Only two years later, HSN is again before us, and is again facing allegations that it has made multiple unsubstantiated product efficacy claims. Indeed, these allegations give me reason to question whether HSN took its obligations under the 1996 order seriously. While applauding FTC staff's diligence in monitoring HSN's compliance with the 1996 order, Anthony noted that a larger civil penalty in this matter may have been warranted to deter future unsubstantiated claims by HSN and other advertisers. If false claims are profitable even in the wake of penalties, advertisers will continue to make such claims. This consent decree is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation.
Consent decrees are subject to court approval and have the force of law when signed by the judge.
A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions.