Lot of requests to discuss the legal issues with Mikayla Noguiera's controversial L'oreal ad on TikTok.
Let's look at this from an FTC compliance standpoint:
To recap, Mikayla uploaded a video reviewing the L'Oreal Telescopic Life mascara.
It appears to be sponsored content.
It also looks like she applied fake lashes to exaggerate the mascara's effects, which led to a surge of backlash.
2/
I see two main issues here:
1) Ineffective disclosure of the sponsored nature of the content; and
2) False or misleading claims in the endorsement.
Taking each in turn:
3/
Disclosures first:
The FTC requires that any "material connection" between an endorser (e.g., an influencer) and an advertiser (like L'Oreal) must be disclosed "clearly and conspicuously."
Otherwise, the ad is deceptive and violates Section 5 of the FTC Act.
This disclosure requirement is why we have #ad and the like.
A material connection is any relationship that might effect the weight or credibility the audience would give the endorsement.
Idea being, if you knew the review was paid for, you'd consider that when deciding to buy.
But it's not enough just to have the disclosure—it also must be clear and conspicuous, which basically means that you can't miss it.
That generally means it must be made in large enough, readable font, in a place it will be seen, and in a way that will be understood.
Here, the "L'Oreal Paris Partner" disclosure is in very small font and appears for just a few seconds of the video.
That, to me, is not clear and conspicuous, and I would bet that the FTC would feel similarly.
Now to the fake lashes:
The FTC requires that all advertising must be truthful, not misleading, and substantiated.
In the influencer context, that means that all endorsements must reflect the honest beliefs of the influencer, who must have actually used the product.
Here, Mikayla claims she's demonstrating the effect of the mascara and expresses her disbelief.
But if the lashes are fake, she's not giving an honest review, and that violates the law.
Remember that it's not just the influencer who is potentially liable for violations of the FTC Act—the brand is, too.
That's why it's critically important for brands to have monitoring and compliance programs in place for all influencer campaigns.
Finally, I expect that L'Oreal's agreements include requirements that the influencers will comply with the FTC's Endorsement Guides, so it's likely she's breached that contract.
If your brand is not using properly drafted agreements with your influencers, fix that today.
And if you're a creator, don't gloss over your agreements! Make sure you understand everything in them before you sign.
Colleagues practicing in my niche weigh in:
"The FTC has noted that advertisers and influencers can be held liable for misleading or unsubstantiated representations regarding a product’s performance or effectiveness."
I've written about dozens of cases where lawyers are sanctioned for filings that contained AI-hallucinated cases.
But what about submitting AI-hallucinated facts as evidence?
In this case a lawyer filed a declaration rife with fabrications:
When "confronted with these falsehoods," the lawyer refused "to accept responsibility for creating and submitting these fabrications."
Court says the lawyer should have recognized that the quotations were false because he "not only attended the depositions, he took them, and he obtained copies of the transcripts."
Lawyers who cited fake AI cases face some real sanctions this time:
-Disqualified from the case
-Ordered to provide copy of sanctions order to all
clients, opposing counsel, and judge in every pending case and every attorney in their firm
-Referred to state bar for discipline.
The order is chock full of good quotes from the court:
"[Making up citations] demands substantially greater accountability than the reprimands and modest fines that have become common as courts confront this form of AI misuse."
The fact that there are real cases supporting what the bogus ones said is "a stroke of pure luck" that doesn't help:
Elon Musk was sued today in a class action brought by signers of his America PAC petition "giveaway."
They say Elon fraudulently advertised that winners would be chosen randomly, when really they were pre-selected.
They allege that signers provided personal information as consideration for participating in the lottery, which was not conducted as promised, and that Musk benefited from the collection of personal information for political and commercial use.
You can have the best-drafted Terms of Service in the world, but if they just sit passively at the bottom of your site, you will not be able to enforce them.
It's as if you had no terms at all.
For ecom brands, the TOS is your first line of defense against consumer lawsuits. 1/
Having badly drafted and insufficiently presented terms is the biggest and most common mistake I see online brands make.
That's primarily because, done correctly, you can completely eliminate class action exposure.
To enforce TOS, like any online contract, you need to