16 CFR 255.3 - Expert endorsements.

§ 255.3 Expert endorsements.
(a) Whenever an advertisement represents, directly or by implication, that the endorser is an expert with respect to the endorsement message, then the endorser's qualifications must in fact give the endorser the expertise that he or she is represented as possessing with respect to the endorsement.
(b) Although the expert may, in endorsing a product, take into account factors not within his or her expertise (e.g., matters of taste or price), the endorsement must be supported by an actual exercise of that expertise in evaluating product features or characteristics with respect to which he or she is expert and which are relevant to an ordinary consumer's use of or experience with the product and are available to the ordinary consumer. This evaluation must have included an examination or testing of the product at least as extensive as someone with the same degree of expertise would normally need to conduct in order to support the conclusions presented in the endorsement. To the extent that the advertisement implies that the endorsement was based upon a comparison, such comparison must have been included in the expert's evaluation; and as a result of such comparison, the expert must have concluded that, with respect to those features on which he or she is expert and which are relevant and available to an ordinary consumer, the endorsed product is at least equal overall to the competitors' products. Moreover, where the net impression created by the endorsement is that the advertised product is superior to other products with respect to any such feature or features, then the expert must in fact have found such superiority. [See§ 255.1(d) regarding the liability of endorsers.]
Example 1:
An endorsement of a particular automobile by one described as an “engineer” implies that the endorser's professional training and experience are such that he is well acquainted with the design and performance of automobiles. If the endorser's field is, for example, chemical engineering, the endorsement would be deceptive.
Example 2:
An endorser of a hearing aid is simply referred to as “Doctor” during the course of an advertisement. The ad likely implies that the endorser is a medical doctor with substantial experience in the area of hearing. If the endorser is not a medical doctor with substantial experience in audiology, the endorsement would likely be deceptive. A non-medical “doctor” (e.g., an individual with a Ph.D. in exercise physiology) or a physician without substantial experience in the area of hearing can endorse the product, but if the endorser is referred to as “doctor,” the advertisement must make clear the nature and limits of the endorser's expertise.
Example 3:
A manufacturer of automobile parts advertises that its products are approved by the “American Institute of Science.”From its name, consumers would infer that the “American Institute of Science” is a bona fide independent testing organization with expertise in judging automobile parts and that, as such, it would not approve any automobile part without first testing its efficacy by means of valid scientific methods. If the American Institute of Science is not such a bona fide independent testing organization (e.g., if it was established and operated by an automotive parts manufacturer), the endorsement would be deceptive. Even if the American Institute of Science is an independent bona fide expert testing organization, the endorsement may nevertheless be deceptive unless the Institute has conducted valid scientific tests of the advertised products and the test results support the endorsement message.
Example 4:
A manufacturer of a non-prescription drug product represents that its product has been selected over competing products by a large metropolitan hospital. The hospital has selected the product because the manufacturer, unlike its competitors, has packaged each dose of the product separately. This package form is not generally available to the public. Under the circumstances, the endorsement would be deceptive because the basis for the hospital's choice—convenience of packaging—is neither relevant nor available to consumers, and the basis for the hospital's decision is not disclosed to consumers.
Example 5:
A woman who is identified as the president of a commercial “home cleaning service” states in a television advertisement that the service uses a particular brand of cleanser, instead of leading competitors it has tried, because of this brand's performance. Because cleaning services extensively use cleansers in the course of their business, the ad likely conveys that the president has knowledge superior to that of ordinary consumers. Accordingly, the president's statement will be deemed to be an expert endorsement. The service must, of course, actually use the endorsed cleanser. In addition, because the advertisement implies that the cleaning service has experience with a reasonable number of leading competitors to the advertised cleanser, the service must, in fact, have such experience, and, on the basis of its expertise, it must have determined that the cleaning ability of the endorsed cleanser is at least equal (or superior, if such is the net impression conveyed by the advertisement) to that of leading competitors' products with which the service has had experience and which remain reasonably available to it. Because in this example the cleaning service's president makes no mention that the endorsed cleanser was “chosen,” “selected,” or otherwise evaluated in side-by-side comparisons against its competitors, it is sufficient if the service has relied solely upon its accumulated experience in evaluating cleansers without having performed side-by-side or scientific comparisons.
Example 6:
A medical doctor states in an advertisement for a drug that the product will safely allow consumers to lower their cholesterol by 50 points. If the materials the doctor reviewed were merely letters from satisfied consumers or the results of a rodent study, the endorsement would likely be deceptive because those materials are not what others with the same degree of expertise would consider adequate to support this conclusion about the product's safety and efficacy.

Title 16 published on 2014-01-01

no entries appear in the Federal Register after this date.

This is a list of United States Code sections, Statutes at Large, Public Laws, and Presidential Documents, which provide rulemaking authority for this CFR Part.

This list is taken from the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules provided by GPO [Government Printing Office].

It is not guaranteed to be accurate or up-to-date, though we do refresh the database weekly. More limitations on accuracy are described at the GPO site.


United States Code
U.S. Code: Title 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE

§ 41 - Federal Trade Commission established; membership; vacancies; seal

§ 42 - Employees; expenses

§ 43 - Office and place of meeting

§ 44 - Definitions

§ 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

§ 45a - Labels on products

§ 46 - Additional powers of Commission

§ 46a - Concurrent resolution essential to authorize investigations

§ 47 - Reference of suits under antitrust statutes to Commission

§ 48 - Information and assistance from departments

§ 49 - Documentary evidence; depositions; witnesses

§ 50 - Offenses and penalties

§ 51 - Effect on other statutory provisions

§ 52 - Dissemination of false advertisements

§ 53 - False advertisements; injunctions and restraining orders

§ 54 - False advertisements; penalties

§ 55 - Additional definitions

§ 56 - Commencement, defense, intervention and supervision of litigation and appeal by Commission or Attorney General

§ 57 - Separability clause

§ 57a - Unfair or deceptive acts or practices rulemaking proceedings

15 U.S. Code § 57a–1 - Omitted

§ 57b - Civil actions for violations of rules and cease and desist orders respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices

15 U.S. Code § 57b–1 - Civil investigative demands

15 U.S. Code § 57b–2 - Confidentiality

15 U.S. Code § 57b–2a - Confidentiality and delayed notice of compulsory process for certain third parties

15 U.S. Code § 57b–2b - Protection for voluntary provision of information

15 U.S. Code § 57b–3 - Rulemaking process

15 U.S. Code § 57b–4 - Good faith reliance on actions of Board of Governors

15 U.S. Code § 57b–5 - Agricultural cooperatives

§ 57c - Authorization of appropriations

15 U.S. Code § 57c–1 - Staff exchanges

15 U.S. Code § 57c–2 - Reimbursement of expenses

§ 58 - Short title

Statutes at Large