UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of Commissioner

Rohit Chopra

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER ROHIT CHOPRA

Regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Made in USA 

Commission File No. P074204 

June 22, 2020 

Today, the Commission is proposing a rule that prohibits false Made in USA labels and 

authorizes penalties against those who cheat the system and cheapen our national brand. This 

proposal is an important step forward for American families, workers, and honest manufacturers 

and sellers, who have expressed “nearly universal” support for this rulemaking.

1 Americans are 

increasingly seeking out products that are Made in the USA, and today’s rule will help ensure 

that our national brand is protected. 

It is important to emphasize what the proposed rule, if finalized, will and will not accomplish. 

First, the rule will not impose any new substantive requirements on businesses, as they are 

already required to ensure Made in USA labels are accurate. Second, the proposed rule will not 

cover all Made in USA advertising. While I would have preferred a broader prohibition on Made 

in USA fraud, the proposed rule strikes a reasonable compromise, targeting Made in USA 

labeling both online and offline, consistent with our statutory authority.2 Public comment will 

help us refine our proposal before final publication. 

What the rule will accomplish is greater deterrence against Made in USA fraud, stronger relief 

for families and businesses who are harmed, and lower resource burdens for the Commission. By 

codifying the FTC’s existing guidance, the Commission will be able to seek civil penalties of up 

to $43,280 per violation. While stiff penalties are not appropriate in every instance, they send a 

strong signal to would-be violators that they abuse the Made in USA label at their peril. These 

penalties can also be leveraged to seek more relief for consumers, including redress, 

disgorgement, and even damages.3

1 See FED. TRADE COMM’N, MADE IN USA WORKSHOP REPORT, 17 (Jun. 19, 2020) noting that “commenters 

expressed nearly universal support for an FTC rule addressing MUSA claims”).

2 Section 45a does not define the term “label,” nor does the text limit the Commission’s authority to physical labels 

stitched to a product through a sewing or manufacturing process. See 15 U.S.C. § 45a. The Commission has 

developed considerable expertise on statutes and policies related to the communication of objective information to 

consumers outside of traditional advertising. We have relied on this expertise to define what constitutes a label. 

3 See 15 U.S.C. § 57b (authorizing the Commission to seek “rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of 

money or return of property, the payment of damages, and public notification”).
2

Importantly, by allowing the Commission to seek relief through Section 5(m) or Section 19 of 

the FTC Act, the rule eliminates the perceived litigation risks associated with Section 13(b), 

which defendants invoke to try to sidestep accountability. This will prevent time-consuming, 

resource-intensive gamesmanship around the contours of our authority. The rulemaking will also 

reduce our need to retain costly experts, and will help us achieve better results for families and 

honest businesses. I expect that the Commission will need to continue to codify well-accepted 

legal precedents and enforcement policy into rules – rules which impose no new substantive 

obligations on market participants – in order to minimize these stall tactics by paid-by-the-hour 

advocates for lawbreakers. Such rules allow the Commission to use its resources more 

effectively, obtain more fulsome relief, and deter wrongdoers.

Over the last two years, the Commission has strengthened its approach to Made in USA fraud. In 

addition to moving forward on this rulemaking, the Commission has convened stakeholders to 

sharpen its thinking on its Made in USA enforcement,4and has significantly stepped up the 

monetary relief it seeks against violators, as seen in the recent action against Williams-Sonoma.

5

These changes reflect a sense that the FTC must always engage in self-critical analysis and 

introspection. 

Given the shortages and disruptions faced by American families and health care workers seeking 

critical supplies, including personal protective equipment during this pandemic, these changes

are also timely, as American companies and policymakers are rethinking the wisdom of global 

supply chains that lack resilience. American companies and workers should feel confident that 

bringing production back home will be rewarded in the marketplace. Protecting the Made in 

USA brand is critical to generating that confidence.

Regrettably, Commissioners Phillips and Wilson offer a legal blueprint to those seeking to 

challenge the rule, arguing that it should cover only physical labels affixed to products. Even 

setting aside the problem this presents for millions of Americans who shop online, this objection 

is not well grounded. While my colleagues may have policy differences on Made in USA fraud,

6

the FTC has discretion to interpret the term “label,” and the provision to which they object is 

modeled after time-tested Commission rules governing the use of labels.

7 Furthermore, our peer 

 

4 See supra at 1.

5 Press Release, Fed Trade Comm’n, Williams-Sonoma, Inc. Settles with FTC, Agrees to Stop Making Overly Broad 

and Misleading ‘Made in USA’ Claims about Houseware and Furniture Products (Mar. 30, 2020), 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/03/williams-sonoma-inc-settles-ftc-agrees-stop-makingoverly-broad.

6

I recognize that Commissioners Wilson and Phillips may have different views on our enforcement strategy, 

particularly as to whether no-money orders are appropriate and advance the goal of general deterrence in cases of 

egregious Made in USA fraud. See, e.g., Press Release, Fed Trade Comm’n, FTC Approves Final Consents Settling 

Charges that Hockey Puck Seller, Companies Selling Recreational and Outdoor Equipment Made False ‘Made in 

USA’ Claims (Apr. 17, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/04/ftc-approves-final-consentssettling-charges-hockey-puck-seller. Nevertheless, I hope and am confident that they will keep an open mind on this 

rulemaking.

7 See, e.g. Wool Rules, 16 C.F.R. § 300.25a (requiring that when wool products are advertised for mail order, 

defined to include e-commerce, that the product description shall contain a statement of the product’s country of 

origin); Textile Rules, 16 C.F.R. § 303.34 (requiring that when textile products are advertised for mail order, defined 

to include e-commerce, that the product description shall contain a statement of the product’s country of origin).
3

agencies have not hesitated to challenge unlawful online labeling using similar authority.

8 The 

Commission is on strong legal ground, and I am confident our staff will prevail against any 

challenge based on the theory proffered by Commissioners Phillips and Wilson. 

Today’s announcement is an important milestone for the FTC. I congratulate Chairman Simons, 

Commissioner Slaughter, and everyone inside and outside the agency who made this proposal a 

reality.

 

8 For example, the FDA recently warned a drug company that its social media posts misbranded a product in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. 352(a), which governs “False or Misleading Labels.” Food and Drug Administration, 

Warning Letter to Eric Gervais, Executive Vice President, Duchesnay, Inc. (Aug. 7, 2015), 

https://www.fda.gov/media/93230/download.