Adlaw By Request

NEXT WEEK: The Joint Policy Committee Seminar, Hosted by Extreme Reach

Stacy K. Marcus — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:33:45 -0500

Join Los Angeles area advertising industry leaders in a seminar to review and explain the many changes to the SAG-AFTRA Agreements.

Doug Wood, Lead Negotiator for the Joint Policy Committee, and Stacy Marcus, Legal Counsel to the Joint Policy Committee, will be leading the discussion. Here are some timeline details to help you plan your day.

9:15 am Doors Open, Networking & Continental Breakfast
10:00 - 12:00 Doug Wood & Stacy Marcus, JPC Presentation
12:00 - 12:15 Lunch Break
12:15 - 1:15 pm Q&A

WHEN
Thursday, May 23, 2013
9:15 am - 1:30 pm

WHERE
Regatta Room
Marina del Rey Hotel
13534 Bali Way
Marina del Rey, CA

If you would like to attend, please sign-up for this event by Noon on Monday, May 20. Click here to register.

Today's Hot Topic: The White Coat Rule

Marilyn Colaninno — Thu, 02 May 2013 09:47:57 -0500

Is There a Doctor in the House?

From time to time I like to remind clients of specific network guidelines to keep in mind when developing advertising. One such guideline is the “Persons in White” Rule (a.k.a. “The White Coat” Rule).

Per the network guidelines, the use of health-related professionals or actors representing such persons is not permitted in advertising for over-the-counter products or other products where health or medical claims are made. Such professionals include, but are not limited to, physicians, dentists, nurses, pharmacists and nutritionists.

The use of such professionals or actors, however, is acceptable in advertising for products or services requiring a physician’s intervention or a prescription (e.g., prescription medications or medical devices).

The “white coat” in the guidelines refers to the white medical lab coat usually worn by health professionals. The white coat is a highly recognizable, well-established symbol of the health care profession. In fact, the association with the health profession is so strong, that even if the person appearing in a commercial doesn’t identify him or herself as a health professional, the implication is that they are a health professional simply by virtue of the fact they are wearing a white coat.

The White Coat Rule has been in existence for many years and is still in effect today. So, if you plan to create advertising that features health-related professionals or actors portraying health care professionals, make sure your creative complies with the network guidelines. And remember, when in doubt, ask questions. The network editors are there to answer any questions you may have.

Marilyn Colaninno is Director of Rights and Clearances for Reed Smith and is responsible for clearing commercials for the firm’s many clients in the advertising industry. If you have specific questions, please contact Marilyn directly at 212 549 0347 or at mcolaninno@reedsmith.com.

FDA Knows Time Is Running Out on Internet and Social Media Guidance

Douglas J. Wood — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:39:28 -0500

This post was written by Kevin M. Madagan and Jennifer Pike.

In a recent interview published by Pharmalot, the Director of the FDA Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP), Thomas Abrams, indicated that the long-waited draft guidance on the promotion of medical products using the Internet and social media is forthcoming. According to Abrams: “The development and issuance of guidance for social media is among the highest of FDA’s priorities.”

With other agencies issuing social media guidance over the past year (e.g., FTC, SEC), it is hard not to believe Abrams. However, some skepticism is warranted because the industry has been waiting for FDA’s promises about forthcoming Internet-related guidance for almost two decades now. Indeed, the recent Abrams interview reminds us of the absurdist play by Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot.

Our wait began in 1996 when FDA held public hearings on Internet advertising and promotion, but then failed to issue any guidelines and subsequently halted all such work. In 1999, FDA further delayed taking a position by informing the industry that it would look at Internet issues on a case-by-case basis, while reserving the right to reevaluate the need for regulations in the future.

A full decade later, in 2009, FDA acknowledged the special nature of the Internet as a marketing tool, and expressed renewed interest in addressing use of the Internet for marketing communications. FDA even held a public hearing in November 2009 and solicited written comments through a public docket, promising that it would issue guidance in 2010. Over the past three years, FDA has been drafting multiple guidance documents to address specific promotional activities involving the Internet and social media. These guidance documents are apparently designed to focus on many questions for which the drug and device industry has been left without guidance, including how to deal with space limitations, fulfilling post-marketing submission requirements, online accountability, use of links on the Internet, and correcting misinformation. In his recent interview, Abrams stated that FDA has identified relevant issues, including, “using vehicles that have space limitations for promotion of prescription drugs, appropriate use of links, fulfilling regulatory post-marketing submission requirements of all promotion materials, and correcting misinformation on independent third-party websites.”

We commend FDA for working on these important issues.

But as a practical matter, since the inception of the Internet, the FDA-regulated drug and device industry has been left on its own, without formal FDA guidance, to determine how traditional statutory provisions, regulations, and policies concerning advertising and promotional labeling should be applied to the Internet and rapidly evolving technologies. In attempts to ascertain FDA’s Internet and social media policy concerning product promotion, the drug and device industry has been forced to scrutinize individual enforcement actions against companies that have created and used Internet websites and social media for promotion of their products. Interpreting FDA enforcement letters can be a tedious process.

In response to the question of why it has taken FDA so long to issue guidance documents, Abrams pointed to the concern that technology, the Internet, and social media is constantly and consistently changing:

It takes time because we follow good guidance practices and we want guidances that are well vetted and really address relevant issues, and stay relevant for a time period. It would be easier to come out with a guidance in a shorter time that may not be relevant as technology changes. One thing we know is that we can’t predict it, but we know technology is going to keep changing quicker and quicker. So we want this guidance to be applicable, regardless of which technology platform comes in the future or changes that existing platforms may make in the future. [pharmalive.com]

But when asked specifically for an actual date when industry can look forward to formal guidance from the FDA, Abrams was less clear:

We are striving to make it as soon as possible. I’ll be honest with you. As soon as we’re able to issue these – we’re not waiting for a deadline or we’re not waiting for an event to occur. We are working very, very thoroughly and very hard – people are putting in extra hours . . . And as soon as we can issue these, we will issue them. We are as anxious to issue them as industry is anxious to receive them. So we’re not waiting for a deadline or a timeframe. As soon as they are ready and we are happy they are good products that are well vetted and will remain relevant for a good time period, we will issue guidance. [pharmalive.com]

Despite FDA’s assurances that it is working on multiple guidance documents, the drug and device industry is left in the same, familiar position it’s been in for the past two decades: anxiously waiting for formal guidance from FDA.

You’re not alone if you are starting to feel like one of the main characters in Waiting For Godot:

“ESTRAGON: I can't go on like this.”
“VLADIMIR: That's what you think.”

FTC Issues FAQs for Revised COPPA Rule

Caroline Klocko — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:35:27 -0500

This post was written by John Feldman and Caroline Klocko.

On April 25, 2013, the FTC provided additional guidance in relation to the revised COPPA Rule, set to go into effect July 1, with a detailed set of FAQs. Members of the business community have been calling for a delay in the effective date of the revised rules, so that businesses could have more time to get better acquainted with the rules.

The most important revisions to the COPPA rule involve new definitions for key terms, such as “operator,” “website directed to children,” and, “personal information”; parental notice and consent mechanisms; confidentiality and security requirements; and safe harbor provisions. The FAQs address each one of these topics, but extensively focus on verifiable parental consent and secure parental consent mechanisms. The FAQs provide several acceptable methods for obtaining verifiable parental consent, including obtaining written consent in a hard copy form, requiring a monetary transaction that notifies the primary account holder, and “email plus,” which requires the parent to affirmatively reply to a verification email and provide additional information to verify that they are the child’s parent/guardian. Additionally, the FAQs provide color to provisions on geolocation data, an area that has grown tremendously since the first COPPA rules were promulgated in 1999.

COPPA compliance will, indeed, require careful legal guidance and diligent oversight by companies that operate websites directed to children, but the FAQs provide helpful guidance to assist such entities reach this goal.

FTC Chairwoman Ramirez Says Do-Not-Track System is 'Long Overdue'

Frederick Lah — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:39:31 -0500

Earlier this week, FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez spoke to members of the ad industry, urging them to provide “effective and meaningful privacy protection” to consumers with respect to online tracking. Chairwoman Ramirez’s position reportedly surprised, and even frustrated, some attendees by implying that the Digital Advertising Alliance's self-regulatory program does not do enough in the space. She said that consumers feel “unease” with online tracking, and that they’re still awaiting “an effective and functioning do-not-track system,” which she characterized as being “long overdue.”

Last month, Chairwoman Ramirez expressed some optimism that a solution would be reached among stakeholders if they use a “consensus-based approach.” As the W3C Tracking Protection Group continues its attempts to work toward a solution, though, frustration may be setting in. Some stakeholders, such as Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), may feel that the time for legislation has come; earlier this week he announced that he will hold a hearing with the Senate Commerce Committee next week to push his do-not-track legislation. For more information about that hearing, please click here.

A Prerequisite for Protection - ICANN's "Trademark Clearinghouse"

Joshua W. Newman — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:12:34 -0500

Over the last few years, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) has continued to press forward with its efforts to increase the number of generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”). Although ICANN believes this expansion will increase competition and choice in the domain name space, various groups, including advertisers, have lingering concerns that the expansion will further erode Internet security and force them to incur significant expenses to protect their brands. In an attempt to address these concerns, ICANN has implemented a limited number of protection mechanisms. However, these protection mechanisms are only available to those who register their mark(s) in the Trademark Clearinghouse, a global repository of trademark data that launched on March 26, 2013. Thus, in the midst of an expansion that is already riddled with uncertainties, brand owners are now faced with the difficult task of trying to assess the value of ICANN’s unproven protections, and determining which marks, if any, are worth registering in the Trademark Clearinghouse.

For a more detailed analysis of the Trademark Clearinghouse, and ICANN’s rights protection mechanisms, read our recently issued Client Alert.

Joint Policy Committee on Broadcast Talent Union Relations (JPC) and SAG-AFTRA

Stacy K. Marcus — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:18:30 -0500

Statement Regarding Commercials Contracts Extension and Continuing Negotiations

Representatives of SAG-AFTRA and the Joint Policy Committee representing the advertising industry have agreed to extend for one week the current Screen Actors Guild Television Recorded Commercials agreement and AFTRA Radio Recorded Commercials agreement. Both contracts were previously set to expire March 31, 2013. Under the extension, the agreements will remain in effect through and including April 7, 2013.

The JPC and SAG-AFTRA began negotiations for successor agreements to the commercials contracts on February 14. Both parties look forward to continued productive negotiations under the mutually agreed upon and previously announced media blackout still in effect.

Follow SAG-AFTRA on Twitter (twitter.com/sagaftra) and Facebook (facebook.com/sagaftra).

CARU's 3rd Annual Children's Advertising & Online Privacy Conference

John P. Feldman — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:23:34 -0500

CARU’s West Coast Conference 2013 is scheduled for April 10 at the Beverly Hills Hilton, and once again promises to be a not-to-be-missed event. Confirmed speakers include Mamie Kresses, Federal Trade Commission; Katie Ratte, The Walt Disney Company; Jeannette Neumann, Mattel; Cynthia Nishimoto, Bandai; Stevan Levy, Kabillion; and Ryan Shadrick Wilson, The Partnership for a Healthier America. CARU believes if there is one conference to attend this year, this is the one, particularly in view of the impending COPPA modifications. CARU will devote a panel to the COPPA changes and will have detailed, lively discussions about the impact to the industry at-large. Indeed, rather than just a panel discussion, CARU hopes it will be more of a training session to prepare advertisers and website operators for the changes. Additionally, panelists will examine domestic and global challenges to self-regulation in the areas of social media, mobile marketing, sweepstakes, and food and beverage advertising.

For more information, please visit the Advertising Self-Regulatory Council's website.

ICANN Forges On

Douglas J. Wood — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 20:20:39 -0500

ICANN is fast approaching its release of a tsunami of new top level domains. Advertisers are simply not ready for what lies ahead and the millions it will cost. For the latest update on how no one seems to be able to stop ICANN’s juggernaut, please read “DOJ Antitrust Division refuses to issue review letter on legality of private auctions to resolve string contention sets” on the Global Regulatory Enforcement blog.

Courts 'Like'-ing Service through Social Media

Keri S. Bruce — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:14:39 -0500

As social media has increasingly become intertwined with everyday life, it may be taking a couple steps further – this time in the U.S. courts. In recent weeks, we have seen that U.S. legislators and courts are gaining a greater acceptance towards the use of social media sites like Facebook to effect service of process.

To read more on this story, check out the latest post on our sister blog, Legal Bytes.

FTC Revises Guidelines for Online Advertising

John P. Feldman — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:01:59 -0500

This post was written by John Feldman and Caroline Klocko.

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released updated guidelines (PDF) for regulating unfair and deceptive trade practices in online marketing. The “.Com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising,” were released in 2000, before the meteoric rise of social media marketing and the advent of smartphone advertising. As the evolution of these two areas has drastically changed the way brands communicate with consumers and blurred lines between corporate and word of mouth advertising, the FTC saw a need to extend these guidelines to cover all online, social and mobile marketing.

Like the original, this set of guidelines focuses on ensuring that ads are not unfair or deceptive by requiring disclosures to avoid consumer confusion. The main implications for marketers are not in the required content of disclosures and consumer protection laws, which remain the same in the updated guidelines, but in the physical placement of disclosures. The updated guidelines include examples and mock ads that demonstrate implementation of the guidelines in social media and mobile marketing contexts. The most important updates are in the areas of disclosures and hyperlinks.

Disclosures

Disclosures must be clear and conspicuous and placed in close proximity to relevant claims on all platforms on which consumers can view ads. Unlike the original set of rules, which provided that disclosures should be placed “near, and when possible, on the same screen,” the new guidelines direct advertisers to place disclosures “as close as possible,” to the relevant claim. The most important thing to be aware of here is making sure that disclosures are properly placed on mobile ads, which are usually viewed on small screens. On a tiny screen, space is at a premium, so marketers should be careful not to make an abundance of claims requiring disclosures. Additionally, advertisers should ensure that most of their ad is able to be viewed all at once on the small screen and that relevant disclosures are included in this view (i.e., consumers should not have to scroll a significant way down in order to find disclosures). The guidelines also discourage the use of pop-ups to provide disclosures, as many users have blocked pop-ups on their phones and Internet browsers. The bottom line is that if an ad cannot be placed clearly and conspicuously on a platform, then the ad should not be run on it.

Hyperlinks

Like the original guidelines, the revised guidelines discourage the use of hyperlinks for health, cost and safety related disclosures and call for hyperlinks to be labeled clearly. The new guidelines also encourage advertisers to label hyperlinks as clearly as possible and to consider how hyperlinks will function on a variety of platforms. Advertisers should take extra care to ensure that hyperlinks are functioning on all devices, like mobile phones. Additionally, the guidelines create a responsibility for advertisers to monitor hyperlink usage and to change disclosure methods if enough people are not clicking on the disclosure links to make the disclosures effective.

Model Suing Lions Gate Over Opening Credits of Mad Men

Frederick Lah — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:54:40 -0500

The next time you watch Mad Men, you may find yourself paying a little closer attention to the opening credits. Last week, Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation was sued by a model from the 1950s and 1960s who is alleging the company violated her publicity and privacy rights by using a photograph from her in the show’s opening credits without her permission.

According to a complaint filed in California state court (PDF), the woman in the picture is Gita Hall May, now 79 years old. In the opening credits of Mad Men, a shadow of a businessman is shown falling against the backdrop of office buildings and advertisements from the 1950s and 1960s. One of the advertisements, per the complaint, depicts a cropped photograph of May from an old Revlon campaign. According to May, she consented to the use of her likeness and the photo embodying it only for the Revlon campaign, not 40 years later as part of a title sequence of a television series. May brings her complaint under a number of charges, including misappropriation of the right of publicity for commercial purposes and invasion of privacy.

You can view the opening credits below. The image at issue appears around the 22 second mark.

FTC Addresses Guidance on Mobile Privacy

Douglas J. Wood — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:37:54 -0500

On February 15, Chris Olsen of the FTC’s Division of Privacy and Identity Protection spoke at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) stakeholders’ meeting in Washington, D.C. to address its recently released Mobile Privacy Disclosures Guidance.

For a full list of the meeting's highlights, please read the latest post on our sister blog, Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog.

Our attorneys will be monitoring the situation closely and will keep you informed of any updates as they develop.

FTC Extends Deadline To Provide Comments on Fred Meyer Guides

Keri S. Bruce — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:59:10 -0500

This week the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reopened and extended the deadline until March 4, 2013 to provide comments to aid the FTC in its review of the Fred Meyer Guides ("Guides"). The Guides clarify the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 ("Act") which is intended to help small retailers compete against the larger chain stores by prohibiting anti-competitive price discrimination that could harm competition between the smaller and larger retailers. The Guides explain how manufacturers and wholesalers can provide advertising allowances and other promotional payments and services to retailers in a manner that does not discriminate and thereby run afoul of the Act which requires that such benefits must be provided on proportionately equal terms to all competing customers.

Although the request for comments asks numerous questions, the FTC has highlighted the following as the ones it is most interested in:
(i) Whether there is a continuing need for the Guides;
(ii) Whether there have been changes in the case law that should be reflected in the Guides;
(iii) How, if at all, the Guides should be revised to account for new developments in commercial practices since 1990 (when the Guides were last reviewed and amended) such as the growth of the Internet and means of promoting products;
(iv) What costs and benefits the Guides provide; and
(v) What costs and benefits the Guides ultimately have for consumers.

Comments may be submitted online here or in paper form.

JPC-SAG-AFTRA Commercial Contract Negotiations-Open Session 2/14/13

Stacy K. Marcus — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:53:52 -0500

The JPC will commence negotiations with SAG-AFTRA in regard to successor commercials contracts on Thursday, February 14, 2013. The negotiations will be held at the Warwick Hotel- New York City. Further information regarding the Warwick Hotel can be found at: warwickhotelny.com.

Throughout the negotiations there may be joint industry-union sessions that will be open to public attendance, i.e., interested industry members and union membership. When advance notice is sufficient and communication methods are available, the JPC will endeavor to keep the industry informed regarding the dates and times of these open sessions. Please be aware, however, that due to the nature of the negotiation process, open session dates and times are subject to last minute change.

The first open session will be on 2/14/13 at 2:00 PM at the Warwick New York City Hotel -- Second Floor.

Car-Freshener Corporation Tries to Clear the Air

Stacy K. Marcus — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 14:55:09 -0500

This post was written by Joshua Newman.

Car-Freshener Corporation and Julius Samann Ltd. (“JSL”), the companies behind the iconic LITTLE TREE air fresheners, recently filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against WPP’s Grey Global Group Inc. (“Grey”). The action stems from a 2011 ad campaign in which Grey worked with Another Dancing Bear Productions (“ADBP”) and Scent USA to develop car air fresheners for BMW’s line of certified pre-owned vehicles. In particular, Car-Freshener Corp. and JSL allege that the BMW air fresheners, which contain an evergreen logo, are confusingly similar to their own trademarked tree logo.

Grey has denied liability, and argues that the failure of Car-Freshener Corp. and JSL to demonstrate any harm resulting from Grey’s use of the air fresheners precludes an award of damages. In addition, Grey asserts that because ADBP and Scent USA claimed to have rights to the trademark at issue, and agreed to indemnify Grey from any legal claims that might arise from use of the marketing materials, there is no basis to hold Grey liable.

It remains to be seen whether Car-Freshener Corp. and JSL will prevail in their claim for trademark infringement, or whether the contract with ADBP and Scent USA will adequately shield Grey from liability. However, regardless of the outcome, this case is a cautionary tale and good reminder to advertisers and agencies of the importance of carefully drafting contracts and properly clearing third-party intellectual property rights, including on props.

Who's Watching You? Facebook Agrees to Provide More Transparency with Online Advertising

Douglas J. Wood — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:46:35 -0500

This post was written by Christine Nielsen, John Feldman, and Caroline Klocko.

Yielding to pressure from advertisers, ad agencies, the media, consumers, and, perhaps, the FTC, Facebook has agreed to place The Digital Advertising Alliance’s (DAA) “AdChoices” logo on ads served on its site via its FBX ad exchange. The move makes Facebook more accountable for educating users about online behavioral advertising and allowing them to opt-out.

The AdChoices icon alerts users when an ad has been placed on their screen based on behavioral-targeting methods. When clicked, the icon takes the user to an informational page that allows the user to learn more about targeted marketing and to opt-out of such advertising. The industry has promoted the opt-out, understanding that information such as products viewed online by users, who their friends and connections are on Facebook and Twitter, which websites they have visited, and relevant search history, while not historically defined as “personally identifiable” is nonetheless very private, and very valuable.

The Council of Better Business Bureau’s Online Interest-Based Advertising Accountability program has lauded the move, finding in a recent decision that it is “a meaningful step in increasing transparency and choice.” However, the change, which Facebook has said will take place by the end of the current quarter, is not as transparent as some would like, and it remains to be seen whether it complies with the FTC’s “clear and prominent notice,” standard. The social media giant has only committed to displaying the AdChoices logo when a user hovers over the ad with the mouse and then hovers over the grey “x” that appears. This unconventional display of the icon, which usually appears on the ad regardless of whether the user hovers over the ad, was approved by the Online Interest-Based Advertising Accountability program.

Facebook users are accustomed to clicking on the “About this ad,” link to find information about online behavioral advertising methods. The text of this link, while not fully descriptive, indicates to the user that something might be going on behind the scenes that they might want to check out. By agreeing to participate in the DAA’s program, Facebook is adding something new to its current practice of informing consumers about advertising: accountability.

Facebook’s voluntary agreement to participate in the program means that the social networking site will now be subjected to compliance reviews and scrutiny by the entities that enforce the AdChoices program. Facebook’s participation also increases the icon’s visibility, which in turn can help to make more consumers aware of their choices to receive targeted advertising. Such increase in visibility is also due to the use of the icon in the mobile space, which began last August and was covered in a previous Reed Smith blog post.

In contrast with this self-regulatory approach, Blackberry has just announced what it touts as a technology-driven solution to the consumer choice conundrum in the mobile and web environments. Please click here to read about Blackberry’s announcement on our sister blog, Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog.

ANA Advertising Law & Public Policy Conference

Douglas J. Wood — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:00:02 -0500

On March 19-20, the Association of National Advertisers will be holding its 10th annual Advertising Law & Public Policy Conference. Speakers include Reed Smith’s Douglas Wood, Stacy Marcus, John Feldman, and Marc Kaufman as well as other leading lawyers and policy makers, including Sen. Mark Pryor, FTC Commissioner Julie Brill, Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, and former Congressmen Kenny Hulshof and Martin Frost. This conference is always one of the premier events, filled with critical content and unmatched networking opportunities. Register to attend by clicking here.

SodaStream Doesn't Go Completely Flat

Keri S. Bruce — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:11:27 -0500

Home soda machine manufacturer, SodaStream, who recently had its Super Bowl ad rejected by CBS is finding new life. While the company will instead be forced to run an alternate ad that has been shown previously, there is a chance that the press SodaStream is receiving from its rejection will create enough buzz to support the saying, “Any publicity is good publicity.”

SodaStream, whose rejected Super Bowl spot was perhaps pulled by the network because of its direct assault on Coke and Pepsi, similarly garnered plenty of attention from its thwarted television ad campaign in the UK. Like the rejected Super Bowl spot, the banned commercial in the UK also highlights the benefits of increased sustainability and waste reduction with home soda making by its depiction of soft drink bottles bursting and disappearing when people utilize the SodaStream device.

To read more on this story, check out the latest post on our UK-based Advertising Compliance Team’s blog, ReACTS.

FTC to Mobile Industry: $800K... Can You Hear Me Now?

Douglas J. Wood — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:14:51 -0500

On February 1, the FTC announced its largest settlement to date with a mobile app developer – an $800,000 penalty – in conjunction with the release of guidance on mobile app best practices for app platforms, app developers, third parties and app trade associations. The guidance document and the enforcement action together demonstrate the need for companies with mobile apps to review disclosures, vendor agreements, and consumer consent mechanisms for data collection.

Please click here to read the complete report on our sister blog, Global Regulatory Enforcement Blog.