Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

The FTC Social Media Consent Order Against SmartClick

By Ira S. Sacks & Patricia M. Flanagan on July 25, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The FTC continues its efforts to combat deceptive social media advertising. Recently, the FTC brought an enforcement action against SmartClick Media LLC and its owner. The FTC alleged that SmartClick engaged in the following deceptive and misleading conduct:

(1)        operating a “Doctor Trusted” certification program under which “Doctor Trusted” seals were sold for use on websites that indicated to consumers that products were evaluated by doctors using their medical expertise although doctors they hired did nothing more than a superficial and cursory review of the products online; and

(2)        hosting websites that were formatted to appear as independent lifestyle blogs and health product review sites when they were in actuality paid promotions or placements. 

In particular, according to the complaint, SmartClick advertised and sold the “Doctor Trusted” seal and certification program to the public as a means for companies to improve their credibility and increase online sales. Complaint, ¶¶ 13-14.  SmartClick advised companies to promote their use of the seal by using a template press release that represented that, to earn certification, the company using the seal passed a “strict application process” that involves careful evaluation by a doctor of their website and any products or services offered.  Complaint, ¶,16.  The review process, however, was superficial and did not require actual exercise of medical expertise.  Complaint, ¶¶ 17-18.  As of March 2015, the “Doctor Trusted” seals and certificates were displayed to consumers on approximately 800 websites, including websites that were maintained by companies that subsequently entered into settlements with the FTC for making deceptive advertising claims about their products.  Complaint, ¶ 21.

In addition, the FTC’s complaint alleged that SmartClick hosted a lifestyle blog that purported to provide unbiased advice and information about various products, programs, health issues, scientific breakthroughs, and other services and two websites that purported to objectively evaluate products, to allow consumers to rate the effectiveness of the products, and to display the results of such ratings. Complaint, ¶¶ 22, 24. SmartClick, however, received commissions and other payments when consumers clicked on links or purchase the promoted products on any of these websites.  Complaint, ¶ 23.  Such commissions and payments made the websites paid promotions, but were not clearly and conspicuously disclosed anywhere.  Complaint, ¶ 23.   The disclosure of such payments within links entitled “About Us” and “Disclosure” at the bottom of the website were inconspicuous and, therefore, insufficient.  Complaint,  ¶ 23.  Further, for the product review sites, SmartClick did not disclose that they were not objectively evaluating the products or compiling and accurately reporting product ratings from consumers.  Complaint, ¶ 25.

The FTC alleged that, based on the above conduct, SmartClick had made false and misleading representations about the certification program, misrepresentations about the websites, and failed to disclose material connections in violation of the FTC Act. Complaint, ¶¶ 28-38.  One week after filing the complaint against SmartClick Media LLC and its owner, on June 21, 2016, the FTC and SmartClick reached a settlement and a proposed Stipulated Order was entered.  The FTC’s settlement with SmartClick not only included numerous injunctive, disclosure, and compliance-reporting provisions, but it also contained a monetary relief in the amount of $603,588, which was to be partially suspended upon the payment of $35,000, dependent upon the accuracy of financial information provided to the FTC by SmartClick and its owner.  Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment, ¶¶ 7-8.

As made clear by the FTC’s enforcement actions against Lord & Taylor, SmartClick, and Warner Bros., a social media or other website cannot represent, explicitly or implicitly, that it is an independent or objective resource for products or services, health issues, scientific breakthroughs, consumer evaluations or product ratings, or other information, when it is not. As the FTC has counseled, connections between a sponsoring advertiser and online content that appear to reflect independent, impartial views, opinions or experiences of consumers or experts must be “clearly and conspicuously disclosed.”  Including disclosures in “About Us” or “Disclosure” links at the bottom of a website, like those included on its website by SmartClick, fall short of what is required by the FTC’s “clear and conspicuous” standard.  Similarly, where a spokesperson is used, any connection between that person and a sponsoring advertiser that is not reasonably expected must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed.  The failure to provide the proper disclosure, says the FTC, will mislead consumers into believing those messages are impartial when they are really paid-for or sponsored advertisements.

A word of counsel: if you have not already, it is time to review social media, advertising programs, websites, and materials and advise your marketing teams, endorsers, and influencers, to ensure that the proper clear and conspicuous disclosures are being included in sponsored and paid-for content.

Photo of Ira S. Sacks Ira S. Sacks

Ira Sacks practices in the area of litigation with an emphasis on trademark and branding matters. He handles complex and high-profile cases involving trademark, copyright, and patent infringement issues, distribution disputes, false advertising, price fixing, dealer termination, monopolization and unfair competition, unfair trade…

Ira Sacks practices in the area of litigation with an emphasis on trademark and branding matters. He handles complex and high-profile cases involving trademark, copyright, and patent infringement issues, distribution disputes, false advertising, price fixing, dealer termination, monopolization and unfair competition, unfair trade practices, and trade secrets. Ira’s clients include fragrance and fashion companies as well as national scientific laboratories, real estate developers, and financial institutions.

Read more about Ira S. SacksEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Patricia M. Flanagan Patricia M. Flanagan

Patricia Flanagan helps emerging and industry leading companies protect and enforce their U.S. and international intellectual property rights. She focuses on representing clients in the strategic management and utilization of their trademark portfolios, including procurement, maintenance, licensing, and asserting and defending trademark and…

Patricia Flanagan helps emerging and industry leading companies protect and enforce their U.S. and international intellectual property rights. She focuses on representing clients in the strategic management and utilization of their trademark portfolios, including procurement, maintenance, licensing, and asserting and defending trademark and unfair competition litigation. From startups to established global companies, Patricia’s clients span a diverse range of sectors, including retail, fashion, and hospitality brands; international music festivals; production companies and entertainment professionals; technology and software companies; private equity firms; and real estate owners and developers.

Read more about Patricia M. FlanaganEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory
  • Blog:
    Marks, Works, and Secrets
  • Organization:
    Akerman LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo