Skip to content

Menu

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

On Notice: Procedural Overview of the FTC’s Section 5 Penalty Offense Authority

By Lawrence Weinstein, Jennifer Yang & Timothy E. Burroughs on October 29, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

As discussed in our earlier post, on October 13, 2021, the FTC issued “Notice of Penalty Offenses” letters to more than 700 companies, placing them on notice of civil penalties up to $43,792 per violation if they use endorsements or testimonials in an unfair or deceptive manner. These letters are the first step for the FTC to obtain civil penalties in administrative adjudication proceedings under Section 5 of the FTC Act. In this post, we explain the process for the FTC to obtain such penalties under Section 5. Future posts in our “On Notice” series will cover the substantive aspects of the Notice of Penalty Offenses concerning endorsements and testimonials, and will offer tips to comply with the FTC’s precedent and guidelines.

The FTC may enforce the FTC Act’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices either by commencing administrative adjudication proceedings under Section 5 of the Act or by suing a party in court under Section 13(b). As noted in our previous post, the Supreme Court’s decision this past April in AMG Capital Mgmt., LLC v. FTC has significantly curtailed the FTC’s ability to pursue civil penalties under Section 13(b). Thus, the FTC seems to be looking to increase its utilization of Section 5, which explicitly allows for civil penalties.

Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Commission can obtain civil penalties against a company that acted unfairly or deceptively through the Penalty Offense Authority. The FTC can seek civil penalties if it proves that (1) the company knew the conduct was unfair or deceptive in violation of the FTC Act and (2) the FTC had already issued a written decision that such conduct is unfair or deceptive. 15 U.S.C. § 45(m)(1)(B). The Notice of Penalty Offenses letters provide a non-exhaustive list of conduct relating to endorsements and testimonials that the FTC has determined to be unfair or deceptive, including:

  • Falsely claiming an endorsement by a third party;
  • Misrepresenting whether an endorser is an actual, current, or recent user;
  • Using an endorsement to make deceptive performance claims;
  • Failing to disclose an unexpected material connection with an endorser;
  • Misrepresenting that an endorsement represents the experience, views, or opinions of users or purported users;
  • Misrepresenting that the experience of endorsers represents consumers’ typical or ordinary experience; and
  • Continuing to use an endorsement without good reason to believe that the endorser continues to subscribe to the views presented.

Future posts in our “On Notice” series will explore these types of conduct in further detail.

The letters make clear they are not an indication the recipients have engaged in any unfair or deceptive practices. However, the letters put the recipients on notice of the prohibited conduct and may enable the FTC to seek civil penalties if a company is found to be engaged in such activity.

To begin an administrative adjudication under Section 5, the FTC issues a complaint setting forth its charges if they have “reason to believe” that a violation has occurred. § 45(b). Respondents may elect to settle with the FTC, sign a consent agreement, consent to entry of a final order, or contest the charges. If the FTC accepts a proposed settlement agreement, the corresponding order is made available for public comment for 30 days before the FTC determines whether to make the order final.

If a respondent contests the charges, the complaint is adjudicated in a trial-type proceeding governed by the FTC’s rules of practice before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The FTC is represented in the proceeding by an FTC “complaint counsel.” After the ALJ issues a decision setting forth findings of fact and law, and recommending a remedy or dismissal, either party may appeal the decision to the full Commission. After the Commission’s final decision, a losing respondent may file a petition for review with a US Court of Appeals. After all judicial review of the FTC’s order is completed, the FTC may seek consumer redress in federal district court for the conduct at issue in the administrative proceeding. If the district court determines that a reasonable person would have known under the circumstances that the conduct was dishonest or fraudulent, the respondent will be liable for consumer harm and subject to civil penalties. As noted, the civil penalty amount is currently $43,792 per violation. It is adjusted for inflation annually.

Watch this space for best practices on using endorsements and testimonials in advertising. We will also be on the lookout for instances of the FTC bringing an enforcement action relating to this subject matter.

***

Want to talk advertising? We welcome your questions, ideas, and thoughts on our posts. Email or call us at lweinstein@proskauer.com /212-969-3240.

 

Photo of Jennifer Yang Jennifer Yang

Jennifer Yang is a partner in the Litigation Department. She is a skilled commercial litigator specializing in false advertising and other intellectual property disputes, including Lanham Act and consumer class action false advertising litigation, advertising challenges before the National Advertising Division (NAD) and…

Jennifer Yang is a partner in the Litigation Department. She is a skilled commercial litigator specializing in false advertising and other intellectual property disputes, including Lanham Act and consumer class action false advertising litigation, advertising challenges before the National Advertising Division (NAD) and National Advertising Review Board (NARB) as well as trademark, trade secret and copyright litigation. Jen represents clients in a variety of industries, including medical device companies, consumer products companies, cosmetics companies, food and beverage companies, fashion retailers, sports, entertainment and art foundations.

Jen regularly defends clients in threatened and filed consumer class actions. She has successfully helped clients defend cases around the country involving core product performance claims, ingredient claims, slack fill allegations, environmental and other ESG-related claims, pricing disputes, health claims, and allegations of undisclosed PFAS and other contaminants. Jen has extensive experience litigating matters involving foods, drugs, medical devices, dietary supplements and cosmetics, and is proficient on the impact of the regulatory frameworks governing these products on consumer class action defense.

Jen also frequently represents both plaintiffs/challengers and defendants/advertisers in competitor Lanham Act cases and challenges before NAD and NARB. She brings her deep experience in litigation strategy and subject matter expertise to each case to achieve the best possible outcome for her clients.

A core part of Jen’s practice includes counseling clients on advertising and claim substantiation. She leverages her expertise in NAD, regulatory guidance (including the FTC Endorsement Guides, Green Guides and Negative Option Rule), state consumer protection statutes and consumer class action trends to work closely with clients and their marketers to help develop compelling marketing campaigns and messaging while minimizing legal risk. Jen also partners with clients’ R&D teams to help develop robust claim substantiation in accordance with best legal practices, including clinical studies, in vitro testing, sensory studies, home use tests, and consumer and expert surveys.

Jen is a regular speaker at ANA’s Masters of Advertising Law Conference, and is an author and editor of Proskauer’s advertising law blog, Proskauer on Advertising.

Read more about Jennifer YangEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Timothy E. Burroughs Timothy E. Burroughs

Tim Burroughs is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust and Commercial Litigation groups. Tim’s practice focuses on assisting clients navigate a range of antitrust issues from investigations and litigation to compliance with pre-merger CFIUS and HSR notification…

Tim Burroughs is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Antitrust and Commercial Litigation groups. Tim’s practice focuses on assisting clients navigate a range of antitrust issues from investigations and litigation to compliance with pre-merger CFIUS and HSR notification requirements. Additionally, Tim has experience representing leading technology, pharmaceutical, and financial services companies in complex commercial disputes throughout the United States.

Tim is a member of the firm’s Antitrust Technology Task Force and a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Minding Your Business and Proskauer on Price Gouging blogs.

Tim also maintains an active pro bono practice, including representing asylum seekers pursuing claims against the United States for harm suffered in connection with the Trump Administration’s Family Separation Policy.

Tim earned his J.D. from Vanderbilt Law School, where he was the Executive Student Writing Editor for the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law and interned at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

Prior to his legal career, Tim was a Teach For America corps member and taught elementary school in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn.

Read more about Timothy E. BurroughsEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Antitrust, Competition and Trade
  • Blog:
    Proskauer on Advertising Law
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

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