Making the Case for Regulatory Oversight

It’s not news that advertising and marketing compliance has been top-of-mind for legal ops and compliance teams operating in consumer-based industries. Given growing regulations over the past 10 years and the fact that large organizations typically produce between 20,000-100,000 pieces of content a quarter, the marketing industry is ripe for oversight. Three recent high-profile cases, however, underscore just how critical it is for companies to keep their compliance guard up.

The cases don’t necessarily follow a specific pattern or trajectory. But together, they, along with a host of similar cases, cover a range of regulatory pitfalls–from unauthorized endorsements, through copyright infringements, to false advertising and substantiation claims–from which every organization can learn. 

Case #1: International entertainer vs. global mobile phone manufacturer – implied endorsements

The Facts: The manufacturer placed a photo of a world-renowned female singer/songwriter, taken at one of her performances, on television product packaging sold across the US, without her knowledge, her consent, or an endorsement deal. Fans shared the packaging online, while social media posts indicated that consumers believed she was linked to the products.

The Violation: Implied celebrity endorsement–using a public figure’s image in marketing to suggest a genuine commercial relationship that, in fact, does not exist–is in breach of FTC endorsement guidelines and IP/likeness rights.

The Result: An $15 million lawsuit was filed in California federal court alleging copyright infringement, trademark violations, and unauthorized commercial use of likeness. The case is ongoing.

The Lesson: Implied endorsements carry the same legal weight as explicit ones. Any use of a person’s image, name, or likeness in marketing, including on physical packaging, must be backed by a formal agreement.

Case #2: Leading e-commerce platform provider vs. direct competitor – copyright infringement

The Facts: A world-leading fashion e-commerce platform provider alleges that a rival platform used thousands of the former’s product photographs–many taken by its employees–to advertise similar clothing items. The competitor denied the allegations, counter-claiming for damages after an injunction forced it to remove thousands of listings.

The Violation: Unauthorized use of a competitor’s original product photographs in order to advertise goods on a rival platform is copyright infringement.

The Result: A two-week UK High Court trial opened in May 2026. The competitor dropped its defense against the copyright claims for over nearly 2,300 photos, while damages and broader competition law claims have yet to be determined.

The Lesson: Product photographs are copyrighted works the moment they are taken. Using a competitor’s images in marketing, regardless of how they got there, is infringement.

Case #3: Class-action vs. food manufacturer – false advertising and substantiation 

The Facts: The manufacturer markets a product under a certification that is regulated by an EU Protected Designation of Origin. The designation requires that the key raw ingredient, tomatoes, in the product be grown, processed and canned in a specific region. The company now uses an alternative EU-approved certifier that the plaintiffs argue does not meet the standard consumers would reasonably expect from the previous certification.

The Violation: Labeling products as being certified by a particular regulatory body despite being certified by a different body creates a false impression of authenticity, and violates FTC false advertising and substantiation guidelines.

The Result: An ongoing class action lawsuit is seeking $25 million in damages and a permanent injunction requiring the manufacturer to remove the previous certified label.

The Lesson: Certification and origin claims must be substantiated and meet the specific standard consumers would reasonably expect. If the product carries a protected designation, the certification needs to be recognized under the relevant regulatory framework; a substitute certifier does not make the claim legitimate.

Three compliance areas… 

1. ‍Implied endorsements are still endorsements. FTC rules require that any suggestion of a celebrity or influencer relationship reflect a genuine, consented arrangement. Using someone’s image or likeness in marketing without authorization, even on physical packaging, constitutes a false endorsement claim.
2. ‍Product photos are protected works. In e-commerce, copying a competitor’s images to advertise your own goods is copyright infringement regardless of how the images ended up in your system. ‍
3. Ensure certifications are substantiated. If your product carries a certification, designation of origin, or quality standard, verify that it meets the standard consumers expect. “Certified” means nothing if the certifying body lacks the authority or recognition that makes the claim meaningful.‍

… but one clear message

While these three cases span continents, industries, and legal frameworks, they share a single theme: advertising compliance matters. Based on these cases, it is easy to conclude that the most effective compliance investment is one that proactively streamlines your review process to ensure that all your marketing and advertising content meets regulatory standards.

See how Blee helps legal and compliance teams stay ahead of marketing risk, before it reaches a regulator.

‍