The Cost of Deceptive Marketing and Lessons from the FTC Settlement on Free Trial Offers
In recent years, the rise of "free trial" offers has become a common tactic for marketers, especially in the health and wellness sector. These promotions often promise consumers a risk-free trial of products such as smoking cessation aids, weight loss supplements, and more. However, as recent Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) actions show, these offers can sometimes hide deceptive practices that not only violate consumer trust but also result in costly legal repercussions. A case involving the marketing of free trial smoking cessation patches, which led to unauthorized debits from consumers’ bank accounts, illustrates the importance of transparency and ethical marketing.
The FTC filed charges against NextClick Media, LLC, and its principals Kenneth Chan and Albert Chen, for misleading consumers through the promotion of smoking cessation patches. These patches, marketed under the names "Nicocure," "Stop Smoking 180," and "Zero Nicotine," were offered as part of a 10-day “free trial” that only required consumers to pay for shipping and handling. However, as the FTC investigation revealed, the free trial offer was far from free. Consumers who signed up for the trial were unknowingly enrolled in a continuity program that charged them up to $99.95 per month unless they actively canceled their participation.
Adding to the frustration, many consumers found it nearly impossible to cancel their subscriptions. The FTC alleged that the cancellation process was deliberately difficult, with no clear way to opt out once they were enrolled. This kind of deceptive marketing is known as a “negative option,” where consumers are automatically enrolled in a paid service and must take action to cancel, often after being misled about the terms and conditions.
The FTC’s settlement with the defendants prohibits them from engaging in similar deceptive practices in the future. Specifically, the order bans them from offering products on a “free,” “trial,” or “no obligation” basis if there are charges unless the consumer takes clear, affirmative action to avoid them. This ruling sends a strong message to businesses about the importance of providing clear and accurate information about the costs associated with trial offers. Marketers must ensure that any automatic billing or continuity programs are fully disclosed upfront, and that consumers are able to easily cancel if they choose to opt out.
The case also highlights the need for businesses in the health and wellness sector to ensure that their product claims are substantiated. The FTC found that the defendants’ smoking cessation patches did not work as advertised and that their claims lacked the scientific evidence to support them. This aspect of the case serves as an important reminder for businesses to back up any health-related claims with reliable scientific data to avoid misleading consumers and potential regulatory action.
As part of the settlement, the defendants were ordered to pay $315,000, a fraction of the $3.4 million judgment that could be reinstated if they are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. This penalty, though significant, is a small price to pay compared to the damage caused to the company's reputation and the potential long-term impact on consumer trust.
For businesses considering the use of free trials or continuity programs, this case is a clear warning about the legal and financial consequences of deceptive marketing practices. Transparency is key—consumers must understand what they are signing up for, how much they will be charged, and how they can easily cancel if they wish. Additionally, businesses should ensure that all claims about their products, particularly those related to health benefits, are backed by credible evidence to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
By adhering to these principles and promoting ethical marketing practices, businesses can build stronger relationships with their customers, avoid costly legal battles, and create a more sustainable brand reputation.
If you would like to read more about this case and others, visit our Case Studies Library.
(Image Credit: iStock Photo)
This article is for information purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be relied on as legal advice for any particular matter.