Last last year, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong settled with EnergyBillCruncher.com, a lead generator for solar installers, resolving allegations that the company misled consumers about how to obtain solar for their homes.  

The AG alleged that the company misled consumers about whether the government will cover the cost to install solar, inappropriately used the Connecticut state seal, and created a false sense of urgency about how long the offer was available.  The AG explained, “Connecticut state government does not endorse any solar company or program.  While some solar installations may have no up-front cost, and tax credits may be available, there is no such thing as a free solar system.” 

As part of the settlement, the company agreed to reform its marketing practices and to pay $20,000. 

Even though this happened last year, I thought it was worth highlighting for a few reasons.  

First, although there are big questions about what the FTC's enforcement priorities will be right now, advertisers shouldn't assume that many of the issues we've been concerned about for the last four years won't still be on regulators' radar.  It just may be that we see the states taking action where the federal government is not. 

Second, and relatedly, although environmental marketing isn't likely to be a big priority for the FTC in the coming years, it is certainly a big priority at the state level.  So, while we may not see the updated Green Guides anytime soon, the states are continuing to (pretty aggressively) focus on green claims. 

Third, some advertisers often focus their clearance efforts on their big budget marketing efforts – the big television campaigns, for example – and don't worry as much about what is happening on social.  This enforcement action – which focused only on a company's social media posts – is a great reminder that what you're doing on social is governed by the same rules as the rest of your advertising – and can get you in just as much trouble. 

Fourth, when consumers are facing an uncertain economic climate, regulators often focus their enforcement efforts on advertising that preys on consumers' financial fears.  As the AG explained here, “Energy bills are through the roof right now" and “Consumers need accurate, honest information.”  

Fifth, don't make “free” offers when the product or service isn't completely free and isn't free for all consumers.  If there are material terms and limitations of the offer, they will need to be clearly and conspicuously disclosed.  

Sixth, it is interesting to note that the AG was concerned about the fact that the company was creating a false sense of urgency to take advantage of the offer.  This kind of sales tactic – “do this before Friday” – hasn't gotten a lot of attention in the past and was often overlooked as just normal marketing-speak.  Now, however, with the focus on “dark patterns,” regulators are taking these types of practices more seriously – and asserting that consumers are actually harmed by them.  

Finally, this enforcement action is also a good reminder that the FTC's Impersonation of Government and Businesses Rule went into effect last year.  The Rule prohibits, among other things, materially misrepresenting, “affiliation with, including endorsement or sponsorship by, a government entity or officer thereof.”