FTC

Subscribe to FTC

Use of AI technology can impact your rights and liabilities in ways that may not even occur to you. And whether you are aware of it or not, your employees and vendors may be using generative AI tools in the performance of their duties in ways that can significantly impact you. The FTC has made clear that ignorance is not bliss when it comes to your liability associated with use of these tools. That is why it is more important now than ever to factor these AI technology legal implications into your company’s governance and risk management, including by updating your employee policies and third-party agreements. This article provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of legal issues that are implicated by the use of this powerful technology and practice tips for risk management.…

Continue Reading AI Technology – Governance and Risk Management: Why Your Employee Policies and Third-Party Contracts Should be Updated

The rapid rise of AI used with advertising, marketing and other consumer facing applications has caused the FTC to continue to take notice and issues guidance. For example, the FTC is concerned about false or unsubstantiated claims about an AI product’s efficacy. It has issued AI-related guidance in the past. The following is some recent FTC guidance to consider when referencing AI in your advertising. This guidance is not necessarily new, but the fact that it is being reiterated should be a signal that the FTC continues to focus on this area and that actions may be forthcoming. In fact, the recent guidance states: “AI is important, and so are the claims you make about it. You don’t need a machine to predict what the FTC might do when those claims are unsupported.”…

Continue Reading You Don’t Need a Machine to Predict What the FTC Might Do About Unsupported AI Claims

In Federal Trade Commission v. LeadClick Media, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17383 (2nd Cir. 2016), the Second Circuit recently held that an affiliate marketing network provider could be subjected to liability under the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”) for deceptive marketing materials published by the affiliates.  It also concluded that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) did not immunize the network provider from liability.  In doing so, the Second Circuit emphasized that the network provider had knowledge of and the authority to control the content of the affiliate websites.  This ruling could increase the exposure of internet businesses to liability for deceptive acts or practices engaged in by third-party vendors or independent contractors.
Continue Reading No Protection for Network Marketing Provider That Had Knowledge and Authority to Control Deceptive Conduct of Affiliates

On November 6, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission proposed a consent order that would settle charges against a patent assertion entity, MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (“MPHJ”), and a law firm that represented MPHJ.
Continue Reading FTC Proposes Consent Order to Settle Charges Alleging Misrepresentations by Patent Assertion Entity