Photo of John P. Feldman

John P. Feldman

Subscribe to John P. Feldman's Posts
Contact:Read more about John P. Feldman

Giveaways serve as effective tools for influencers and celebrities to boost their visibility, engage with fans and expand their follower base. But for those following the recent giveaway that sparked mayhem in the streets of New York City (NYC), it is evident that preparation prior to live-event prize promotions is critical.

So, how did an innocent giveaway intended to show appreciation to fans trigger a level 4 disaster response from the New York Police Department (NYPD)?

A popular live-streamer with a collective social media following of over 20 million took to social media to announce he will be giving away free PlayStation 5 consoles, gift cards and other items in NYC’s Union Square Park at 4 p.m. on Aug. 5. By 1 p.m., crowds had already started gathering at Union Square Park. The NYPD soon became aware of the giveaway, but by 3 p.m., more than 2,000 individuals had already gathered at Union Square Park. Despite the efforts of roughly 1000 police officers, chaos nonetheless erupted. The ensuing chaos saw people climbing atop vehicles and subway stations, obstructing traffic, setting off fireworks and even engaging in violent behavior. The situation escalated further, culminating in clashes between attendees – many of whom were teenagers – and the NYPD. By 5:30 p.m., the event ended with injuries to police officers and civilians and resulted in dozens of arrests. The streamer was ultimately arrested and charged with felony first-degree rioting, as well as a misdemeanor for inciting a riot and unlawful assembly.

This incident serves as a stark reminder that orchestrating live-event prize promotions requires a comprehensive assessment of potential risks and the implementation of responsible planning and coordination with relevant authorities. If done carelessly, a giveaway’s sponsor can be subject to civil and criminal liability.Continue Reading Giveaway promotion oversight: What could possibly go wrong?

On April 13, 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) used its penalty offense authority to issue Notices to approximately 670 advertisers, warning that the FTC will not hesitate to use its authority to target those who cannot substantiate their claims, with large civil penalties of up to $50,120 per violation.  The Notice does not suggest…

No one who plans and operates a promotional sweepstakes wants to litigate over the prizes. But one of the primary reasons an operator wants a set of experienced eyes on a set of Official Rules is to ensure that the operator is covered – just in case there is a dispute with one or more of the contestants. Sometimes, operators cleverly anticipate that an arbitration clause will help to lower the risk of a dispute involving a contest or sweepstakes. And, undoubtedly, there might be situations where arbitration can help the operator lower the risk of costly litigation. But, like many substantive provisions of the promotional contract between an operator of a sweepstakes and a participating consumer, the clever protections you and your attorney put in place are only effective if they are made a part of the contract.
Continue Reading Reliance on sweepstakes official rules to avoid litigation requires publication

A lucrative prize incentive can be the engine for an exciting and socially beneficial innovation competition. Despite the good intentions of the organizer, a lot can go wrong even when the sponsor is a nonprofit. An innovation contest generally promotes the generation of ideas or prototypes for new advancements in an industry. We have worked with many entities that seek to encourage innovation through prize incentives. Such promotions can involve very large prizes, and they can engender a lot of press coverage. Regardless of whether the purpose of the contest is for commercial, educational, or social purposes, a company or organization can still end up in federal court if the contest is not properly structured and conducted.
Continue Reading Personavera v. CHIME: An Innovation Contest Goes Sour

This CLE webinar offers a unique, inside look at how BBB National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD) evaluates medical devices and other health-related products and services. Our panelists will engage in a lively discussion of recent enforcement trends and challenges for manufacturers, and how companies can effectively use the NAD framework to their advantage. In addition, this event will discuss NAD guidance on self-regulation and how to use it as a tool to ensure competitors also meet the standards set by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Continue Reading Register today! Join us for a CLE webinar “Evolving Roles for Self-Regulation of Medical Devices and Health Services”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has settled with mobile advertiser Tapjoy, Inc. (“Tapjoy”) over allegations that it misled consumers by failing to provide in-game rewards that users earned by completing its advertising offers. According to the FTC’s complaint, Tapjoy offered users in-game virtual currency for completing advertising offers like purchasing products or services, signing…

Our transatlantic team will be hosting a practical webinar looking at the significant proposed changes in the protection of children online. The webinar will look at the current trends across Europe and the US to provide insights on changes that could impact your business in the year ahead. Please click here to find out more…

On March 5, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard argument on an appeal seeking to overturn judgment against contact lens distributor 1-800 Contacts (“1-800”) for antitrust violations relating to agreements with competitors on advertising keywords.  This post follows our prior coverage of this matter, and is designed to highlight the…

The FTC recently settled with Teami, LLC (“Teami”), an indication that the Agency is still actively reviewing health claims and monitoring social media influencers for proper disclosures.  Teami allegedly brought in over $15 million through its deceptive marketing tactics, but given the company’s financial condition, the FTC agreed to partially suspend its $15.2 million judgment…