FTC Archives - Compliance Culture

Selected Dirty Money episodes for corporate compliance

Dirty Money is a documentary series that premiered on Netflix in January 2018. The series focuses on different case studies of corporate corruption. The documentaries delve into the political and cultural causes behind the key events in each case, motivations of the individuals involved, and the way that society has been impacted by these situations, some of which remain under investigation or legal challenge. While all the episodes are interesting to study for general themes of corporate compliance and/or ethical culture and organizational integrity, four of the episodes are especially relevant.

Round-up on FTC compliance

This is the second in a series of seven posts about regulatory compliance priorities and enforcement trends. Last week’s post was about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Today’s post will be about the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). On Thursday January 4, the post will be about the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). On Thursday January 11, the post will be about the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). On Thursday January 18, the post will be about the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). On Thursday January 25, the post will be about the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Finally, on Thursday February 1, the post will be about the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the US regulator charged with supervisory authority to protect consumers as well as enforce antitrust laws to avoid monopolies and ensure competitive business practices. Created in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act, the FTC is an independent regulatory agency with the purpose to monitor the markets for anticompetitive developments and investigate and eliminate those where they emerge. Avoiding monopolies, known as trust, was a major political focus at the time the FTC was created and eliminating these large, anti-competitive business entities, known as “trust busting,” was an important priority for President Woodrow Wilson. The creation of the FTC was intended to bring an administrative efficiency to regulating interstate trade so that these trust and antitrust matters could be determined more expediently by the regulatory agency instead of working their way slowly through the courts.

In its current state, the FTC has broad supervisory authority over business practices where consumer protection or competitive processes are involved. The mandates of its various bureaus include protecting consumers against unfair or fraudulent acts or practices, enforcing existing antitrust laws, and reviewing pending mergers. These issues come from consumer and business reports, pre-merger notice filings, press reports, and congressional inquiries.

The FTC’s enforcement actions extend to individual companies, groups of companies, or industries with the main objective of addressing series consumer fraud or harm and preventing anti-competition business developments. With such a far-reaching set of interests, the issues and focuses that characterize the FTC’s regulatory agenda and enforcement priorities are equally diverse.

Consumer DNA testing services and privacy: Companies offering DNA testing services for everything from ancestry to genetic diseases to potential allergies to nutritional needs have become very popular in recent years. Most of these services involve consumers using a kit at home to collect samples of hair, skin, or saliva, which they then send to the company. The company then tests the samples itself or sends them to a third-party lab service for testing and then compiles results and analytical data into a slick, branded presentation that is sent back to the customer to study. If these services were performed in the traditional setting of a doctor’s office, the customer would be treated as a patient and would therefore be afforded commensurate protections and have expectations of privacy and informed consent for the collection, use, and storage of their genetic material. In the retail DNA testing service business, however, the duty owed to consumers is more dubious and the practices of companies less closely supervised or disclosed. As the popularity and prevalence of these tests continues, the FTC will likely look to standardize and investigate business practices of these companies: Senator Calls on FTC to Investigate DNA Ancestry Companies
Use of consent decrees: The public and courts are taking a closer look at the often widespread use of settlement agreements by regulatory entities. The FTC typically uses these in enforcement actions in the data-privacy arena when companies experience breaches that puts consumer information security at risk. Consumers having their data stolen in cybersecurity compromises of payment systems or other retail financial data records. Settlement agreements and consent decrees are meant to apply to individual companies in federal-level, case-specific circumstances only, but the legal precedent has evolved for this common law practice to be potentially applied to establish liability under state law as well. In the continued use of consent decrees, the FTC needs to elucidate clearly what standards apply to constitute a violation and when and where liability may exist: Federal Court’s Embrace Of FTC Data-Breach Settlements As ‘Common Law’ Treads On Due Process
Venue shopping for overlapping antitrust review: As noted in this post, major merger and acquisition activity is at a high pitch in the markets right now. Many large companies are seeking to merge with or acquire another and in lots of cases, regulatory review is exhaustive and detailed. Regulators seek concessions, order sales or exclusions to assets, delay transactions, and influence deals in both the press and Congress. In this intense environment, companies looking to merge with or acquire another approach these transactions hoping for the lightest regulatory touch possible. As there are overlapping supervisory schemes, companies can attempt to shop for the friendliest regulator who might green-light the planned transaction. The FTC and the Department of Justice (DOJ) both conduct antitrust reviews. The perception in the marketplace is that the FTC review may be easier to pass or less burdensome in terms of settlement requirements than that of the DOJ. Therefore some large companies – such as CVS in its planned deal with Aetna – would prefer to be subject to the FTC to improve their odds of passing muster: CVS likely wants FTC antitrust review, not Justice Department, of Aetna deal
Occupational licensing reform: Portability of occupational licenses – such as those required for nurses and accountants – has long-been a challenging political and business issue. States have wildly varying educational and experiential standards for achieving and maintaining these licenses, often making it very hard for professionals who need them to work to move between states that have differing licensure requirements. Military spouses in particular often find themselves shut out of work due to family relocations. On the other end, consumers could be potentially harmed due to unmet expectations for professional service standards in states where the licensing schemes are more lax or supervisory enforcement is inadequate compared to others. Short of a concerted effort by multiple individual states, there is an authority vacuum in the task of making a coherent and coordinated system out of this patchwork of rules, tests, and qualifications. The FTC could be the appropriate regulator to intercede in these circumstances and create a reformed federal unifying system that would function to provide access to work as well as protect consumers’ interests: The Onerous, Arbitrary, Unaccountable World of Occupational Licensing
Net neutrality: Finally, nearly any discussion of US federal regulatory compliance hot topics at the end of 2017 is incomplete without mention of one of the biggest themes of the time, net neutrality. As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is pulling back from rule enforcement on net neutrality, both the FCC and the public expect the FTC to take up a more prominent role. The obvious areas where the FTC would have jurisdiction would be those concerning information security, principally data privacy, as well as competitive practices of service providers as well as other digital companies. Time will tell what approach the FTC intends to take in filling this enforcement void: After Net Neutrality: The FTC Is The Sheriff Of Tech Again. Is It Up To The Task?

Be sure to check back next week for a round-up on SEC regulatory compliance.

Compliance and social media influencers

Influencer marketing has become a major trend in the advertising industry with the increasing dominance of social media and blog networks in the media landscape. With influencer marketing, brands and their advertising agencies identify the individuals to whom certain demographic groups look to for suggestions on trends or products and services to purchase. These individuals, referred to as “influencers,” then share or produce editorial content for their followers (the people who like or connect to them on social media networks) or engage in the brand’s marketing activities.

Through these sorts of campaigns, both the brands and the influencers hope to gain a non-traditional advantage in appealing to a wider audience. From the brand perspective, they get creative and incredibly targeted content that is produced on a bespoke basis for very specific consumers who are already engaged and interested in the channel through which the content is shared. Through the detailed metrics that are abundantly available via social media and blogs, advertisers can determine which campaigns were successful in spurring either interest or actual sales. From the influencer perspective, they get opportunities to generate paid content and engage with their followers and fans in a novel way. Relationships with brands can be very lucrative for influencers, especially if they become long-term, and can drive significant, much-desired traffic for blogs and social media posts that brings attention to other content the influencer has to offer.

From the above, it is evident that along with all the opportunity comes a complex set of interests which may end up in conflict or give rise to concerns about business practices and accuracy of representations and disclosures. For influencers in particular, blurring the line between the position a follower or a fan, which is even on some networks referred to colloquially as a “friend,” and the position of a customer or a referral, complicates an informal relationship where few duties are owed. Instead, these interactions can occasionally be viewed as a commercial relationship where much more responsibility exists and can be potentially breached.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is one of those regulators who is contemplating stronger restraints in the practices of influencer marketing. The main area of the FTC’s concern centers on disclosure of the relationships between brands and blogger influencers. Without full, clear disclosures, consumers cannot make reliable, informed choices about purchases they may be influenced to make due to influencer marketing content. The FTC hopes to protect customers from being misled or ripped off entirely by influencer marketing that is targeted to them without providing them with the necessary disclosures for them to make ethical and financially-wise decisions. The FTC has already informed influencers and advertisers that disclosure of relationships between them must be “clear and conspicuous,” with posts that paid promotions clearly indicated as such so that they are not lost within the influencer’s unpaid content that engaging with would not lead to a directly-linked commercial interaction. These regulations have been around for some time, but the extra enthusiasm for enforcing them protectively will have a much bigger impact on the market going forward: Regulating infl uencers: What retailers need to know about the regulatory crackdown
The SEC also has influencer marketing on its regulatory enforcement docket. This is an interesting clash of social media advertising etiquette and investor protection priorities. Companies offering trading of cryptocurrencies have begun to rely on celebrities for endorsements. Much of influencer marketing is done in “testimonial” style, so this medium lends well to a celebrity sharing his or her preferences with thousands or millions of followers. When that preference is for a cryptocurrency investment, however, the endorsement may run afoul of proper disclosure expectations. These regulatory expectations for cryptocurrencies are still evolving, as the market for initial coin offerings (ICOs) is in its infancy still and nearly everything that happens with cryptocurrencies is new, with its impact on banking, the markets, and investors unproven as of yet. Central banks and regulators have taken wildly different approaches in different countries to handling demand for and developments in cryptocurrencies. In the US, this approach has been cautious and restrained, but one area in which the supervisors have not been quiet has been to protect potential investors from advertisements without appropriate disclosures: SEC warns celebrities over endorsing ICOs without proper disclosure
Brands and influencers aren’t the only ones who may need to meet a higher disclosure standard when it comes to advertisements that aren’t immediately identifiable as such. Hidden marketing on social media sites as just as insidious as the political advertising that has received so much attention in the press recently. As Congress pushes social media platforms like Facebook to make clearer disclosures about and take more monitoring and control responsibility for the advertisements that appear on their sites, the need to build in protections against deceptive actions by marketers and their partners is urgent as well: It’s not just Facebook’s Russian ads: Hidden advertising is pervasive and growing
Social media compliance enforcement will be a major priority for the FTC in this regulatory environment. It should be expected that even within regulatory rollbacks in other areas, the FTC will continue to pay attention to possible non-compliant social media posts and advertisers and their related influencers could be subject to formal enforcement actions. Compared to some other industries like banking or pharmaceuticals, advertising agencies are subject to a relatively sparse supervisory agenda. This light regulatory touch may change dramatically if the FTC chooses to extend and entrench investigation and enforcement efforts on influencer marketing. This is worrying for the influencers as well, who are even less likely than advertising agencies or marketing divisions of brands to have fully-formed compliance programs and to be ready to have the record-keeping and other regulatory controls they may need in place and up to speed: How to Comply with FTC Social Media ‘Influencer’ Rules
For more on influencer marketing and the way that brands, advertisers, and influencers may use it to spread content in the future, check out this 2018 forecast for possible trends in the practice, which will in turn dictate the ensuing regulatory priorities, from Forbes: The Influencer Marketing Trends That Will Dominate 2018

Given these potential developments and risks, it is definitely not premature to direct appropriate and pro-active compliance attention to the cultivation and use of influencer marketing networks. Regulatory and supervisory entities are already starting to consider cracking down on various marketing activities in this sphere, and enforcement of disclosure and reporting standards will become robust and should be aided by proper control frameworks.