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."
Valve is suing a law firm that it accuses of coordinating a fraudulent mass arbitration scheme to force big settlements by leveraging astronomical arbitration filing fees.
The complaint includes a leaked presentation from the law firm to litigation funders.
Posted in full below
I will include each slide in order here, but the gist is this:
Business prefer individual arbitration as an alternative to dealing with class actions. Or at least they usually do.
But when Uber was hit with ~60,000 individual arbitration claims, they faced the prospect of paying ~$180 million IN ARBITRATION FEES ALONE.
With an IPO on the horizon, they settled the mass arbitration for $146M, because that was less than the cost of entry to arbitrate.
Here is the lawsuit Nina Agdal filed against Dillon Danis today. Let's take a look:
She's suing under the federal revenge porn statute for posting a photo of her "depicting full frontal nudity" as part of a "campaign of cyber harassment":
Agdal says a romantic partner took an explicit photo of her without her consent more than 10 years ago.
Danis posted it on August 11 and took at down after Misfits Boxing told him to:
Fake guru and pyramid schemer Jay Noland must pay $7.3M in an FTC case alleging he wouldn't stop pyramid scheming.
Noland claimed he was a multi-millionaire, but the court found "he had a negative net worth" and "was unable to identify a time he ever had a positive net worth."
Noland illegally ran 2 pyramid schemes, called Success By Health and VOZ travel.
He told the public they could make "more than $1 million each month" following his system.
Unsurprisingly, "very few consumers consumers made any money, and most lost significant sums."
The court noted that Noland's partner, Scott Harris, openly admitted he was running pyramid schemes during marketing events.
"Is this one of those pyramid things? Hell yeah it is. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be doing it."