May 13, 2021

Volume XI, Number 133

Advertisement

May 13, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 12, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 11, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Divided FTC Finalizes “No-Fault, No-Money Settlement” Agreement with Skincare Brand, Sunday Riley

On Friday, November 6, 2020, the FTC finalized its settlement with Sunday Riley Skincare, a cult-favorite skincare brand known for its high-end products. The action comes after the agency’s initial announcement in October 2019 that employees of the brand, under direction of CEO, Sunday Riley, posted thousands of fake reviews of the brand’s products online over the course of almost two years.

The FTC vote to approve the final consent agreement was 3-2, with the two Democratic commissioners dissenting. The agreement prevents the company and its employees from posting reviews without disclosing any material brand connections, including employment status. As with the FTC’s initial proposal, the settlement agreement does not provide for monetary relief.

The FTC’s divided decision signals competing views on the agency’s role in enforcement of the promotion of competition and protection of consumers in the online marketplace. The majority statement explains that the final consent agreement “holds Ms. Riley personally liable, prohibits both Ms. Riley and Sunday Riley Modern Skincare from making future misrepresentations (including through fake reviews), and requires them to instruct employees and agents about their legal responsibilities.”

The dissenting statement bemoans what it sees as a “permissive approach to fake reviews,” arguing that the “no-money, no-fault settlement” is a “serious setback for the FTC’s credibility as a watchdog over the digital marketplace.” The authors urge the Commission to:

  • Issue a Policy Statement on Equitable Monetary Remedies expressing the Commission’s intent to pursue monetary settlements where there are allegations of dishonesty and fraud;

  • Codify the Commission’s Endorsement Guides, including by requiring endorsers to disclose material connections to sellers; and

  • Pursue civil penalties where parties engage in conduct known to have been previously condemned by the FTC.

Key Takeaways:

  • Make sure you have robust compliance programs to oversee user-generated content and employee endorsements, including up to the executive level; and

  • With new Democratic leadership expected in January 2021, our retail clients should expect a more active FTC that is less willing to entertain arguments that non-monetary sanctions alone can address consumer harm.

    Advertisement
Copyright © 2021, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 317
Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Phyllis H. Marcus Partner Consumer Products Food Industry Retail Practices
Partner

With 17 years of experience at the FTC, Phyllis brings a unique advertising and children’s privacy vantage point to our clients.

Phyllis heads the firm’s advertising counseling practice, and focuses on all aspects of advertising, from the initial development of a claim to its ultimate defense in the marketplace. Phyllis’s practice includes claim creation and substantiation, pre-acquisition due diligence, dissemination in traditional and digital media, and both offensive and defensive competitor challenges. She also counsels clients on the intricacies of compliance with the Children’...

202-955-1810
Advertisement
Advertisement