View by Topic

Recent Articles

View by Month/Year

“Green Building Law Update” Headlines

Recent Articles & News from
Stuart Kaplow’s blog
at GreenBuildingLawUpdate.com

Subscribe to the Green Building Law Update!

Stuart Kaplow brings his expertise and extensive experience to the table with his unique digital publication, "Green Building Law Update". Subscribers receive regular updates to keep them informed about important issues surrounding Environmental Law, Green Building & Real Estate Law, as well as the emerging demand for Environmental Social Governance (ESG).

Get fresh content through the lense of Stuart Kaplow's cutting-edge expertise, innovative commentary and insider perspective. Don't miss another issue! Subscribe below.

Ctf | stuart d. Kaplow, p. A.

FTC Order Restricts use of “All Natural”

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

By 2.8 min readPublished On: Sunday, January 1st, 2017Categories: Environmental Law

The Federal Trade Commission issued a summary decision against California Naturel, Inc., for falsely advertising its sunscreen product as “all natural” in violation of Sections 5 and 12 of the FTC Act.

In a December 12, 2016 opinion, written by Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, the FTC describes how the company promotes its “all natural” sunscreen on its website as containing “only the purest, most luxurious and effective ingredients found in nature.”

The FTC’s Green Guides do not provide guidance on the term “natural.” However, the FTC is clear that “marketers must identify all express and implied claims that the advertisement reasonably conveys” and “ensure that all reasonable interpretations of their claims are truthful . . . .” 77 Fed. Reg. 62125 (2012).

It is worthy of note that in November 2015, the FDA issued a request for comments regarding the use of the term “natural” in connection with product labeling. 80 Fed. Reg. 69905 (2015). But no action was publicly announced.

And there has been much discussion at the federal level and in several states about the term “natural light” in both visible transmittance of window glass and light bulbs.

But in this instance, California Naturel admitted that eight percent of its sunscreen formula is in fact dimethicone, (by its own admission triggering the summary decision without a hearing) a synthetic ingredient.

The FTC was not persuaded by the company’s argument that its ingredient list and a disclaimer recently added to the company’s web page cured its misleading advertising, noting that consumers should not have to search for and dig out information that contradicts what an advertisement expressly and prominently conveys. For example, the “all natural” claims were prominent on the webpage, while the disclaimer was added to the bottom of the webpage, was not visible without scrolling down, and was well below the “Add to Cart” button.

Other than adding the disclaimer, California Naturel has not changed the representations challenged in the complaint. The website still claims the Sunscreen SPF 30 is “all natural.” The FTC concluded this “plainly conveys to reasonable consumers that every ingredient in the product is natural” which it is not.

Nor was the FTC persuaded by California Naturel’s argument that the disclaimer it added renders its marketing claims “transparent” (the word of the year, but that has no legal or other import).

The FTC regularly holds that “an advertisement is deceptive if it contains a representation or omission of fact that is likely to mislead a c

onsumer acting reasonably under the circumstances, and that representation or omission is material to a consumer’s purchasing decision.”

The FTC’s final order prohibits California Naturel from misrepresenting the ingredients or composition of its products; whether a product is “all natural” or “100% natural;” the extent to which a product contains any natural or synthetic ingredient or component; or the environmental or health benefits of such a product. It also requires the company have competent and reliable evidence to support any of the claims it makes about any of its products (the FTC’s usual ‘suppression of material’ standard, that all but amounts to prior restraint, violative of the First Amendment).

The company may file a petition for review with a United States Court of Appeals within 60 days.

There’s an old adage “bad facts make bad law” and this extreme case is a poor basis for the FTC’s broader interpretation of what is natural.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

About the Author: Stuart Kaplow

Avatar of stuart kaplow
Stuart Kaplow is an attorney and the principal at the real estate boutique, Stuart D. Kaplow, P.A. He represents a broad breadth of business interests in a varied law practice, concentrating in real estate and environmental law with focused experience in green building and sustainability. Kaplow is a frequent speaker and lecturer on innovative solutions to the environmental issues of the day, including speaking to a wide variety of audiences on green building and sustainability. He has authored more than 700 articles centered on his philosophy of creating value for land owners, operators and developers by taking a sustainable approach to real estate, including recently LEED is the Tool to Restrict Water Use in This Town and All Solar Panels are Pervious in Maryland. Learn more about Stuart Kaplow here >