Stay ADvised: 2026, Issue 4

In This Issue:

• Trump's Latest FTC Commission Pick Signals Potential Made In USA Priorities
• NAD Works Through Toolmakers' Made In USA Claims
• California Announces Sweeping "Surveillance Pricing" Investigation Under CCPA Privacy Law

Trump's Latest FTC Commission Pick Signals Potential Made In USA Priorities

President Trump has chosen David MacNeil, the billionaire founder and CEO of WeatherTech, for a seat on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a nomination that has raised eyebrows among political and business stakeholders alike. MacNeil built WeatherTech into a multibillion-dollar automotive accessories company—best known for its premium car mats, sun shades, dog bowls, etc.,—based on domestic manufacturing and marketing around U.S. investment and Made in USA products.

Trump's nomination of MacNeil—whom Forbes reports has donated over $3 million to Trump's campaigns—has raised questions about a business figure with no formal experience in antitrust or consumer protection law overseeing enforcement actions that could impact competitors and other industries, particularly while he remains CEO of WeatherTech. Also, as reported by Forbes, MacNeil has said he impressed Trump by telling him that he values providing jobs to Americans over making "a quick buck" selling Chinese-manufactured merchandise. On the FTC, MacNeil has also said he wants to use the office to promote American manufacturing. He has specifically championed stronger FTC guidelines that would apply across the board to online and brick-and-mortar sales.

FTC Chair and Trump appointee Andrew Ferguson recently posted a tweet congratulating MacNeil on his nomination to the Commission, saying he looks forward to "working with this outstanding businessman and great patriot." The tweet links to a CBS News report highlighting MacNeil's championing of American manufacturing.

Key Takeaways

• Made in USA remains front and center. Trump's nomination of WeatherTech CEO David MacNeil—a longtime champion of domestic manufacturing—signals continued FTC focus on Made in USA claims and country-of-origin enforcement.
• No sign of a rollback. If confirmed, MacNeil's background and public statements suggest he would reinforce the FTC's existing "all or virtually all" standard rather than soften it.
• Confirmation is not automatic. MacNeil's nomination requires Senate confirmation, which may raise questions about conflicts of interest and recusal given WeatherTech's reliance on Made in USA marketing.
• What this means for brands. Advertisers should expect ongoing scrutiny of both express and implied Made in USA claims and ensure they can substantiate or properly qualify those claims.

See below, here, and here for more on our reporting of Made in USA regulatory standards and trends.

NAD Works Through Toolmakers' Made In USA Claims

The FTC isn't the only watchdog scrutinizing Made in USA claims. In a recent National Advertising Division (NAD) decision, competing manufacturers of line-worker tools asked NAD to evaluate whether Bashlin Industries' Made in USA claims were properly substantiated. The challenge was brought by competitor Buckingham Manufacturing, which took issue with both express and implied U.S.-origin claims across multiple Bashlin products.

As a threshold matter, NAD rejected Bashlin's attempt to characterize certain challenged materials as outside NAD's jurisdiction. Bashlin argued that some Made in USA depictions were not "national advertising" because they appeared fleetingly in videos or were not visible to the naked eye, and that its safety videos were "informational only." NAD disagreed. Despite on-screen disclaimers, NAD found that the videos were widely disseminated, promotional in tone, and intended to persuade consumers of the value of Bashlin's products—making them advertising and subject to review. Calling marketing content "informational" did not change its commercial character.

Turning to the substance, NAD found that Bashlin's unqualified Made in USA claims for its climbers—specialized line-worker tools worn on the legs and used to ascend and descend utility poles—were not adequately substantiated. Although Bashlin showed that more than 95% of the climbers' costs were attributable to U.S.-sourced components, several components of undetermined origin—including buckles, screws, and fasteners essential to the product's form and function—prevented the products from meeting the FTC's exacting "all or virtually all" standard. Because consumers could not discern from the advertising which components were not domestic or of unknown origin, NAD recommended that the unqualified claims be discontinued or appropriately qualified.

NAD also addressed Made in USA claims on products sold on Bashlin's website but manufactured by third parties. A Bashlin-branded tool bucket, for example, featured a Made in USA stamp on the underside of its plastic base. Bashlin argued that no reasonable consumer would interpret that marking as applying to the entire bucket system. NAD was unpersuaded, finding that the unqualified stamp reasonably conveyed that the entire product satisfied the FTC's Made in USA standard. Because consumers could not reasonably understand that the claim applied only to the bucket bottom, NAD recommended discontinuation or qualification of the claim.

The same logic applied to third-party products sold on Bashlin's website, including a bucket knuckle and hat liner. Bashlin argued that it was merely a reseller and therefore not responsible for substantiating country-of-origin claims. NAD flatly rejected that position, reiterating its long-standing precedent that resellers are responsible for the claims they make or endorse on their own websites, even for products they do not manufacture. Lacking substantiation, the unqualified Made in USA claims for those products could not stand.

Finally, NAD examined Bashlin's use of American-flag imagery in its logo and marketing materials. NAD concluded that when flag imagery appeared adjacent to product descriptions, in videos, or alongside other U.S.-origin references, it could reasonably convey an implied Made in USA message. When the same imagery appeared far removed from product information, however, it did not carry the same implication. NAD recommended that Bashlin either discontinue or modify uses of flag imagery that appeared in product-related contexts to avoid conveying unsupported implied claims.

Key Takeaways

• "All or virtually all" remains a high bar. Even products that are overwhelmingly U.S.-sourced may fall short if essential components are of foreign or unknown origin.
• "Informational" content can still be advertising. Safety videos and training materials may be treated as national advertising if they promote product value or encourage purchasing.
• Resellers aren't off the hook. Companies are responsible for Made in USA claims made on their own websites—even for third-party products.
• Flag imagery matters. Patriotic imagery can imply a Made in USA claim when used near product descriptions or origin references.

California Announces Sweeping "Surveillance Pricing" Investigation Under CCPA Privacy Law

On Data Privacy Day (January 28, 2026), California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced an investigative sweep into so-called surveillance pricing—the practice of using consumers' personal information to set targeted, individualized prices for goods and services. Under this approach, two consumers shopping the same item at the same time might be shown different prices based on data like browsing history, location, or demographic characteristics.

The sweep targets prominent companies, particularly in the retail, grocery, and hotel sectors, which have a significant online presence. The California Department of Justice is sending letters requesting detailed information about how personal data is used to determine prices, policies, and disclosures related to personalized pricing, any pricing experiments the company has run, and steps the company is taking to comply with algorithmic pricing, competition, and civil-rights laws.

Bonta emphasized that surveillance pricing may run afoul of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), particularly under the law's purpose limitation and transparency requirements, which restrict businesses from using personal information in ways that are inconsistent with consumers' reasonable expectations or that are not properly disclosed.

While this initiative is currently a compliance inquiry rather than a formal enforcement action, it reflects a broader regulatory focus on how personal data influences pricing and highlights the growing intersection of privacy, consumer protection, and algorithmic practices.

Key Takeaways

• Use of personal information to set prices is being investigated. Price advertising and the use of "surveillance pricing" are enforcement priorities in California, New York, and beyond. As we reported earlier this year, the New York Attorney General made public a letter to Instacart alleging potential violations of the state's recently enacted Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure law. AG Bonta's announcement likewise signals potential enforcement under the CCPA. Stakeholder companies can manage risk by taking steps now to examine compliance with state privacy laws, algorithmic pricing disclosure requirements, and by discussing internally any plans to test or implement algorithmic pricing tools whether on a short or long-term basis.