Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15017 

procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are 

unnecessary. 

Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

The FAA has determined that this 

regulation only involves an established 

body of technical regulations for which 

frequent and routine amendments are 

necessary to keep them operationally 

current. It, therefore: (1) is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a 

‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that only affects air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this rule, when 

promulgated, does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

The FAA has determined that this 

action of amending the using agency 

information for restricted areas R– 

2510A and R–2510B, qualifies for 

categorical exclusion under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) and its implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in 

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ paragraph 5–6.5a, which 

categorically excludes from further 

environmental impact review 

rulemaking actions that designate or 

modify classes of airspace areas, 

airways, routes, and reporting points 

(see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of 

Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; 

Air Traffic Service Routes; and 

Reporting Points), and paragraph 5– 

6.5d, which categorically excludes from 

further environmental impact review 

the modification of the technical 

description of special use airspace 

(SUA) that does not alter the 

dimensions, altitudes, or times of 

designation of the airspace (such as 

changes in designation of the 

controlling or using agency, or 

correction of typographical errors). This 

airspace action is an administrative 

change to the description of restricted 

areas R–2510A and R–2510B to update 

the using agency name. It does not alter 

the restricted area dimensions, 

designated altitudes, times of 

designation, or use of the airspace. 

Therefore, this airspace action is not 

expected to result in any significant 

environmental impacts. In accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5– 

2 regarding Extraordinary 

Circumstances, this action has been 

reviewed for factors and circumstances 

in which a normally categorically 

excluded action may have a significant 

environmental impact requiring further 

analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has 

determined that no extraordinary 

circumstances exist that warrant 

preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

study. 

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted 

areas. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows: 

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 73.25 [Amended] 

■ 2. Section 73.25 is amended as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

R–2510A El Centro, CA [Amended] 

By removing the existing using agency and 

substituting the following: 

Using agency. U.S. Marine Corps, 

Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air 

Station Yuma, Yuma, AZ. 

R–2510B El Centro, CA [Amended] 

By removing the current using agency and 

adding the following in its place: 

Using agency. U.S. Marine Corps, 

Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air 

Station Yuma, Yuma, AZ. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26, 

2024. 

Frank Lias, 

Manager, Rules and Regulations Group. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04361 Filed 2–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 461 

RIN 3084–AB71 

Trade Regulation Rule on 

Impersonation of Government and 

Businesses 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule prohibits the 

impersonation of government, 

businesses, and their officials or agents 

in interstate commerce. This document 

contains the text of the final rule and 

the rule’s Statement of Basis and 

Purpose (‘‘SBP’’), including a Regulatory 

Analysis. 

DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 

2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher E. Brown (202–326–2825), 

Attorney, Division of Marketing 

Practices, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

On December 23, 2021, the Federal 

Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘FTC’’) published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) to 

address certain deceptive or unfair acts 

or practices of impersonation.1 As part 

of the ANPR, the Commission requested 

comment on any issues or concerns 

relevant or appropriate to this 

rulemaking to combat impersonation of 

governments, businesses, or their 

agents, and whether and how to proceed 

with a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NPRM’’).2 The Commission took 

comments for 60 days, and received 164 

comments from representatives from a 

broad spectrum of businesses, trade 

associations, government or lawenforcement organizations, and 

individual consumers, which are 

publicly available on this rulemaking’s 

docket at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/FTC-2021-0077/comments. 

Commenters generally expressed 

support for the Commission’s 

proceeding with the rulemaking. They 

also voiced deep concerns about the 

prevalence and harmfulness of both 

government and business 

impersonation. No commenter 

expressed the view that the Commission 

should not commence the rulemaking. 

Commenters also offered suggestions for 

the Commission’s consideration in 

drafting the proposed rule and other 

recommendations in furtherance of the 

proposed rulemaking. 

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Based on an extensive review of the 

comments received in response to the 

ANPR, the Commission’s own history of 

enforcement, and other considerations 

that occurred after the ANPR’s 

publication,3 the Commission published 

the NPRM on October 17, 2022.4 In the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15018 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

NPRM, the Commission stated it has 

reason to believe impersonation of 

government, businesses, and their 

officials or agents is prevalent.5 The 

Commission identified no disputed 

issues of material fact based on the 

comment record; explained its 

considerations in developing the 

proposed rule; solicited additional 

public comment thereon, including 

posing specific questions designed to 

assist the public in submitting 

comment; and provided interested 

parties the opportunity to request to 

present their position orally at an 

informal hearing.6 Finally, the NPRM 

set out the Commission’s proposed rule. 

In response to the NPRM, the 

Commission received 78 comments 

from entities and individuals interested 

in the proposed rule, discussed in 

Section III.7 Although some raised 

concerns and recommended specific 

modifications or additions to the 

Commission’s proposal, the majority 

generally supported the rule proposed 

in the NPRM. Two commenters timely 

submitted requests for interested parties 

to make an oral statement at an informal 

hearing.8

C. Notice of Informal Public Hearing 

On March 30, 2023, the Commission 

published an Initial Notice of Informal 

Hearing (‘‘Notice of Hearing’’).9 The 

Notice designated the Commission’s 

Chief Administrative Law Judge, D. 

Michael Chappell, to serve as the 

presiding officer of the informal hearing 

and stated that any member of the 

public wishing to speak at the informal 

hearing or make a documentary 

submission to be placed on the public 

rulemaking record (or both) should 

submit a comment on or before April 14, 

2023.10

On May 4, 2023, Chief Judge Chappell 

presided over the informal hearing 

using video conferencing, which 

enabled the public to watch live from 

the Commission’s website, https://

www.ftc.gov. Because there were no 

disputed issues of material fact to 

resolve, the informal hearing included 

no cross examination or rebuttal 

submissions, and the presiding officer 

made no recommended decision. The 

informal hearing included oral 

statements from 14 interested parties.11

The majority of commenters who 

presented oral statements at the 

informal hearing or filed documentary 

submissions generally expressed strong 

support for the Commission’s proposed 

rule.12 Several commenters, however, 

also expressed concern that the 

proposed rule language does not explain 

the circumstances under which the 

Commission would apply proposed 

§ 461.4, which would prohibit providing 

the means and instrumentalities to 

commit violations of government and 

business impersonation. Some 

suggested alternative language imposing 

a scienter requirement to narrow the 

scope of this provision, discussed in 

Section III.D. 

In crafting the final rule, the 

Commission has carefully considered 

the comments received in response to 

the NPRM and on the rulemaking 

record, which includes the oral 

statements and documentary 

submissions in response to the Notice of 

Hearing. The final rule contains some 

changes from the proposed rule. These 

modifications, discussed in detail in 

Section III, are based upon input from 

commenters and careful consideration 

of relevant law. Section III also 

discusses commenters’ 

recommendations that the Commission 

declined to adopt, along with the 

Commission’s reasons for rejecting 

them. Accordingly, the Commission 

adopts the proposed rule with limited 

modifications as discussed below. The 

rule will take effect April 1, 2024. 

II. The Legal Standard for Promulgating 

the Rule 

The Commission is promulgating 16 

CFR part 461 pursuant to section 18 of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’), 

and Part 1, subpart B of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice.13 This 

authority permits the Commission to 

promulgate, modify, and repeal trade 

regulation rules that define with 

specificity acts or practices that are 

unfair or deceptive in or affecting 

commerce within the meaning of 

section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

45(a)(1). 

The Commission’s Rules of Practice 

further provide that if the Commission 

determines to promulgate a rule, it will 

adopt a SBP, which must address three 

factors: (1) The prevalence of the acts or 

practices addressed by the rule; (2) the 

manner and context in which the acts or 

practices are unfair or deceptive; and (3) 

the economic effect of the rule, taking 

into account the effect on small 

businesses and consumers.14 In this 

section of the preamble, the 

Commission summarizes its findings 

regarding each of these factors. 

A. Prevalence of Acts or Practices 

Addressed by the Rule 

In its ANPR, the Commission cited 

public data from the Consumer Sentinel 

Network database and described its 

enforcement record, demonstrating 

government and business impersonation 

scams are not only highly prevalent but 

increasingly harmful.15 In the NPRM, 

the Commission also took notice of 

additional indications of prevalence that 

came after the ANPR’s publication.16

Specifically, the NPRM cited data from 

a broad spectrum of commenters 

(businesses, trade associations, and 

government or law-enforcement 

organizations) regarding the prevalence 

of government and business 

impersonation scams, which echoed the 

Commission’s findings that these 

schemes are among the most common 

deceptive or unfair practices affecting 

U.S. consumers and businesses and 

continue to be a significant source of 

consumer injury.17

B. Manner and Context in Which the 

Acts or Practices Are Deceptive or 

Unfair 

A representation, omission, or 

practice is deceptive if it is material and 

likely to mislead a consumer acting 

reasonably under the circumstances.18

The most frequent allegations in the 

Commission’s enforcement actions 

involving government and business 

impersonation pertain to defendants 

tricking consumers to pay money or 

disclose personal information by 

making, expressly or by implication, 

statements that misrepresent the 

defendants’ identity.19 Nearly as 

frequent are allegations of 

misrepresentations concerning 

defendants’ affiliation with, 

endorsement or approval by, or other 

association with a government or 

business. The Commission has further 

found false threats of severe 

consequences and promises of benefits 

are additional deceptive tactics 

deployed by government and business 

impersonators. In the Commission’s 

experience, such claims regarding 

identity, affiliation, or endorsement are 

material to consumers making their 

decision to trust impersonators. The 

numerous government and business 

impersonation complaints consumers 

submit to the Commission each year, as 

well as comments submitted in 

connection with this rulemaking 

proceeding, consistently reference these 

same concerns. Accordingly, the 

specific practices described in the 

preamble to the proposed rule reflect 

the type of conduct most commonly 

associated with deceptive and unfair 

practices pertaining to government and 

business impersonation.20

C. The Economic Effect of the Rule 

As part of the rulemaking proceeding, 

the Commission solicited comment and 

data (both qualitative and quantitative) 

on the economic impact of the proposed 

rule and its costs and benefits.21 In 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15019 

issuing the final rule, the Commission 

has carefully considered the comments 

received and the costs and benefits of 

each provision, as discussed in more 

detail below in Section VI. The record 

demonstrates the most significant 

anticipated benefit of the final rule is 

the Commission’s ability to obtain 

monetary relief. This is particularly 

critical because that ability was 

curtailed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

decision in AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. 

FTC, which holds that equitable 

monetary relief, including consumer 

redress, is not available under section 

13(b) of the FTC Act.22 Further, 

obtaining monetary relief based on 

violations of the final rule under section 

19(b) of the FTC Act will be 

significantly faster than obtaining such 

relief under section 19(a)(2) without a 

rule violation.23 By enabling the 

Commission to obtain monetary relief 

more efficiently, the final rule would 

also reduce the expenditure of 

Commission resources.24 As an 

additional benefit, the rule enables the 

Commission to obtain civil penalties 

against violators.25 The final rule also 

provides a benefit to businesses through 

increased deterrence of business 

impersonators, which reduces 

businesses’ expenditure of resources 

associated with monitoring for and 

addressing impersonation.26 Moreover, 

as the record and the Commission’s law 

enforcement experience demonstrate, 

the final rule is unlikely to impose costs 

on any honest business, and may 

increase deterrence of impersonation 

scams, which would benefit consumers 

through a reduction in their total 

financial losses from these schemes.27

III. Response to Comments 

The Commission received 78 

comments in response to the NPRM 

from a diverse group of individuals, 

industry groups and trade associations, 

consumer organizations, and 

government agencies.28 The 

Commission received 28 comments in 

response to the Notice of Hearing, 

including oral presentations from 14 

commenters.29 Commenters generally 

supported the proposed rule, 

recognizing the Commission’s authority 

to protect consumers from the 

increasing number of government and 

business impersonation frauds targeting 

consumers. 

In the NPRM, the Commission invited 

comment on any issues or concerns the 

public believes are relevant or 

appropriate to the Commission’s 

consideration of the proposed rule.30

The NPRM also posed eight specific 

questions for the public.31 Some of these 

questions relate to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’) and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (‘‘RFA’’), and are 

addressed in Sections V and VI, 

respectively.32 The other questions, 

along with common issues or concerns 

relevant to the Commission’s 

consideration of the proposed rule 

outside of the specific questions, are 

addressed in this section of the 

preamble. 

A. Finalizing the Proposed Rule as a 

Final Rule 

In Question 1 of the NPRM, the 

Commission asked whether it should 

finalize the proposed rule as a final rule, 

and how, if at all, it should change the 

proposed rule in promulgating the final 

rule.33 The majority of commenters did 

not express a clear view regarding 

whether the Commission should adopt 

the proposed rule as final. Many of 

these commenters, however, did share 

their experience regarding the 

prevalence and harmfulness of various 

kinds of government and business 

impersonation frauds.34 Some of these 

commenters complained more generally 

about various non-impersonation 

scams.35 The majority of commenters 

that addressed Question 1 of the NPRM 

were substantially supportive of the 

proposed rule, but stopped short of 

urging the Commission to finalize the 

text of the proposed rule without 

modification. These commenters 

typically recommended either 

broadening or narrowing the scope or 

text of the rule in response to other 

specific questions asked in the NPRM or 

relevant to the Commission’s 

consideration of the proposed rule.36

Six commenters explicitly addressed 

the Commission’s question regarding 

finalizing the proposed rule as a final 

rule, and without recommending 

additional modifications to the text of 

the proposed rule, urged the 

Commission to do so.37 Some of these 

commenters stated the proposed rule is 

in the public interest because it would 

allow for civil penalties against 

government and business 

impersonators, provide redress for 

victims of impersonation scams, and 

deter future bad acts.38

Several government agencies and 

trade associations explained how the 

proposed rule would benefit them, their 

members, or the people they serve. The 

United States Patent and Trademark 

Office (‘‘USPTO’’) described its 

experience of agency impersonation, 

and stated that reliance on the FTC’s 

enforcement capabilities through such a 

rule would allow the USPTO to 

conserve and allocate its resources to 

different enforcement efforts that impact 

the USPTO and its stakeholders.39

Similarly, the Marine Retailers 

Association of the Americas (‘‘MRAA’’), 

a trade association representing marine 

retailers, argued the benefits associated 

with finalizing the proposed rule would 

reduce the financial burden on 

businesses and improve trust among 

consumers.40 The United States 

Copyright Office (‘‘USCO’’) expressed 

support for finalizing the proposed rule, 

arguing that doing so would allow the 

Commission to move more quickly to 

put a stop to impersonation scams.41

The USPTO and the USCO explained 

they do not have law enforcement 

authority to remedy the harms resulting 

from bad actors impersonating the 

agencies, and USCO argued the 

proposed rule would foster public trust 

in the copyright system.42 The Cellular 

Telecommunications and internet 

Association (‘‘CTIA’’), a trade 

association for wireless service 

providers, argued in favor of finalizing 

the proposed rule because its scope is 

‘‘targeted and judicious,’’ and 

appropriately focused on the bad actors 

that harm consumers.43

Somos, Inc., which manages registry 

databases for the telecommunications 

industry, stated it ‘‘strongly supports the 

Commission’s proposed rules,’’ but 

suggested the Commission explicitly 

clarify that spoofing a telephone number 

of a business or government entity to aid 

in that impersonation violates the rule.44

The Commission is not persuaded that 

explicitly stating telephone spoofing, or 

any specific type of government or 

business impersonation, constitutes a 

violation of the rule is necessary.45

Moreover, the Telemarketing Sales Rule 

(‘‘TSR’’) already bars telemarketers from 

‘‘failing to transmit. . .the telephone 

number and. . .the name of the 

telemarketer to any caller identification 

service in use by a recipient of a 

telemarketing call.’’ 46 By definition, a 

spoofed telephone number is not the 

number of the telemarketer, and the 

Commission can rely on this prohibition 

to bring an enforcement action for 

violation of the TSR against a 

telemarketer that uses a spoofed 

number. 

The Commission also received several 

comments that identified the lack of 

access to accurate information 

concerning domain name registrants 

(commonly known as ‘‘WHOIS’’ data) as 

a significant impediment to combatting 

the use of domain names to impersonate 

government and businesses.47 These 

commenters expressed support for 

expanding the text or scope of the final 

rule to address this issue.48 In 

particular, a few commenters urged the 

Commission to issue a final rule that 

requires domain name registrars to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15020 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

collect, verify, maintain, and disclose 

accurate WHOIS data to the FTC and 

third-party victims on request for such 

information based on credible evidence 

of impersonation fraud.49 The Coalition 

for Online Accountability (‘‘COA’’), a 

group advocating for online 

transparency and accountability, argued 

‘‘[t]here is no justification for the 

redaction of data of legal person 

registrants or the overwhelming denial 

of reasonable access to personal WHOIS 

data for legitimate third-party 

interests. . ..’’ 50 Both the Messaging 

Malware Mobile Anti-Abuse Working 

Group (‘‘M3AAWG’’) and the AntiPhishing Working Group (‘‘APWG’’) 

also suggested the Commission 

encourage Domain Name System 

(‘‘DNS’’) registries and registrars to 

engage in DNS mitigation and 

frequently impersonated entities to 

participate as ‘‘trusted notifiers’’ to 

address fraudulently registered domain 

names.51

The Commission declines to adopt 

commenters’ suggestion that the final 

rule expressly reference in 

accompanying examples the use of 

domain names in impersonation 

schemes. Rather, the Commission here 

repeats what it previously stated in the 

NPRM and earlier in this SBP, that the 

following list of examples of conduct 

covered by the prohibition on the 

impersonation of government and 

businesses was intended to be 

illustrative, not exhaustive: (1) calling, 

messaging, or otherwise contacting an 

individual or entity while posing as a 

government or an officer or agent or 

affiliate or endorsee thereof, including 

by identifying a government or officer 

by name or by implication; (2) sending 

physical mail through any carrier using 

addresses, government seals or 

lookalikes, or other identifying insignia 

of a government or officer thereof; (3) 

creating a website or other electronic 

service impersonating the name, 

government seal, or identifying insignia 

of a government or officer thereof or 

using ‘‘.gov’’ or any lookalike, such as 

‘‘govusa.com’’; (4) creating or spoofing 

an email address using ‘‘.gov’’ or any 

lookalike; (5) placing advertisements 

that pose as a government or officer 

thereof against search queries for 

government services; (6) using a 

government seal on a building, 

letterhead, website, email, vehicle, or 

other physical or digital place; (7) 

calling, messaging, or otherwise 

contacting an individual or entity while 

posing as a business or an officer or 

agent or affiliate or endorsee thereof, 

including by naming a business by 

name or by implication, such as ‘‘card 

member services’’ or ‘‘the car 

dealership’’; (8) sending physical mail 

through any carrier using addresses, 

seals, logos, or other identifying insignia 

of a business or officer thereof; (9) 

creating a website or other electronic 

service impersonating the name, logo, 

insignia, or mark of a business or a close 

facsimile or keystroke error, such as 

‘‘ntyimes.com,’’ ‘‘rnicrosoft.com,’’ 

‘‘microsoft.biz,’’ or 

‘‘carnegiehall.tixsales.com’’; (10) 

creating or spoofing an email address 

that impersonates a business; (11) 

placing advertisements that pose as a 

business or officer thereof against search 

queries for business services; and (12) 

using, without authorization, a 

business’s mark on a building, 

letterhead, website, email, vehicle, or 

other physical or digital place.52

Accordingly, the Commission finds the 

final rule is drafted with sufficient 

clarity and flexibility to address the 

unauthorized use of internet identifiers, 

including but not limited to domain 

names. 

Only one commenter suggested in 

response to Question 1 of the NPRM 

that the proposed rule should not be 

finalized.53 The Americans for 

Prosperity Foundation (‘‘AFPF’’), a 

501(c)(3) nonpartisan education 

organization, argued the Commission 

should ‘‘abandon its Section 18 

rulemaking ambitions, instead 

refocusing its efforts on case-by-case 

enforcement actions in federal court in 

cases involving concrete harm to 

consumers.’’ 54

The Commission disagrees with the 

AFPF’s suggestion that the section 18 

rulemaking process is too difficult or 

unwieldy to address many of the unfair 

or deceptive acts or practices prevalent 

in commerce. In 1975, Congress passed 

the Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal 

Trade Commission Improvement Act 

laying out specific procedures for the 

promulgation of ‘‘Trade Regulation 

Rules’’ to protect consumers in a 

dynamic and changing economic 

landscape.55 The Commission’s 

regulations at 16 CFR part 1, subpart B, 

respect the underlying statutory 

requirements of section 18, which 

provide ample transparency and 

opportunity for public participation in 

the promulgation of Trade Regulation 

Rules. The Commission intends 

therefore to fulfill its mission to protect 

against unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in or affecting commerce and 

to provide consumers and businesses 

with due process, clarity, and 

transparency while crafting the rules to 

do so. Accordingly, the Commission 

rightfully responds to Congress’s grant 

of authority by initiating this 

rulemaking. 

The AFPF also expressed various 

criticisms specific to the language of the 

proposed rule and recommended 

several suggested revisions discussed in 

greater detail in Sections III.C and III.D 

below. 

Following review of all comments and 

careful consideration of the relevant 

law, the final rule issued by the 

Commission contains some minor 

changes from the proposed rule, as 

discussed in Section III. 

B. Relevant Evidence Regarding 

Provisions of the Proposed Rule, 

Prevalence, Impact and Alternative 

Proposals 

In the ANPR, the Commission asked 

specific questions about the prevalence 

of impersonation fraud, and requested 

the data source commenters relied upon 

for formulating their answer(s).56 The 

ANPR also asked specific questions 

regarding how to craft a proposed rule 

to maximize the benefits to consumers 

and minimize the costs to businesses, 

and what alternatives to regulations the 

Commission should consider in 

addressing impersonation frauds.57 In 

Question 2 of the NPRM, the 

Commission posed these same or nearly 

identical specific questions regarding 

each different provision of the proposed 

rule.58 Six commenters specifically 

addressed these questions.59 Each of 

these commenters described various 

types of government and business 

impersonation scams common to their 

own experience or industry in support 

of their view that such frauds are highly 

prevalent.60 For example, the Toy 

Association noted various business 

impersonation scams experienced by its 

members, including counterfeit or noncompliant toys, falsified documents 

regarding endorsement and affiliation 

related to counterfeit toys, false 

solicitation and phishing schemes 

collecting customer information, and 

domain impersonation.61 Similarly, the 

USPTO and USCO described several 

examples of government impersonation 

scams involving the trademark and 

copyright registration processes, 

respectively, and included illustrative 

examples as attachments with their 

public comment.62

Other commenters particularly 

concerned with online business 

impersonation cited data from studies or 

reports regarding trends in these kinds 

of impersonation frauds, and recent 

examples of phishing attacks against 

consumers through the impersonation of 

recognized online companies in support 

of their arguments regarding 

prevalence.63 A small number of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15021 

commenters addressed the impact 

(including any benefits and costs) on 

consumers, governments, and 

businesses, discussed in more detail in 

Section VI. 

Only one commenter suggested an 

alternative proposal for the 

Commission’s consideration.64

Specifically, the M3AAWG 

recommended as an alternative to the 

means and instrumentalities provision 

in proposed § 461.4 that the 

Commission ‘‘identify best practices or 

safe harbors to incentivize prompt 

mitigation efforts and sound verification 

techniques’’ to address the use of 

domain names in business 

impersonation schemes.65 M3AAWG 

argued this alternative to regulation 

would avoid the risk of inadvertently 

imposing ‘‘secondary or intermediary 

liability against legitimate businesses, 

technologies or services’’ exploited by 

impersonators.66

Upon review of the comments 

received in response to Question 2 of 

the NPRM, the Commission concludes 

such comments support its own 

findings that government and business 

impersonation schemes are both 

prevalent and harmful. The Commission 

declines at this time to adopt 

M3AAWG’s alternative proposal for 

§ 461.4. As discussed in Section III.D, 

the Commission is continuing to review 

comments and records relevant to the 

means and instrumentalities provision 

in proposed § 461.4 to determine 

whether additional action or protections 

are warranted and is requesting 

additional public comment through a 

SNPRM, published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register. 

C. Clarity of Prohibitions Against 

Impersonation of Government & 

Businesses 

In Question 5 of the NPRM, the 

Commission solicited comment 

regarding whether the proposed rule’s 

one-sentence prohibitions against 

impersonation of government in § 461.2 

and against impersonation of businesses 

in § 461.3 are clear and unambiguous, 

and how, if at all, they should be 

improved.67 The Commission received 

several comments that addressed this 

question directly 68 or indirectly.69 Two 

commenters considered the onesentence prohibitions to be clear and 

unambiguous and/or deferred to the 

Commission’s construction, but 

suggested certain additions or 

modifications.70 For example, the USCO 

suggested the Commission consider 

whether the definition of ‘‘officer,’’ 

which covers representatives of both 

governments and businesses, should be 

bifurcated into two separate and more 

specific terms to define representatives 

of governments and businesses, 

respectively.71 No other commenter 

suggested a revision to the definitions in 

proposed § 461.1. The USPTO suggested 

the Commission broaden the exemplary 

‘‘list of matter’’ used to impersonate a 

government to specifically reference 

‘‘logos.’’ 72 In support of this 

recommendation, the USPTO noted ‘‘the 

use of logos’’ was explicitly identified in 

the NPRM’s examples of unlawful 

conduct that would be covered by the 

prohibition against business 

impersonation in proposed § 461.3, but 

not in the NPRM’s examples of unlawful 

conduct that would be covered by the 

prohibition of government 

impersonation in proposed § 461.2. The 

USPTO further asserted government 

agencies also ‘‘use logos in addition to 

official seals and insignia,’’ and 

provided an illustrative example of 

impersonators misusing the USPTO’s 

logo.73

Three commenters indicated the 

language of proposed §§ 461.2 and 461.3 

was vague or provided inadequate 

guidance, and warranted modification.74

Some commenters raised constitutional 

concerns based on the purported 

overbreadth of the one-sentence 

prohibitions.75 These commenters’ 

constitutional arguments addressed two 

primary considerations: (1) whether the 

proposed rule provides due process 

notice; 76 and (2) whether it encroaches 

upon free speech protected under the 

First Amendment.77 The AFPF stated 

the proposed rule is an ‘‘open-ended 

regulation,’’ arguing it ‘‘fails to provide 

constitutionally adequate notice of 

required or prohibited conduct’’ and 

otherwise falls short of section 18’s 

specificity requirements.78 Other 

commenters wary of inadvertent 

intrusions on protected speech asserted 

any final prohibition should exempt 

innocent behavior such as parody 79 and 

non-commercial or otherwise legitimate 

speech.80

In his documentary submission in 

response to the Notice of Informal 

Hearing, William MacLeod echoed 

concerns he previously expressed in 

response to the NPRM that the language 

in proposed §§ 461.2 and 461.3 

‘‘depart[s] from the standards of 

deception that the Commission applies 

under Section 5.’’ 81 MacLeod noted 

that: ‘‘[i]ts terms do not include 

‘deception’ or ‘fraud’ or critical 

elements of the FTC’s deception policy 

statement.’’ 82 He raised additional 

concerns about ‘‘impersonations and 

affiliations [that] can be false, but also 

unbelievable.’’ 83 MacLeod argued that 

the prohibitions, as written, are too 

broad and would proscribe nondeceptive acts or practices, such as 

‘‘fictional depictions’’ in television 

advertisements.84

Raising First Amendment concerns, 

the AFPF similarly asserted that the 

proposed rule’s ‘‘falsely pose as’’ 

language, ‘‘read literally,’’ would 

impose civil penalties on ‘‘utterly 

innocuous conduct’’ and ‘‘would appear 

to make it unlawful for anyone to dress 

up as an FTC Commissioner, politicians, 

or . . . a Microsoft executive and attend 

a Halloween party.’’ 85 It also expressed 

concern that the proposed prohibitions 

did not require ‘‘materiality,’’ 

‘‘consumer harm,’’ or ‘‘connection to 

interstate commerce.’’ 86 Several 

commenters suggested alternative 

language to cure what they perceived to 

be the overbreadth of the prohibition 

provisions. For example, M3AAWG 

recommended that the final rule adopt 

a definition of ‘‘impersonation’’ that 

mirrors the definition of ‘‘criminal 

impersonation’’ in 18 U.S.C. Chapter 

43.87 M3AAWG asserted that such a 

definition would narrow the scope of 

the rule to cover only those bad actors 

with ‘‘clear intent and specific 

knowledge’’ of prohibited acts. 

MacLeod proposed narrowing the 

focus of the final rule by adopting 

language that specifies particular 

prohibited practices or the mens rea of 

its intended targets.88 The AFPF agreed 

with MacLeod and suggested that the 

Commission revise the proposed rule to 

‘‘explicitly incorporate Section 5’s 

statutory prohibition . . . [and] 

requirements set forth in the 

Commission’s Deception Statement.’’ 89

After analyzing and considering the 

comments, the Commission is 

persuaded that the language of the final 

rule should adhere more closely to the 

language of section 5 of the FTC Act to 

avoid any potential confusion about the 

scope of the rule. The Commission 

believes that these revisions sufficiently 

address some commenters’ concerns 

that the language of the proposed rule 

put it in conflict with Due Process 

requirements and the First Amendment. 

The Commission emphasizes that it 

does not intend for the final rule to 

regulate non-commercial speech. To 

adhere more closely to the language of 

section 5 of the FTC Act and case law, 

the Commission has revised the final 

regulatory text to incorporate relevant 

language from section 5. Specifically, 

the Commission has replaced 

‘‘unlawful’’ with ‘‘unfair or deceptive 

act or practice,’’ and added ‘‘materially’’ 

and ‘‘in or affecting commerce’’ in 

§§ 461.2 and 461.3. These changes make 

it abundantly clear that the scope of the 

final regulatory text is coterminous with 

the scope of the FTC’s authority under 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15022 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the FTC Act, and they clearly specify 

the misconduct prohibited by the final 

rule. Accordingly, false impersonations 

or misrepresentations that are not 

material to a commercial transaction, 

such as impersonation in purely artistic 

or recreational costumery or 

impersonation in connection with 

political or other non-commercial 

speech, are not covered by the final rule. 

The Commission concludes that it is 

unnecessary to divide the definition of 

‘‘officer’’ into two separate terms as 

suggested by the USCO. Section 461.1 

defines ‘‘officer’’ to ‘‘include[ ] 

executives, officials, employees, and 

agents,’’ which the Commission believes 

appropriately describes and covers both 

government and business 

representatives. 

As previously stated, the NPRM’s list 

of examples of prohibited conduct 

covered by the rule is intended to be 

illustrative, not exhaustive, and 

therefore, the Commission declines to 

adopt the USPTO’s suggestion that it 

enlarge that exemplary ‘‘list of matter.’’ 

Rather, the Commission maintains that 

not including specific prohibitions in 

the regulatory text provides it with 

sufficient flexibility to address the many 

types of ‘‘matter’’ (including objects, 

items, logos, insignia, etc.) used to 

impersonate governments and 

businesses alike, which are too 

numerous to list. 

The Commission declines to adopt a 

definition of ‘‘impersonation’’ that 

reflects a criminal regulatory scheme as 

proposed by M3AAWG. The FTC Act 

does not include a mens rea 

requirement, and there is no evidence in 

the record that the imposition of such a 

requirement is warranted. Furthermore, 

while intent is not required under the 

rule or the FTC Act, in any action 

seeking civil penalties for violation of 

the rule, the Commission will need to 

establish ‘‘actual knowledge or 

knowledge fairly implied on the basis of 

objective circumstances that such act is 

unfair or deceptive and is prohibited by 

such rule.’’ 90

The Commission rejects the 

recommendation by both MacLeod and 

AFPF to incorporate the FTC Deception 

Policy Statement into the final rule. 

Nevertheless, as discussed earlier in this 

Section III.C, informed by MacLeod’s 

and AFPF’s comments, the Commission 

has revised the regulatory text of 

§§ 461.2 and 461.3 to mirror the 

language of section 5 of the FTC Act 

more closely. In particular, the reference 

to ‘‘unfair or deceptive act or practice,’’ 

and the inclusion of materiality and 

interstate commerce requirements 

should address commenters’ concerns 

that this rule might be read to cover 

impersonation in connection with 

artistic costumery, parody, or other noncommercial speech.91 The Commission 

further notes that, by the terms of these 

sections, a court must find that the 

alleged defendant made an express or 

implied misrepresentation regarding 

material information for §§ 461.2 and 

461.3 to be violated. For an express or 

implied misrepresentation regarding 

material information to be made in 

violation of the FTC Act and this rule, 

there must be a representation that 

misleads consumers acting reasonably 

under the circumstances regarding 

material information. Thus, while the 

Commission rejects the 

recommendation by both MacLeod and 

AFPF to incorporate the FTC Deception 

Policy Statement into the final rule, by 

incorporating the changes above, the 

Commission has ensured that the final 

rule is consistent with the Deception 

Policy Statement, is consistent with 

other relevant Commission rules, and 

provides further specificity regarding 

the prohibited acts and practices under 

section 5 of the FTC Act. 

D. Prohibition Against Providing Means 

and Instrumentalities 

In Question 6 of the NPRM, the 

Commission asked whether the final 

rule should contain the prohibition in 

proposed § 461.4 against providing the 

means and instrumentalities for 

violations against government or 

business impersonation. The 

Commission received more than 20 

comments that expressly addressed this 

question.92 Many of the sentiments 

reflected in these comments were also 

echoed by several commenters that 

presented oral statements in response to 

the Notice of Informal Hearing.93A few 

commenters arguing for the importance 

of holding intermediaries accountable 

for enabling or promoting 

impersonation schemes encouraged the 

Commission to finalize the text of the 

proposed provision without 

modification.94 These commenters 

specifically argued that finalizing the 

proposed § 461.4 could help to combat 

impersonation schemes perpetrated by 

foreign-based scammers—beyond U.S. 

court jurisdiction—that obtain services 

from U.S.-based instrumentalities, such 

as payment processors and internet 

service providers.95

Addressing means and 

instrumentality liability, both the AFPF 

and MacLeod reiterated their concerns 

referenced in Section III.C, regarding 

section 18’s specificity requirements, 

due process notice, free speech, and 

conformity to the FTC’s Deception 

Policy Statement.96 Most commenters 

who addressed Question 6 expressed 

support for means and instrumentalities 

liability, but with some concern or 

suggested modifications. Some 

supportive commenters cautioned that 

the proposed means and 

instrumentalities provision could be 

read too broadly.97 Others expressed the 

concern that without a specific scienter 

or knowledge requirement, the proposed 

rule provision runs the risk of imposing 

strict liability against innocent and 

unwitting third-party providers of 

services or products.98 Accordingly, 

several commenters urged the 

Commission to clarify the scope of 

means and instrumentalities liability or 

explicitly include a specific knowledge 

requirement in the final rule 

provision.99

For example, the Consumer 

Technology Association (‘‘CTA’’), a 

trade association representing the U.S. 

consumer technology industry, stated 

that the Commission’s explanation and 

examples of the ‘‘means and 

instrumentalities’’ provision in the 

NPRM seem to limit its applicability, 

but such limitation ‘‘is not squarely 

reflected in the text of the proposed 

rule.’’ 100 The CTA therefore urged the 

FTC to clarify that ‘‘means and 

instrumentalities’’ liability applies only 

‘‘to entities that have knowledge or 

consciously avoid knowing that they are 

making representations being used to 

commit impersonation fraud.’’ 

USTelecom, a trade association 

representing the broadband technology 

industry, argued that a discrepancy 

exists between the case law, the NPRM’s 

discussion of means and instrumentality 

liability, and the proposed rule 

provision. It urged the Commission to 

‘‘adjust the proposed language in § 461.4 

to codify the requirement that the 

person has knowledge or reason to 

expect it is providing the means and 

instrumentalities . . .’’ (emphasis in 

original).101 Similarly, the American Bar 

Association Section of Intellectual 

Property Law suggested that the 

Commission ‘‘explicitly include [in 

§ 461.4] the language referenced in the 

[NPRM] from Shell Oil Co., 128 F.T.C. 

749 (1999)—acting with ‘knowledge or 

reason to expect that consumers may 

possibly be deceived as a result.’ ’’ 102

Other commenters argued that 

inclusion of a scienter requirement is a 

necessary but not sufficient 

modification of the proposed language 

to impose means and instrumentalities 

liability. For example, the internet & 

Television Association (‘‘NCTA’’), a 

trade association for the United States 

cable television industry, argued that 

such ‘‘liability requires both providing 

deceptive means and instrumentalities, 

e.g., providing false or misleading 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15023 

claims or counterfeit items, and actual 

knowledge that the deceptive 

representations or goods will be used to 

commit impersonation violations’’ 

(emphasis in original).103 Likewise, 

M3AAWG advocated that, in addition to 

a ‘‘knowledge or reason-to-know test,’’ 

primary liability under a revised § 461.4 

should also require that the provision of 

such means and instrumentalities be 

done willfully or in bad faith, and with 

clear intent and specific knowledge.104

A few commenters urged the 

Commission to adopt a final rule that 

explicitly recognizes specific or defined 

‘‘means and instrumentality’’ violations 

perpetrated in connection with 

impersonation frauds, such as the use of 

legal process documents 105 or 

manipulated media technologies (i.e., 

deepfakes) 106 or failure to disclose 

WHOIS data.107

Based upon the comments received 

on the proposed provision regarding 

means and instrumentalities, the 

Commission has decided that this 

specific provision warrants further 

analysis and consideration; thus, the 

Commission has decided not to finalize 

proposed § 461.4. The Commission is 

not aware of any other rule, whether 

issued pursuant to section 18 or APA 

rulemaking authority, that identifies a 

means and instrumentalities violation. 

The Commission notes that it has used 

means and instrumentalities allegations 

as a type of deception to establish 

primary liability in the absence of 

privity between the defendant and the 

deceived persons, albeit rarely, in 

connection with matters that involve 

impersonation.108 Pending further 

analysis and consideration, the 

Commission declines to adopt proposed 

§ 461.4 at this time. The Commission is 

still considering the provision regarding 

means and instrumentalities, as well as 

issues related to the impersonation of 

individuals or entities other than 

governments and business in interstate 

commerce and is requesting public 

comment through a Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘SNPRM’’), published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register. 

E. Inclusion of Prohibition Against 

Impersonating Nonprofits 

In response to the ANPR, the 

Commission received a number of 

comments that urged the Commission to 

include ‘‘nonprofit’’ entities in the 

proposed rule’s definition of businesses 

that can be impersonated.109 The 

Commission agreed with these 

comments, and consequently, defined a 

‘‘business’’ that may be impersonated to 

include nonprofits in § 461.1 of the 

proposed rule, notwithstanding the fact 

that the Commission is authorized to 

sue a corporation only when the 

corporation is ‘‘organized to carry on 

business for its own profit or that of its 

members.’’ 110 As the Commission 

explained in the NPRM, the reason for 

doing so is because for profit businesses 

may impersonate nonprofit business.111

In Question 7 of the NPRM, the 

Commission solicited comment 

regarding whether any final rule should 

keep the prohibition against 

impersonating nonprofit 

organizations.112 The Commission 

received more than a dozen comments 

that specifically addressed this 

question, and each of them expressed 

support for a final rule keeping the 

prohibition against impersonating 

nonprofits.113 None of the comments 

responding to the NPRM or Notice of 

Hearing opposed doing so. The vast 

majority of commenters who addressed 

this question were themselves nonprofit 

organizations operating as trade 

associations, and referenced their own 

experience with impersonation frauds 

in support of a final rule keeping the 

prohibition against impersonating 

nonprofits.114 Several commenters 

expressed the view that nonprofits are 

often the subject of impersonation 

scams in the same way as for profit 

businesses and government agencies.115

Other commenters asserted that 

impersonation of nonprofits could be 

uniquely harmful because bad actors 

‘‘prey[ ] on the goodwill of individuals 

attempting to make donations, and 

misappropriate[ ] those donations to 

corrupt private actions.’’ 116 Some 

commenters noted that nonprofits are 

particularly susceptible to being 

impersonated in scams involving 

affiliation or endorsement claims 

because nonprofits often offer awards or 

seals of approval.117

Finally, two commenters cited 

trademark law in support of keeping 

nonprofits in the definition of business 

and a final rule that includes the 

prohibition against impersonating 

nonprofits. Specifically, both INTA and 

the Toy Association stated that 

trademark law has ‘‘long recognized that 

the misuse of names of non-profit 

organizations can lead to harmful 

consumer confusion.’’ 118 In INTA’s and 

the Toy Association’s view, the same 

applies with respect to impersonation 

schemes; thus, the final rule should also 

make no distinction between for profit 

and nonprofit businesses. 

Based upon the record, including 

public comments in response to 

Question 7 of the NPRM, the 

Commission has determined that the 

final rule will retain the definition of 

‘‘business’’ in § 461.1 that includes 

nonprofits and the prohibition against 

impersonating nonprofit organizations 

in § 461.3. 

F. Inclusion of Individuals or Entities 

Other Than Government and Business 

Impersonators 

In the NPRM, the Commission asked 

whether the proposed rule should be 

expanded to address the impersonation 

of individuals or entities other than 

governments and business in interstate 

commerce.119 The NPRM identified 

romance and grandparent 

impersonation scams as illustrative, but 

non-exhaustive, examples of other types 

of impersonation fraud, and solicited 

further comment regarding their 

prevalence and impact, and alternative 

proposals to regulation. Six commenters 

specifically addressed these questions, 

and each of them stated that the 

Commission should expand the reach of 

the proposed rule to extend beyond 

government and business 

impersonators.120 Some commenters 

asserted that fraudsters often 

impersonate individuals in similar ways 

they impersonate government and 

businesses.121 In support of expanding 

the rule, several commenters argued that 

romance and grandparent 

impersonation scams were harmful and 

prevalent, citing to data from the FTC 

and other sources showing a steady 

increase in the number of consumer 

reports and median individual losses for 

such scams.122 A comment submitted by 

a group of students at Rutgers Law 

School asserted that older consumers 

are susceptible to ‘‘interpersonal 

confidence fraud and romance scams’’ 

and provided relevant data 

demonstrating that older consumers 

may be more likely to fall victim to 

these kinds of impersonation than to 

government impersonation.123 Several 

commenters also stated that while the 

number of reports of these two types of 

impersonation scams are not as high as 

government and business 

impersonation, they are likely 

underreported, and that median 

individual losses are often higher.124

The AARP stated that, ‘‘[o]f all fraud 

activity, romance scams and scams 

impersonating a family member in 

trouble are the most insidious, given the 

emotional devastation that combines 

with often significant financial 

losses.’’ 125 A joint comment submitted 

by several consumer and privacy 

advocacy organizations argued that such 

evidence ‘‘should be sufficient 

justification’’ for the Commission to 

‘‘add a subsection to proposed Section 

461 to cover ‘Impersonation of 

Individuals.’ ’’ 126


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15024 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

A few commenters discussed the 

prevalence and harmfulness of other 

kinds of impersonation scams as 

support for expanding the rule beyond 

government and businesses to include 

individuals. For example, the NCTA 

stated that its member companies had 

observed an increase in sophisticated 

residential IP address scams that 

impersonate online subscribers for 

illegal purposes such as piracy and 

fraud.127 NCTA encouraged the 

Commission to consider a new rule to 

prohibit impersonation of individuals 

through ‘‘unauthorized use of an 

individual’s online credentials, 

accounts, IP addresses, and digital 

networks.’’ 128 The Recording Industry 

Association of America (‘‘RIAA’’) 

described impersonation scams 

involving offers of NFTs and mobile 

apps suggesting affiliation with sound 

recording artists and phishing scams 

where third parties claimed to be a 

music artist’s manager or producer.129

RIAA recommended that the 

Commission expand the rule to include 

the following: ‘‘[I]t [is] unlawful to 

falsely pose as or to misrepresent, 

directly or by implication, affiliation 

with, including endorsement or 

sponsorship by, an individual, for 

financial gain.’’ 130

The Rutgers Law Students noted the 

prevalence of social media, and profiles 

of celebrities and influencers in current 

modes of online communication, 

arguing that it would be a ‘‘grave 

oversight’’ to omit persons with such 

notable identities from a rule 

prohibiting impersonation.131 The 

students also argued that individuals are 

more likely than government agencies or 

businesses to suffer direct harm to their 

identities from impersonation scams 

and less likely to be able to repair the 

reputational injuries.132 Accordingly, 

they proposed that the Commission add 

another section to the rule with 

language prohibiting the impersonation 

of ‘‘any person’’ that parallels the 

language in §§ 461.2 and 461.3 

prohibiting the impersonation of 

government and businesses, 

respectively.133 The students further 

stated that this additional provision 

‘‘closes a loophole’’ that proposed 

§§ 461.2 and 461.3 leave open regarding 

the impersonation of former government 

and business officials.134 Finally, the 

students concluded that adding such a 

narrowly drafted provision would not 

burden honest businesses or 

individuals, and would benefit 

consumers because the median 

individual losses for other kinds of 

impersonation frauds are often greater 

than for government and business 

impersonation.135 Both the students and 

the NCTA agreed that expanding the 

proposed rule to prohibit impersonation 

of individuals would not impact 

recreational or comedic impersonations 

of individuals in television or film.136

Upon consideration of the comments 

received in response to Question 8 of 

the NPRM and all relevant records and 

data, the Commission is seeking 

additional public comment about 

potentially expanding part 461 to cover 

impersonation of individuals or entities 

other than governments and businesses 

in interstate commerce in a SNPRM 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register.137

G. Requiring Domain Name Registrars 

To Collect, Verify, Maintain, and 

Disclose Accurate WHOIS Data 

The Commission received several 

comments that identified the lack of 

access to accurate information 

concerning domain name registrants 

(commonly known as ‘‘WHOIS’’ data) as 

a significant impediment to combatting 

the use of domain names to impersonate 

government and businesses.138 These 

commenters expressed support for 

expanding the text or scope of the final 

rule to protect consumers from this 

increasingly prevalent impersonation 

scheme.139 In particular, a few 

commenters urged the Commission to 

issue a final rule that requires domain 

name registrars to collect, verify, 

maintain, and disclose accurate WHOIS 

data to the FTC and third-party victims 

on request for such information based 

on credible evidence of impersonation 

fraud.140 As previously noted, the COA 

argued that the redaction or denial of 

reasonable access to WHOIS data is 

unjustified.141 Both M3AAWG and 

APWG also suggested that the 

Commission encourage DNS registries 

or registrars to engage in DNS mitigation 

and frequently impersonated entities to 

participate as ‘‘trusted notifiers’’ to 

address fraudulently registered domain 

names.142

Because the deceptive use of internet 

domain names is already covered under 

the rule, the Commission declines to 

adopt commenters’ suggestion that the 

final rule expressly reference in the text 

or accompanying examples the use of 

domain names in impersonation 

schemes. As previously noted in Section 

III.A, the NPRM’s preamble contained a 

list of examples of conduct covered by 

the prohibition on the impersonation of 

government and businesses that was 

intended to be illustrative, not 

exhaustive.143 Such a comprehensive 

list would be both impossible and 

would not provide the trade regulation 

rule with the flexibility to accommodate 

changes in the marketplace and 

scammers’ behavior. The Commission 

finds therefore that the final rule is 

drafted with sufficient clarity and 

flexibility to address the unauthorized 

use of internet identifiers, including but 

not limited to, domain names. 

Furthermore, the Commission declines 

to issue a final rule that imposes 

affirmative requirements upon domain 

name registrars which is beyond the 

purview of this rulemaking and doing so 

arguably would place an impracticable 

burden upon consumers to know about 

and verify the trustworthiness of such 

WHOIS data. 

H. Comments Regarding Limitation of 

Remedies 

A small number of commenters urged 

the Commission to clarify that any final 

rule regarding impersonation would not 

limit any rights and remedies already 

available to businesses and consumers 

that have been the subject of 

impersonation.144 For example, 

notwithstanding its support of the 

Commission’s rulemaking to address 

impersonation, the American Bar 

Association Section of Intellectual 

Property Law asserted that many 

government impersonation scams 

should be referred to the Department of 

Justice for criminal prosecution, and 

therefore, cautioned that any regulatory 

approach ‘‘not dilute the impetus for a 

criminal law solution.’’ 145 Other 

commenters suggested that the 

Commission clarify that any final rule is 

not intended to limit any existing 

private right of action or civil 

remedies.146 Specifically, the Toy 

Association and INTA both advocated 

that any final rule on impersonation not 

be interpreted as limiting the rights and 

remedies available to trademark owners 

under the Lanham Act and the AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection 

Act. INTA further proposed that the 

Commission issue a clarification that 

any final rule is intended only to 

complement—not expand or contract— 

the legal protections available to private 

parties under the entire body of federal 

or state trademark and unfair 

competition law.147

By issuing the final rule regarding 

government and business 

impersonation, the Commission does 

not preempt or intend to preempt action 

in the same area, which is not 

inconsistent with this final rule, by any 

federal, state, municipal, or other local 

government. This final rule does not 

annul or diminish any rights or 

remedies provided to consumers or 

businesses by any federal, state law, 

municipal ordinance, or other local 

regulation, insofar as those rights or 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15025 

remedies are equal to or greater than 

those provided by this final rule. 

IV. Final Rule 

For the reasons described above, the 

Commission has determined to adopt 

the provisions of proposed § 461.1 as 

initially proposed, and the provisions of 

§§ 461.2 and 461.3 with clarifying 

modifications. The Commission 

declines to finalize proposed § 461.4 at 

this time. 

Specifically, the Commission 

concludes that the proposed definition 

of ‘‘officer’’ is sufficient to cover both 

government and business 

representatives, and therefore, need not 

be divided into two separate terms. 

Further, the final rule includes a 

definition of ‘‘materially’’—which has 

been used in other section 18 rules—to 

avoid potential confusion or potential 

perceived conflict with non-commercial 

speech. For these same reasons, the final 

rule replaces ‘‘unlawful’’ with ‘‘unfair or 

deceptive act or practice’’ and adds 

‘‘materially’’ and ‘‘in or affecting 

commerce’’ in §§ 461.2 and 461.3. Such 

revised language further clarifies that 

the rule conforms to the wellestablished standards for deception and 

unfairness under the FTC Act. Finally, 

the Commission declines to finalize the 

proposed § 461.4 provision regarding 

means and instrumentalities at this time 

because further analysis and 

consideration is warranted based on the 

record, including comments. The 

Commission is requesting additional 

public comment on this provision, and 

on issues related to the impersonation of 

individuals or entities other than 

governments and business in interstate 

commerce, through a SNPRM, 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act 

(‘‘PRA’’), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires 

federal agencies to seek and obtain 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) approval before undertaking a 

collection of information directed to ten 

or more persons. In Question 3 of the 

NPRM, the Commission asked 

commenters whether the proposed rule 

contained a collection of information.148

No comments responding to the NPRM 

or Notice of Hearing addressed this 

question. While the Commission has 

revised the rule based on the comments 

it received, it has not added any new 

requirements that would collect 

information from the public. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined that there are no new 

requirements for information collection 

associated with this final rule. 

VI. Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Requirements 

Under section 22 of the FTC Act, the 

Commission, when it promulgates a 

final rule, must issue a ‘‘final regulatory 

analysis.’’ 149 The required contents of 

this final regulatory analysis are: (1) ‘‘a 

concise statement of the need for, and 

the objectives of, the final rule’’; (2) ‘‘a 

description of any alternatives to the 

final rule which were considered by the 

Commission’’; (3) ‘‘an analysis of the 

projected benefits and any adverse 

economic effects and any other effects of 

the final rule’’; (4) ‘‘an explanation of 

the reasons for the determination of the 

Commission that the final rule will 

attain its objectives in a manner 

consistent with applicable law and the 

reasons the particular alternative was 

chosen’’; and (5) ‘‘a summary of any 

significant issues raised by the 

comments submitted during the public 

comment period in response to the 

preliminary regulatory analysis, and a 

summary of the assessment by the 

Commission of such issues.’’ 150

Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires 

an agency to provide a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) with the 

final rule, if any, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.151

The NPRM included an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’) even though the Commission 

did not expect that the proposed rule 

would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.152 The Commission invited 

public comment on the proposed rule’s 

effect on small entities to ensure that no 

significant impact would be 

overlooked.153

The FTC does not expect that the final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, and this SBP serves as notice to 

the Small Business Administration of 

the agency’s certification of no 

significant impact. The final rule 

imposes no disclosure or recordkeeping 

requirements. As such, both the burdens 

imposed on small entities and the 

economic impact of the final rule are 

likely to be minimal, if any. 

Furthermore, as noted in the IRFA, the 

rule does not change the law regarding 

the legality of government and business 

impersonation, which are already 

prohibited by section 5 of the FTC 

Act.154 Although the Commission 

certifies the final rule would not, if 

promulgated, have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities, the Commission has 

determined, nonetheless, it is 

appropriate to conduct the following 

FRFA,155 which incorporates the 

Commission’s initial findings, as set 

forth in the NPRM,156 addresses the 

required contents of the final regulatory 

analysis, and describes the steps the 

Commission has taken in the final rule 

to minimize its impact on small entities. 

A. Concise Statement of the Need for, 

and Objectives of, the Final Rule 

Based upon the record, including 

public comments, the Commission is 

implementing the rule to expand the 

remedies available to it to combat 

government and business impersonation 

deception. Throughout this rulemaking 

proceeding, the Commission has 

described how the U.S. Supreme Court 

decision in AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. 

FTC, 141 S. Ct. 1341, 1352 (2021) 

overturned how section 13(b) of the FTC 

Act had historically been understood for 

40 years to provide equitable monetary 

relief, and made it significantly more 

difficult for the Commission to obtain 

money for injured consumers.157 The 

objective of this final rule is to make 

available a shorter, faster and more 

efficient path for recovery of money for 

injured consumers directly through 

federal court action in Commission 

enforcement actions involving 

impersonation of government or 

business.158 Further, the rule would 

deter illegal impersonation and allow 

for the imposition of civil penalties, 

where appropriate.159

B. Discussion of Significant Alternatives 

the Commission Considered That Would 

Accomplish the Stated Objectives of the 

Final Rule and That Would Minimize 

Any Significant Economic Impact of the 

Final Rule on Small Entities 

Through the NPRM, the Commission 

requested public comment on what 

impact (including costs) will be 

incurred by existing and future 

businesses to comply with the proposed 

rule, and whether the Commission 

should consider alternative proposals to 

the proposed rule.160 This information 

was requested by the Commission to 

minimize the final rule’s burden on all 

businesses, including small entities. As 

explained throughout this SBP, the 

Commission has considered the 

comments and alternatives proposed by 

commenters and finds the final rule will 

not create a significant economic impact 

on small entities.161 Indeed, the type of 

deception that will be unlawful under 

the final rule is already unlawful under 

the FTC Act, but the final rule would 

allow the Commission to obtain 

monetary relief more efficiently than it 

could solely under section 19(a)(2) of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15026 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

the FTC Act (i.e., without a rule 

violation). Accordingly, the Commission 

does not propose any specific small 

entity exemption or other significant 

alternatives. 

C. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by the Public Comments in Response to 

the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and 

IRFA 

None of the comments received 

during the public comment period 

raised any significant issues in response 

to the preliminary regulatory analysis 

required pursuant to section 22 of the 

FTC Act.162 In the IRFA, however, the 

Commission sought comment regarding 

the impact of the proposed rule and any 

alternatives the Commission should 

consider, with a specific focus on the 

effect of the rule on small entities. In the 

NPRM, the Commission reiterated this 

request for comment in Question 4, 

asking whether the proposed rule, if 

promulgated, would have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Two commenters that 

specifically addressed the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities stated it 

would have a beneficial economic 

impact by reducing the time and 

financial burden small entities expend 

on fighting impersonation frauds.163

One commenter urged the Commission 

not to implement a final rule that would 

require third-party providers of 

government filing services to include 

extensive disclosures in their marketing 

materials, arguing such disclosure 

requirements could lead to small 

businesses declining the offered services 

and falling out of compliance with 

government filing obligations.164 This 

commenter, however, did not identify 

any proposed disclosure requirements 

that were the subject of his concern, nor 

does the Commission impose any such 

disclosure requirements in connection 

with the final rule. None of the 

comments responding to the NPRM or 

Notice of Hearing disputed the analysis 

in the IRFA. Finally, the Small Business 

Administration did not submit 

comments. 

After reviewing the public comments 

on the proposed rule, as discussed 

throughout this SBP, the Commission 

concludes the final rule will not unduly 

burden small entities. The 

Commission’s explanation in the IRFA 

regarding the proposed rule is true of 

the final rule—it only constitutes a 

significant economic impact for small 

entities violating existing law, which are 

not entitled to procedural protections 

when agencies consider rulemaking.165

D. Analysis of Projected Benefits and 

Adverse Effects of the Final Rule 

In the NPRM, the Commission invited 

public comment and data on any 

benefits and costs of proceeding with 

the rulemaking to inform a final 

regulatory analysis.166 In issuing the 

final rule, the Commission has carefully 

considered the comments received and 

the costs and benefits of each provision. 

As discussed throughout this SBP, the 

Commission believes, and the record 

demonstrates, the final rule would 

provide several benefits to consumers, 

businesses, and competition, and help 

preserve agency resources, without 

imposing any significant adverse effects. 

The Commission’s explanation in the 

IRFA regarding the proposed rule is true 

of the final rule—it is difficult to 

quantify with precision what all its 

benefits may be, but it is helpful to 

begin with the scope of the problem the 

final rule would address, and then 

describe the benefits qualitatively. As 

discussed in the NPRM, reported 

consumer losses due to government 

impersonation topped $445 million in 

2021; 167 and as anticipated, remained 

large, and even increased substantially, 

with total consumer losses of $513 

million reported in 2022 and more than 

$483 million for the first ten months of 

2023.168 Similarly, the annual consumer 

loss reported due to business 

impersonation has increased from $453 

million in 2021 to $670 million in 

2022.169 Accordingly, the most 

significant anticipated benefit of the 

final rule is that it will allow the 

Commission to provide monetary relief 

to victims of rule violations and seek 

civil penalties against violators.170

Furthermore, the final rule should 

reduce economic harm resulting from 

impersonation because its potential 

deterrent effects make it less likely 

impersonators get to keep their ill-gotten 

gains and more likely they must pay 

civil penalties. 

The final rule also would provide the 

benefit of a shorter path to obtaining 

consumer redress because the 

Commission could directly pursue in 

federal court section 19 remedies in 

government and business impersonation 

enforcement actions that do not 

implicate an existing rule. The 

availability of more immediate 

consumer redress in federal court under 

section 19 would allow the Commission 

to reduce the expense of litigating and 

minimize the litigation fora and scope. 

The Commission could then apply the 

savings of these enforcement resources 

to investigating and, where the facts 

warrant, bringing enforcement actions 

in additional impersonation matters. 

The final rule also would benefit 

businesses whose brands are harmed by 

impersonators.171 As several 

commenters have mentioned, a final 

rule that would allow the Commission 

to bring enforcement actions more 

efficiently against impersonators would 

save businesses the time and other 

resources dedicated to monitoring and 

combatting these kinds of deception. 

The record is devoid of any evidence 

suggesting the final rule would cause 

harm or adversely impact economic 

conditions. 

E. Description and an Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Final Rule Will Apply, or Explanation 

Why No Estimate Is Available 

Small entities engaging in the 

impersonation of government and 

business potentially may be found 

across a variety of industries and 

economic sectors, but industry and 

sector data do not identify entities by 

such conduct. Accordingly, it is not 

possible to estimate the number of small 

entities to which the final rule will 

apply. However, because the 

Commission finds the final rule will not 

impose any recordkeeping or other 

compliance costs on covered entities, 

the Commission concludes the final rule 

will not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

notwithstanding the lack of data on how 

many small entities will be covered by 

the final rule. 

F. Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Final 

Rule, Including an Estimate of the 

Classes of Small Entities That Will Be 

Subject to the Requirements of the Final 

Rule and the Type of Professional Skills 

That Will Be Necessary To Implement 

the Final Rule 

The final rule does not have any 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements.172 As explained 

previously, the final rule would apply to 

no small entities other than small 

entities violating existing law, and 

therefore, no classes of small entities 

will be subject to the requirements of 

the final rule. Finally, no professional 

skills are necessary for compliance with 

the final rule other than honesty and 

integrity. 

G. An Explanation of the Reasons for 

the Determination of the Commission 

That the Final Rule Will Attain Its 

Objectives in a Manner Consistent With 

Applicable Law and the Reasons the 

Particular Alternative Was Chosen 

The Commission’s primary objective 

in commencing this rulemaking was to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15027 

expand the remedies available to it in 

combatting two prevalent categories of 

impersonation scams most frequently 

reported by consumers—government 

impersonators and business 

impersonators. As explained throughout 

this SBP, based upon the record, 

including public comments, the 

Commission finds the final rule will 

attain this objective in a manner 

consistent with applicable law. 

The final rule is straightforward and 

defines with specificity acts or practices 

that are unfair or deceptive in or 

affecting commerce within the meaning 

of section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. 45(a)(1). It also avoids novelty by 

borrowing from existing rules and 

statutory definitions.173 At the same 

time, the final rule is drafted with 

sufficient flexibility to address the 

various types of conduct covered by the 

prohibition on the impersonation of 

government and businesses. 

Furthermore, this rulemaking has 

provided ample transparency and 

opportunity for public participation in 

accordance with the underlying 

statutory requirements of section 18 of 

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the 

Administrative Procedure Act, and Part 

1, subpart B of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice.174

VII. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

designated this rule as not a ‘‘major 

rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Endnotes 

1Fed. Trade Comm’n, Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking: Trade Regulation Rule 

on Impersonation of Government and 

Businesses, 86 FR 72901 (Dec. 23, 2021), 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2021/12/23/2021-27731/trade-regulationrule-on-impersonation-of-government-andbusinesses. 2See id. at 72904. 3Those included, among others, numerous 

reports of government impersonation scams 

reported to federal agencies as reflected in 

the following public announcements. On 

March 7, 2022, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation issued a Public Service 

Announcement ‘‘warning the public of 

ongoing widespread fraud schemes in which 

scammers impersonate law enforcement or 

government officials in attempts to extort 

money or steal personally identifiable 

information.’’ Similarly, on May 20, 2022, 

multiple federal law enforcement agencies 

issued a scam alert spearheaded by the Social 

Security Administration’s Office of the 

Inspector General warning the public of 

government impersonation scams involving 

the reproduction of federal law enforcement 

credentials and badges. On June 3, 2022, the 

Commission issued a press release noting 

that in some impersonation scams, fraudsters 

have instructed consumers to convert cash 

into cryptocurrency under false threats of 

government investigations or fraud. See Fed. 

Trade Comm’n, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking: Trade Regulation Rule on 

Impersonation of Government and 

Businesses, 87 FR 62741, 62742 (Oct. 17, 

2022), https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2022/10/17/2022-21289/traderegulation-rule-onimpersonation-ofgovernment-and-businesses. 

4See id. at 62741–51. 5See id. at 62741–42. 6 Id. at 62750. 7See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Trade 

Regulation Rule on Impersonation of 

Government and Businesses, https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2022-0064/ 

comments. 8Cindy L. Brown and Raye Mitchell, Cmt. 

on NPRM at 9 (Dec. 19, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0077 (‘‘Brown Cmt.’’); William 

MacLeod, Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Dec. 16, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0078 (‘‘MacLeod Cmt.’’). 9Fed. Trade Comm’n, Initial Notice of 

Informal Hearing: Trade Regulation Rule on 

Impersonation of Government and 

Businesses, 88 FR 19024 (Mar. 30, 2023), 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2023/03/30/2023-06537/trade-regulationrule-on-impersonation-of-government-andbusinesses. This Initial Notice of Informal 

Hearing also served as the Final Notice of 

Informal Hearing. The Commission 

determined William MacLeod’s comment in 

response to the NPRM represented an 

‘‘adequate request’’ for such an informal 

hearing. The comment from Cindy Brown 

explicitly requesting to make a presentation 

at an informal hearing also represented an 

‘‘adequate request’’ triggering the 

Commission’s obligation to hold an informal 

hearing but was inadvertently omitted from 

inclusion in the Initial Notice of Informal 

Hearing. 10Because this informal hearing was the 

first held in several decades, the Commission 

allowed interested parties to request the 

opportunity to make an oral comment in 

response to the Notice of Informal Hearing as 

well as the NPRM. However, the Commission 

noted that in the future it may limit oral 

statements to those who requested to make 

an oral statement in response to the NPRM, 

as provided for in the Rules of Practice. Id. 

at 19025 n.24. 11Although Cindy Brown did not submit a 

request to make an oral statement in response 

to the Notice of Hearing, she was permitted 

to make an oral statement at the hearing 

based upon her prior comment in response 

to the NPRM in which she explicitly stated 

her interest ‘‘in making a presentation at an 

informal hearing.’’ 12The Notice of Informal Public Hearing 

comments addressing specific provisions of 

the rule or questions in the NPRM soliciting 

public comment are discussed in Section III 

within the substantive discussions on the 

relevant provisions. 13 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.; 16 CFR 1.7–1.20. 14Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.14(a)(1)(i)– 

(iii). In addition, in accordance with 16 CFR 

1.14(a)(2), the regulatory analysis is provided 

in Section VI of this SBP. 

15ANPR, 86 FR at 72901; see also Fed. 

Trade Comm’n, Explore Government 

Imposter Scams, TABLEAU PUBLIC, https:// 

public.tableau.com/app/profile/ 

federal.trade.commission/viz/ 

GovernmentImposter/Infographic. 16NPRM, 87 FR at 62742. 17 Id. at 62742–46. 18 In re Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 F.T.C. 

110, 174 (1984); see also In re POM 

Wonderful LLC, No. 9344, 2013 WL 268926, 

at *18 (Jan. 16, 2013). 19ANPR, 86 FR at 72901. 20NPRM, 87 FR at 62746–47. 21ANPR, 86 FR at 72903–04; see also 

NPRM, 87 FR at 62748–49. 22See AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 141 

S. Ct. 1341, 1352 (2021). 23See 15 U.S.C. 57b(a) and (b); see also

NPRM, 87 FR at 62746 (discussing AMG Cap. 

Mgmt.). 24The Commission can recover money for 

consumers directly through a federal court 

action or obtain civil penalties directly from 

a federal court when the Rule has been 

violated. Without the Rule, the path to 

monetary relief is longer, and requires the 

Commission to first issue a final cease-anddesist order—which might not become final 

until after the resolution of any resulting 

appeal. Then, to recover money for 

consumers, the Commission must prove that 

the violator engaged in fraudulent or 

dishonest conduct in a second action in 

federal court. See 15 U.S.C. 57b(a) and (b). 25See section 5(m)(1)(A) of the FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A) (providing that violators 

of a trade regulation rule ‘‘with actual 

knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on 

the basis of objective circumstances that such 

act is unfair or deceptive and is prohibited 

by such rule’’ are liable for civil penalties for 

each violation). In addition, any entity or 

person who violates such a rule (irrespective 

of the state of knowledge) is liable for injury 

caused to consumers by the rule violation. 

The Commission may pursue such recovery 

in a suit for consumer redress under section 

19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b. 26NPRM, 87 FR at 62749. 27 Id. 28https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

FTC-2021-0077-0001/comment. 29https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

FTC-2023-0030/comments. 30NPRM, 87 FR at 62750. 31 Id. 32 Id., Question 3 (Does the proposed rule 

contain a collection of information?) and 

Question 4 (Would the proposed rule, if 

promulgated, have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities? If so, how could it be modified to 

avoid a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities?) 33NPRM, 87 FR at 62750. 34See, e.g., Anonymous, Cmt. on NPRM 

(Nov. 3, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0011 (describing 

impersonation of accounts payable in 

medical device industry); Bernadette Padilla, 

Cmt. on NPRM (Nov. 8, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0014 (describing police impersonation 

scam involving stolen PII); Anonymous 

Meeting Planner, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 6, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15028 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0030 (describing 

attendee list and hotel reservation 

impersonation scams); California IT in 

Education, Cmt. on NPRM (Nov. 9, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0034 (describing attendee list 

impersonation scam); Illinois Landscape 

Contractors Association, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 

12, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0038 (describing 

attendee list and hotel reservation 

impersonation scams). 35See e.g., Salina Maddox, Cmt. on NPRM 

(Oct. 22, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0003 (spam calls); 

Tatiana Alvarez, Cmt. on NPRM (Nov. 22, 

2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0008 (Romanian 

mob scam); Tinee Carraker, Cmt. on NPRM 

(Nov. 4, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0012 (foreclosure 

scam); Susan Rounsley, Cmt. on NPRM (Nov. 

6, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0013 (violations of 

Do Not Call requirements). 36See, e.g., Suhkvir Singh/Rutgers Law 

School Students, Cmt. on NPRM (Nov. 22, 

2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0019 (‘‘Rutgers 

Law Students/Singh Cmt.’’); AIM, the 

European Brands Association, Cmt. on NPRM 

(Dec. 13, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0041 (‘‘AIM 

Cmt.’’); The Messaging Malware Mobile AntiAbuse Working Group, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 

15, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0051 (‘‘M3AAWG 

Cmt.’’); The International Trademark 

Association, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 16, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0054 (‘‘INTA Cmt.’’); Electronic 

Privacy Information Center, National 

Consumer Law Center, National Consumers 

League, Consumer Action, Consumer 

Federation of America, National Association 

of Consumer Advocates, and U.S. PIRG, Cmt. 

on NPRM (Dec. 16, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0070 (‘‘EPIC Cmt.’’); Recording Industry 

Association of America, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 

16, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0064 (‘‘RIAA 

Cmt.’’). 37United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Cmt. on NPRM at 2–3 (Dec. 2, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0026 (‘‘USPTO Cmt.’’); INTA Cmt. 

on NPRM; United States Copyright Office, 

Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 16, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0067 (‘‘USCO Cmt.’’); The Toy 

Association, Inc., Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Dec. 

16, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0069 (‘‘Toy Cmt.’’); 

Cellular Telecommunications and Internet 

Association, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 16, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0066 (‘‘CTIA Cmt.’’); Marine 

Retailers Association of the Americas, 

National Marine Manufacturers Association, 

National RV Dealers Association, Cmt. on 

NPRM (Dec. 19, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0076 (‘‘MRAA Cmt.’’). 38See, e.g., USPTO Cmt. on NPRM at 2–3; 

USCO Cmt. on NPRM at 2; Toy Cmt. on 

NPRM at 2; CTIA Cmt. on NPRM at 3; MRAA 

Cmt. on NPRM at 4. See also supra, note 25. 39USPTO Cmt. on NPRM at 2–3. 40MRAA Cmt. on NPRM at 4. 41USCO Cmt. on NPRM at 2–3. 42 Id.; USPTO Cmt. on NPRM at 2. 43CTIA Cmt. on NPRM at 5, 7. 44Somos, Inc., Cmt. on NPRM at 2–3 (Dec. 

16, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0068 (‘‘Somos 

Cmt.’’). 45 In explaining the scope of the proposed 

rule, the NPRM provided an illustrative, but 

non-exhaustive, list of unlawful conduct that 

would be covered by the prohibitions against 

impersonating government and businesses. 

NPRM, 87 FR at 62746–47. That list merely 

provides examples as it would be 

impracticable to list all possible violative 

conduct. 46 16 CFR 310.4(a)(8). 47USTelecom Cmt. on NPRM at 2; 

M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4; RIAA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 3; Anti-Phishing Working 

Group, Cmt. on NPRM at 1–2 (Dec. 16, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0073 (‘‘APWG Cmt.’’), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0073 (‘‘APWG Cmt.’’); Coalition for 

Online Accountability, Cmt. on NPRM at 1– 

3 (Dec. 16, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0074 (‘‘COA Cmt.’’); INTA Cmt. on 

NPRM at 8–10; Coalition for a Secure & 

Transparent Internet, Cmt. on NPRM at 1 

(Dec. 16, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0065 (‘‘CSTI 

Cmt.’’). 48 Id. 49M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4; RIAA 

Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4; AIM Cmt. on NPRM 

at 1; COA Cmt. on NPRM at 1–3; INTA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 8–10. 50COA Cmt. on NPRM at 2. 51M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4; APWG 

Cmt. on NPRM at 1–2; see also APWG, Cmt. 

on Informal Hearing at 1–2 (Apr. 14, 2023), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2023-0030-0027 (‘‘APWG IH Cmt.’’). 52See NPRM, 87 FR at 62746–47. The 

example of voice cloning—a relatively new 

technology—emphasizes the need for an 

illustrative, but non-exhaustive, list of 

unlawful conduct. Audio deepfakes, 

including voice cloning, are generated, 

edited, or synthesized by artificial 

intelligence, or ‘‘AI,’’ to create fake audio that 

seems real. See Khanjani, et. al., How Deep 

are the Fakes? Focusing on Audio Deepfake: 

A Survey, available at https://arxiv.org/ftp/ 

arxiv/papers/2111/2111.14203.pdf. 53Americans for Prosperity Foundation, 

Cmt. on NPRM at 1–2 (Dec. 16, 2022), https:// 

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0062 (‘‘AFPF Cmt.’’). 54 Id. at 1. 55Public Law 93–637, 88 Stat. 2183 (1975). 56ANPR, 86 FR at 72904. 57 Id. 58NPRM, 87 FR at 62750, Question 2. 59USPTO Cmt. on NPRM at 3–9; 

M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 6–9; INTA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 3–5; Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 3– 

5; USCO Cmt. on NPRM at 3–7; MRAA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 2–4. 60USPTO Cmt. on NPRM at 3–9; 

M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 6–9; INTA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 3–5; Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 3– 

5; USCO Cmt. on NPRM at 3–7; MRAA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 2–4. 61Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 3–5. 62USPTO Cmt. on NPRM at 3–9; USCO 

Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4; 63 INTA Cmt. on NPRM at 3; M3AAWG 

Cmt. on NPRM at 7. 64M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 9. 65 Id. 66 Id. 67NPRM, 87 FR at 62750, Question 5. 68USCO Cmt. on NPRM at 8; USPTO Cmt. 

on NPRM at 10; INTA Cmt. on NPRM at 6– 

7; M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 9; MacLeod 

Cmt. on NPRM at 1–2; AFPF Cmt. on NPRM 

at 3–6. 69NetChoice Cmt. on NPRM at 2; Toy Cmt. 

on NPRM at 2; ZoomInfo Technologies LLC, 

Cmt. on NPRM at 1–2 (Dec. 16, 2022), https:// 

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0079 (‘‘Zoom NPRM Cmt.’’). 70USCO Cmt. on NPRM at 8; USPTO Cmt. 

on NPRM at 10. 71USCO Cmt. on NPRM at 8. 72USPTO Cmt. on NPRM at 10. 73 Id. at 9–10. 74MacLeod Cmt. on NPRM at 2; AFPF Cmt. 

on NPRM at 3; M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 

9. 75M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 2; 

NetChoice Cmt. on NPRM at 2; Toy Cmt. on 

NPRM at 2; AFPF Cmt. on NPRM at 2, 4; 

Zoom Cmt. on NPRM at 1; INTA Cmt. on 

NPRM at 5–6; William MacLeod, Cmt. on 

Informal Hearing at 5–7 (Apr. 14, 2023), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2023-0030-0019 (‘‘MacLeod IH Cmt.’’). 76AFPF Cmt. on NPRM at 2, 4; see also 

MacLeod IH Cmt. at 2. 77AFPF Cmt. on NPRM at 3, 4. M3AAWG 

Cmt. on NPRM at 2; NetChoice Cmt. on 

NPRM at 2; INTA Cmt. on NPRM at 5–6; Toy 

Cmt. on NPRM at 2; Zoom Cmt. on NPRM at 

1; MacLeod IH Cmt. at 5–7. 78AFPF Cmt. on NPRM at 2, 6. 79NetChoice Cmt. on NPRM at 2; 

M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 3. 80AFPF Cmt. on NPRM at 4; INTA Cmt. on 

NPRM at 5–6; Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 2; Zoom 

Cmt. on NPRM at 1; MacLeod IH Cmt. at 5. 81MacLeod IH Cmt. at 1; see also MacLeod 

Cmt. on NPRM at 1. 82MacLeod IH Cmt. at 2. 83 Id. at 3. 84 Id. at 3. 85AFPF Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4. 86 Id. at 3, 5–6. 87M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 9. 88 Id. at 1, 5. 89AFPF Cmt. on NPRM at 5. 90See 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A). 91See Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. 

Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 

563–64 (1980) (‘‘[T]here can be no 

constitutional objection to the suppression of 

commercial messages that do not accurately 

inform the public about lawful activity. The 

government may ban forms of 

communication more likely to deceive the 

public than to inform it, or commercial 

speech related to illegal activity.’’) (citations 

omitted); see also Zauderer v. Office of 

Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 638 

(1985) (holding it is ‘‘well settled’’ that ‘‘[t]he 

States and the Federal Government are free 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15029 

to prevent the dissemination of commercial 

speech that is false, deceptive, or 

misleading’’). 92USPTO Cmt. on NPRM; Anonymous, 

Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 9, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0033 (‘‘0033 Cmt.’’); AIM Cmt. on 

NPRM; Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC, 

Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 14, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0045; NetChoice Cmt. on NPRM; 

M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM; Consumer 

Technology Association, Cmt. on NPRM 

(Dec. 16, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0073 (‘‘CTA 

Cmt.’’); NCTA—The internet and Television 

Association, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 16, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0071 (‘‘NCTA Cmt.’’); ASAE Cmt. 

on NPRM; INTA Cmt. on NPRM; Somos Cmt. 

on NPRM; CTIA Cmt. on NPRM; USCO Cmt. 

on NPRM; USTelecom Cmt. on NPRM; 

American Society of Association Executives, 

Center for Exhibition Industry Research 

Destinations International, Exhibition 

Services & Contractors Association, 

Exhibitions & Conferences Alliance, 

Experiential Designers + Producers 

Association, International Association of 

Exhibitions & Events, International 

Association of Venue Managers, PCMA, 

Society of Independent Show Organizers, 

UFI, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec 16, 2022), https:// 

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0060 (‘‘ECA Cmt.’’); RIAA Cmt. on 

NPRM; American Bar Association Section of 

Intellectual Property Law, Cmt. on NPRM at 

3 (Dec. 16, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0061 (‘‘ABA–IPL Cmt.’’); AFPF Cmt. on 

NPRM; Zoom Cmt. on NPRM; American 

Bankers Association, ACA International, 

American Association of Healthcare 

Administrative Management, Credit Union 

National Association, Mortgage Bankers 

Association National Association of 

Federally-Insured Credit Unions (the 

Associations), Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 16, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0080 (‘‘Assocns. Cmt.’’); COA 

Cmt. on NPRM; MacLeod Cmt. on NPRM; 

Brown Cmt. on NPRM. 93A copy of the transcript of the May 4, 

2023 Informal Hearing is available at https:// 

www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ 

impersonationruleinformalhearing

transcript.pdf. References to the transcript 

from the May 4, 2023 Informal Hearing are 

cited herein as: Name of commenter, May 

2023 Tr at page no. (e.g., Doe, May 2023 Tr 

at #); see CTA, May 2023 Tr at 16; MacLeod, 

May 2023 Tr at 27; USTelecom, May 2023 Tr 

at 30; Chilson, May 2023 Tr at 34; VON, May 

2023 Tr at 36; American Bankers Association 

(ABA), May 2023 Tr at 39–40; INCOMPAS, 

May 2023 Tr at 42, 44; NCTA, May 2023 Tr 

at 51–52. 94USPTO Cmt. on NPRM at 10; USCO Cmt. 

on NPRM at 8; RIAA Cmt. on NPRM at 3; 

ABA, May 2023 Tr at 39–40. 95USPTO Cmt. on NPRM at 10; USCO Cmt. 

on NPRM at 8; RIAA Cmt. on NPRM at 3; 

ABA, May 2023 Tr at 39–40. 96AFPF Cmt. on NPRM at 3–5; MacLeod 

IH Cmt. at 6–7; McLeod, May 2023 Tr at 27. 97 0033 Cmt. on NPRM; ABA–IPL Cmt. on 

NPRM at 2; Zoom Cmt. on NPRM at 1. 

98ABA–IPL Cmt. on NPRM at 1–2; 

NetChoice Cmt. on NPRM at 2; USTelecom 

Cmt. on NPRM at 2; see also CTA, May 2023 

Tr at 16; VON, May 2023 Tr at 36; ABA, May 

2023 Tr at 39–40; INCOMPAS, May 2023 Tr 

at 42. 99NetChoice Cmt. on NPRM at 2; CTA 

Cmt. on NPRM; American Society of 

Association Executives, Cmt. on NPRM at 1 

(Dec. 16, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0057 (‘‘ASAE 

Cmt.’’); INTA Cmt. on NPRM; Somos Cmt. on 

NPRM; CTIA Cmt. on NPRM at 7; USTelecom 

Cmt. on NPRM at 2; ECA Cmt. on NPRM at 

3; ABA–IPL Cmt. on NPRM at 3; Zoom Cmt. 

on NPRM at 2; Cmt. on NPRM at 3; see also 

CTA, May 2023 Tr at 16; MacLeod, May 2023 

Tr at 27; USTelecom, May 2023 Tr at 30; 

Chilson, May 2023 Tr at 34; VON, May 2023 

Tr at 36; INCOMPAS, May 2023 Tr at 42, 44; 

NCTA, May 2023 Tr at 51–52. 100CTA Cmt. on NPRM at 7. 101USTelecom Cmt. on NPRM at 2. 102ABA–IPL Cmt. on NPRM at 3. 103NCTA Cmt. on NPRM at 2. 104M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 10. 105Brown Cmt. on NPRM at 8. 106M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 3. 107COA Cmt. on NPRM at 3; M3AAWG 

Cmt. on NPRM at 4–5. ‘‘WHOIS data’’ is a 

commonly used internet record listing that 

identifies who owns a domain and how to get 

in contact with them. 108See, e.g., Compl. at 3–5 & Ex. H, FTC 

v. Moore, No. 5:18–cv–01960 (C.D. Cal. filed

Sept. 13, 2018) (alleging that a seller of

variety of fake but genuine-looking financial

documents provided to others the means and

instrumentalities with which to make

misrepresentations regarding a person’s

identity). 109NPRM, 87 FR at 62746. 110 Id. at 62751; see also 15 U.S.C. 44. 111NPRM, 87 FR at 62747. 112 Id. at 62750. 113Minnesota Nursery & Landscape 

Association, Cmt. on NPRM at 2 (Dec. 2, 

2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0027; Louise 

Nemmers, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 5, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0028; California Landscape 

Contractors Association, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 

6, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0029; Outdoor 

Power Equipment Institute, Cmt. on NPRM at 

2 (Dec. 7, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0032; AIM Cmt. on 

NPRM at 2; AARP, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 14, 

2022), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2022-0064-0043 (‘‘AARP 

Cmt.’’); Minnesota Municipal Utilities 

Association, Cmt. on NPRM (Dec. 14, 2022), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2022-0064-0048; M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 

10; CTA Cmt. on NPRM; ASAE Cmt. on 

NPRM; INTA Cmt. on NPRM; Toy Cmt. on 

NPRM at 6; RIAA Cmt. on NPRM at 2; 

National Association of Broadcasters, Cmt. 

on NPRM (Dec. 19, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0075; MRAA Cmt. on NPRM at 4. 114See, e.g., Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 6; 

MRAA Cmt. on NPRM at 4; AARP Cmt. at 2; 

CTA Cmt. on NPRM at 1; ASAE Cmt. on 

NPRM; RIAA Cmt. on NPRM at 1; INTA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 2. 

115AIM Cmt. on NPRM at 2; M3AAWG 

Cmt. on NPRM at 10; CTA Cmt. on NPRM at 

1. 116Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 6; INTA Cmt. on 

NPRM at 6. 117Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 6; RIAA Cmt. on 

NPRM at 3. 118 INTA Cmt. on NPRM at 6; Toy Cmt. on 

NPRM at 6. 119NPRM, 87 FR at 62750. 120Rutgers Law Students/Singh Cmt. on 

NPRM; AIM Cmt. on NPRM; AARP Cmt. on 

NPRM; NCTA Cmt. on NPRM; EPIC Cmt. on 

NPRM; RIAA Cmt. on NPRM. 121AIM Cmt. on NPRM at 2; Rutgers Law 

Students/Singh Cmt. on NPRM at 1. 122Rutgers Law Students/Singh Cmt. on 

NPRM at 1–2; AARP Cmt. on NPRM at 2; 

EPIC Cmt. on NPRM at 5. 123Rutgers Law Students/Singh Cmt. on 

NPRM at 1–2. 124Rutgers Law Students/Singh Cmt. on 

NPRM at 2–4; AARP Cmt. on NPRM at 1–2; 

EPIC Cmt. on NPRM at 4–5. 125AARP Cmt. on NPRM at 2. 126EPIC Cmt. on NPRM at 5. 127NCTA Cmt. on NPRM at 3, 8. 128 Id. 129RIAA Cmt. on NPRM at 3. 130 Id. at 2. 131Rutgers Law Students/Singh Cmt. on 

NPRM at 2. 132 Id. 133 Id. at 3. 134 Id. 135 Id. at 3–4. 136 Id.; NCTA Cmt. on NPRM at 8, n. 16. 137The Commission also is exploring other 

tools to address the fake endorsement 

concerns raised by the RIAA and Rutgers 

Law School Students. Specifically, in the 

Commission’s proposed Rule on the Use of 

Consumer Reviews and Testimonials, § 465.2 

would prohibit businesses from purchasing a 

consumer review, or from disseminating or 

causing the dissemination of a consumer 

testimonial or celebrity testimonial when the 

business knew or should have known it was 

false or fake. See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking: Trade Regulation 

Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and 

Testimonials, 88 FR 49364, 49391 (Jul. 31, 

2023), https://www.federalregister.gov/ 

documents/2023/07/31/2023-15581/traderegulation-rule-on-the-use-of-consumerreviews-and-testimonials#sectno-reference465.2. 138USTelecom Cmt. on NPRM at 2; 

M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4; RIAA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 3; APWG Cmt. on NPRM; COA 

Cmt. on NPRM at 1–3; INTA Cmt. on NPRM 

at 8–10; CSTI Cmt. on NPRM at 1. 139 Id. 140M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4; RIAA 

Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4; AIM Cmt. on NPRM 

at 1; COA Cmt. on NPRM at 1–3; INTA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 8–10. 141COA Cmt. on NPRM at 2. 142M3AAWG Cmt. on NPRM at 3–4; 

APWG Cmt. on NPRM at 1–2; see also 

APWG, Cmt. on Informal Hearing at 1–2 

(Apr. 14, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/FTC-2023-0030-0027 (‘‘APWG IH 

Cmt.’’). 143See also supra, note 52. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15030 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1Fed. Trade Comm’n, Fraud Reports: Trends 

Over Time (2021), https://public.tableau.com/app/ 

profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/FraudReports/ 

FraudFacts. 

2Fed. Trade Comm’n, Consumer Sentinel 

Network Data Book 2023 (2024), https://

www.ftc.gov/reports/consumer-sentinel-networkdata-book-2023. 

3Fed. Trade Comm’n, Fraud Reports: Top 

Reports, Tableau Public (last accessed Feb. 8, 2024), 

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/ 

federal.trade.commission/viz/FraudReports/ 

TopReports; see also Fed. Trade Comm’n, 

Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2020 (2021) 

at 4–8, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/ 

reports/consumer-sentinel-network-databook-2020/ 

csn_annual_data_book_2020.pdf; see also, 

Consumer Sentinel Network Data Book 2023, supra 

note 2. 

144Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 2; M3AAWG 

Cmt. on NPRM at 2; ABA–IPL Cmt. on NPRM 

at 3; INTA Cmt. on NPRM at 2. 145ABA–IPL Cmt. on NPRM at 3. 146Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 2; M3AAWG 

Cmt. on NPRM at 2; INTA Cmt. on NPRM at 

2. 147 INTA Cmt. on NPRM at 6–7. 148NPRM, 87 FR at 62750. 149See 15 U.S.C. 57b–3(b)(2). 150 15 U.S.C. 57b–3(b)(2)(A). 151See 5 U.S.C. 603–605; see also section 

22(b) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b–3(b). 152NPRM, 87 FR at 62749–50; see also 5 

U.S.C. 603. 153NPRM, 87 FR at 62750. 154NPRM, 87 FR at 62749. 155See 15 U.S.C. 57b–3(b)(3)(A)(ii) (‘‘In 

order to avoid duplication or waste, the 

Commission is authorized to . . . whenever 

appropriate, incorporate any data or analysis 

contained in a regulatory analysis issued 

under this subsection in the statement of 

basis and purpose.’’). 156NPRM, 87 FR at 62749–50. 157See ANPR, 86 FR at 72901 & n.24 

(discussing AMG Cap. Mgmt.); NPRM, 87 FR 

at 62746 (same). 158See ANPR, 86 FR at 72901 & n.24; 

NPRM, 87 FR at 62746; see also 15 U.S.C. 

57b(a) and (b). 159See 15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A). 160NPRM, 87 FR at 62750. 161Only one commenter suggested an 

alternative to regulation, which the 

Commission declines to adopt for the reasons 

previously stated in Section III.B. 162See supra note 161. 163Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 5–6; MRAA Cmt. 

on NPRM at 4. 164Robert Kamerschen, Cmt. on NPRM at 

2 (Nov. 30, 2022), https://

www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022- 

0064-0023. 165See NPRM, 87 FR at 62750. 166NPRM, 87 FR at 62748. 167 Id. 168See Fed. Trade Comm’n, Explore 

Government Imposter Scams, TABLEAU 

PUBLIC, https://public.tableau.com/app/ 

profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/ 

FraudReports/SubcategoriesOverTime (last 

visited December 21, 2023). 169 Id. 170See 15 U.S.C. Secs. 45(m)(1)(A) and 

57b. 171See Toy Cmt. on NPRM at 5–6; MRAA 

Cmt. on NPRM at 4; see also NPRM, 87 FR 

at 62749. 172NPRM, 87 FR at 62750. 173See, e.g., TSR, 16 CFR 310.3(a)(2)(vii); 

R-Value Rule, 16 CFR 460.21; Regulation O

(Mortgage Assistance Relief Services), 12 CFR

1015.3(b)(3). 174 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.; 16 CFR 1.7 through 

1.20. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 461 

Consumer protection, Impersonation, 

Trade Practices. 

■ For the reasons set forth above, the 

Federal Trade Commission amends 16

CFR Chapter I by adding part 461 to

read as follows:

PART 461—RULE ON 

IMPERSONATION OF GOVERNMENT 

AND BUSINESSES 

Sec. 

461.1 Definitions. 

461.2 Impersonation of Government 

Prohibited. 

461.3 Impersonation of Businesses 

Prohibited. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41 through 58. 

§ 461.1 Definitions.

As used in this part:

Business means a corporation,

partnership, association, or any other 

entity that provides goods or services, 

including not-for-profit entities. 

Government includes federal, state, 

local, and tribal governments as well as 

agencies and departments thereof. 

Materially means likely to affect a 

person’s choice of, or conduct regarding, 

goods or services. 

Officer includes executives, officials, 

employees, and agents. 

§ 461.2 Impersonation of Government

Prohibited.

It is a violation of this part, and an 

unfair or deceptive act or practice to: 

(a) materially and falsely pose as,

directly or by implication, a government 

entity or officer thereof, in or affecting 

commerce as commerce is defined in 

the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 

U.S.C. 44); or 

(b) materially misrepresent, directly

or by implication, affiliation with, 

including endorsement or sponsorship 

by, a government entity or officer 

thereof, in or affecting commerce as 

commerce is defined in the Federal 

Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44). 

§ 461.3 Impersonation of Businesses

Prohibited.

It is a violation of this part, and an 

unfair or deceptive act or practice to: 

(a) materially and falsely pose as,

directly or by implication, a business or 

officer thereof, in or affecting commerce 

as commerce is defined in the Federal 

Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44); or 

(b) materially misrepresent, directly

or by implication, affiliation with, 

including endorsement or sponsorship 

by, a business or officer thereof, in or 

affecting commerce as commerce is 

defined in the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 44). 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

Note: The following statement will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined 

by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly 

Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro M. 

Bedoya 

Today the Federal Trade Commission 

finalizes its rule prohibiting government 

and business impersonation schemes 

and issues a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking to extend this 

prohibition to impersonation of 

individuals. This final rule marks the 

first time since 1980 that the 

Commission has finalized a brand-new 

trade regulation rule prohibiting an 

unfair or deceptive practice. 

Impersonation schemes cheat 

Americans out of billions of dollars 

every year. Fraudsters pretending to 

represent government agencies—like the 

Social Security Administration or the 

IRS—tell targets that if they do not hand 

over money or their sensitive personal 

information, then they could lose a 

government benefit, face a tax liability, 

or even be arrested. Scammers also 

commonly claim false affiliations with 

household brand names to bilk 

consumers for bogus services. This 

category of fraud skyrocketed during the 

coronavirus pandemic—with imposters 

scamming Americans out of reported $2 

billion between October 2020 and 

September 2021, an 85 percent increase 

year-over-year.1 Losses remain high: 

FTC data show that in 2023 consumers 

reported losing $2.7 billion to reported 

imposter scams.2 Impersonation fraud 

has remained one of the largest sources 

of total reported consumer financial 

losses for several years.3

Public comments submitted to the 

Commission provide a snapshot of how 

impersonation frauds can devastate: 

• One commenter reported on how a

friend was scammed by someone 

claiming that they were with Publisher’s 

Clearing House and that she had won a 

sweepstakes. Her friend was scammed 

out of a total of $367,000: ‘‘She used all 

of her savings . . . to help her 

grandchildren go to college and wiped 

out her IRA and now is left to pay the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15031 

4Comment Submitted by Anonymous, FTC Seek 

Comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule; 

Impersonation ANPR, Regulations.gov (Feb. 22, 

2022), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2021-0077-0131. 

5Comment Submitted by Jamila Sherman, FTC 

Seek Comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rule; Impersonation ANPR, Regulations.gov (Feb. 

22, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

FTC-2021-0077-0127. 

6Comment Submitted by Susan Frost, FTC Seek 

Comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule; 

Impersonation ANPR, Regulations.gov (Feb. 16, 

2022), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2021-0077-0031. 

7Bob Violino, AI Tools Such As ChatGPT Are 

Generating A Mammoth Increase In Malicious 

Phishing Emails, CNBC (Nov. 28, 2023), https://

www.cnbc.com/2023/11/28/ai-like-chatgpt-iscreating-huge-increase-in-malicious-phishingemail.html. 

8Eric Revell, AI Voice Cloning Scams On The 

Rise, Expert Warns, Fox Business (Sept. 23, 2023), 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ai-voicecloning-scams-on-rise-expert-warns. 

9AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 593 U.S. (2021). 

10Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Votes 

to Update Rulemaking Procedures, Sets Stage for 

Stronger Deterrence of Corporate Misconduct (July 

1, 2021), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/ 

press-releases/2021/07/ftc-votes-updaterulemaking-procedures-sets-stage-strongerdeterrence-corporate-misconduct. 

penalties for depleting it. This woman is 

now, at age 70, in a position of living 

only on her social security and has to 

try to find work. . . .’’ 4

• Another commenter received a call

from someone claiming to be with the 

U.S. Treasury Department, who asserted 

that her social security number had 

been compromised. This person lost all 

her money: ‘‘That money is from my 

mother’s life insurance policy who 

passed in 2019. My father needs that 

money to survive. I am devastated.’’ 5

• A third commenter spoke of her

mother being scammed by someone 

pretending to be with a government 

agency: ‘‘Before we, her family, realized 

the extent to which the imposters 

preyed upon her, she had divulged 

identity and banking information.’’ 6

The rise of generative AI technologies 

risks making these problems worse by 

turbocharging scammers’ ability to 

defraud the public in new, more 

personalized ways. For example, the 

proliferation of AI chatbots gives 

scammers the ability to generate spearphishing emails using individuals’ 

social media posts and to instruct bots 

to use words and phrases targeted at 

specific groups and communities.7 AIenabled voice cloning fraud is also on 

the rise, where scammers use voicecloning tools to impersonate the voice of 

a loved one seeking money in distress 

or a celebrity peddling fake goods.8

Scammers can use these technologies to 

disseminate fraud more cheaply, more 

precisely, and on a much wider scale 

than ever before. 

In its supplemental NPRM, the 

Commission proposes to expand the 

rule’s prohibitions to also cover 

impersonation of individuals. If 

adopted, this additional protection will 

equip enforcers to seek civil penalties 

and redress when fraudsters 

impersonate individual people, not just 

government or business entities. Given 

the proliferation of AI-enabled fraud, 

this additional protection seems 

especially critical. Notably, the 

supplemental proposal also 

recommends extending liability to any 

actor that provides the ‘‘means and 

instrumentalities’’ to commit an 

impersonation scam. Under this 

approach, liability would apply, for 

example, to a developer who knew or 

should have known that their AI 

software tool designed to generate 

deepfakes of IRS officials would be used 

by scammers to deceive people about 

whether they paid their taxes. Ensuring 

that the upstream actors best positioned 

to halt unlawful use of their tools are 

not shielded from liability will help 

align responsibility with capability and 

control. 

By unlocking civil penalties and 

redress, the final rule, along with the 

proposed supplemental provisions, will 

promote both more efficient 

enforcement and greater deterrence. In 

2020, the Supreme Court held that the 

Commission cannot rely on Section 

13(b) of the FTC Act to get money back 

to defrauded consumers,9 so 

rulemakings—while not a substitute for 

a legislative fix—can help ensure that 

lawbreakers do not profit from their 

lawbreaking and that wronged 

consumers can be made whole. 

This rule marks the agency’s first 

brand-new Section 18 rulemaking since 

1980. Although the authority to issue 

rules is clearly laid out in the FTC Act, 

bureaucratic red tape presented an 

obstacle to the agency’s exercise of this 

important statutory authority. Thanks to 

efforts initiated under Commissioner 

Slaughter’s leadership to align the 

procedural requirements for Section 18 

rulemaking with the FTC Act’s statutory 

text, Section 18 rulemakings can now 

proceed more efficiently.10 This effort 

took two years from proposal to final 

rule, finally putting lie to the old idea 

that this must be an impossibly long 

process. 

Many thanks to the FTC team for their 

swift work and dedication. This rule 

banning government and business 

impersonation will allow us to more 

vigorously and effectively protect 

Americans from fraudsters. And we are 

eager for public input on the 

supplemental NPRM that would extend 

this rule to cover impersonation of 

individuals. With the rapid rise of voice 

cloning fraud and other AI-based scams, 

additional protection for consumers 

seems especially critical. As these 

technologies enable more sophisticated 

and innovative forms of fraud, we will 

continue to ensure the Commission is 

activating all the tools Congress has 

given us and faithfully executing on our 

statutory mandate. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04335 Filed 2–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2022–0279; FRL–10675– 

02–R6] 

Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Updates 

to the State Implementation Plan 

Incorporation by Reference Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is approving revisions to the Oklahoma 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Oklahoma 

designee on December 17, 2021, and 

January 20, 2023. This action addresses 

the submittal of revisions to the 

Oklahoma SIP to update the 

incorporation by reference provision of 

Federal requirements under Oklahoma 

Administrative Code (OAC). 

DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2022–0279. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically 

through https://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adina Wiley, EPA Region 6 Office, Air 

Permits Section, 214–665–2115, 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. Please call or 

email the contact listed above if you 

need alternative access to material 

indexed but not provided in the docket. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1