Advertising Alert: Use Caution When Advertising Your Product’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Features

Share

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly developing, and marketers are eager to tout the benefits of new AI features incorporated into their products. But as advertising of new AI features becomes more common, legal scrutiny around the substantiation and privacy implications of AI claims is also intensifying, as evidenced by the National Advertising Division’s (NAD) and Children’s Advertising Review Unit’s (CARU) Case #7485 reviewing Dorel Juvenile Group’s advertising for the Maxi-Cosi Sibia Bassinet and Starling Smart Bassinet both featuring the “CryAssist” AI technology.

The Advertising Claims

Dorel’s bassinets at issue use “CryAssist,” a feature marketed as using AI to “translate your little one’s cries, letting you know if they might be sleepy, fussy, gassy, agitated, or hungry.” Other prominent claims included assurances that “everyday conversation [is] kept private,” that “cries and cry data [are] kept anonymous and encrypted on our cloud,” and that all response-based features are “optional, ensuring control is always in your hands.” These claims are appealing to new parents but also raise questions about accuracy, privacy, and compliance with children’s data protection laws.

Continue reading “Advertising Alert: Use Caution When Advertising Your Product’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Features”

Advertising Alert: Remember What It Takes to be “Number One”

Share

Claiming that your product is “#1” in its category can be highly impactful, but as illustrated by the National Advertising Division (NAD) Case #7544, it can also lead to competitor or regulatory challenges when not properly supported.

In Case #7544, Owlet challenged Nanit’s social media advertising describing its Wi-Fi-connected baby monitor as the “#1 smart baby monitor” and the “#1 baby monitor” without any qualification or citation to supporting sales data in proximity claims. Owlet challenged these claims on the basis that Nanit could not provide the requisite sales data to support them. The challenge was accepted for NAD’s Fast-Track SWIFT process because it “did not require the review of complex evidence or argument”.[1]

Continue reading “Advertising Alert: Remember What It Takes to be “Number One””

Advertising Alert: Saying Your Product is “Made in USA”? Remember Your Advertising Obligations

Share

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary in 2026, the “Made in USA” label holds more significance than ever. Consumers increasingly look for domestic products, associating them with quality, reliability, and support for local jobs. Yet, as a recent National Advertising Division (NAD) decision shows, using “Made in USA” claims in advertising, whether explicitly or implicitly, comes with legal responsibilities designed to protect both businesses and consumers.

On December 23, 2025, NAD issued Decision #7520, where the Advertiser had labeled and advertised several products as “Made in USA” leading to questions about whether those claims met the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) Made in USA Policy Statement and its Made in USA Labeling Rule[1]. The Challenger alleged that the Advertiser’s claims were misleading because the products incorporated numerous foreign components including imported buckles, fibers, and leather.

Continue reading “Advertising Alert: Saying Your Product is “Made in USA”? Remember Your Advertising Obligations”

Welcome to our Advertising Alert Series

Share

Welcome to our new Advertising Alert Series, where we will use recent National Advertising Division (NAD) decisions as real-world examples to examine various ad law principles.

To set the stage for our forthcoming blogs, it is helpful to provide some context on the NAD. As some of our readers may be aware, the NAD is a division of BBB National Programs, an advertising self-regulation program established in 1971 to monitor and review national advertising across the United States. Its primary purpose is to protect consumers from false or misleading advertising claims and to ensure fair advertising among competitors in the marketplace. NAD investigates advertising claims that are brought forward by competitors, consumers, or on its own initiative, examining national ads that appear in television, print, online, and social media.

Continue reading “Welcome to our Advertising Alert Series”

Overview of the 2025 USPTO Trademark Fee Changes Starting January 18, 2025

Share

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced significant changes to trademark filing fees, which will take effect on January 18, 2025. The changes impact both new applications and post-registration maintenance fees, as well as several specific fees related to petitions, protests, and statements of use, and includes new fees related to insufficient application information and failure to prepare an application using the USPTO’s pre-approved identifications from its Trademark Identification Manual.

Key Changes to Application Fees

Retirement of TEAS Plus Applications

The USPTO previously had two different trademark filing “tiers” —TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard—whereby TEAS Plus had a $250 per class filing fee, and TEAS Standard had a $350 per class filing fee. The Office has now consolidated their forms into one “base application” with a fee of $350 per class filed under Sections 1 and 44 of the Trademark Act (applications filed based on use, intent to use, foreign applications, and foreign registrations). Additional fees will be added based on the complexity or completeness of the application, as discussed below.

Continue reading “Overview of the 2025 USPTO Trademark Fee Changes Starting January 18, 2025”

Hoisting Scammers with Their Own Petard with the UDRP

Share

With the widespread availability of domain registration and hosting services and the advent of low-cost generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) software, the creation of fraudulent websites has never been easier—or more convincing. With little more effort than a few prompts of an AI program, scammers are able to quickly set up seemingly legitimate websites with text, images, and even video that can look and sound like the real thing. Online consumers, even those savvy enough to recognize your typical email phishing scam, may be fooled by professional-looking websites imitating existing businesses and organizations for less than savory reasons.

For brand owners, the consequences of these imitators can be myriad, including a loss of brand control, irate consumers looking for someone to blame, and ultimately a hit to your bottom line. Indeed, according to the FBI’s 2023 Internet Crime Report, Americans reported over $7.5 billion in losses stemming from intellectual property-related cybercrimes in 2023, up from 2022. Adding to this problem is the fact enforcing your rights against scammer sites can be costly and time-consuming. Scammers themselves are often anonymous and unsurprisingly unlikely to make themselves readily identifiable or easy to track down. Domain registrars and web hosts may require brand owners to navigate byzantine reporting channels in order to flag problematic conduct. And the resources required attempting to litigate every offending domain in court can make it an untenable option for many.

Continue reading “Hoisting Scammers with Their Own Petard with the UDRP”

NO FAKES Here: A New Tool to Protect Against the Misuse of AI?

Share

What do Scarlett Johansson, Drake, The Weeknd, and Taylor Swift have in common (besides being among this millennial’s fav celebs)?  They all have the distinct displeasure of becoming a target of deepfake technology – a type of AI that creates fake, but highly realistic-looking audio, images, or videos using the likeness and/or voice of its victim.

While there are certainly positive uses of deepfake technology (Val Kimer’s AI-generated voice in his reprisal of “Iceman” in Top Gun Maverick comes to mind),1 the widespread potential for abuse and malicious use, from fake musical performances, to fake political robocalls, to pornographic content, is top of mind for the entertainment industry, politicians, and ordinary folk alike.

Continue reading “NO FAKES Here: A New Tool to Protect Against the Misuse of AI?”

Make your Company a Hard Target for Job Scams

Share

Your company’s talent is its lifeblood. Job postings for qualified individuals and other recruitment activities are vital to its operations. What happens, then, when scammers disrupt your business by conducting phishing schemes to trick individuals into applying for nonexistent jobs you did not post with the objective of stealing their personally identifiable information? In the age of remote work and virtual hiring, the impersonation of companies in job recruitment scams has become increasingly prevalent.

It can be difficult for job seekers to recognize a recruitment outreach as a scam, particularly when they’re highly interested in the opportunity. Therefore, it is incumbent upon companies to take steps to mitigate or stop the potential for harm. Leveraging company intellectual property is crucial to combating such schemes and to protecting both job seekers and the company’s good name.

Continue reading “Make your Company a Hard Target for Job Scams”

From Concept to Commerce: The Art of Trademark Specimens of Use

Share

In the world of trademarks, specimens of use (or proof of use) play a crucial role in obtaining and maintaining a trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). In this blog post, we’ll delve into the types of specimens that are accepted by the USPTO (hint: they’re not alien artifacts!), the specific requirements for each type of specimen, and some practical tips to help you navigate the selection process. So, grab your magnifying glass (figuratively, of course) and let’s examine the basics of specimens of use!

What is a Specimen of Use, and When Do I Need One?

Before the USPTO grants registration of your trademark, it wants to see tangible evidence that your mark is actually being used in U.S. commerce. That’s where specimens of use come in. A “specimen of use” simply means evidence of how a trademark is used. To meet the USPTO requirements, the evidence must show actual commercial use of the mark in the U.S. in connection with the goods and/or services claimed in the application or registration. There are three circumstances under which trademark owners are required to submit specimens proving use of their marks: (1) to obtain registration; (2) to maintain registration; and (3) to respond to a post-registration audit from the USPTO. Let’s investigate these scenarios further.

Continue reading “From Concept to Commerce: The Art of Trademark Specimens of Use”