This past week, several consumer actions made headlines:
VW and the FTC Agree in Principle on Settlement to Compensate Consumers
FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez issued the following statement regarding the announcement of nearly completed agreements resolving the EPA’s Clean Air Act claims and consumer injury claims against Volkswagen:
“We are pleased to be moving forward on an agreement in principle to compensate consumers who purchased affected Volkswagen and Audi 3.0 liter vehicles and look forward to resolving the final details. The FTC, with its partners, secured $10 billion in compensation for the vast majority of consumers harmed by Volkswagen’s deceptive advertising earlier this year, and today’s agreement will provide redress for a smaller but no less important group of consumers who were not part of the original settlement.”
Digital Advertiser Settles FTC Charges That It Deceptively Tracked Consumers
Colgate-Palmolive to Cease Comparative Dishwashing Claims
Colgate-Palmolive agreed to modify or discontinue using certain comparison claims after the NAD found that Colgate-Palmolive’s substantiation for its claims was insufficient. The ads at issue contained claims that Ultra Palmolive Fusion Clean dishwashing liquid cleaned three times more than the Procter & Gamble Company’s Dawn non-concentrated dishwashing liquid. Although Colgate-Palmolive had conducted its own testing to substantiate its “three times more” claim, the NAD found that Colgate-Palmolive’s research was inadequate.
The Second Circuit Revives State Consumer Protection Claims against GameStop
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that state consumer protection law claims against GameStop, which alleged that it deceived customers by offering a $20 coupon in exchange for enrolling in a $12-a-month loyalty program, were improperly dismissed when related federal fraud claims were dismissed. The court ruled that GameStop could still be liable under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act for unfair and deceptive practices even though the claims against it did not meet the pleading requirements for related federal claims. As such, the court of appeals found that the state consumer protection law claims should continue even though the federal claims were dismissed.