FTC Business Blog

Recognize Data Privacy Day by protecting your small business from cybercriminals chundycz January 28, 2026 | 8:02AM Recognize Data Privacy Day by protecting your small business from cybercriminals Your small business likely has had many milestones. Hiring your first employee. Opening your doors for the first time. Making your first sale. But some milestones you’d probably rather avoid — like experiencing your first cyberattack. Think you’re too small to target? Think again. Cybercriminals target companies big and small, so this Data Privacy Day keep your business’s data (and your customers’ data) safe by reviewing the FTC’s updated resources at ftc.gov/cybersecurity.At ftc.gov/cybersecurity, you’ll find the FTC’s updated article, Cybersecurity for Small Business, included in the FTC’s suite of small business materials at ftc.gov/smallbusiness. This covers eight topics ranging from the importance of using email authentication technology and how to protect your business from phishing and ransomware, to questions to ask your vendors about their own cybersecurity practices.Whether these topics are new or familiar to you, reviewing the advice at ftc.gov/cybersecurity and sharing it with your staff can help protect your business from cybercriminals.Here are some other ideas for how to help protect your business:Talk about the sections of Cybersecurity for Small Business with your staff or fellow business owners. Don’t have a lot of time? No problem. The article has clear, practical advice in plain language.Share advice about cybersecurity on your business’s social media page. If some of this security guidance is new to you, it may be new to other small business owners too. Help them protect their business by sharing this advice. You can copy and paste information directly from the article.Stay in the know with the FTC’s Business Blog. Subscribe to get the latest guidance on how to protect your small business from cybercriminals, and more.Find more resources for small businesses at ftc.gov/smallbusiness. 

Concerned about deceptive earnings claims? So’s the FTC, and we want your feedback jensor January 13, 2025 | 2:45PM Concerned about deceptive earnings claims? So’s the FTC, and we want your feedback By Julia Solomon Ensor It’s a persistent problem the FTC’s aggressive enforcement program’s been fighting for decades: we’re talking about companies and programs that lure in entrepreneurs, investors, or participants with promises of significant earnings, and then fail to deliver. Today the FTC announced proposed rulemakings to strengthen the agency’s tools to curb deceptive earnings claims in industries where reports indicate they are pervasive: money-making opportunities and multi-level marketing (MLM) programs. If finalized, the proposals would allow the FTC to seek stronger relief – like money back for consumers or civil penalties – from covered companies making deceptive claims.Today’s announcement involves three proposals that work together. Each proposal includes a set of questions to consider, but, in general, we want to know: Will the proposals help us protect consumers and businesses? Will they deter harmful conduct? Should we make changes? Do you have any data or ideas we should consider? Here’s what’s on the table.A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing amendments to the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule. The amendments – which, as proposed, wouldn’t cover franchises or MLMs – would expand the Business Opportunity Rule’s existing prohibitions on deceptive or unsubstantiated earnings claims to “money-making opportunities,” defined as business coaching or investment opportunities. That means any covered seller would be required to have substantiation for claims about likely earnings. And, if someone requested that substantiation, the proposed amendments would also clarify that the seller must provide it in the same language they used to make the earnings claims.An NPRM proposing a new rule addressing deceptive earnings claims in the multi-level marketing industry. This proposed new Earnings Claim Rule would borrow language from the Business Opportunity Rule to prohibit sellers of MLMs from making deceptive earnings and related claims. Like the Business Opportunity Rule, this proposal would require covered businesses to tell the truth about how much people are likely to earn and be ready to provide information about what those claims are based on – in writing – upon request. Like the proposed changes to the Business Opportunity Rule, it would require sellers of MLMs who give out substantiation for earnings claims to do so in the same language they used to make the earnings claims. The FTC has offered several proposed definitions and alternative provisions in the NPRM. Check them out and let us know which ones you think work best.An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) asking whether the FTC should propose additional rule requirements that would apply to the MLM industry. The FTC has reason to believe deceptive earnings claims are prevalent in the MLM industry, and we want to know if more rule provisions – beyond what’s being proposed in the NPRM discussed above – are needed. Check out the Notice for details, but the big questions include whether MLM sellers should be required to: (1) provide earnings data to participants and potential recruits or post that information on their websites; (2) provide clear information about typical earnings whenever they make any earnings claims; or (3) impose a waiting period before recruits can join or pay any money to the MLM.You’ll have 60 days to review and comment on each proposal on Regulations.gov. That 60-day period starts from the date the proposals are published in the Federal Register. We hope you’ll weigh in.

Online sellers: How the INFORM Consumers Act could impact your business lfair August 18, 2023 | 12:43PM Online sellers: How the INFORM Consumers Act could impact your business By Lesley Fair The INFORM Consumers Act took effect on June 27, 2023. The FTC has issued staff guidance for online marketplaces and now we have advice for online sellers whose businesses may be affected by the new law.Congress passed the Integrity, Notification, and Fairness in Online Retail Marketplaces for Consumers Act – or the INFORM Consumers Act – to make online transactions more transparent. The law requires “online marketplaces” to collect, verify, and disclose certain information about “high-volume third party sellers.” Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act explains more about how the law defines those terms, discusses what’s required of online marketplaces, and outlines the substantial penalties the FTC and state law enforcers may seek if online marketplaces violate the law.A new FTC publication, What Third Party Sellers Need to Know About the INFORM Consumers Act, looks at the statute from the perspective of businesses that sell via online platforms – for example, what sellers are impacted, what you can expect online platforms to require of you, and what information platforms must disclose about you to consumers. It also answers some questions you may have about the law.Have you spotted a violation of the INFORM Consumers Act? Report it to the FTC.  We have a dedicated link where you can let us know about possible INFORM Consumers Act violations.  Image      

FTC charges battery maker in first case under Made in USA Labeling Rule lfair April 12, 2022 | 2:15PM FTC charges battery maker in first case under Made in USA Labeling Rule By Lesley Fair For people who prefer to buy Made in USA merchandise, products from Lithionics Battery LLC seemed like an attractive option. According to the FTC, Lithionics and General Manager Steven Tartaglia used phrases and American flag images to convey a Made in USA marketing message for their battery, battery module, and battery management system products. But don’t wave Old Glory just yet. As the FTC’s first action under the new Made in USA Labeling Rule alleges, the lithium ion cells Lithionics used were actually made in China. The proposed settlement includes a civil penalty of $105,319.56 and requires changes in how the company makes Made in USA claims.    Image Lithionics sells battery products for recreational vehicles, marine applications, and similar uses. The defendants labeled their merchandise with an image of the flag image surrounded by the words “Made in U.S.A.” Sometimes they added the phrase “Proudly Designed and Built in USA.” The defendants doubled down on those representations on the Lithionics website, in mail order catalogs, and in social media. For example, the complaint cites YouTube videos featuring Tartaglia and company employees putting Made in USA labels on Lithionics products. Other marketing materials featured a chart comparing the “advantage[s] of Lithionics battery systems” to what are described as “imports.”   Image Under the Made in USA Labeling Rule, marketers are prohibited from labeling products as “Made in USA” unless all or virtually all ingredients or components are made and sourced in the United States. What’s more, the final assembly or processing – and all significant processing that goes into the product – must occur in the US. But according to the FTC, Lithionics battery and battery module products incorporated Chinese-made lithium ion cells, and Lithionics battery management systems included significant imported components. That’s why the FTC says the defendants’ “Made in USA” claims were deceptive. The complaint, which names both Lithionics and Tartaglia, alleges violations of the Made in USA Rule and Section 5 of the FTC Act. In addition to a civil penalty of $105,319.56 authorized under the new Rule, the proposed settlement includes injunctive provisions that will change how the defendants do business going forward. For example, the order prohibits them from making unqualified U.S.-origin claims unless they have proof that the product’s final assembly or processing – and all significant processing – takes place in the US and that all or virtually all ingredients or components are made and sourced here. The order further requires that any qualified Made in USA claims include clear disclosures about the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients, or components, or involved foreign processing. Finally, if the defendants convey that a product is assembled in the United States, they must ensure it was last substantially transformed in the US, its principal assembly took place here, and US assembly operations are substantial. If your company makes Made in USA claims, the case offers two important compliance notes. Review the Rule to keep your representations red, white, and true. If you make Made in USA claims, do they comport with the Made in USA Labeling Rule? The new civil penalty remedy can make non-compliance costly.If necessary, take care to qualify your claims. If you make Made in USA claims that are “unqualified “ – in FTC parlance, that means claims that aren’t modified or limited – you must to live up to the “all or virtually all” standard. If you made “qualified claims” – claims that include caveats or explanations – the legal onus is on you to ensure those qualifications are clearly understood by consumers. The FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims provides more guidance on making Made in USA claims. 

Watch the FTC Made in the USA webcast lfair September 26, 2019 | 7:39AM Watch the FTC Made in the USA webcast By Lesley Fair How do consumers interpret “Made in the USA” and other U.S.-origin claims? What can the FTC do to improve its enforcement program? Those are just two of the topics on the table at today’s Made in the USA workshop. FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith will start the discussion at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. It promises to be a fast-paced, content-packed half-day event. Minutes before the start time, you can watch the webcast live from the workshop webpage.

PrivacyCon: Watch the webcast lfair June 27, 2019 | 8:31AM PrivacyCon: Watch the webcast By Lesley Fair The stars are aligning – the privacy and security stars, that is. The FTC’s fourth PrivacyCon convenes today, June 27, 2019. Experts from around the globe will discuss their latest research into privacy and data security, and the consumer protection implications of their findings. Minutes before FTC Chairman Simons convenes PrivacyCon at 9:15 ET this morning, visit the event page to watch the webcast live. Join the discussion on Twitter, using the hashtag #PrivacyCon19.  

FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy: Watch the webcast live lfair April 9, 2019 | 8:44AM FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy: Watch the webcast live By Lesley Fair We do our best to keep the puffery in check. So when we say an event features a star-studded line-up of panelists, we think we can substantiate that claim. The FTC’s ongoing Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century have brought luminaries together to discuss the impact on the FTC’s mission of broad-based changes in the economy, evolving business practices, and tech developments. The April 9th and 10th hearings on The FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy are no exception – and you can watch the webcast live. After opening remarks on Tuesday at 9:00 ET from FTC Chairman Simons, the morning panels will discuss Goals of Privacy Protection and The Data Risk Spectrum. Commissioner Phillips will lead off the afternoon session, which features panels on Consumer Demand and Expectations for Privacy and Current Approaches to Privacy. Wednesday’s agenda is just as jam-packed, with speakers in the morning talking over the Role of Notice and Choice and the Role of Access, Deletion, and Correction. After remarks from Commissioner Slaughter, the afternoon sessions will shift the focus to Accountability and The FTC’s Current Toolkit: Is It Adequate? You’ve probably read or heard the perspectives of the stand-out panelists, but have you seen them engage the issues with one another? That’s why you’ll want to follow what’s happening. The event is free and open to the public at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., located at the L’Enfant Plaza Metro. Want to watch from your device? A few minutes before the proceedings start on Tuesday and Wednesday, follow LIVE WEBCAST link. The public record will remain open until May 31, 2019. File your comments online.    

Data security hearings start today: Watch the webcast lfair December 11, 2018 | 8:43AM Data security hearings start today: Watch the webcast By Lesley Fair You’ve probably been following the FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. The next two days of hearings – Tuesday, December 11th, and Wednesday, December 12th – will take a deep dive into a topic of interest to just about every business and consumer: data security. No matter where you’re located, it’s easy to participate. Today’s proceedings begin at 10:10 Eastern Time. After opening remarks from Andrew Smith, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, panels will cover data breaches, incentives to invest in data security, and the consumer demand for it. Speakers include academics, industry members, and security researchers. The two-day hearing is free and open to the public at the FTC’s Constitution Center, 400 7th Street, S.W., located at the Metro L’Enfant Plaza station. Can’t attend in person? Watch the webcast by following the link that will go live a few minutes before the 10:10 starting time. You can file a public comment on issues raised at the data security hearing by March 13, 2019.  

FTC says deceptive rental listings were nothing to write home about lfair September 17, 2018 | 1:03PM FTC says deceptive rental listings were nothing to write home about By Lesley Fair As the song goes, “A house is not a home.” And as alleged in an FTC lawsuit against the operators of rental listing websites, sometimes an apartment isn’t an apartment. Steven Shayan, Kevin Shayan, and affiliated companies run ApartmentHunterz.com, FeaturedRentals.com, and WeTakeSection8.com. For consumers who pay weekly or monthly subscription fees, the defendants promise accurate listings for available units. For example, ApartmentHunterz.com claims its “unique, date-sensitive, rental software updates the listings on a daily basis, so that the data you receive from us is the most accurate and up-to-date information available on the Web today.” Touting “Real-Time Vacant rental listings,” the site purports to feature “over 1,000,000 hourly updated ads” and “over 15,000 exclusive vacant and upcoming listings, giving you the advantage to find the apartment or home of your choice in 3-5 days.” No need to worry about outdated information, the site assures prospective tenants. The company uses “phone and email verification to remove rented listings and verify price changes as well as post new rentals hourly as they become available.” FeaturedRentals.com echoes those accuracy claims, putting a particular emphasis on the quality of its listings. Unlike “free sites or yellow pages that just lists the community that might not have a vacancy,” FeaturedRentals.com describes itself as “a reputable rental site” that gets information “directly from landlords and management companies,” “verif[ies] the availability of the properties,” and then “updates its search engine on a daily and hourly basis.” For elderly and disabled consumers and very low-income families who qualify for Section 8 housing assistance, available units can be particularly hard to find. But WeTakeSection8.com billed itself as “the Nation’s Largest Section 8 Apartment Finder” and “one the most up-to-date sites” for rentals that are “already set up to accept the vouchers.” Why buy a subscription to WeTakeSection8.com? Because unlike sites that include “old listings that have long since been rented,” WeTakeSection8.com claims to offer “thousands of updated and verified listings including exclusive listings not found on free websites.” But according to the FTC, the defendants’ sites are rife with inaccurate or unavailable listings. Hundreds of consumers and property managers have complained directly to the defendants and through groups like the BBB. Among other things, they reported that units on the site weren’t really for rent. And we’re not talking about “Gosh darn it. Somebody just signed a lease this morning” near-misses. Consumers and property managers report that apartments featured on the defendants’ sites had been rented months – or even years – earlier. In addition, the FTC alleges that many listings on WeTakeSection8.com don’t actually accept Section 8 vouchers. Anyone who pays a subscription fee for a service that doesn’t deliver as promised experiences financial injury, but it takes a particular bite out of the budget of low-income consumers who qualify for Section 8. According to the complaint, the defendants’ conduct harms those consumers in another way, too. A disabled person or low-income family can spend years on the Section 8 waiting list. But once they qualify for a voucher, they may have only 60-90 days to find a place that takes Section 8. Time spent going down blind alleys – for example, pursuing listed properties that aren’t really available – cuts into that narrow window. The FTC lawsuit alleges (among other things) that the defendants’ claims of offering accurate, up-to-date, and available listings are false or deceptive. The complaint also challenges the defendants’ representation that their sites feature “exclusive” listing of available apartments and Section 8 units not available on free sites. Furthermore, as the FTC lawsuit notes, this wasn’t the defendants’ first rental rebuke. The California Department of Real Estate revoked ApartmentHunterz’ license, but it has continued to do business. Then there were earlier state disciplinary actions for false and misleading ads. A federal court in California has issued a temporary restraining order. What’s the word for other businesses? Even at this early stage, the complaint is a reminder that companies have a legal obligation to live up to promises they make in their ads. That’s the case if they sell widgets and gadgets or if their stock-in-trade is paid access to curated information. If you deal in data, established truth-in-advertising standards still apply.

“Amazing Wealth System” not so amazing, alleges the FTC lfair March 23, 2018 | 12:17PM “Amazing Wealth System” not so amazing, alleges the FTC By Lesley Fair An FTC lawsuit alleges that money-making claims made by a related group of companies and individuals for their Amazing Wealth System are “amazing” all right – if by “amazing” you mean “not credible” or “unsupported by the facts.” The complaint charges the defendants with violating the FTC Act and the Business Opportunity Rule. One interesting factual twist is how elements of the “system” allegedly depend on subverting Amazon’s rules about online reviews and third-party sales.Defendants advertise their Amazing Wealth System via direct mail, radio, YouTube videos, social media, and live events. (Consumers may know them by names like Amazon Wealth Systems, FBA Stores, Insider Online Secrets, or Online Auction Learning Center. But let’s be clear: The defendants have no affiliation with Amazon.)According to the FTC, the defendants lure prospective purchasers in with claims like this:“My name is Adam Bowser, and over the past 18 years I have sold over $50 million online. I’m going to be hosting a few local workshops around the Seattle area to share my secrets for making money on Amazon.”“Get started selling on Amazon and make $5,000-$10,000 in the next 30 days . . . Even if you have never sold anything online before.”“Just last year we sold over $12 Million on Amazon.com. Now we want to help you become our next Amazon success story.”The defendants’ initial step is bringing consumers in for a free two-hour seminar. At the seminar, they pitch their $995 three-day workshops: “How many of you would love to be able to learn how you can make an extra $5,000 to $10,000 a month by spending 30 minutes to an hour a day learning and implementing a plug-and-play system I’m going to share with you here in a moment.”According to the FTC, the three-day workshops shift the hype into overdrive, including the sale of more expensive packages like the $34,995 “Diamond” enrollment. As one pitch person said at a workshop, “So whether you want an extra $20- to $30,000 a year or you want to create a million dollar a year business, I’m going to show you how to do either of those.”The complaint alleges that in purporting to showing people “how to do either of those,” much of the information the defendants convey is basic stuff available for free on Amazon’s Resources and Tutorials page. However, other “tips, tricks, and techniques” allegedly violate Amazon’s Business Solutions Agreement, the document that sets forth the rules that companies must follow if they want to sell on Amazon. For example, according to the FTC, the defendants instruct consumers who buy their Amazing Wealth System to get fake product reviews for the items they list on Amazon – advice that violates Amazon’s Anti-Manipulation Policy for Customer Reviews. Another of those “tricks” teaches people to use various ruses in an effort to “win the box” – in other words, to be the seller of choice in Amazon’s coveted Buy Box when the same merchandise is available from multiple sellers. As a result, says the FTC, purchasers who use the defendants’ system often experience problems with their Amazon stores, including getting suspending and losing their ability to sell on the site.The FTC lawsuit charges that people who buy the Amazing Wealth System and try to use the defendants’ strategies are unlikely to earn the income the defendants advertise. And according to the lawsuit, the defendants’ brief “earnings disclaimers” are ineffective to undo the net impression that people who implement the “system” are likely to make money.The complaint alleges other specific violations of the Business Opportunity Rule. The FTC says the defendants failed to make advertising disclosures mandated by the Rule, including the number and percentage of people who bought the business opportunity and achieved at least the stated level of earnings. Furthermore, in many cases, the defendants allegedly failed to furnish prospective purchasers in a timely fashion with the disclosure document and attachments required by the Business Opportunities Rule.The case is pending in federal court in Nevada. The court has appointed a temporary receiver over the corporate defendants, enjoined the defendants from making deceptive claims, and frozen their assets pending resolution of the FTC’s preliminary injunction motion.Even at this early stage, the case is a reminder to companies that offer business opportunities to conduct a Rule review to make sure they’re in compliance. What’s the message for would-be entrepreneurs? View money-making claims with a seriously skeptical eye. In addition, if anyone suggests that you solicit, post, or in any other way involve yourself with product reviews that aren’t 100% accurate and independent, you’re getting really bad advice. The FTC endorsements page has resources on that subject.