Skip to main content

June 5, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 156

National Law Review
  • Login
  • Mdn
  • FB
  • twt
  • link
  • home
  • rss
Advertisement
  • logo
  • Publish / Advertise with Us
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Join Our Team
    • Search
  • Trending Legal News
    • Most Recent
    • Legal News Podcast
    • What's Trending
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • NLR Blog
    • Search
  • About Us
    • About the NLR
    • NLR Team
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • NLR Thought Leadership Awards
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Search
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Search
  • Quick Links
    • Legal News Podcast
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Search
  • ENEWSBULLETINS

22

New Articles
Bottom Row Image
Advertisement

June 04, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Supreme Court FCA Scienter Ruling Revives Fraud Lawsuits Against... by: D. Jacques Smith and Randall A. Brater
  • Highlights for Research Institutions and Sponsors in FDA's... by: Michael H. Hinckle and Rebecca M. Schaefer
  • Texas Consumer Privacy Law Nears Governor’s Signature by: Amy C. Pimentel
  • Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case by: David H. Siegel
  • En Banc Ninth Circuit Upholds Delaware-Forum Bylaw That Prevents... by: Jonathan E Richman
  • How to Develop a Client-Centric Approach to Business Development at... by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Supreme Court Holds NLRA Does Not Preempt Claims for Intentional... by: Eric C. Stuart and Daniel A. Adlong
  • SEC Issues Largest Whistleblower Bounty Award Ever To One Individual by: Steven J Pearlman and Joshua M. Newville
  • LinkedIn Company Page Master Class - Summer 2023 by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Drop in Chinese Utility Model Grants Accelerates in April 2023 in... by: Aaron Wininger
  • The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Knowingly” Under the... by: Patrick M. Hagan and Jennifer Orr Mitchell
  • French Insider Episode 22: French Investments in the U.S. Wine... by: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP
  • 17 Actionable Ways to Build Your Brand and Business by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Going ‘green’—what Does that Mean? FTC Proposes Revisions to Green... by: Lesli C. Esposito and Marisa E. Poncia
  • Unanimous Supreme Court Endorses Subjective Belief Standard for False... by: Conor O. Duffy and Seth B. Orkand
  • Compliance Update — Insights and Highlights May 2023 by: Memrie M. Fortenberry
  • Trending in Telehealth: May 23 – 30, 2023 by: Amanda Enyeart and Taylor Edward Hood
  • Minnesota Legalizes Recreational Marijuana, Protects Off-Duty Use by: Catherine A. Cano and Elaine Luthens
  • Washington’s My Health, My Data Act: What Types Of Data Are Regulated... by: David A. Zetoony
  • FDA Cracking Down on Unapproved HCT/Ps with Fourth Untitled Letter of... by: Dominick DiSabatino and Cortney Inman
  • Supreme Court Requires Traceability for Securities Act Claims Arising... by: Jonathan E Richman
  • How Small Actions Can Yield Big Results in Your Marketing and... by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Employment Tip of the Month – June 2023 by: Employment & Labor at Wilson Elser

June 03, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • The Fact That Plaintiff Does Not Exist Does Not Deprive Court Of... by: Keith Paul Bishop
  • EEOC Issues Guidance Following Expiration of COVID-19 Public Health... by: Susan F. Wiltsie and Reilly C. Moore
  • New Washington Class Action Raises Concerns for Employers Under State... by: Laurence A. Shapero and Adam T. Pankratz
  • Delta Hit With Greenwashing Lawsuit Over Carbon Neutral Claims by: Megan Baroni
  • Can UK Administrators Apply For Conditional Discharge of Liability? by: Restructuring & Insolvency Practice at Squire Patton Boggs
  • Texas Appellate Court Upholds Shock Verdict and Rejects “Admission... by: Brian Del Gatto and Taylor H. Allin
  • ANOTHER ONE: Wolf Takes Down Citrix in TCPA Class Settlement Worth $2... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Georgia Introduces New Commercial Financing Disclosure Requirements by: Moorari Shah and A.J. S. Dhaliwal
  • Irish Supervisory Authority "Poking" at Meta's GDPR... by: Claude-Étienne Armingaud and Whitney E. McCollum
  • ODH Finalizes Revised Health Care Services Rules by: Allen R. Killworth
  • Wisconsin Supreme Court Affirms Court of Appeals Decision that Anti-... by: Janet Cain
  • Sixth Circuit Ruling Offers Clarity on Jurisdictional Border Between... by: Zachary T. Byers
  • Michigan Passes Amendment to Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to... by: Adam S. Forman and Jennifer Barna
  • DOE Intends New Energy Earthshot to Decarbonize Transportation and... by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
  • U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Labor Law Does Not Bar State Torts for... by: Jonathan J. Spitz and Richard F. Vitarelli
  • EPA Completes Verification Analysis of PFAS Scientific Testing of... by: Lynn L. Bergeson
  • Nevada State Court Rulings Highlight Importance of Strategic... by: Michael S. Levine and Cary D. Steklof
  • Minnesota’s New Paid Family and Medical Leave, Sick Leave, Amended... by: Katharine C. Weber and Daniel L. Blanchard
  • Eight Easy Ways to Enhance Your Social Media Presence by: Stefanie M. Marrone

June 02, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • China’s National Intellectual Property Administration to Cease... by: Aaron Wininger
  • Upcoming NYSE and NASDAQ Clawback Requirements by: Edward B. Crosland, Jr. and John J. Spidi
  • Beltway Buzz, June 2, 2023 by: James J. Plunkett
  • Latin America Energy Updates: January – April 2023 by: Erick Hernández Gallego and Luis Jorge Akle Arronte
  • U.S. Workforce Positive Post-Accident Marijuana Drug Test Rates Reach... by: Darling C. Gutierrez
  • IP Industry Comment Opportunity At USPTO: Strategies to Address... by: Pamela M. Deese and Emily B. Lewis
  • Court Declines to Halt Vineyard Wind Project by: Meghan E. Smith and Marisa Del Turco
  • NLRB Issues Memo on Non-competes Violating NLRA by: Sidney F. Lewis, V
  • Supreme Court Clarifies that Subjective (Not Objective) Knowledge of... by: Michael W. Paddock and David T. Fischer
  • Montana’s Comprehensive Privacy Law Signed by the Governor by: Julia B. Jacobson
  • U.S. Department of Education Delays Release of Title IX Final Rules... by: Federico G. Barrera and Lisa Karen Atkins
  • California’s Workplace Violence Bill Passes State Senate and Heads to... by: Karen Tynan and Robert C. Rodriguez
  • Leaves of Absence Four Key (and Surprising) Points for Navigating... by: Charles L. Thompson, IV and Stacy M. Bunck
  • Israel Approves the First Animal-Free Protein for Food Use by: David J. Ettinger and Jenny Xin Li
  • Pennsylvania AG Targets Rent-to-Own Company for Alleged Deceptive and... by: Moorari Shah and A.J. S. Dhaliwal
  • Heart-to-Heart on Reduction to Practice: When It Comes to Testing,... by: Thomas DaMario
  • Hairy Situation: Trademark Act Doesn’t Provide Consumer Standing by: Eleanor B. Atkins
  • Summer State/Local Law Round-Up, Part 2 of 2 (US) by: Shennan Harris and Scott G. Held
  • A Long Hot Summer: Effective Variable Rates Subject to Increase (... by: Les Jacobowitz and Nicholas A. Marten
  • U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Finds Subjective Intent Controls in... by: John E. Kelly and Jacquelyn Papish
  • $1.185 Billion PFAS Settlement For Water Utilities by: John Gardella
  • Well Runs Dry: Summary Judgment Denial Supports Non-Exceptional Case... by: Amol Parikh
  • Reminder: The FTC “Safeguards Rule” Compliance Date is June 9 by: Dhara Shah and A.J. S. Dhaliwal
  • FTC to Scrutinize Commercial Use of Biometric Information Moving... by: Christopher S. Finnerty and Morgan T. Nickerson
  • (Australia) Debt Ceilings Apply Outside of the US by: Masi Zaki and Kate Spratt
  • MCDERMOTTPLUS CHECK-UP: JUNE 2, 2023 by: McDermott + Consulting
  • Amendment to Chicago Human Rights Ordinance Protects Bodily Autonomy... by: Ellen M. Hemminger
  • Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2023: Ogletree Deakins’ Annual... by: Jennifer Betts and Bernard J. Bobber
  • EPA PFAS Enforcement Tools Lining Up for Aggressive Future by: John Gardella
  • IRS Issues Reminder that Claims Under Health and Dependent Care FSAS... by: Jacob Mattinson and Sarah G. Raaii
  • U.S. Executive Branch Update – June 2, 2023 by: Stacy A. Swanson
  • Supreme Court Holds Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Not Transformative, Not... by: Joseph A. Meckes
  • MiCA and Crypto Transfer Rules Approved by the European Parliament by: Christopher Collins and Neil Robson
  • Honey, I Lost the Trade Mark: Manuka Honey Declared Not Exclusive to... by: Jonathan Feder and Phoebe Naylor

Article By

Theodore C. Max

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Fashion & Apparel Law Blog
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP full service Global 100 law firm handling corporate law

Related Practices & Jurisdictions


  • Litigation / Trial Practice
  • Criminal Law / Business Crimes
  • Communications, Media & Internet
  • Antitrust & Trade Regulation
  • All Federal
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Tweet
Advertisement

“Good Genes?”: Maybe Not. FTC Takes Action Against Sunday Riley and Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC For Employees False Reviews

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Sunday Riley launched her skincare firm Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC (“SRMS”) in 2009 and its skincare products, including Good Genes, Power Couple, U.F.O., C.E.O., Luna and Tidal, have enjoyed tremendous success, having been featured, promoted, and sold online through Sephora and its website, www. Sephora.com. On October 21, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced a consent order in an action for violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act against Ms. Riley and SRMS for posting false reviews of its Sunday Riley products and falsely representing that the false reviews reflected the opinions of ordinary customers of the products.[1] The FTC’s proposed continuing consent order provides: (1) Riley and SRMS are prohibited from misrepresenting the status of any endorser or person providing a review of a product, including misrepresenting that an endorser or reviewer is an independent or ordinary user of the product; (2) Riley and SRMS are required to clearly disclose any unexpected material connection between SRMS and anyone reviewing a product; (3) Riley and SRMS are required to instruct employees, officers and agents as to their responsibilities for disclosing their connections to SRMS and any Sunday Riley product they endorse and that SRMS obtain signed acknowledgments from any endorser; and (4) Riley and SRMS are required to submit compliance reports to the FTC within one‑year of the order and to create records for twenty years and retain them for five years.[2]

The FTC complaint alleged that for two years from November 2015 until August 2017 SRMS managers, including Riley, posted reviews of Sunday Riley branded cosmetic products on the Sephora website, using false accounts created to conceal their identities and asked other SRMS employees to do so.[3] The complaint further alleged that, after Sephora removed false employee‑generated reviews, “SRMS employees suspected this was because Sephora recognized the reviews as coming from Sunday Riley Skincare’s IP address” and, in response, SRMS obtained, in the words of one manager, “an Express VPN account [to] . . . allow us to hide our IP address and location when we write reviews.”[4] The complaint further alleged that “[c]alls for employees to write reviews were associated with, but not limited to, the launches of new products.”[5] The complaint detailed how Riley directed employees to create fake accounts and post positive reviews: “I would like everyone to create 3 accounts on Sephora.com, registered as a different identities.”[6] She also directed employees to focus on certain products and gave specific instructions: “Leave a review – make sure to NOT compare the product to other products, to not use foul language, and to be very enthusiastic without looking like a plant. Always leave 5 stars.”[7] With regard to negative reviews, Riley directed: “The other thing, if you see a negative review- DISLIKE it. After enough dislikes, it is removed. This directly translates to sales!!”[8] The complaint further alleged that in April 2018 interns of SMRS also were asked to make fake Sephora accounts and write reviews of Sunday Riley skincare products.[9] The Complaint contained two counts for false and misleading endorsement claims and deceptive failure to disclose materials connections with endorsers.[10]

FTC commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Robit Chopra dissented and noted in a public statement that “[t]oday’s proposal settlement includes no redress, no disgorgement of ill‑gotten gains, no notice to consumers, and no admission of wrongdoing.”[11] Commissioners Slaughter and Chopra stated: “Going forward, the FTC should seek monetary consequences for fake review fraud, even if the exact level of ill‑gotten gains is difficult to measure.”[12] Commissioners Slaughter and Chopra noted that the problem of fake online reviews is a global problem and United Kingdom, Canada and Australia all have recognized fake reviews as a threat to honest competition online.

While advertisers and marketers always want to create buzz and sizzle about new products, care should be taken to avoid violating the FTC Act when promoting products in the online marketplace. As the FTC has recognized, truth-in-advertising principles apply on social media platforms, and if there is a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser (whether she or he is a tweeter or blogger or endorser on another online site), it has to be clearly disclosed.[13] As the FTC’s Endorsement Guides make clear a “material connection” is a connection or relationship that might affect the weight or credibility a consumer would give the endorsement. Endorsements must “reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser” but disclosure of one’s relationship with the product such as an employee or advertising agency of the advertiser is required.[14]

To sum up, the following takeaways are critical: (1) Employees and advertisers need to understand the FTC’s Endorsement Guides and the truth-in advertising principles; (2) Endorsements must be truthful and “reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser;” (3) Endorsers must “clearly and conspicuously” disclose any “material connection” with the product being endorsed or its producer; and (4) A “material connection” between an endorser and the marketer of a product is any connection that might affect the weight or credibility consumers give the endorsement, including employment, business, family, or personal relationships, cash payments, or free products.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/192-3008/sunday-riley-modern-skincare-llc-matter. The FTC investigation was commenced after a whistleblower publicly accused SRMS of directing employees to write fake reviews of its products.

[2]https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/192_3008_sunday_riley_acco.pdf.

[3]https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/192_3008_sunday_riley_complaint.pdf (“Complaint”), ¶8.

[4] Complaint, ¶9.

[5] Complaint, ¶10.

[6]Id.

[7]Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Complaint, ¶14-15; 16-19.

[11] https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/10/statement-commissioner-chopra-joined-commissioner-slaughter-regarding.

[12]Id.

[13]In re Deutsch LA, Inc., https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3252/deutsch-la-inc-matter (The FTC alleged, inter alia, that Deutsch LA misled consumers by urging its employees to create awareness and excitement about the PS Vita on Twitter, without instructing them to disclose their connection to the advertising agency or its then-client Sony).

[14] FTC Endorsement Guides, 16 C.F.R. § 255 et seq.; https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=14e8f4d3c876671a54fce164a72f2e3e&node=pt16.1.255&rgn=div5.

Copyright © 2023, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 304
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Advertisement

Latest Legal News & Analysis

Supreme Court FCA Scienter Ruling Revives Fraud Lawsuits Against Safeway and...
ArentFox Schiff LLP
Highlights for Research Institutions and Sponsors in FDA's Recent Draft...
K&L Gates
Texas Consumer Privacy Law Nears Governor’s Signature
McDermott Will & Emery
Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case
Norris McLaughlin P.A.
En Banc Ninth Circuit Upholds Delaware-Forum Bylaw That Prevents Assertion of...
Proskauer Rose LLP
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

17 Actionable Ways to Build Your Brand and Business
By
Stefanie Marrone Consulting
Going ‘green’—what Does that Mean? FTC Proposes Revisions to Green Guides
By
McDermott Will & Emery
Unanimous Supreme Court Endorses Subjective Belief Standard for False Claims...
By
Robinson & Cole LLP
Compliance Update — Insights and Highlights May 2023
By
Jones Walker LLP
Trending in Telehealth: May 23 – 30, 2023
By
McDermott Will & Emery
Minnesota Legalizes Recreational Marijuana, Protects Off-Duty Use
By
Jackson Lewis P.C.

Upcoming Legal Education Events

PE & Healthcare Summit Berlin 2023
Tuesday, June 6, 2023
FinTech University: FinTech and International Law
Tuesday, June 6, 2023
Ward and Smith's 2023 Health Care Breakfast and Learns at New Bern Golf & Country Club!
Wednesday, June 7, 2023
PCI DSS 4.0: Third-party Service Providers And Risk Management
Wednesday, June 7, 2023
Advertisement

About this Author

Theodore Max, Attorney, Sheppard Mullin, Entertainment, Technology, Advertising
Theodore C. Max
Member

Theodore C. Max is a member of the Entertainment, Technology and Advertising and Intellectual Property Practice Groups in the New York office, where he focuses on counseling clients on intellectual property issues and litigation. He is co-leader of the firm's Fashion and Apparel team. Mr. Max combines his skill and experience as a trial attorney with his knowledge of copyright, trademark and intellectual property law in servicing the firm's diverse clientele.

[email protected]
212.332.3602
www.sheppardmullin.com
National Law Review
  • Antitrust Law
  • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
  • Biotech, Food, & Drug
  • Business of Law
  • Election & Legislative
  • Construction & Real Estate
  • Environmental & Energy
  • Family, Estates & Trusts
  • Financial, Securities & Banking
  • Global
  • Health Care Law
  • Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Insurance
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation
  • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
  • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
  • Tax
  • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
  • Coronavirus News
  • Law Student Writing Competition
  • Sign Up For NLR Bulletins
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs

 

As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC