Ad Watchers: So, Who’s Making These Advertising Rules?
April 7, 2021
In the Ad Watchers podcast series, National Advertising Division (NAD) attorneys Hal Hodes and La Toya Sutton break down common advertising practices to reveal the complexity of keeping claims truthful and accurate. In this first episode, the hosts talk about the guiding principle behind all NAD decisions: consumer understanding. Hal and La Toya discuss what it means to them to step into the shoes of the consumer and break down all the factors that NAD takes into consideration during an advertising review that regulators (e.g., the FTC or FDA) may not.
Latest Podcasts
Likely to be Accessed: Do You Know Who Your Users Are?
Join us for this episode of Priv, where Dona Fraser is joined by Phyllis Marcus to discuss the broad operational, financial, and logistical impacts and challenges of trying to protect both children and teens online under the same laws and regulations.
Ad Watchers: Clear and Conspicuous Disclosures: Can You Read the Fine Print?
From small fonts to fast talking and distracting music, our hosts revisit this common issue area in advertising law, discuss what it takes for a disclosure to be considered clear and conspicuous, and share some lessons learned from a series of advertisements, both print and in TV commercials, that didn’t quite meet the clear and conspicuous standard.
Breaking Down AdTech: Cookies and Pixels and SDKs, Oh My!
This episode of Priv breaks down the most talked about issues in the adtech space, including the impact of the death of the cookie, the focus of regulators on the newest kid on the block - the pixel, lessons learned from recent SDK legal cases, what all of this looks like for children and teens, and what the legislative and regulatory road ahead looks like.
Ad Watchers: The best subject in advertising law: Is it puffery?
For this episode of Ad Watchers, join us for Eric’s favorite ad law topic: puffery, an exaggerated, blustering, or boastful statement or general claim that could only be understood to be an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact. But where is the line between puffery and a claim that needs a reasonable basis?