Archive for the 'Compliance' Category
March 26, 2013
Earlier today, the European Commission announced that it has extended its credit default swaps (CDS) investigation to include the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA). In making the announcement, the Commission said:
March 22, 2013
Earlier today, the Competition Bureau announced that three individuals have been found guilty for their roles in the ongoing Quebec gas price-fixing case (see: Quebec Gas Price-fixers Found Guilty).
March 20, 2013
Grant Thornton has published a new white paper on construction fraud in Canada entitled: Construction Fraud in Canada: Understand It, Prevent It, Detect It.
March 18, 2013
Readers of this blog will know that I often write about bid-rigging (see for example: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). Frequently I write about a recent case, investigation, newly announced guilty plea, key types of bid-rigging and penalties and convictions (e.g., the elimination of conditional sentencing for bid-rigging).
March 15, 2013
In February, GCR published a new edition of The Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review (2013), which includes: Australia (Cartels, mergers and telecom), Canada (mergers and the Investment Canada Act), China, India (overview and mergers), Japan (cartels and mergers) and Malaysia (which recently introduced competition law).
Overview:
“Global Competition Review is delighted to publish the ninth annual edition of The Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review, one of a series of special reports that deliver specialist intelligence and research designed to help subscribers successfully navigate the world’s increasingly complex competition regimes. Read in conjunction with The European Antitrust Review and The Antitrust Review of the Americas, it gives general counsel, government agencies and private practice lawyers unparalleled annual insights into the development of the world’s competition regimes.”
For more information see: The Asia-Pacific Antitrust Review 2013.
March 12, 2013
Earlier today, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued revised Dom Com Disclosure guidelines (see: FTC Staff Revises Online Advertising Disclosure Guidelines). From the FTC:
“… the new FTC staff guidance, .com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising takes into account the expanding use of smartphones with small screens and the rise of social media marketing. It also contains mock ads that illustrate the updated principles. Like the original, the updated guidance emphasizes that consumer protection laws apply equally to marketers across all mediums, whether delivered on a desktop computer, a mobile device, or more traditional media such as television, radio or print. If a disclosure is needed to prevent an online ad claim from being deceptive or unfair, it must be clear and conspicuous. Under the new guidance, this means advertisers should ensure that the disclosure is clear and conspicuous on all devices and platforms that consumers may use to view the ad. The new guidance also explains that if an advertisement without a disclosure would be deceptive or unfair, or would otherwise violate a Commission rule, and the disclosure cannot be made clearly and conspicuously on a device or platform, then that device or platform should not be used.”
Some of the specific topics addressed by the FTC’s new guidelines (the Canadian parallel of which are the Competition Bureau’s “Internet Advertising Guidelines” – i.e., Application of the Competition Act to Representations on the Internet – which have not been substantively updated in a few years) include: proximity and placement of disclosure; use of hyperlinks; effective disclosure before purchase; disclosure in new media (i.e., where there are space constraints); distracting elements and the overall context of advertising; multi-media; and understandable disclosure for consumers.
For a copy of the FTC’s new guidelines see: .com Disclosures.
March 12, 2013
Earlier today, as part of its Fraud Prevention Month efforts in March, the Competition Bureau announced its Top 2 on “2 Good 2 B True Day” scams: false online testimonials; and mobile “subscription traps”.
With respect to false testimonials, the Bureau highlighted concerns with testimonials that appear to be from unbiased individuals, but in fact are paid-for endorsements (or malicious or fraudulent).
Under the Competition Act, false testimonials can be challenged where they are either literally false or misleading (under the general civil or criminal misleading advertising provisions of the Act). The Competition Act also includes a standalone testimonials section that makes it reviewable conduct to publish a testimonial for a product unless the person publishing it can establish that: the testimonial was previously made or published; or was approved with permission to make/publish it.
The Bureau has also raised concerns in the past with false or misleading testimonials. For example, in its pamphlet False or Misleading Representations and Deceptive Marketing Practices the Bureau says: “[u]nder the civil regime, the general provision prohibits all materially false or misleading representations. [and] “other provisions specifically prohibit … untrue, misleading or unauthorized use of tests and testimonials …” These guidelines also offer the following testimonial-related guidance for advertisers: “[d]on’t use the results of product performance tests and/or testimonials in your advertising unless you are authorized to use them; or if you are authorized to use them, don’t distort test results or the scope of testimonials”.
As for “subscription traps” – which the Bureau defines as “techniques designed to make consumers register for recurring fees for goods” – the Bureau emphasizes situations where products appear to be free (when charges apply) or where there are hidden or difficult to understand conditions (or refunds subject to conditions). This particular scheme has been an issue, among others, in a number of traditional marketing fraudulent directory scams in recent years (e.g., deceptive fax spam).
The Bureau’s Backgrounder issued with its announcement also includes other tips for consumers to avoid these scams.
Both of these fraud techniques discussed by the Bureau are consistent with its recent and ongoing enforcement priorities in the advertising and deceptive marketing areas, which include a focus on the web and new technology (particularly mobile), increased pressure to clearly disclose the total price of products, heightened scrutiny of disclaimers and hidden conditions and as well consistent enforcement based not only on the literal meaning of claims but also the overall “general impression”.
For copies of the Bureau’s announcement and Backgrounder, see: here and here.
March 10, 2013
Readers of this blog will know that two of my main interests are competition/antitrust compliance and cartels. Despite the continually escalating fines and persuasive reasons cartels should be aggressively punished, they seem to chug on in the corporate world unabated. Perhaps it’s the game theory of cartels that I find fascinating. At any rate, in this vein this new paper on cartels and compliance caught my eye by D. Daniel Sokol: “Policing the Firm” (see: here). Abstract:
“Criminal price fixing cartels are a serious problem for consumers. Cartels are hard to both find and punish. Research into other kinds of corporate wrongdoing suggests that enforcers should pay increased attention to incentives within the firm to deter wrongdoing. Thus far, antitrust scholarship and policy have ignored this insight. This article suggests how to improve antitrust enforcement by focusing its efforts on changing the incentives of internal firm compliance.”
Templates/precedents and checklists to run promotional contests in Canada
Templates/precedents and checklists to comply with Canadian anti-spam law (CASL)
