With the Trump administration’s renewed focus on American manufacturing, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson’s recent declaration that July 2025 is “Made in the USA” Month appears to signal a renewed emphasis on Made in USA enforcement.  The FTC has a long history of scrutinizing these claims and the more recently-issued Made in USA Rule sets strict compliance standards with the threat of significant monetary penalties for non-compliance.  And while Chairman Ferguson’s statement nods to the importance of preventing deception in this area, it emphasizes that advertisers should be making Made in USA claims whenever they are appropriate.

In his statement, Chairman Ferguson affirmed the importance of protecting Americans from deceptive advertising as a means to support American workers, manufacturers, and communities.  He also stressed that consumers weigh Made in USA claims heavily in their purchase decisions, with 61% of customers considering such claims when deciding whether to buy a product.  Ferguson goes so far as to note that consumers “rightly believe that American-made goods are higher quality and better for the environment than foreign-produced alternatives.”  Rather than underscore the rigors of the Made in USA rule or the penalties that may result from deceptive advertising, Ferguson emphasizes that “many products—from everyday household appliances to highly complex tools and machinery—… could be advertised as ‘Made in the USA’ [but] are not,” and directs businesses to the FTC’s compliance guidance to encourage them to make appropriate Made in USA statements.

It is important to note that no changes have been made to the existing Made in USA Rule or the business guidance the FTC has issued in this space.  If, in light of the Chairman’s encouragement, you now are considering adding Made in USA claims to your products, it is important to ensure they comply with the FTC’s rules and guidance.

Per the Made in USA Labeling Rule, finalized in August 2021, a product can only be labeled “Made in USA” without qualification if “all or virtually all” of the inputs and labor that go into the product originate in the U.S.  In short, if a product is explicitly or implicitly labeled “Made in USA” with no explanation or disclaimer, then the product should contain no—or only negligible—foreign content.

If a product fails to meet the “all or virtually all” standard, a qualified Made in USA claim may be appropriate.  A qualified claim should indicate that the product is not entirely of domestic origin, and it should specify the extent to which the product contains international components.  Examples of qualified claims include “60% U.S. content,” “Made in USA of U.S and imported parts,” and “Couch assembled in USA from Italian Leather and Mexican Frame.” Earlier this month, the FTC sent warning letters to a number of businesses making Made in USA claims, such as “high quality America [sic] manufactured products,” “We use only the highest American-made construction,” “more than Made in USA,” and “All-American Made USA Flag.”  These warning letters illustrate the principles for making non-deceptive claims under the FTC’s longstanding business guidance.  Accordingly, although the Chairman has encouraged companies to make Made in USA claims where appropriate, it is vital that such claims are properly drafted and supported.  Our Advertising and Consumer Protection Investigations team would be happy to help you ensure that you are making these claims properly to get the most out of your advertising while steering clear of any regulatory pitfalls.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Jehan Patterson Jehan Patterson

Drawing from experience as a senior litigation counsel in the Office of Enforcement at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and in private practice, Jehan Patterson advises and represents clients on consumer protection matters, including issues relating to advertising, data privacy and security…

Drawing from experience as a senior litigation counsel in the Office of Enforcement at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and in private practice, Jehan Patterson advises and represents clients on consumer protection matters, including issues relating to advertising, data privacy and security, and financial services. She has represented banks, non-banks, and individuals in supervisory, enforcement, and rulemaking matters before the CFPB, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (FRB).

While at the Bureau, Jehan investigated numerous providers of consumer financial products and services for violations of federal consumer financial laws and regulations, including the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts and practices, resulting in entry of administrative consent orders and federal district court judgments. Some of her notable settlements imposed extensive injunctive relief requiring entities to make significant investments in their technology systems and compliance programs to avoid future violations of law. Jehan coordinated on parallel matters with the United States Department of Justice and on enforcement investigations with states Attorneys’ General offices and state banking regulators. Among other matters, she led an investigation of a non-bank that culminated in a settlement joined by the Attorneys General of approximately 42 states and the District of Columbia.

Jehan also litigated on behalf of the Bureau, including representing the Bureau in its first advisory jury trial, obtaining a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to shut down a network of student loan debt relief companies and freeze their assets, and defeating a defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

Photo of Ryan Miller Ryan Miller

Ryan Miller is an associate in the Washington, DC office. His practice focuses on both trademark matters, with an emphasis on counseling and litigation, and regulatory matters related to consumer protection.

Ryan helps technology and consumer brands to navigate the increasingly complex regulatory…

Ryan Miller is an associate in the Washington, DC office. His practice focuses on both trademark matters, with an emphasis on counseling and litigation, and regulatory matters related to consumer protection.

Ryan helps technology and consumer brands to navigate the increasingly complex regulatory landscape pertaining to trademark, advertising, and consumer protection issues. He provides counseling and compliance advice on a variety of advertising matters, working with clients to minimize regulatory and litigation risks while advancing their business and marketing goals.

Ryan has an active and diverse pro bono practice consisting of both litigation and regulatory matters.

Photo of Munseong Park Munseong Park

Munseong Park is an associate in the London office. His practice focuses on trademark matters, with an emphasis on counseling and litigation, as well as regulatory matters related to consumer protection.