142 3121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman

Julie Brill

Maureen K. Ohlhausen

Joshua D. Wright

Terrell McSweeny

In the Matter of

MADE IN THE USA BRAND, LLC, a 

limited liability company.

DOCKET NO. C-4497

COMPLAINT

The Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that Made in the USA Brand, 

LLC, a limited liability company (“Respondent”), has violated the provisions of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act, and it appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public 

interest, alleges:

1. Respondent Made in the USA Brand, LLC (“MUSA Brand”) is an Ohio limited liability 

company with its principal office or place of business at 1398 Goodale Boulevard, Columbus, 

Ohio 43212.

2. Respondent has advertised, offered for sale, sold, and distributed licenses to use its 

“Made in USA” certification mark to companies wishing to make U.S.-origin claims for their 

products.

3. The acts and practices of Respondent alleged in this complaint have been in or affecting 

commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

MUSA Brand Certification Mark

4. As U.S.-origin claims become more material to some consumers, those consumers 

increasingly rely on seals and certification programs to confirm that such claims are credible.

5. Respondent introduced a U.S.-origin seal for marketers to use to boost the credibility of 

their “Made in USA” claims in 2009, and registered it as a Certification Mark with the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office in 2010.
2

6. Respondent sells licenses to use its Certification Mark through its website at 

www.madeintheusabrand.com. Respondent charges $250 to $2,000 for a one-year license to use 

the Certification Mark, depending on the licensee’s annual sales.

7. Respondent grants licenses to use its Certification Mark to any company, product, or 

entity that states it meets Respondent’s accreditation standard and pays the licensing fee.

8. Respondent’s accreditation standard for using its Certification Mark is the Federal Trade 

Commission’s Enforcement Policy Statement for U.S.-Origin Claims.

9. Respondent does not rely on an independent or objective evaluation to confirm that

licensees meet its accreditation standard. Instead, Respondent awards licenses to any company, 

product, or entity that self-certifies that it meets the accreditation standard.

10. Respondent does not audit licensees to confirm ongoing compliance with the 

accreditation standard.

11. Respondent has never rejected an application to use its Certification Mark and has never 

terminated any licensee’s use of its Certification Mark.

12. In some instances, Respondent has licensed use of the Certification Mark to companies 

that do not meet the accreditation standard.

13. Respondent has disseminated or has caused to be disseminated advertisements and

promotional materials for the MUSA Brand Certification Mark, as well as promotional materials 

for licensed companies to use to promote their products as made in the USA. These materials 

include, but are not necessarily limited to, the attached Exhibits A through D. Exhibits A 

through D contain the following statements and images:

A.

(Exhibit A, https://www.madeintheusabrand.com (2014)).

B. “The Made in USA Brand Certification Mark provides a standard symbol for 

Made in USA product identification . . . When printed on labels by accredited 

manufacturers, consumers are able to identify at a glance which products are 

made in the USA.”

. . .
3

“The Certification Mark is available to be downloaded by U.S. business that meet 

the accreditation standards based on the Federal Trade Commission’s regulations 

for complying with Made in USA origin claims.”

(Exhibit B, flyer (2010)).

C. “The Made In USA Brand Certification Mark is a perfect fit for me, my family 

and my race team, because it stands for buying American products produced by 

American workers. That’s really important in today’s world when creating and 

sustaining jobs is a priority for all Americans. We can all make a difference by 

checking for the Made In USA Brand Certification Mark on the products we 

purchase.”

(Exhibit C, https://www.madeintheusabrand.com/2012/05/are-you-made-in-usa/ 

(2012)).

D. “Consumers value transparency in the manufacturing process and have looked to 

trusted symbols and certification marks to help align their purchases with their 

beliefs. The Made in USA Brand Certification Mark joins the ranks of such 

symbols as Certified Organic, Certified Gluten-Free and Rainforest Alliance 

Certified. For the first time American companies will have a registered

certification mark to label and distinguish their products are of United States 

country of origin. Consumers will be able to identify at a glance that the product 

they are buying is of United States country of origin.”

. . . 

“Consumers have become conditioned to read labels. They look to certification 

marks and trusted symbols to help align their purchases with their values and their 

beliefs.”

(Exhibit D, https://www.madeintheusabrand.com/2011/01/registered-certificationmark-now-available-to-label-and-identify-made-in-usa-products (2011)).

14. In numerous instances, including, but not limited to, the promotional materials shown in 

Exhibits A-D, Respondent has represented that entities and products using its Certification Mark 

have been independently and objectively evaluated for compliance with Respondent’s

accreditation standard. For example, in Exhibit D, Respondent strongly implied that it 

independently and objectively evaluated licensees by claiming on its website that its Certification 

Mark “joins the ranks” of “trusted symbols and certification marks [that] help align [consumers’] 

purchases with their beliefs,” and that its Certification Mark is “available for accredited U.S. 

businesses.”

15. In fact, entities and products using Respondent’s Certification Mark have not been 

independently and objectively evaluated for compliance with Respondent’s accreditation 

standard.
4

16. In numerous instances, including, but not limited to, the promotional materials shown in 

Exhibits A-D, Respondent has represented that products using its Certification Mark are all or 

virtually all made in the United States. For example, Respondent promotes a directory of 

licensees on its website as a list of manufacturers selling U.S.-origin products in compliance with 

the FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement for U.S.-Origin Claims.

17. In fact, Respondent does not possess competent and reliable evidence that products using 

its Certification Mark are all or virtually all made in the United States.

18. In numerous instances, Respondent has distributed promotional materials, including but 

not limited to the promotional materials shown in Exhibits A-D, to third-party marketers for use 

in the marketing and sale of those third parties’ products.

19. In so doing, Respondent has provided third-party marketers with the means and 

instrumentalities to deceive consumers. For example, several of Respondent’s licensees have 

used Respondent’s Certification Mark or other materials to promote products that contain 

significant imported content.

COUNT I (False or Misleading Representation)

20. In connection with the advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of the MUSA 

Brand Certification Mark, Respondent has represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication, that each entity or product licensed to use its Certification Mark has been

independently and objectively evaluated for compliance with Respondent’s accreditation 

standard.

21. In fact, products and entities using Respondent’s Certification Mark have not been 

independently and objectively evaluated for compliance with Respondent’s accreditation

standard. Therefore, the representation set forth in Paragraph 20 is false or misleading.

COUNT II (False or Unsubstantiated Representation)

22. In connection with the advertising, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of the MUSA 

Brand Certification Mark, Respondent has represented, directly or indirectly, expressly or by 

implication that the entities promoted on its website sell products that are all or virtually all made 

in the United States.

23. In fact, in numerous instances, entities promoted on Respondent’s website have sold 

products containing significant imported content, and Respondent does not possess competent 

and reliable evidence that any entity promoted on its website sells products that are all or 

virtually all made in the United States. Therefore, the representation set forth in Paragraph 22

was false or not substantiated at the time the representation was made.
5

COUNT III (Means and Instrumentalities)

24. Respondent has distributed the promotional materials described in Paragraphs 13-19 to 

third-party marketers for use in the marketing and sale of those third parties’ products. In so 

doing, Respondent has provided the means and instrumentalities to these third-party marketers 

for the commission of deceptive acts or practices.

VIOLATION OF SECTION 5

25. The acts and practices of Respondent as alleged in this Complaint, constitute unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act.

THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission this tenth day of November, 2014, has 

issued this Complaint against Respondent.

By the Commission.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

SEAL: