C.F.R. » Title 16 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER B—GUIDES AND TRADE PRACTICE RULES › PART 239—GUIDES FOR THE ADVERTISING OF WARRANTIES AND GUARANTEES

16 C.F.R. § 239.3

“Satisfaction Guarantees” and similar representations in advertising; disclosure in advertising that mentions “satisfaction guarantees” or similar representations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A seller or manufacturer should use the terms “Satisfaction Guarantee,” “Money Back Guarantee,” “Free Trial Offer,” or similar representations in advertising only if the seller or manufacturer, as the case may be, refunds the full purchase price of the advertised product at the purchaser's request.

(b) An advertisement that mentions a “Satisfaction Guarantee” or a similar representation should disclose, with such clarity and prominence as will be noticed and understood by prospective purchasers, any material limitations or conditions that apply to the “Satisfaction Guarantee” or similar representation.

Examples:These examples are for both print and broadcast advertising. These examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.Example A:(In an advertisement mentioning a satisfaction guarantee that is conditioned upon return of the unused portion within 30 days) “We guarantee your satisfaction. If not completely satisfied with Acme Spot Remover, return the unused portion within 30 days for a full refund.”Example B:(In an advertisement mentioning a money back guarantee that is conditioned upon return of the product in its original packaging) “Money Back Guarantee! Just return the ABC watch in its original package and ABC will fully refund your money.”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2008–2020 · leading case: Pearson v. Soo Chung, 961 A.2d 1067 (D.C. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pearson v. Soo Chung, 961 A.2d 1067 (D.C. 2008). “Pearson cites to 16 C.F.R. § 239.3 (a) (2008), which requires a seller or manufacturer to refund the full purchase price of an “advertised product” at the purchaser’s request.”
In re Roy L. Person, Jr. (D.C. 2020). · cites it 3× “Throughout litigation, Pearson cited 16 C.F.R. § 239.3 (b) for his proposition that “[t]he inherently deceptive nature of an unqualified guarantee that turns out to be qualified is well chronicled in the law” (emphasis in brief) and to support his favored interpretation of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.