New Posts on Adlaw by Request

It's our pleasure to present you with our latest Adlaw by Request update. Within this update, you'll discover a series of informative articles on many contemporary issues, such as:

In addition, we're embarking on a new area within Adlaw by Request that is geared toward creating a better understanding for our readership of many of the agreements and contractual instruments that are common to the advertising industry. Every week or two, we'll discuss a different provision or issue, and present both sides of a typical negotiation, as best we can.

Between our regular posts and this new undertaking that we've aptly named "The Office," we hope you'll continue to visit Adlaw by Request on a regular basis.

Tags:

Federal Gift Card Regulations

President Obama recently passed the Credit Card Act of 2009 that, among other things, amends the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by implementing federal regulation of general-use pre-paid cards, gift certificates and store gift cards. The law addresses three key areas: (i) dormancy fees, inactivity charges and service fees; (ii) expiration dates; and (iii) the relation to state laws. 

The law prohibits the imposition of a dormancy fee, inactivity charge or service fee, unless there has been no activity for 12 months, and provided that no more than one fee is charged per month, and that certain disclosure requirements are met and made prior to purchase. Excluded from the prohibition are gift certificates issued pursuant to an award, loyalty, or promotional program with respect to which no money or other value was exchanged. Expiration dates of less than five years are also prohibited under the new law, and any such expiration date must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. As for the relation to state laws, the law does not pre-empt state laws that provide greater consumer protection. The law will go into effect Aug. 21, 2010.

In addition to the areas mentioned above, two other items are important to note:

First, certain types of cards and devices are excluded from the definitions of general-use pre-paid cards, gift certificates and store gift cards. These include, among others, an electronic promise, plastic card, or payment code device that is: (i) used solely for telephone services; (ii) reloadable and not marketed or labeled as a gift card or gift certificate; (iii) a loyalty award or other promotional gift card (as defined by the Board); (iv) not marketed to the general public; and (v) issued in paper form only (including for tickets and events).

Second, the law also authorizes the Board of Governors, in consultation with the Federal Trade Commission, to: (i) develop requirements relating to the amount of dormancy fees, inactivity charge fees or service fees that may be assessed and (ii) determine the extent to which the individual definitions and provisions of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act or Regulation E apply to general-use pre-paid cards, gift certificates and store gift cards.  

Why this matters: Currently, gift certificates and gift cards are regulated primarily under myriad state laws, some of which are already in line with the new federal law. While the Credit Card Act of 2009 sets a minimum threshold for fees and expiration dates, it does not seem to prevent state laws from being more restrictive. Therefore, issuers of gift certificates or gift cards will have to continue to be knowledgeable of and comply with state laws.

SAG/AFTRA Developments

On April 1, 2009, the advertising industry came to an agreement with the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television & Radio Artists on a new three year collective bargaining agreement. Reed Smith partner, Douglas Wood, is the advertising industry's lead negotiator in connection with those agreements. The unions ratified the deal on May 21, 2009. We have attached a number of memos that outline the new agreement and provide for answers to frequently asked questions, i.e.:

1.  Executive Summary
2.  FAQs
3.  Notice in Industry re Commercial Services Fee
4.  Memorandum on Commercial Services Fee

We welcome your review and comments.

Google Amends Its U.S. Trademark Policy: Creates 'Special Advertiser' Status to Allow Use of Another Trademark in Ad Copy

Using another’s trademark as a keyword for online search marketing purposes is a murky area of law. Is this trademark infringement? Is this a permissible action? Although one may assume that these questions are two sides of the same coin, in reality they are not. The case law on this issue – especially those cases extending from WhenU to the more recent Rescuecom – provides some guidance as to when trademark-as-a-keyword can be problematic; but the real issue is with the trademark-use guidelines promulgated by the search engines themselves. Generally speaking, search engines permit advertisers to purchase another’s trademark as a triggering keyword, but some do not allow the advertiser to use the trademark in the ad copy. In other words, the advertiser can show the ad to the consumer, but can’t explain why the consumer is seeing the ad in the first place.

Thus, even though use of another mark’s may not rise to the level of trademark infringement, it may not be permissible under the search engine’s terms of use. To combat this, advertisers sometimes speak in “soft language” – code that tries to get around use of the mark. For example, imagine that a store like WalMart or Best Buy wants to advertise a new Sony laptop. The store’s search engine marketing (SEM) purchases may use “Sony” as a keyword, but may say “sale on laptops from large Japanese-based company that is a mainstay in the consumer electronics space” in the ad copy, to ensure that it does not run afoul of Google’s trademark policy. To me, this need to speak in “soft language” does not decrease consumer confusion – it increases it.

In response to this problem, Google has taken steps to liberalize its U.S. trademark policy. Specifically, it has created a special class of advertisers that can use another’s marks in ad copy. This new class – which is made up primarily of resellers, review sites, and sellers of compatible, complementary, or replacement products – will be permitted, under certain circumstances, to use another’s trademark in the ad copy. The text of Google's official announcement can be found here.

Why This Matters:  While this change is important in that it brings the practice of SEM more in line with trademark and advertising law, the change does not cover all uses of another’s mark. Going forward, competitors making comparative claims in the online ad copy may still be rejected by Google. Although this class of advertiser should be permitted to use another’s trademark in online ad copy, competitive ads – based upon the theory of nominative fair use – may still need to resort to “soft language.”

Ninth Circuit CDA Decision

In what is likely to be seen as a watershed moment for the application of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (the "CDA"), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has released an opinion in Barnes v. Yahoo that has the potential to dramatically increase the cost of defending social media and computer service providers.

The Barnes case centered around the posting of defamatory "fake" profiles on Yahoo's social networking pages. The profiles, which appeared to be from Ms. Barnes but were in fact created by her ex-boyfriend, included several pictures of her in the nude. Ms. Barnes asked Yahoo to remove the profiles, but Yahoo took no action until local media did a story on the events, wherein Yahoo promised to remove the fake profiles. Two months after that, the profiles still appeared on the Internet, and Ms. Barnes sued Yahoo.

Yahoo sought a motion to dismiss based on the immunity provided to it by the CDA. The dismissal was granted and Ms. Barnes appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In deciding to remand the case to the District Court, the Ninth Circuit did two things that can be problematic for the future of the CDA.

First, it held that a promissory estoppel-like claim can survive CDA immunity (at least at the motion to dismiss stage). At its core, a promissory estoppel claim requires someone to make a promise, and someone to rely upon that promise to his/her detriment. The court explained that Yahoo could be seen as having made a promise to Ms. Barnes, as part of its privacy policy and terms of service, and reiterated through local media, that it would take down profiles such as the one at issue. The making of a promise would be an activity that would fall outside of the CDA's scope. Thus, a promissory estoppel claim can survive a CDA-based motion to dismiss.

The second, and potentially more problematic, result of this decision is the treatment of the CDA as an affirmative defense, and the basis for lawsuit immunity. Although this may seem like a small detail, the proverbial devil is in the detail. If the CDA is a source of lawsuit immunity, then this supports a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (a 12(b)(6) motion). A 12(b)(6) motion must be dispensed with before the filing of answer, and before the opening of discovery. An affirmative defense, on the other hand, is dealt with by a motion for a judgment on the pleadings. For this type of motion, the defendant must file an answer along with the affirmative defense. The filing of an answer is where things go awry. Upon the filing of an answer, the court can open discovery. If the case was presided over by an overly cautious judge, discovery could be mandated prior to the issuance of a ruling on the summary judgment motion. Given that discovery can be expensive and time consuming, it is not difficult to imagine that the potential costs of exercising CDA immunity may have greatly increased.

Why This Matters: This case should be of great interest to purveyors of social media and those who seek to tap into the power of social networks. Not only does this provide a wake-up call as to what the consequences are of the statements in privacy and terms-of-service policies, but it also defines a way to avoid future promissory estoppel-like claims. Promissory estoppel requires a promise and reasonable reliance – if it is unreasonable to rely on the promise, then the estoppel claim may fail. It is possible that an artful drafting of a terms-of-service document can make this kind of reliance unreasonable, and social media and other interactive website purveyors should think about whether their privacy policies need revision of this type.

Notwithstanding revisions to one's policies, the case is also noteworthy because of the shift in interpretation of the CDA. If the CDA is more properly an affirmative defense than the basis for lawsuit immunity, then the potential cost of tapping into the CDA's protections may rise significantly.

Cheerios - a Drug?

General Mills is the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") latest target. In case you think that you misread the previous statement, General Mills—manufacturer of the popular cereal "Cheerios"—received a letter addressed to its Chairman from the FDA May 5 claiming that the FDA has reviewed various Cheerios labels and found they contain "serious violations" of federal regulations. Cheerios is the best-selling cereal brand in the United States, with sales of $1.4 billion last year, according to General Mills.

In recent years, the FDA has begun cracking down on manufacturers who overstate the benefits of their products, amid increased demand for healthy foods. According to the FDA, General Mills is breaking federal regulations on two counts: they are marketing Cheerios like an "unapproved new drug" and misbranding the product by making "unauthorized health claims." What, in particular, has caught the ire of the FDA? The FDA said that the Cheerios product label promotes it like a drug intended for use in the "prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease." The FDA's letter drew particular attention to phrases that say the product lowers cholesterol by "4 percent in 6 weeks," that it can also reduce bad cholesterol by 4 per cent, and that it is "clinical proven" to lower cholesterol. The letter does not address the veracity of General Mills' claims, but simply the point that by making such claims, the product is being touted and advertised as having the same medicinal effects as other cholesterol-lowering drugs, and therefore should go through the proper channels for obtaining drug approval.

On the positive side, the FDA's letter acknowledges that General Mills had observed regulations correctly in respect of a health claim associating "soluble fiber from whole grain oats with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease," but the two claims about lowering cholesterol go beyond that which constitutes permissible advertising. The FDA said that even if the cholesterol-lowering claim could be argued to be part of an otherwise permissible claim, the wording disqualifies it from use in the soluble fiber health claim.

An important development in this matter is the fact that the FDA cites text on one of General Mills' company websites (www.wholegrainnation.com) as constituting misbranding. According to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the "Act"), an advertiser's website is considered to be part of the product labeling. The website in question says "heart-healthy diets rich in whole grain foods, can reduce the risk of heart disease." According to the FDA, the claim does not meet the requirements of the Act, which requires such assertions to state that "diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol and high in fiber-containing fruit, vegetable, and grain products may reduce the risk of heart disease." The Cheerios' labeling neither mentions fruits, vegetables and fiber, nor the need for the diet to be low in saturated fat and cholesterol.

The FDA's letter also refers to another labeling claim about reduction in cancer risk. The FDA said Cheerios' claim, which includes the statement "regular consumption of whole grains as part of a low-fat diet reduces the risk for some cancers, especially cancers of the stomach and colon," fails to meet the authorized format because, for example, like the aforementioned claim, it does not mention fruits and vegetables and fiber content, and again denies the public the chance to see the overall context of the healthy diet. The agency has also taken issue with the added phrase "especially cancers of the stomach and colon," which goes beyond what an authorized claim is allowed to say.

In a statement, General Mills spokesman Tom Forsythe defended the cereal's claims. "Cheerios' soluble fiber heart health claim has been FDA-approved for 12 years, and Cheerios' 'lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks' message has been featured on the box for more than 2 years," he said. "The science is not in question. The scientific body of evidence supporting the heart health claim was the basis for FDA's approval of the heart health claim, and the clinical study supporting Cheerios' cholesterol-lowering benefit is very strong. The FDA is interested in how the Cheerios cholesterol-lowering information is presented on the Cheerios package and website. We look forward to discussing this with FDA and to reaching a resolution."

General Mills has been given 15 days to reply with an explanation of how they intend to "correct the violations" and to ensure that "similar violations do not occur." Will the day come when consumers need a prescription to purchase their next box of Cheerios?

What We're Reading 5/27/2009

What We're Reading

Reuters: Google eases trademark restrictions on some U.S. ads

Google Inc is lifting restrictions on the use of trademarked terms in its U.S. online advertising system, a move that could increase friction between the Internet giant and brand owners.

 

ClickZ: "Strong Nudge" from FTC May Lead to "Draconian Measures"

When behavioral ad-related privacy worries arise, online ad industry execs often point to the fact that they only store and apply non-personally identifiable data in ad targeting. However, as far as government regulators are concerned, that may not matter. The Federal Trade Commission signaled as much earlier this year in its revised principles for behavioral ad targeting, and reiterated its stance yesterday.

 

Excite News: Court turns away appeal over Steinbeck copyrights

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by a son of author John Steinbeck over the publishing rights to "The Grapes of Wrath" and other early works.

 

NY Times: New Mood in Antitrust May Target Google

For decades, the nation’s biggest antitrust cases have centered on technology companies. And they have all been efforts by the government to deal with powerful companies with far-reaching influence, like AT&T, the telephone monopoly; I.B.M., the mainframe computer giant; and Microsoft, the powerhouse of personal computer software.

 

Reuters: Woody Allen wins $5 million in lawsuit over his image

American Apparel Inc settled film director Woody Allen's lawsuit over the company's use of his image in advertising for $5 million, Allen said on Monday as the case was about to come to trial.

What We're Reading 5/15/2009

Brandweek: YouTube Unleashes Product Placement Police

In recent months, YouTube has set off some jangled nerves among several of its more popular content producers. The company issued written notifications to several producers who have inked branded integration deals directly with advertisers, gently reminding them that according to its Terms of Service, users are not to post commercial videos on YouTube without permission.

 

Brandweek: Sustainability Matters, But Green Is Not Everything

Shoppers are thinking green, but not always buying that way, according to a new study released today by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and Deloitte. The study found that while 54 percent of shoppers indicate that environmental sustainability in a factor in their purchasing decisions, they actually bought green products on just 22 percent of their shopping trips. The survey is the basis of the GMA-Deloitte report released today titled Finding the Green in Today’s Shoppers: Sustainability Trends and New Shopper Insights and was based on interviews with over 6,400 shoppers.

 

Mediaweek: Cali Lawmakers Halt Digital Billboard Ban Legislation

On April 30, California lawmakers shot down legislation that would have amounted to a de facto ban on digital billboards in the state. The bill, AB 109, had been sponsored by California assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles).

 

Reuters: U.S. objects to General Mills' Cheerios health claims

* Cheerios boxes carried unapproved drug claims - FDA

* Did not fit authorized claims for heart health - FDA

* Company says claims well supported

General Mills made unauthorized claims about the heart-related benefits of Cheerios on cereal boxes and a website, U.S. regulators said in a letter released on Tuesday.

 

Environmental Leader: Consumers Buying More ‘Green’ Since Start of Recession

Countering some other research, a new study shows that consumers in the United States, UK and Japan have placed more emphasis on buying so-called “green” items than they did before the recession began, among other attributes they consider during purchasing.

What We're Reading 5/8/2009

What We're Reading

The Hollywood Reporter: Commentary: The growing use of DVRs

Study: About 16% of commercials will be skipped by 2011

About 6% of TV commercials in the U.S. are fast-forwarded because of DVRs, reflecting about $5 billion in what some consider wasted spending. By the end of 2011, about 16% of commercials will be skipped.

 

Environmental Leader: 54% of Grocery Shoppers Consider Product Sustainability

Fifty-four percent of shoppers consider environmental sustainability characteristics in their buying decisions; however, only 22 percent actually buy green products on their shopping trips, according to a new study released by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and Deloitte. The study also reveals that sustainability considerations are a tie-breaker when deciding between products.

 

Environmental Leader: Green Ads on the Rise

TerraChoice has found that the amount of advertising of green claims is on the rise.

Looking at 18,000 ads in recent issues of Time, Fortune, National Geographic, Sports Illustrated and Vanity Fair, TerraChoice found that more than 10 percent of all ads in 2008 made some sort of “green” claim. That’s up from about 3 percent in 2006.

Keeping Ahead of the (Other) Creditors in Bankruptcies

This post was written by Michael Venditto and Andy Rahl.

During the first quarter of 2009, business bankruptcy filings were at the highest levels since 2001. If the pace of bankruptcies of large corporations continues at the current rate for the balance of the year, the number of large business bankruptcies will be the highest in history. Last week, the auto industry was the latest victim when Chrysler filed for bankruptcy in New York.

In January, we advised our advertising and media clients to prepare for this unprecedented environment by reviewing their credit policies and limiting their exposure to businesses in troubled industries. And with financial problems spreading to so many sectors of the economy, it is almost inevitable that you will be a creditor by a bankruptcy. While that’s certainly better than being the company filing a petition for bankruptcy, managing the financial impact can be just as devastating. When it happens, you will have many questions. What will happen to outstanding billings? How long will it be until we are paid? How can I get to the front of the line? The questions are endless.

The Chrysler chapter 11 case, although not typical of every bankruptcy, provides some useful lessons. The filing by Chrysler was long-anticipated, since the United States government had set a deadline for an out-of-court restructuring, and the negotiations with the various creditor groups were widely reported in the media. Yet when the petition was filed, advertising agencies and media companies—even those who had taken prophylactic measures—were left exposed to millions of dollars of potential losses. So now, quick action is key to limiting, or even eliminating, those losses.

Creditors who took a proactive approach to Chrysler’s bankruptcy had an opportunity to affect how they would be treated. On the day that Chrysler filed the case, it also filed a number of applications with the court seeking permission to take certain action with respect to its unpaid bills. These applications were filed in the middle of the night and were heard by the court at a hearing early the following morning. By noon, the court had entered orders granting Chrysler the discretion to give special treatment to those providers it considered critical to Chrysler’s future. The orders were not clear whether advertising or media suppliers could benefit from these procedures. More importantly, to some degree the court gave Chrysler the freedom to pick and chose how to deal with each of its creditors.

After this early effort to protect its trading partners, Chrysler turned its attention to a well-publicized battle with a group of dissident lenders, followed by efforts to consummate a sale of its business to a new company that will be controlled by the U.S. government, the United Autoworkers, and Fiat. Could there ever be an odder set of shareholders? This left many advertising and media companies wondering whether and when they would be paid. But, some creditors were in a better position because they got involved in the process and elevated their visibility before the attention of Chrysler and the bankruptcy court was diverted.

How is this possible if the Bankruptcy Code is intended to ensure that similarly situated creditors are treated equally?  The reason, to paraphrase George Orwell, is that all creditors are equal, but some creditors are more equal than others.

Creditors that are denominated as “critical vendors” are routinely accorded special treatment, earning the right to have their billings paid in the ordinary course, while other creditors may have to wait months or years until the case concludes. And since some other creditors are accorded payment priority by several provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, obtaining a special classification is the key to surviving the process with as little downside as possible.

To be one of the “more equal” creditors in any bankruptcy case, you must understand the Bankruptcy Code, as well as the orders the court may have entered authorizing special treatment for certain creditors. Most of these special treatments have time deadlines, so a lack of diligence can be costly. Timely and expert legal advice is critical to benefitting from any special priorities that might be available.

So finding a law firm with experience to assist you through the minefield is essential. While Reed Smith, with its experience in advertising, media and bankruptcy law, is available to assist you whenever these cases arise, our best advice to you is to get qualified counsel, whether it’s Reed Smith or another top firm. As the saying goes, the clock is ticking …

LA Scale...Not

Effective April 1, 2009, the JPC negotiated a new three-year collective bargaining agreement with SAG and AFTRA for actors who perform in television and radio commercials.

It has come to our attention that some voice-over agents in Los Angeles continue to demand so-called "LA Scale" for radio commercials, a rate significantly above the scale rates the JPC and AFTRA negotiated in the collective bargaining agreement covering radio commercials. We also understand that “LA Scale” usually goes up immediately after a new contract is agreed upon. It is entirely unclear to us who decides to implement such an increase. It is also unclear whether any agents have collectively agreed to demand LA Scale or to increase it.

The JPC and AFTRA did not agree to LA Scale, nor to any other local premium over the minimum scale fees contained in the AFTRA Radio Commercials Contract. In truth, the advertising industry and AFTRA have never collectively agreed to LA Scale.

While individual agents can demand whatever they wish in negotiations, producers are only obligated to pay no less than the minimums in the collective bargaining agreement. While a producer can certainly agree to pay more, it is not mandated by any collective bargaining agreement. Any perception that LA Scale is a negotiated minimum compensation for productions in Los Angeles is totally false.

Of course, agents and producers are free to negotiate for rates higher than the minimums. But such negotiations must be on an individual basis. As a group, agents cannot agree among themselves to only accept a higher fee, any more than producers can conspire to pay less than the minimums required in the collective bargaining agreement.

Should you encounter any agent claiming that LA Scale is an agreed-upon rate and is required as a matter of right or obligation, please report such statement to me. If you receive anything in writing from agents demanding LA Scale, please forward it to me, subject, of course, to redacting any information you feel is confidential. And regardless of how you deal with the issue, if an agent insists on LA Scale, be sure the agent explains exactly what the agent means by LA Scale and precisely what rate they are demanding for both session and residuals.

If you wish to make such a report or if you have any questions, please contact me at 212 549 0377 or dwood@reedsmith.com.

WOMM-U 2009

Again this year, May 13-14, in Miami Beach, the Word of Mouth Marketing Association will host WOMM-U, a comprehensive and interactive educational experience designed to provide the real-world knowledge required to execute impactful word of mouth marketing (WOM) programs in today’s challenging marketing environment. The agenda features a wide variety of timely WOM topics presented by prominent experts in the field.

“WOMM-U is different from any other conference of its kind because of its powerful mix of theoretical and practical opportunities that offer real-world knowledge and tools to begin or strengthen WOM programs for brands and nonprofits,” said WOMMA Executive Director Kristen Smith, CAE.

The agenda for the two-day event includes social media-based WOM presentations and workshops with representatives from Google, YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, Eons, Twitter, as well as noted bloggers and industry consultants. Participants also will engage in roundtable sessions with WOM experts.

Among featured plenary-session presentations are:

YouTube and Google: Maximizing Online Video for Marketing Success: Jeben Berg, creative director of Cross Platform Solutions for YouTube & Google, will cover the sometimes complicated process of using YouTube and Google to better connect with customers.

Marketers Dilemma: MySpace, Facebook or Both?: The world’s two largest social networks have more than 130 million users every month. Today the issue isn’t IF you should use MySpace or Facebook to reach your customers, it’s HOW. Panelists will share insights on how to utilize these social media platforms to enhance favorable brand awareness.

FTC Guidelines: Ethics, Endorsements, etc.: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently proposed new guidelines to address endorsements and testimonials used in traditional media and emerging media such as blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. They are intended to prevent misleading and untruthful endorsements from advertisers and bloggers. Paul Rand, WOMMA’s Vice President and Ethics Chair, and Anthony DiResta, attorney and former regional FTC Director, will lead discussion on how the proposed guidelines affect offline and online WOM programs.

Online registration for WOMM-U is available at http://womma.org/wommu. The conference will be held at the Ritz Carlton South Beach and begins May 13 at 8:00 am. The cost is $995 for WOMMA members and $1,495 for nonmembers.

What We're Reading 5/4/2009

What We're Reading

DIRECT: FTC Offers Insight Into Mobile Marketing Practices 

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a report on mobile marketing, which offers insight into how the organization views the burgeoning channel.

The report, “Beyond Voice: Mapping the Mobile Marketplace,” includes the following findings:
Cost disclosures about mobile services continue to generate consumer complaints. The FTC staff will continue to monitor cost disclosures, bring law enforcement actions as appropriate, and work with industry on improving its self-regulatory enforcement.

 

BBC News: Facebook users say yes to changes 

Facebook users have voted to back changes which give them control over data and content they post on the site. 

Early results suggest 75% of those who voted support the proposals. 

The vote was triggered by changes Facebook made to its terms and conditions in February.
The move drew fire because it appeared to hand the social network site ownership of images, videos and data that users posted on profile pages.

 

Excite News: FCC 'fleeting expletives' policy in - for now 
       
The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the government could threaten broadcasters with fines over the use of even a single curse word on live television, yet stopped short of ruling whether the policy violates the Constitution.

 

Reuters: FTC says Internet firms near "last chance"

Companies that track consumer behavior on the Web for targeted advertising without proper consent are near their "last chance" to self-regulate, the head of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said on Monday.

 

Reuters: Online gambling bill coming: Frank 

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said on Tuesday he would introduce a bill next week to overturn a three-year-old U.S. ban on Internet gambling.