Federal Trade Commission Research Paper

Deceptive Advertising and the Federal Trade Commission The Federal Trade Commission, a government-sanctioned agency with the mission and power to protect consumers from unfair business practices, have created the standards and regulations for deceptive advertising (Federal Trade Commission[FTC], 2007). Deceptive advertising has been ruled by the FTC (1983) to be: “a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer 's detriment” (para. 8). This statement has been reprinted by Zelezny, attorney and senior public relations executive, in his textbook, Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media (Zelezny, 2011, p. 507). The purpose of this paper

The FTC is run by five commissioners appointed by the president, allowing only a simple majority of a political party. During the 1960’s the agency desperately needed reform- the America Bar Association concluded drastic changes were necessary (Zelezny, 2011). The Chicago Law review reiterated this need (Posner, 1969). President Nixon then signed the Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, giving the commission power to sue in the federal court system on behalf of consumers (Zelezny, 2011). Interestingly enough, the FTC currently has three vacant commissioner seats. Maureen Ohlhausen, chairman, and Terrell McSweeny are the only two current commissioners (FTC 2017). Deceptive commercial speech has never been granted First Amendment protection. During the landmark case of Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., the court granted first amendment protection to commercial speech in fulfilling public interest. However, the court provided no initiative to change the unprotected status of deceptive commercial speech (Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Zelezny, 2011). This form of speech has been ruled illegal in every federal jurisdiction (Zelezny,

v. FTC (Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. F. T. C., 481 F.2d 246 (6th Cir. 1973); Zelezny, 2011). According to this case Firestone made a claim that Wide Oval tires stop 25 percent quicker. This statement, made without reasonable evidence, was published in a nationwide magazine. Firestone based the entire ad off the sole support of one limited experiment. Stating that the claim implies the tires rune 25% faster under all other weather conditions and tires, the commission found the evidence unjustified. To make matters worse for Firestone, the commission considered this a safety claim. This would be a hazardous experiment for consumers to test. Under these circumstances, the FTC desires scientific evidence (481 F.2d 246). The Sixth Circuit Court sided with the commission, stating the ad did imply scientific testing relating to the safety and performance of these circumstances. The cease and desist order, requiring proficient experimentation before making a scientific claim, was enforced on Firestone (481 F.2d 246). To further support the prior substantiation doctrine, the court sided with its enforcement (481 F.2d 246; Zelezny,