FTC Business Blog

FTC 2021 Data Book: Just the facts chundycz February 22, 2022 | 2:45PM FTC 2021 Data Book: Just the facts By Lesley Fair Image In the old TV show Dragnet, Sergeant Joe Friday was famous for saying “Just the facts, ma’am.” But like “Play it again, Sam” in Casablanca, that quotable quote was never actually said by the lead character. But when we tell you that the FTC’s just-released 2021 Consumer Sentinel Data Book gives you “just the facts,” be assured that’s what you’ll get. And one of those facts – the most commonly reported forms of fraud in 2021 – should be of particular interest to businesses. What’s the source of the Data Book’s data? It’s the Consumer Sentinel Network – a database that receives reports directly from consumers, as well as from federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, Better Business Bureaus, industry members, and non-profit groups. The FTC shares those reports with approximately 2800 federal, state, local, and international law enforcers, who in turn use that information to identify trends, craft policy, and build cases. The 2021 Data Book is jam-packed with stats, but here are a few of the most noteworthy: Millions of Americans filed fraud reports last year. In 2021, people filed a total of 5.7 million reports. In addition to identity theft reports and complaints about businesses, 2.8 million of those reports were about fraud. Reported dollar losses took a sharp uptick. Consumers reported losing more than $5.8 billion to fraud in 2021, an increase in reported losses of more than 70% over 2020. Imposter scams still hold the unenviable top spot. The most commonly reported fraud category was imposter scams, followed by online shopping scams. Why should businesses care about the one-two ranking of imposter scams and online shopping scams? First, imposter scams in their familiar forms – family emergency scams, romance scams, government imposter scams, etc. – devastate your employees, their family members, and people in your community. But they don’t stop there. As cases brought by the FTC demonstrate, scammers have small businesses in their sights, too. Whether it’s a phony invoice for unordered office supplies, a bogus offer of financing from someone masquerading as an SBA lender, or a fraudster hijacking your email account, businesses are a target for imposters, too. As small companies work hard to get back on their feet, a major fraud loss could be the difference between a come-back and a closing. Second, consumers who have lost money to online shopping scams may view legitimate online companies with heightened suspicion. One group that takes an unfair financial hit: honest small businesses. As you scroll through the 2021 Data Book, be sure to check out the FTC’s data analysis site, ftc.gov/exploredata, for all the ways our in-house info aces have sliced and diced the stats by state, metropolitan area, and other relevant variables. You can even create custom visuals for your next industry webinar or community event. The publication of the annual Data Book is also a reminder for us to say thank you. Not to the scammers and fraudsters, of course, but rather to the millions of Americans who visit ReportFraud.ftc.gov to let us know if they’ve been ripped off or have spotted a questionable business practice. Your reports help law enforcement agencies gather the information they need to track down – and take down – scammers.

FTC to companies making questionable diabetes claims: Cease and desist now lfair September 9, 2021 | 12:01PM FTC to companies making questionable diabetes claims: Cease and desist now By Samuel Levine, Acting Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection According to the CDC, more than 34 million Americans have diabetes. To put a human face on that public health statistic, 1 in 10 people at your company, friends in your neighborhood, and members of your extended family struggle with a disease that could threaten their lives. The uninsured, those with high-deductible health plans, and lower-income consumers face another challenge that makes managing diabetes even more difficult: the high cost of insulin. The prohibitive price has caused many patients to ration their insulin or forgo it altogether, often with catastrophic health consequences. Sadly, these high prices are driving many to turn to questionable products that imply without solid science that users can reduce their dependence on insulin. Claims like that are a powerful draw to anyone struggling to cover the cost of their prescriptions, but they put people with diabetes at risk for physical or financial injury. That’s why the FTC and the FDA have joined forces to call out 10 companies for selling purported diabetes treatments that don’t appear to have scientific support, including 7 companies that posted these claims on social media. The FTC Cease and Desist Demands and FDA Warning Letters cite a broad range of claims for various concoctions of herbs and plants advertised online and through social media – and sometimes pitched in English and Spanish. For example, companies have claimed that their particular product “works great to lower high blood sugar,” “help[s] balance blood sugar levels for people with diabetes,” and “help[s] maintain healthy A1c blood sugar levels in diabetics and prediabetics.” Another product geared to people who “need to decrease [their] body’s need for insulin” described itself as “a clinically-effective formula containing powerful ingredients designed to improve insulin sensitivity and enhance blood glucose (sugar) control.” According to the FDA Warning Letters, the products are “new drugs” that can’t be sold without prior FDA approval. The recipients have 15 days to tell the FDA what steps they’ve taken to address any violations. “Failure to adequately address these matters may result in legal action including, without limitation, seizure and injunction.” The FTC Cease and Desist Demands state unequivocally that the companies “must cease and desist from making any claim that a product and prevent, treat, or cure diabetes without competent and reliable scientific evidence consisting of well-controlled human clinical studies substantiating that the claims are true.” Furthermore, “Violations of the FTC Act may result in legal action seeking a Federal District Court injunction or Administrative Cease and Desist Order” and marketers who make deceptive claims about the treatment, cure, or prevention of a disease may face hefty civil penalties under the Commission’s Penalty Offense Authority, 15 U.S.C. Section 45(m)(1)(B). The FTC also has given the companies 15 days to report back with the specific actions they’ve taken to address those concerns. That’s the message for the companies who received the letters. What’s the message for others making similar claims on websites and social media platforms? Stop it now. Don’t put consumers at physical and financial risk by diverting them from proven remedies to products unsupported by sound science.  

FTC bounces claims for “independent” trampoline review sites lfair May 31, 2017 | 12:04PM FTC bounces claims for “independent” trampoline review sites By Lesley Fair Consumers rely on independent reviews and recommendations in deciding what to buy. That’s why the FTC wasn’t jumping for joy to learn that marketers of trampolines were touting their products through the use of misleading review websites and deceptive endorsements. Anaheim-based Sonny Le and Bobby Le sold trampolines – primarily the Infinity and Olympus Pro brands – through three websites. Those sales sites prominently displayed the logo of “Trampoline Safety of America,” with some logos bearing the additional flourish of “Trampoline of the Year.” What is Trampoline Safety of America? Consumers who clicked on the link were taken to Trampoline Safety of America’s site. The group described itself as a “third party organization” made up of “structural engineers, trampoline gymnastic coaches, professional trampoline installers” and others whose goal is “to educate the public about the safet[y] of trampolines.” In a head-to-head comparison among competitors, it rated the Infinity and Olympus Pro highest, calling the Infinity “by far one of the safest and best trampolines we’ve reviewed” and the Olympus “one of the safest as well.” Trampoline Safety of America expressly stated that it was not “paid or endorsed” by any of the companies whose products it evaluated. The respondents’ sales sites also featured links to the “Bureau of Trampoline Review,” which claimed to be an “independent research organization” that subjects products to “rigorous testing” on “safety, reliability, and performance.” According to the Bureau, “we are not paid by any sponsors or manufacturers, so our data are unbiased nor [sic] influenced.” Another logo on the respondents’ sales sites sent people to “Top Trampoline Review,” which billed itself as “the watchdog organization for Trampoline Safety.” Surprise, surprise – Infinity and Olympus Pro models were described as “four of the best trampolines available on the market today.” A purported “Trampoline Mom” blog featured a comment recommending products sold by the respondents. Then there was the YouTube comment that recommended the Infinity as “the best trampoline that I’ve ever owned” and critiqued a competitor by name, claiming it was “crap” that rusted in two years. But according to the FTC’s complaint, who was behind Trampoline Safety of America? The respondents. The Bureau of Trampoline Review? The respondents. Top Trampoline Review? The respondents. The blog commenter? Respondent Bobby Le. And the YouTube commenter who touted the Infinity and dismissed a competitor’s trampoline as “crap”? Ditto. The complaint challenges a host of false and misleading claims on those purportedly independent review sites. The FTC also says the respondents violated the FTC Act when Mr. Le posted favorable reviews for Infinity and Olympus Pro trampolines without disclosing his financial interest in promoting them. The proposed settlement prohibits a broad category of misrepresentations about reviews, as well as deceptive claims about tests, studies, or other research. In addition, the respondents will have to clearly disclose any unexpected material connections they or their affiliates have to consumers, reviewers, or endorsers. You can file a comment about the proposed settlement by June 30, 2017. Here are some suggestions for avoiding a review snafu. Whose reviews are whose?  Favorable buzz can give a product a bounce, but advertisers can take a legal tumble by creating fake review sites, using misleading third-party endorsements or seals, or touting their products on independent sites without disclosing that the recommendation came from someone connected to the company. Need to disclose material connections? Don’t get it twisted.  If there’s a connection between an advertiser and a reviewer that consumers wouldn’t expect, clearly and conspicuously disclose it. That applies both to raves about your own products or services and unfavorable references to competitors. (The terms of any settlement apply just to the company in question, of course, but the definition of “clearly and conspicuously” in the proposed order offers insights into factors to consider.) When using reviews and endorsements in your marketing, look before you leap.  The Endorsement Guides offer practical advice on keeping your claims on the up-and-up. In addition, The FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking answers the questions businesses have put to us.  

Are you OK with the F-C-R-A? lfair September 17, 2015 | 8:15AM Are you OK with the F-C-R-A? By Lesley Fair The Fair Credit Reporting Act isn’t just about credit. If your company uses background checks in making personnel decisions, the FTC reminds you of your obligations under the FCRA. In honor of Throwback Thursday, here’s an unconventional old-school summary of key requirements under federal law. Spin the mirrored disco ball and join us on the dance floor for “F-C-R-A.” Employers, There’s a law that applies When a prospect’s Background you scrutinize. Just remember To dot all the i’s. Get consent in written format. Are you OK with the F-C-R-A? Are you OK with the F-C-R-A? Exercise care with that consumer report If you’re eager to stay out of court. Supposing You like ‘em a lot, But the screening Reveals a bit of a blot. The law says You must give them a shot To explain misinformation. Are you OK with the F-C-R-A? Are you OK with the F-C-R-A? Give them the form summarizing their rights. It includes the essential cites. If adverse Action’s what you decide, Give the reason Why they were denied, And the source of The report you supplied. And their right to one more copy. Once your Decision is sure, Take steps to Keep disposal secure. Need more details? Well, we have a brochure To deter unlawful access. Are you OK with the F-C-R-A? Are you OK with the F-C-R-A? The report you must shred, burn, or pulverize To protect it from prying eyes. Are you OK with the F-C-R-A?  (repeat and fade) Have more questions about how the FCRA applies in the hiring process? Read Background Checks: What Employers Need to Know – or consult your in-house cowboy or motorcycle policeman.  

Hide and sneak lfair April 7, 2015 | 6:38PM Hide and sneak By Lesley Fair When playing hide and seek as a child, remember those kids who always seemed to find that hidden crawl space or cranny?  Whatever happened to them? Let’s hope they didn’t grow up to go into advertising since current marketing methods offer lots of ways for companies to hide important terms and conditions. The FTC’s proposed settlement with Network Solutions illustrates a few examples. For individuals and businesses in the market for web hosting services, Network Solutions prominently advertised a “30 Day Money Back Guarantee.” What was the catch? According to the FTC, the company didn’t clearly and conspicuously disclose that its “Money Back Guarantee” didn’t always guarantee the return of all of the customer’s money. In fact, for customers who had accepted a domain name registration included with their web hosting, Network Solutions dinged them for a “cancellation fee” of as much as 30% of what they paid – meaning that the company’s “Money Back Guarantee” could be more accurately characterized as a “Not All of Your Money Back Guarantee.” The complaint against Network Solutions illustrates some principles that should come as no surprise to businesses that have read the FTC guidance publication, .com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising. For example, Network Solutions didn’t disclose the cancellation fee in ads that touted the guarantee or on webpages that promoted it. Instead, consumers had to scroll to the bottom of the screen to find this sentence in tiny print:  “* See Terms and Conditions for free nsWebAddress™ , 30-Day Money Back Guarantee and Uptime Reliability.” This screenshot gives you an idea of just how small small can get in relation to other fonts that Network Solutions used to convey its marketing messages. What’s more, the hyperlink sometimes appeared in blue on a black background and was usually sandwiched between two other links. What happened if consumers actually clicked on the link? A pop-up appeared where Network Solutions then began calling the offer a “30-Day Limited Money Back Guarantee.” That’s also where Network Solutions revealed details of the cancellation fee. The FTC says that was too little, too late to serve as an effective disclosure of material information.  To settle the case, Network Solutions has agreed to change how it markets money-back guarantees and discloses material limitations. In addition, the proposed order prohibits misrepresentations about refund or cancellation policies, guarantees, or any other claim about the company’s web hosting services. What can other companies learn from the settlement? The best takeaway tip is don’t do what the FTC says Network Solutions did. Read .com Disclosures for more information about how font size, color, placement, and proximity to the claim all play a role in whether a disclosure meets the clear and conspicuous standard. That publication also includes helpful guidance on the use of hyperlinks – and why companies should think twice before assuming it’s OK to advertise a claim prominently while hiding attached strings behind vague, hard-to-find hyperlinks. You can file an online comment about the proposed settlement by May 7, 2015.  

Are your green claims clean? Knock on wood. wfg-adm109 February 21, 2014 | 11:15AM Are your green claims clean? Knock on wood. By Lesley Fair Not every building project starts with an ax-wielding guy in a flannel shirt yelling “tim-berrrr!”  Consumers have another choice these days:  plastic lumber, which is often used in decking, fences, outdoor furniture, etc.  Wisconsin-based N.E.W. Plastics Corporation (you may know them as Renew Plastics) manufactures two lines of plastic lumber – Evolve and Trimax – and touts their environmental benefits.  But according to a settlement announced by the FTC, the company’s green claims didn’t stack up. N.E.W. markets Evolve and Trimax through independent distributors and retailers across the country.  One focus of the company’s marketing campaign for Evolve was to position the product as an environmentally conscious choice: “When you build with EVOLVE recycled plastic lumber, you demonstrate your commitment to the environment and sustainable living.  EVOLVE recycled plastic lumber products are 100% plastic and generally contain over 90% high density polyethylene (ReHDPE) material.” The company’s website also touted Evolve as “at least 90% ReHDPE, utilizing both post-consumer and post-industrial materials” and “100% recyclable.”  Ads for Trimax described it as “derived from post-consumer bottle waste such as milk and detergent bottles” and “recyclable.” But according to the FTC, during certain periods, Evolve contained at most 58% recycled plastic, while Trimax averaged less than 12% post-consumer recycled content – nothing close to the advertised claims.  Furthermore, people would have gotten a big surprise if they hauled Evolve and Trimax to the nearby recycling center.  Despite express representations that the products were recyclable, local recycling centers wouldn’t accept Evolve and Trimax.  Why not?  Because they contain other components that aren’t recyclable.  In addition, most facilities accept only small household items, not larger, heavy building materials like plastic lumber.  What about sending it back to N.E.W.’s factory for recycling?  Good luck with that.  The shipping cost made that an unrealistic option. The FTC’s complaint alleges that N.E.W.’s “90% recycled plastic” claim for Evolve was false and unsubstantiated, as was the representation that Trimax was made of all or virtually all post-consumer recycled content like milk jugs or detergent bottles.  The proposed order bars those deceptive claims, but offers even broader protection for consumers in the future by prohibiting misrepresentations about the environmental benefit of any other product or packaging.  Thanks to the proposed order, N.E.W. sent a letter to distributors and retailers telling them to pull all promotional materials that have the deceptive recycled content or recyclability claims. The settlement offers insights for advertisers making environmental representations.  First, the FTC’s Green Guides remain your best resource for how to avoid an eco-oops in your advertising.  If you haven’t read them since they were revised in 2012, it’s time for a refresher.  Second, consumers – and the FTC – live in the Real World.  That’s a theme that runs throughout the Guides.  A product may have a theoretical environmental effect in a lab setting, but your ad claims should reflect actual consumer use.  So if a product may be recyclable in some technical sense, but there’s no place for people to conveniently recycle it, craft your claims accordingly.  As the Green Guides make clear, companies should qualify their recyclability representations if “recycling facilities are available to less than a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the item is sold.”  Third, manufacturers, take note:  You’re responsible for the accuracy of claims you pass on to distributors and retailers. File your online comments about the proposed settlement by March 24, 2014, and bookmark the FTC’s Environmental Marketing page for guidance on keeping your green claims.  This video is a good place to start:

When all is said and dun: Record-setting penalty for debt collection violations wfg-adm109 July 9, 2013 | 11:03AM When all is said and dun: Record-setting penalty for debt collection violations By Lesley Fair “You’ve reached the FTC.  Sorry we’re not able to take your call right now.  But if you’re Expert Global Solutions — the biggest debt collection operation in the world — please pay a $3.2 million civil penalty, the largest ever from a third-party debt collector, and start honoring the terms of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Oh, and at the sound of the tone, please don’t leave a voicemail illegally disclosing that a person owes money.”  BEEP. No, that’s not what callers hear when we step away from the desk, but the FTC’s record-setting settlement with Expert Global Solutions and its subsidiaries should send a message to the debt collection industry nonetheless.  (By way of background, you may know the defendants as NCO Financial Systems.  Other Expert Global Solutions subsidiaries include ALW Sourcing and Transworld Systems, which also does business as North Shore Agency.  It’s a big group of companies, with more than 32,000 employees operating in the US, Canada, Barbados, India, the Philippines, and Panama.) According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants called consumers multiple times in the same day, often for weeks on end and early in the morning or late at night — times the FDCPA expressly declares off limits.  In addition, the FTC says they called people at work even when they knew employers didn’t allow those calls.  And the calls kept coming, even after people asked them to stop and the defendants promised to cut it out. The complaint also alleges that the defendants left phone messages that disclosed the existence of a person’s debt to a third party, in violation of the FDCPA.  For example, even when the greeting made clear the phone belonged to someone other than the debtor or if it was a generic greeting that could belong to just about anyone (“You’ve reached 555-5555.  Please leave a message.”), the FTC says the defendants went ahead and left voicemails disclosed they were debt collectors trying to collect money from a particular person. To make matters worse, the FTC alleges that the even when consumers explained that they didn’t owe the debt the defendants were trying to collect, the defendants wouldn’t take no for an answer.  They continued their collection efforts without verifying the accuracy of the disputed information. The FTC’s lawsuit alleges eight separate courses of conduct that violated the FDCPA or Section 5 of the FTC Act.  Under the terms of the settlement, Expert Global Solutions, NCO, and other subsidiaries are under a legal obligation to change their tactics.  In addition to the $3.2 million civil penalty, the defendants have agreed to cut out the harassment, including the incessant calls; stop calling a person’s workplace if it’s clearly inconvenient or not allowed by the employer; and — except for limited circumstances allowed by law — stop all communications if a person has requested no further contact or if they’ve refused to pay the debt. The settlement also restricts the situations when the defendants can leave voicemails that disclose the name of a purported debtor and that he or she owes money.  (You’ll want to read the order for details on how that will work.) What about when people dispute that they owe the debt or how much they owe?  The defendants have two choices:  1) close the account; or 2) suspend collections until they have conducted a reasonable investigation and verified that their information about the debt is accurate and complete. The settlement includes an important provision to encourage compliance.  For the next year, the defendants must record at least 75% of their debt collection calls and keep the recordings for at least 90 days. The message to others in the industry: Honor the restrictions spelled out in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act about how and when you can contact people who owe money.   Aside from the procedure allowed by the narrow location information exception in the FDCPA, don’t tell others about a person’s debts.   Don’t use false, deceptive, or misleading tactics to collect debts.   Don’t communicate with a debtor who notifies you in writing they don’t want to hear from you again.  The law recognizes a few limited exceptions — for example, you can contact the person to let them know that you plan to invoke certain legal remedies or that you’ve decided not to take additional steps to collect the debt — but aside from that, don’t contact them again.   Pay attention when people tell you they’ve paid the debt, they don’t owe the debt, or that you don’t have the right person. Bookmark the Business Center’s Debt Collection page for easy access to compliance resources.  

Sporting goods companies: Guard against deception wfg-adm109 November 30, 2012 | 10:52AM Sporting goods companies: Guard against deception By Lesley Fair Some sports fans spend Saturdays on the field.  For the rest of us, raising a Big Foam Finger is exertion enough.  But we’ve all read stories about the dangers that head injuries pose to participants in contact sports.  That’s why the FTC is continuing to raise concerns about possibly unsubstantiated claims for products advertised to reduce the risk of sports concussions. The FTC just finalized a settlement first announced in August against Pennsylvania-based Brain-Pad, Inc. and company president Joseph Manzo.  The lawsuit alleges they made deceptive claims that their mouthguards reduced the risk of concussions from lower jaw impacts, reduced the risk of concussions generally, and have been clinically proven to provide those benefits.  (In case you’re wondering if the FTC pays attention to the comments it receives about proposed settlements, we’ve also posted responses sent to people who commented on the Brain-Pad settlement.) But the agency took the additional step of sending letters to 18 other sporting goods manufacturers, warning them that they may be making deceptive claims that their mouthguards, headbands, or other devices can reduce the risk of concussions. The letters call the companies’ attention to the Brain-Pad settlement and urge them to review their advertising, packaging, labeling, and promotional materials to make sure they’re not making unsubstantiated performance or health benefit claims for their products.  FTC staff ask the companies to get back in touch with a description of the actions they’ve taken or plan to take to ensure compliance with the FTC Act.  The warning letters end with a, well, warning that “if you make claims about the performance or health benefits without adequate evidence to support those claims, the FTC may take action to enforce and seek redress for any violations of the FTC Act as the public interest may require.” If you have a client in the sporting goods business — or if someone in your family plays contact sports — this is an issue you’ll want to follow.  Bookmark the Business Center’s Health Claims site for resource materials about substantiation.  

The FTC’s settlement with Google: Part 3 wfg-adm109 April 11, 2011 | 1:21PM The FTC’s settlement with Google: Part 3 By Lesley Fair As any business knows, it is indeed a small world after all.  And the FTC’s recent settlement with Google related to the launch of its Google Buzz social network demonstrates why it’s important for companies to think about the global ramifications of their privacy practices. In addition to concerns about allegedly deceptive representations in the company’s privacy policy and misleading practices that exposed information to public disclosure without adequately informing Gmail users, the Google case is the FTC’s first action charging violations of the terms of the U.S.-European Union Safe Harbor Framework. In place since 2000, the Framework offers American companies a voluntary method for transferring personal data outside the EU in a way consistent with the EU’s Data Protection Directive.  To qualify for the Safe Harbor, a company must self-certify to the Department of Commerce that it complies with certain standards — including specific provisions mandating notice to people about how their information will be used and the opportunity to opt out of having their info disclosed to third parties. Google has self-certified since 2005 and expressly said in its privacy policy:  “Google adheres to the US Safe Harbor Privacy Principles of Notice, Choice, Onward Transfer, Security, Data Integrity, Access and Enforcement, and is registered with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Safe Harbor Program.” But according to the FTC’s complaint, by not giving Gmail users notice and choice before using their information to populate its Google Buzz social network, the statement in the company’s privacy policy was false or misleading, in violation of the FTC Act. The big picture for businesses: Statements in privacy policies are claims that have to be truthful and substantiated; and Privacy practices can have implications beyond U.S. borders. Next:  The terms of the Google order  

The Dannon Order wfg-adm109 December 30, 2010 | 12:07PM The Dannon Order By Lesley Fair When visiting an unfamiliar city, it helps to have a tour guide – a knowledgeable local to walk alongside you to point out the notable sights. When your destination is a proposed FTC order, that guide is the Analysis to Aid Public Comment, a summary of key provisions the Commission issues with each administrative settlement.  Given the buzz these days about ad substantiation, the Analysis in the FTC’s proposed settlement with Dannon  – which challenged allegedly false and deceptive claims for Activia and DanActive – serves as a handy guide businesses and attorneys can consult as they walk through the provisions in the order. So what’s noteworthy in the Dannon Analysis? ► The explanation of why Dannon will need FDA approval if the company makes certain disease-related claims in future ads; ► The discussion of why it’s so tough to convey qualified claims to consumers; ► What the FTC means by the phrase “essentially equivalent product” and when research on one product can serve as substantiation for claims made about another product; and ► The analysis of the FTC’s “competent and reliable scientific evidence” standard and why the kind of proof companies need to support their ad claims depends – and always has depended – on the nature of the underlying claim and an evaluation of what experts in the field say is necessary. Interested in the recent discussion about the FTC’s substantiation doctrine?  An October 2010 presentation by Mary Engle, director of the Division of Advertising Practices, offers insights.  Of course, the comments are Mary’s and don’t reflect the official position of the FTC, but her take on the issue presents it in a practical context.  Using a three-tiered approach to evaluating health claims addressed in recent FTC orders, she evaluates the kind of substantiation required for disease-related claims, other specified health claims where the level of scientific support has been established, and broad categories of claims about the health benefits, performance, or efficacy of foods, drugs, or diet supplements.  It’s definitely worth a read.