Rob Freund Profile picture
Jan 28, 2023 13 tweets 3 min read Read on X
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: Image
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."

adlawaccess.com/2023/01/articl…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Rob Freund

Rob Freund Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RobertFreundLaw

Dec 29, 2023
Today, Hershey's was sued in a false advertising class action.

Florida consumers say they were deceived because Reese's pumpkins don't actually have jack-o-lantern faces on them: Image
Same for the ghosts, bats, and footballs:

Image
Image
Image
The consumers say they would not have bought the products if they knew there were no carvings: Image
Read 4 tweets
Dec 7, 2023
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 Image
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.
Read 17 tweets
Sep 6, 2023
Here is the lawsuit Nina Agdal filed against Dillon Danis today. Let's take a look: Image
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": Image
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: Image
Read 7 tweets
Aug 26, 2023
Where's the beef?

Burger King can't dismiss a false advertising case over its Whopper pictures.

Consumers alleged they wouldn't have bought the Whoppers if they knew the real beef amount.

Today, the court denied Burger King's bid to end the case early.

Let's take a look: Image
Burger King argued that food in ads "has always been styled to make it look as appetizing as possible."

"That is hardly news; reasonable consumers viewing food advertising know it innately."

The court didn't buy it: Image
The complaint also included these reviews from other consumers: Image
Read 6 tweets
Jun 29, 2023
Today, the FTC announced updates to its Endorsement Guides (the rules about disclosing connections between creators and brands).

I will go through the new additions in more detail in another thread, but here are a few specific Q&A examples from the FTC that jumped out at me: 🧵
Adding #ad or similar disclosure in the caption of a TikTok is not enough; it needs to be overlaid in the video itself:
"De-influencing" campaigns require disclosure:
Read 15 tweets
May 26, 2023
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." Image
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." Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(