Ftc Act S 5 Iso University Law#

The FTC and the FDA join forces on such letters in order to deliver a strong and consistent message that unsubstantiated health claims are illegal under the laws enforced by both agencies.The FTCs recent actions indicate that the FTC will act if it perceives that providers of these alternatives to credit are engaging in any UDAPs. In the past two weeks, Members of Congress from both parties have penned scathing letters to the FTC warning of the consequences (both to consumers and the agency itself) if the Commission sues Google not under traditional antitrust law, but instead by alleging unfair competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act.As they often have done in the past, the FTC and the FDA issued joint cease and desist letters last week to 10 companies suspected of making unproven health claims вЂ“ in this instance, claims that dietary supplements treat or cure diabetes. Section 5 of the FTC Act and Monopolization Cases: A Brief Primer.

Ftc Act S 5 Iso University Law

Valparaiso University Law Review 50 (1): 229-240. The letters demanded that the companies cease and desist from making unsubstantiated claims within 15 days.The Ftc WonвЂ™t Let Me Be: The Need for a Private Right of Action under Section 5 of the Ftc Act. As such, the products are misbranded and illegal under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

But if it does, it would be testing the limit of its authority under Section 5(m)(1)(b). However, Section (5)(m)(1)(b) of the FTC Act authorizes the agency to seek penalties when the FTC has (1) previously determined in a litigated administrative proceeding that a practice is unfair or deceptive (2) issued a final cease and desist order with respect to such practice, and (3) put a company on notice of this fact (such that it has вЂњactual knowledge) via warning letter.ItвЂ™s not clear yet whether the FTC will actually seek civil penalties based on these letters. In general, the FTC has limited authority to obtain civil penalties. Advertisers should pay attention more broadly to the FTC section of the letters, as it may signal the FTC testing its authority to seek penalties under Section 5(m)(1)(B).In particular, in describing how and why the claims violate the FTC Act, the letters cite to cases holding that unsubstantiated disease claims of various types are unlawful, and appear to be styled as so-called Section (5)(m)(1)(b) letters laying the groundwork for civil penalties вЂ“ similar to letters the FTC has sent companies making allegedly unsubstantiated claims that their products are made from bamboo.

Subscribe to our Ad Law Access blog here.