Statement of Chairman Joseph J. Simons and 

Commissioners Noah Joshua Phillips and Christine S. Wilson 

In re Sunday Riley Modern Skincare, LLC

 November 6, 2020 

Today we announce finalization of a consent agreement against Sunday Riley Modern 

Skincare and its owner, Ms. Sunday Riley. This case is one of several recent FTC enforcement 

actions challenging fake or deceptive online reviews or endorsements for products and services.1 

These and similar cases seek to ensure that false and deceptive information is removed from the 

marketplace, enabling consumers to make informed purchasing decisions based on truthful and 

accurate information. In this case, the Commission’s complaint alleges that Ms. Riley and her 

company polluted the online marketplace by writing and publishing fake positive reviews for 

Sunday Riley Modern Skincare products – conduct that would amount to clear violations of the 

FTC Act. The Commission’s order holds Ms. Riley personally liable, prohibits both Ms. Riley 

and Sunday Riley Modern Skincare from making future misrepresentations (including through 

fake reviews), and requires them to instruct employees and agents about their legal 

responsibilities. Each violation of the order could result in a civil penalty of up to $42,530. There 

is no reason to believe that the Commission’s order will not protect consumers from further 

misconduct or that the potential for civil penalties will not deter future violations. 

Every case presents unique circumstances, and there are many factors that must be 

considered in determining what constitutes an appropriate settlement. The primary factor is the 

law. For example, to obtain monetary relief, the Commission must have a viable legal basis to 

demonstrate consumer injury or ill-gotten gains from the alleged violations. In some cases, such 

as frauds where the consumer receives no value, this calculation may be obvious. In others, 

including Sunday Riley, a legally defensible calculation of ill-gotten gains may be difficult. In 

such cases, the expenditure of resources needed to develop an adequate evidentiary basis 

reasonably to approximate ill-gotten gains may substantially outweigh any benefits to consumers 

and the market. We believe the Commission’s order strikes the right balance. 

The relief obtained in this case is consequential and will provide both specific and 

general deterrence. The administrative order binds Sunday Riley and its CEO. It constrains their 

future behavior by imposing limitations on their conduct, with the threat of civil penalties for 

violations. When evaluating relief we also must consider the cost and effect of the other 

sanctions imposed in the context of an enforcement action, such as the costs and constraints of 

complying with the injunction; the fencing in of otherwise legal conduct; the reputational effect 

of the order; the threat of follow-on actions by shareholders, private plaintiffs and other 

regulators; and other collateral consequences, such as the effect on relationships with business 

partners, vendors, investors, and regulators. All of these non-monetary sanctions can have 

substantial deterrent effect on violative behavior. Our dissenting colleagues focus on the lack of 

monetary relief, dismissing the efficacy both of injunctive relief and the naming of the CEO in 

1 FTC v. Devumi, LLC, No. 9:19-cv-81419-RKA (S.D. Fla. 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/casesproceedings/182-3066/devumi-llc; FTC v. Teami, LLC, No. 8:20-cv-518-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla. 2020), 

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/182-3174/teami-llc. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this matter. This latter position is particularly curious given that, in other matters, they touted 

naming CEOs as the sine qua non for accountability.2 This action sends a clear message to other 

companies that the FTC will not tolerate fake reviews, and underscores the applicable legal 

standards to follow to avoid running afoul of the law.3 

Fake and manipulated user reviews contaminate the online marketplace and inhibit 

informed decision-making by consumers. The FTC is intent on addressing this distortion of the 

marketplace, and is currently examining, among other things, how fake reviews affect consumer 

purchasing behavior; what platforms and other relevant market players are doing – and what they 

could be doing better – to combat fake reviews; and additional actions the FTC can take to 

address this problem beyond important law enforcement actions like this one. Advertisers and 

retailers should not doubt our resolve. Fake reviews, ratings, and rankings that pollute the digital 

marketplace are a high priority for the FTC, and we will continue to be active in this area. We 

also are mindful that true deterrence is not achieved via any single order but through concerted 

law enforcement campaigns. While this case standing alone will not cure advertisers of the urge 

to post fake reviews, it is part of a broader campaign to ensure that consumers are able to make 

purchasing decisions based on truthful and accurate information. 

2 See, e.g., Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra, In the Matter of Facebook (July 2019), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1536911/chopra_dissenting_statement_on_facebook 

_7-24-19.pdf; Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, In the Matter of Facebook (July 

2019), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1536918/182_3109_slaughter_statement_on_facebo 

ok_7-24-19.pdf; Joint Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, In the 

Matter of Musical.ly (now known as Tik Tok), 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1463167/chopra_and_slaughter_musically_tiktok_jo 

int_statement_2-27-19_0.pdf. 3 Press coverage following the announcement of the Sunday Riley matter referred to an “FTC crackdown” and 

noted, for example, that “it would be naïve for companies to not start adjusting. See James Brumley “What Might 

The FTC’s Crackdown On Deceptive Online Marketing Mean for Social Media Companies?” THE MOTLEY FOOL 

(Oct. 29, 2019), https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/10/29/what-might-the-ftcs-crackdown-on-deceptiveonline.aspx; see also Klein, David, “Social Media Influencer Marketing And FTC Enforcement” MONDAQ (March 

26, 2020) (noting that “[g]iven the potential for large fines and negative press, companies must be aware of their 

obligations to ensure that their influencer marketing campaigns comply with applicable law.”) (italics added), 

https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/Media-Telecoms-IT-Entertainment/907658/Social-Media-InfluencerMarketing-And-FTC-Enforcement.