直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Ad Law Buzz Blog

Disclosing Material Connections: Goose Creek’s Disclosures Did Not Hold a Candle to the FTC’s Endorsement Guides

January 23, 2024

Authored and Edited by Maxime I. Jarquin; Jennifer E. Fried

In a recent NAD challenge, Bath & Body Works called its competitor Goose Creek to task for—among other alleged false advertising—deceptive use of endorsements. The case involved videos of purportedly “real” consumer endorsers. Contrary to appearances, the challenger noted, these people were in fact paid actors. B&BW also took issue with Goose Creek’s failure to disclose its material connection to a vlogger, @The Candle Channel, who reviews Goose Creek’s candles.

NAD relied—to no one’s surprise—on the FTC’s Guides Concerning Use of Endorsement and Testimonials in Advertising (Guides). The Guides provide that “if there is a material connection between an endorser and the marketer that a consumer would not expect and it would affect how they evaluate the endorsement, that connection should be disclosed clearly and conspicuously.”

Goose Creek responded by assuring NAD that it had, indeed, disclosed its material connections to its endorsers. Goose Creek relied on the standard YouTube disclaimers: “includes paid promotion” and “some videos may contain paid endorsements, paid promotions or paid performance by actors.”

Case closed, then? Not so fast.

Key Takeaways

    • When disclosing material connections, standard platform (e.g. YouTube) disclaimers may not suffice
    • Blanket disclosures may be less clear and conspicuous than video-specific disclosures
    • Disclosures, if found only via “See More” hyperlinks, may be insufficiently clear and conspicuous


NAD’s concern was not just whether the material connection was disclosed—but how. NAD concluded that neither of Goose Creek’s YouTube disclosures were sufficient under the Guides because they were not clear and conspicuous. Specifically, NAD noted that Goose Creek’s complete disclosure was only visible by clicking on a “see more” hyperlink. It also lamented that the blanket disclosure (“some videos may contain paid endorsements”) failed to indicate which specific videos contained which type of endorsements.

NAD therefore recommended that these videos be modified to clearly and conspicuously disclose (in both audio and video) the fact that actors have been employed in the videos. It also recommended that Goose Creek make sufficient disclosures of its material connection to @The Candle Channel.

NAD’s Goose Creek decision serves an important reminder: when disclosing material connections, consider prominence, clarity, and specificity.

Tags

false advertising

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Advertising

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Maxime I. Jarquin
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4004
Email
Jennifer E. Fried
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4166
Email

Copyright © 2024 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP