Passport to Trouble: FTC Takes Aim at Alleged Government Impersonation in Search Ads

Passport paperwork is rarely anyone’s idea of a good time. Want an even worse time? Try having the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allege you are selling a shortcut you can’t deliver.

On Oct. 22, the FTC sued GovAssist, Entry and their owner, Scott Zuckerman, in a case touching on everything from reviews and disclaimers to familiar deceptive advertising claims. The complaint alleges that the defendants collected more than $40 million from over 300,000 consumers through a passport-services operation built on misleading paid search ads, government-impersonating websites, false service promises and fake reviews. The complaint alleges violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Impersonation of Government and Businesses Rule and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (but surprisingly not the Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials).

According to the FTC, consumers searching Google for terms such as “passport renewal” encountered the defendants’ websites as top sponsored results. Those ads and linked landing pages allegedly used official-looking imagery, government-adjacent names and agency references to suggest government affiliation. Some ads and webpages included disclaimers denying government affiliation, but the FTC alleges those disclosures did not overcome the surrounding message.

The alleged disconnect continued with the services themselves. According to the FTC, many consumers expecting a passport instead received application paperwork they still needed to submit to the State Department, along with additional government fees. Confirmation screens and customer portals allegedly compounded the confusion by telling consumers their applications had been submitted or were being processed. The FTC also alleged that those messages reinforced the impression that consumers were dealing directly with the government.

Then there were the price and timing promises. Services advertised as “starting at $89” allegedly started at $119 plus shipping and before fees. And the defendants allegedly promised passport delivery in as little as three to four business days despite having no ability to accelerate State Department processing.

In addition, the defendants allegedly bolstered their credibility by using fake positive consumer reviews. According to the complaint, they touted an “excellent” rating on Trustpilot, an online review platform, even though Trustpilot had identified and removed hundreds of fabricated reviews and notified the defendants.

What Should Advertisers Take Away?

• First, a disclaimer is not a boarding pass out of trouble. Disclosures can qualify a claim; they cannot contradict it. If the main message is misleading, fine print saying otherwise does not fix it. Check both what the disclosure says and whether it can actually do the job assigned to it. Here, if you look like a government agency and walk like a government agency to engage consumers, it is going to be very difficult later in the process to effectively communicate otherwise.
• Second, sell the service you actually provide at a true price disclosed up front. Preparing paperwork is not issuing a passport, and an expedited-service fee cannot make the government work faster than is otherwise possible. Promise only what you can deliver, ensure the starting prices you advertise are reasonably available to a meaningful number of consumers and clearly disclose up front any additional required fees.
• Third, check the reviews behind the rating. “Don’t write fake reviews” is only the starting point. Keep an eye on how reviews are generated, collected and used, including by outside vendors, and investigate warnings about authenticity. How you calculate your average star rating, which is often a headline, is as important as the legitimacy of the reviews themselves.
• Finally, context counts. Names, imagery, search ad context and website content can communicate claims just as readily as words alone. Review all elements of an advertisement together and ask what consumers will reasonably take away, not just whether each statement is technically accurate.

And in important related news, the FTC is seeking comment on whether to update its Impersonation of Government and Businesses Rule – specifically, whether to heighten requirements that platforms police ads that implicate the Rule and take steps to prevent them from being displayed. The comment period is currently open if you have views you would like to share.