Yes, if they don't want to get an easy reaming by the federal government, because in addition to the cash portion of the settlement, the consent decree includes:
(1) a requirement that they stop making the specific claims that were at issue, and
(2) a requirement that they stop making any financial claims to consumers without “competent and reliable evidence to support” those claims.
That basically means that if they keep doing anything like what was claimed in this case, the FTC gets to treat them like a money piñata without proving a violation of the generally-applicable rules, because they’ve accepted, in a legally-binding way, stricter rules where violations are easier to prove and harder to refute.
The cash payment is almost never the most important part of a settlement with a regulatory agency in terms of preventing similar future abuse by the same company.
On the other hand, this is a green light for other companies to pull shady tricks to reach market dominance, knowing they will only get a slap on the wrist if caught, while benefiting massively from the position their fraud afforded them.
Yes, if they don't want to get an easy reaming by the federal government, because in addition to the cash portion of the settlement, the consent decree includes:
(1) a requirement that they stop making the specific claims that were at issue, and
(2) a requirement that they stop making any financial claims to consumers without “competent and reliable evidence to support” those claims.
That basically means that if they keep doing anything like what was claimed in this case, the FTC gets to treat them like a money piñata without proving a violation of the generally-applicable rules, because they’ve accepted, in a legally-binding way, stricter rules where violations are easier to prove and harder to refute.
The cash payment is almost never the most important part of a settlement with a regulatory agency in terms of preventing similar future abuse by the same company.