By Rodney Choo, National Venture Capital Association
Management Liability Program Manager
Skechers has reached settlement with the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection for $40M concerning allegations of deceptive advertising (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/skechers-to-pay-40-million-to-settle-charges-over-unsupported-claims/2012/05/16/gIQA0MY0TU_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop). Specifically, that simply wearing those shoes will NOT actually make you look like some of the celebrity “figures” they’ve touted in their ad campaigns. Nothing particularly novel about this situation, but it is a good case study to put the “Antitrust Exclusion” in private company Directors & Officers (D&O) liability policies into context and why it actually does matter.
The misconception that we often find is a focus on the potential for antitrust liability as everyone understand it, and by that we mean a general concern over federal antitrust issues (e.g., price fixing, collusion). To be more accurate, we should be referring this to as the “unfair business practices” exclusion, which goes far beyond traditional antitrust and is largely a state law – and more importantly a class action – driven issue.
Virtually very state has an “unfair business practices” statute that is usually so broad as to drive a truck through it straight plaintiffs’ lawyer nirvana. Many define as unfair business practices “false and deceptive advertising” and this is usually an incredibly broad definition and was the basis for the many of the consumer class actions filed against Skechers. Even worse, these statutes usually have “Private Attorneys General” provisions that allow individuals to bring class actions on behalf of the public good.
TechAssure has always drawn distinctions between insurers that have or do not have an Antitrust Exclusion in their policy forms, and it has been a critical part of our program for portfolio company D&O. This is a legitimate point to highlight, particularly as more and more carriers are seeking to add it back in, as this has been a significant source of the recent negative claims experience that has led, at least in part, to the firming up of the D&O market.