of $17 million in refunds for consumers who were burned by the scam. BurnLounge promoted itself online, through phone calls, and via in-person meetings with claims of big money to be made.  According to the FTC, at a recruiting presentation in New York, the company's CEO said:  \"[I]f you build a community that sells a few movies and sells a few games and sells a few downloads, you will have a license to print money. Don't take my word for it, go ask Blockbuster what they made on $3.95 off 1,000 stores. J.T. made $50,000 two weeks ago. He's going to make probably $700,000 this year, and he's a good old boy from Texas that can't read.\" Ultimately 56,000 were lured into the scheme. BurnLounge claimed to be a cutting edge way to sell digital music through multi-level marketing, but music sales accounted for only a small percentage of the money. The vast majority of it came from payments to join the scheme disguised as so-called \"product packages.\" In fact, the program primarily paid people for recruiting new participants, not on the retail sale of music. According to the Court, the BurnLounge enterprise resulted in a big return for a small percentage of the participants, which was funded by substantial losses for the vast majority of the recruited participants, who didn't recoup their investment to join. The Amended Final Judgment and Order bans the defendants from future pyramid activities. Notably, in constructing the ban, the Court adopted the FTC's proposed definition of \"prohibited marketing scheme,\" which was a hotly litigated issue in the case. The Order also imposes fencing-in. The Court enjoined the defendants from misrepresentations about not just multi-level marketing, but franchises and business opportunities as well. FTC attorneys had argued that the remedy was warranted because the defendants' practice of misrepresenting potential income could be readily transferred to those endeavors. The Court also ordered $16.2 million in monetary relief, making the company and its CEO jointly and severally liable for the total. The remaining individual defendants were ordered to pay specified amounts of disgorgement. Thinking about whether an MLM is right for you? Before laying out any cash, read The Bottom Line About Multi-Level Marketing Plans .","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/03/buyers-burned-burnlounge","id":2873684,"title":"Buyers burned by BurnLounge"},{"description":"Thigh maintenance wfg-adm109 July 6, 2011 | 3:48PM Thigh maintenance By Lesley Fair A skin cream that can reduce body size.  Are historians sure that wasn’t what Ponce de Leon was seeking?  It’s certainly what buyers are looking for, if ads are any indication.  But claims like that have to be backed up by solid science, as is clear from the FTC’s $900,000 settlement with Beiersdorf , Inc., marketer of Nivea My Silhouette!  (Yes, the exclamation point is on the package.) Ads for the product touted its “Bio-slim Complex,” a combination of ingredients that includes white tea and anise.  In one TV ad, as the voice-over claimed “New Nivea My Silhouette! with Bio-Slim Complex helps redefine the appearance of your silhouette and noticeably firms skin in just four weeks,” the ad showed a woman digging into the recesses of her closet, taking out an old pair of jeans, and trying them on to learn that they fit.  “So you can rediscover your favorite jeans and how they still get his attention.” Um, OK.  Except that according to the FTC, using the product doesn’t really result in a significant reduction in body size.  That’s why the agency challenged the claim as false . For pleadings watchers, there’s another interesting angle involving sponsored search engine keywords.  The FTC’s complaint mentions that the company had a deal with a leading search engine so that a webpage marketing Nivea My Silhouette! would show up in response to searches for information relating to body size.  Thus, if someone typed in a phrase like “stomach fat,” the search yielded a sponsored link at the top of the page that said “Want a toned stomach?  NIVEA My Silhouette Can Redefine the Appearance of Your Curves!” (The complaint offers no explanation for the wandering exclamation point.) In addition to $900,000 in redress, the proposed order imposes tough injunctive provisions.  Under Part I, Beiersdorf can’t represent that any topically applied product causes substantial weight or fat loss or a substantial reduction in body size. Subject to that provision, Part II says that Beiersdorf can’t represent that any “covered product” or “essentially equivalent product” — terms defined in the order — causes weight or fat loss or a reduction in body size, unless the claim is non-misleading and the company has competent and reliable scientific evidence substantiating the claim.  For claims covered by Part II, “competent and reliable scientific evidence” means at least two adequate and well-controlled human clinical studies of the covered product or of an essentially equivalent product “conducted by different researchers, independently of each other, that conform to acceptable designs and protocols and whose results, when considered in light of the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific evidence, are sufficient to substantiate that the representation is true.”  That provision also establishes that Beiersdorf will have the burden of proving that a product satisfies the definition of “essentially equivalent product.” Under Part III, if Beiersdorf wants to make any other claims about the health benefits of a covered product, the company will need competent and reliable scientific evidence, defined for those representations as “tests, analyses , research, or studies that have been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by qualified persons, and that are generally accepted in the profession to yield accurate and reliable results.”  That provision specifies that the evidence has to be “sufficient in quality and quantity based on standards generally accepted in the relevant scientific fields, when considered in light of the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific evidence, to substantiate that the representation is true.”","title":"Thigh maintenance","id":2873685,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/07/thigh-maintenance"},{"description":"Auto Dealer? Interested in the Safeguards Rule? The FTC has some FAQs for you kkrown August 13, 2025 | 10:03AM Auto Dealer? Interested in the Safeguards Rule? The FTC has some FAQs for you If you’re a regular reader of this blog, or you’re someone tuned in to how financial institutions are required to maintain safeguards to protect their customers’ information, you might already know about the FTC’s Safeguards Rule and what businesses need to know . Those in the know know that the Safeguards Rule generally applies to any financial institutions under the FTC’s jurisdiction. But auto dealers are the only financial institutions who also fall under the FTC’s Privacy Rule . The FTC recently released a set of Frequently Asked Questions to help auto dealers comply with the FTC’s amended Safeguards Rule. This FAQ walks you through big-picture questions about the Safeguards Rule, including: What does the Safeguards Rule require auto dealers to do? What auto dealers does the Safeguards Rule apply to? What kind of customer information does the Safeguards Rule cover? You’ll also find some hypotheticals specific to auto dealer-related situations. For example: How the Safeguards Rule applies to auto dealers’ relationships with the OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers). How the Safeguards Rule requirements differ from those of the Privacy Rule. What to keep in mind if auto dealers use one combined database to store all the information about people who come into their dealership. There’s much more in the new FAQs, as well as the earlier, general publication, FTC Safeguards Rule: What Your Business Needs to Know . These publications can help auto dealers understand both the amended Safeguards Rule and how it applies to your business – so please check them","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/08/auto-dealer-interested-safeguards-rule-ftc-has-some-faqs-you","title":"Auto Dealer? Interested in the Safeguards Rule? The FTC has some FAQs for you","id":2873676},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/02/privacycon-whats-agenda-whos-agenda","id":2873677,"title":"PrivacyCon: What’s on the agenda, who’s on the agenda","description":"PrivacyCon: What’s on the agenda, who’s on the agenda lfair February 8, 2018 | 10:01AM PrivacyCon: What’s on the agenda, who’s on the agenda By Lesley Fair Blind Faith, Crosby Stills Nash & Young, Humble Pie, the Traveling Wilburys. Every musical genre has its supergroup, individual talents from other groups who come together to create something even more impressive. In the consumer privacy and data security world, we think the agenda for the FTC’s PrivacyCon 2018 reads like the line-up of one of those legendary supergroups. (Minus Eric Clapton – sorry.) Scheduled for February 28, 2018, in Washington, D.C., this year’s PrivacyCon – which has a special focus on the economics of privacy – will kick off with opening comments from Acting Chairman Ohlhausen. Session 1 will discuss the latest research on Collection, Exfiltration, and Leakage of Private Information . The next session will address Consumer Preferences, Expectations, and Behaviors , including a deeper dive into the Internet of Things. Session 3 speakers will focus on Economics, Markets, and Experiments . And Session 4 will present research about Tools and Ratings for Privacy Management . To put the day in perspective, FTC Acting Chief Technologist Neil Chilson will offer closing remarks. As you can see from the agenda – which includes links to their research – speakers include the Names You Know from leading universities, government agencies, advocacy organization s , and corporations. Representatives from agencies that fund privacy research (including some of the research presented at PrivacyCon) will be available during the lunch hour to talk about funding opportunities and agency needs. And this year’s PrivacyCon features something new . In addition to the supergroup superstars of privacy and security, we’re proud to introduce attendees to the Tech Stars of Tomorrow at PrivacyCon 2018’s Student Poster Session . PrivacyCon 2018 is free and open to the public. Registration begins at 8:15 ET at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, located at 400 7th Street, S.W., at the L’Enfant Plaza Metro in Washington. We’ll also webcast the event from a link we’ll post that morning and live tweet using the hashtag"},{"description":"New FTC Data Spotlight offers illuminating insights into impersonation scams lfair April 1, 2024 | 9:22AM New FTC Data Spotlight offers illuminating insights into impersonation scams By Lesley Fair Is the person who contacted your employee really from the IRS or Social Security Administration? And what about those calls and texts to consumers claiming to be from your company? The FTC’s new Trade Regulation Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses takes effect today and a just-released Data Spotlight underscores the Rule’s critical importance to consumers and businesses . According to the Data Spotlight, the statistics are staggering. In 2023, the FTC received more than 330,000 reports of business impersonation scams and nearly 160,000 reports of government impersonation scams. That’s nearly half of all frauds reported directly to us. The financial injury also is breath-taking – and cash-taking – with reported losses to impersonation scams topping $1.1 billion in 2023. That’s more than three times what consumers reported in 2020. Read the Data Spotlight for the specifics, but here are some other notable findings. Scammers still use the phone, but their attention has turned increasingly to text or email as a way to get their foot in the virtual door. According to reports, their preferred payment methods are shifting to bank transfers and cryptocurrency. Even their pitches are getting more complicated. For example, the person who contacts the consumer may say they’re with a well-known company, but then claims to “transfer” the consumer to what turns out to be a fake bank, a fake FBI agent, or even a fake FTC staffer. Image The Data Spotlight also lists the top five forms of impersonator scams – and when we say “top” we mean lower than a snake’s belly in a ravine: Copycat security alerts. These messages claim to be about suspicious activity on a consumer’s account. When consumers respond, they’re told to “transfer” their funds for their own protection. But the only “transfer” that takes place is straight into a scammer’s often untraceable pocket. Phony subscription renewals.  Scammers email bogus “renewal” notices subscription service the consumer didn’t order. When the consumer calls to report the mistake, the scammer promises a “refund,” but accidentally-on-purpose claims to process too much money. Next comes a demand that the consumer return the “overcharge,” often by buying gift cards and giving the scammer the digits on the back. Fake giveaways, discounts, or money to claim.  Scammers dangle the prospect of “free money” or sweepstakes winnings. All the consumer has to do is provide some upfront cash or gift cards to claim the non-existent big prize. Bogus problems with the law.  Scammers pose as government agents and contact consumers, claiming the consumer’s identity has been used in a crime. The fake agent’s “ask”? They often tell people to transfer their funds to Bitcoin ATMs, which they may refer to as “safety lockers.” It’s a fraud through and through and as the Data Spotlight warns, “Money you move is money they steal.” Made-up package delivery problems.  A consumer gets a message that looks like a delivery attempt notice from the U.S. Postal Service, UPS, or FedEx, directing them to click a link to a website. The next step may be to pay a small “redelivery fee” by inputting their credit card information. The message, “package,” and website are all phony. But one thing is genuine: the injury to the consumer now that their credit card number is in the hands of a crook. The Spotlight points out three tactics scammers use to try to get an advantage: 1) their messages copy the look of genuine communications from well-known companies or government offices; 2) they play on people’s emotions either by creating a worrisome situation that","id":2873678,"title":"New FTC Data Spotlight offers illuminating insights into impersonation scams","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/04/new-ftc-data-spotlight-offers-illuminating-insights-impersonation-scams"},{"title":"Double spammy","id":2873679,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/05/double-spammy","description":"Double spammy chundycz May 4, 2015 | 12:05PM Double spammy By Lesley Fair By now, it shouldn’t be news. Using illegal spam and bogus news sites to convey false claims for diet products is bound to attract FTC attention. Oh, and did we mention the phony representation that the products were endorsed by Oprah and the people on the TV show \"The Doctors\"? Those are just some of the allegations in a case the FTC has filed against Glendale, California-based Sale Slash, Purists Choice, Artur Babayan, and Vahe Haroutounian. How does the operation work? The defendants peddle a host of weight loss products which supposedly contain stuff like green coffee, garcinia cambogia, and “Premium White Kidney Bean Extract.” According to the complaint , one way they market the products is by misappropriating people’s email contacts lists. The defendants send – or hire affiliates to send – unsolicited messages that look to the recipients to be from friends, family members, or other contacts. To add to the authenticity, the heading often includes the purported sender’s name, reinforcing the impression that the email is from someone the recipient knows. The messages include glowing recommendations of the products, with links to where consumers can buy them. In addition, the defendants place banner ads – or get others to place them – with enticing claims like “1 Tip for a tiny belly: Cut down on a bit of your belly every day by following this 1 weird old tip.” (The campaign is ubiquitous. If you haven’t seen these ads, you may be the only person who needs to spend more time online.) From bogus emails and banners, the defendants often steer consumers to fake news sites like the ones the FTC has challenged as deceptive in a host of other cases. Then there are sites with headlines like “Insider Report: Oprah and Other Celebrities Lose 4 lbs/Week of Belly Fat With This Secret Our Readers Can Try Now!” The sites promise easy weight loss without diet or exercise and advise haste because “Due to recently being featured on TV, we cannot guarantee supply.” What’s the financial incentive for marketing methods like this? When a consumer clicks a link on a site or in an message to buy the product, it results in a cha-ching for whoever placed the link. In addition to alleging that the defendants’ weight loss promises are deceptive, the complaint charges them with a host of CAN-SPAM violations, including false header information, misleading subject lines, and the failure to provide a functioning opt-out mechanism and a valid postal address. The FTC says the celebrity endorsements are equally phony. Image A federal judge in California entered a temporary restraining order that freezes the defendants' assets. But even at this early stage, the lawsuit sends four messages to marketers: The FTC’s CAN-SPAM Rule draws clear lines between acceptable promotion and deceptive practices. Time for a refresher? Read CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business . No diet, no exercise? No way. Making bogus weight loss claims could win you a one-way ticket to the center of the FTC’s law enforcement radar screen. Affiliate arrangements won’t insulate wrongdoers from liability. The FTC has taken action – and will continue to take action – against multiple links in the affiliate chain responsible for alleged violations of the law. Advertisers like to drop prominent names because they attract the attention of prospective buyers. But if celebrity endorsements are false, guess who else’s attention they attract. The"},{"description":"Businesses: Phishing scheme targets unemployment benefits, PII lfair August 4, 2021 | 10:26AM Businesses: Phishing scheme targets unemployment benefits, PII By Seena Gressin Have you or one of your employees received an alarming text message about unemployment insurance benefits from what seems to be your state workforce agency? You’re not alone. Identity thieves are targeting millions of people nationwide with scam phishing texts aimed at stealing personal information, unemployment benefits, or both. The phishing texts try to dupe the recipient to click a link to “make necessary corrections” to their unemployment insurance (UI) claim, “verify” their personal information, or “reactivate” their UI benefits account. The link takes you to a fake state workforce agency website that may look very real. There, you’re asked to input your website credentials and personal information, like your Social Security number. Fraudsters can use the information to file fraudulent UI benefits claims or for other identity theft. Here are examples of some of the phishing texts. Protect yourself and your employees. Let your staff know that state agencies don’t send text messages asking for personal information. If you get an unsolicited text or email that looks like it’s from a state workforce agency, don’t reply or click any link. If you’re not sure, contact the workforce agency directly using the State Directory for Reporting Unemployment Identity Theft at the bottom of this United States Department of Labor webpage .","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/08/businesses-phishing-scheme-targets-unemployment-benefits-pii","id":2873680,"title":"Businesses: Phishing scheme targets unemployment benefits, PII"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/10/made-usa-avoiding-yankee-doodle-dont","id":2873681,"title":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't","description":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't wfg-adm109 October 21, 2013 | 11:17AM Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't By Lesley Fair There are lots of nifty phone accessories, bottle holders, tow straps, pet items, and lanyards out there.  So a label that says the product is Made in the USA may help make the decision for some consumers.  When it bears the American flag and says “TRULY MADE IN THE USA,” that just might seal the deal.  But according to an FTC lawsuit , a lot of the “Made in the USA” merchandise touted by Logan, Utah-based E.K. Ekcessories wasn’t really made in the USA – turning the company’s claims from a Yankee Doodle Do to a Yankee Doodle Don't. E.K. Ekcessories sells a variety of outdoor equipment through popular retailers and on its own site.  In addition to the labels, the company touted its products’ U.S. pedigree with statements like “For 28 years E.K. Ekcessories has been producing superior quality made accessories in our 60,000 sq. ft. facility in Logan, Utah,” and “Our source of pride and satisfaction abounds from a true ‘Made in USA’ product.” To say an item is made in the USA, all or virtually all of it has to be U.S.-made.  In other words, all significant parts and processing must be of U.S. origin, and the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content. That’s the standard explained in the FTC’s 1997 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims.  But according to the complaint, in many cases, E.K. Ekcessories made “Made in USA” representations that were flat-out false.  In other instances, the FTC says the company slapped a label on a product without a reasonable basis for making the claim.  Both courses of conduct violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed order, the company can’t say a product is made in the USA unless all or virtually all of it really is made in the United States.  The order also bans other misleading claims about products’ country of origin. Given that other companies are selling the deceptively labeled merchandise, E.K. Ekcessories has to contact all distributors who bought or received products between January 1, 2010 and May 1, 2013, explaining the FTC’s lawsuit.  The retailers will be asked to pull marketing materials that say all E.K. Ekcessories stuff is U.S.-made or that describe a specific list of products as made in the United States, of U.S.-origin, or “Truly Made in the USA.”  For certain lines of products, they’ll get stickers to cover the inaccurate claims. You can file an online comment about the proposed settlement by November 21, 2013. The message for marketers?  First , it’s a good time to brush up on how to comply with Made in USA standards.  The Business Center has a dedicated Made in USA page to make that easier for you.  Second , given just how important many consumers take a Made in USA claim, companies that make that statement falsely or without a reasonable basis are risking law enforcement action.  Truly."},{"description":"FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity wfg-adm109 November 6, 2014 | 11:07AM FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity By Lesley Fair Patent assertion entities have been the subject of much debate in antitrust and intellectual property circles. But there’s one proposition we hope that parties on all sides of the issue can agree on: It’s illegal to falsely threaten patent suits against small businesses or make unfounded claims that other companies have paid for patent licenses. That’s the misconduct alleged in a settlement the FTC just announced with patent assertion entity MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, MPHJ corporate officer Jay Mac Rust, and Texas-based law firm Farney Daniels, P.C. Generally speaking, patent assertion entities are companies that acquire patent rights and then seek licensing fees from businesses they claim are infringing their patents. The FTC’s action centers on representations that MPHJ made while asserting patents that relate to network computer scanning technology MPHJ says is used in offices of all sizes across the country. According to the FTC, the respondents sent out a series of letters to thousands of small businesses. The first letter – sent to more than 16,000 businesses on the letterhead of one of MPHJ’s dozens of six-letter subsidiaries – told the recipient they “likely have an infringing system” and directed them to contact the sender within two weeks “so that we may agree with you upon an appropriate license arrangement if one is needed.” The letter offered to settle without court action if the business agreed to a license of $1,200 per employee. (Other versions said $1,000.) Things heated up in later correspondence, sent on the letterhead of Farney Daniels. That letter included a draft lawsuit “which our client will be forced to file” against the small business if it didn’t respond within two weeks. According to the FTC, the respondents sent that letter to approximately 4,870 businesses, including 1,718 letters sent on just one day – appropriately enough, April 1, 2013. The FTC complaint challenges a series of misrepresentations that respondents made in those letters. For example, the first letter stated that “most businesses, upon being informed that they are infringing someone’s patent rights, are interested in operating lawfully and taking a license promptly” and that “many companies have responded to this licensing program in such a manner.” What was the exact tally of the “many companies” that had paid for a license at the time that statement was made? According to the FTC, when the first 7,300 letters were sent, the respondents hadn’t sold a single license through their letter campaign. What about the later letters on law firm letterhead that threatened imminent legal action against small businesses that didn’t reply? The FTC says the respondents didn’t file a single lawsuit against any of the businesses that didn’t respond, nor did they intend or prepare to file lawsuits against them. So those claims were challenged as false, too. The proposed settlement would bar MPHJ, Jay Mac Rust, and Farney Daniels from making misrepresentations when asserting patent rights, including deceptive claims about the number of licenses sold, that a lawsuit will be filed, and the imminence of any lawsuit. Future deceptive conduct could trigger penalties of up to $16,000 per letter. You can file a comment about the proposed settlement by December 8, 2014.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/ftc-settlement-challenges-deceptive-claims-patent-assertion-entity","id":2873682,"title":"FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity"}]