{"id":8175,"date":"2024-07-17T19:13:17","date_gmt":"2024-07-17T19:13:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tup.kxe.temporary.site\/scotus-ruling-makes-it-easier-to-challenge-federal-ad-regulations\/"},"modified":"2024-07-17T19:13:17","modified_gmt":"2024-07-17T19:13:17","slug":"scotus-ruling-makes-it-easier-to-challenge-federal-ad-regulations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/okdesign.ca\/fr\/scotus-ruling-makes-it-easier-to-challenge-federal-ad-regulations\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS ruling makes it easier to challenge federal ad regulations"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

U.S. Supreme Court rulings don\u2019t often impact marketing, but a decision handed down last month likely will. Lober v. Raimondo<\/a> sharply curtails the power of federal regulators \u2014 like the FTC and FCC \u2014 saying federal courts should no longer defer to them when interpreting laws.<\/p>\n

Chief Justice John Roberts said federal judges \u201cmust exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.\u201d The decision overruled the landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which said judges should defer to the executive branch when laws passed by Congress are ambiguous.<\/p>\n

The new ruling increases the likelihood of people and brands winning lawsuits over regulatory decisions. And, of course, regulators created a lot of rules around advertising. Some of these are industry-specific, like disclosure requirements for the financial and pharmaceutical industries. Others are broader, like the FTC\u2019s rulings around truth in advertising.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Federal Trade Commission is probably one of the biggest beat cops on the [regulatory] street [because they can] prohibit false advertising,\u201d Jason Gordon, advertising and brand protection partner at Reed Smith LLP, told MarTech. \u201cWhen they spot false advertising, they say that it\u2019s an unfair deceptive act or practice, whatever the \u2019it\u2019 is.\u201d<\/p>\n

Changing enforcement priorities<\/h2>\n

The FTC isn\u2019t arbitrary about these issues and puts out books of guidelines to help marketers know what\u2019s legal and what isn\u2019t. However, the FTC \u2014 like all regulatory agencies \u2014 is political. Its commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. As a result, enforcement priorities, penalties and interpretations change with every administration.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cThere are some who believe that this particular FTC is getting out a little bit ahead of its skis,\u201d said Gordon. \u201cThis ruling will provide those skeptical advertisers an opportunity to say, \u2018Maybe we want to challenge this.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Dig deeper: <\/em><\/strong>GDPR is a help, not a hindrance, to marketing<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Truth in advertising is not something companies are likely to challenge, because it can generate a lot of bad publicity. However, the FTC has a lot of rules about disclosures that might rub people the wrong way.<\/p>\n

Under the Biden administration,\u00a0 the FTC is particularly interested in enforcing rules that cover things like:<\/p>\n