FTC’s ongoing focus on “Made in USA” claims

In a move that should draw the attention of companies that make “Made in USA” (MUSA) advertising claims and their counsel, the White House, on January 13, 2026, announced the nomination of David MacNeil to fill a vacant seat on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). MacNeil is the founder and chief executive officer of automotive accessories manufacturer WeatherTech and has publicly supported United States-based manufacturing.

MacNeil’s nomination was followed by media reports indicating that current FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson may soon be departing the Commission for the US Department of Justice. Taken together, these actions may indicate that the FTC will continue to prioritize investigating allegedly misleading MUSA claims.

Our alert discusses federal and state MUSA laws and key compliance considerations to mitigate regulatory and class action risks.

The federal baseline: FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard

The FTC’s Made in USA Labeling Rule codifies the agency’s longstanding “all or virtually all” standard for unqualified MUSA claims. To make an unqualified claim, products must:

• Be finally assembled or processed in the US,
• Undergo significant US processing, and
• Contain all or virtually all US components or ingredients.

The Made in USA Labeling Rule permits qualified MUSA claims – such as “Made in USA with imported parts” or “Assembled in USA” – where the qualification is clear, conspicuous, and accurate, enabling truthful disclosure when foreign content or processing is present and material.

The FTC has paired the substantive MUSA framework with assertive enforcement, including record civil penalties over the past two years. This trend may be reinforced should the Senate confirm MacNeil’s appointment. The FTC has also publicly emphasized its investigation of misleading MUSA claims. Notably, Chairman Ferguson issued a proclamation on July 1, 2025, declaring that July was “Made in the USA Month.”

In his announcement, Chairman Ferguson stated:

In honor of our nation’s independence, the Federal Trade Commission has designated July as ‘Made in the USA’ month. As Chairman of the FTC, I am responsible for enforcing laws that prohibit companies from making false or unsubstantiated claims that a product is ‘Made in the USA.’ It is important to protect Americans from deceptive advertising, and also important because it provides consumers with confidence that when they buy something that says ‘Made in the USA,’ they are actually supporting American workers, American manufacturers, and American communities.

Private class actions alleging misleading MUSA claims

In addition to FTC enforcement, consumer-facing businesses could face class action litigation brought by individuals under state analogs to the federal Made in USA Labeling Rule, especially in California and New York.

California

California maintains statutory guardrails and limited safe harbors for unqualified MUSA claims under California Business and Professions Code section 17533.7. The statute prohibits MUSA claims when products are “entirely or substantially” made outside the US, and allows two narrow safe harbors tied to foreign content thresholds:

• 5 percent overall or
• 10 percent where foreign content is not available domestically, with unavailability not based on cost.

California courts have recognized that the FTC’s Made in USA Labeling Rule does not preempt these safe harbors. However, compliance with California’s thresholds does not guarantee compliance with the FTC’s qualitative standard, creating a dual-exposure risk for brands. California also prohibits deceptive origin representations under Civil Code section 1770(a), which captures misstatements about the “source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.”

New York

New York plaintiffs typically bring claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. To establish misleading conduct, a plaintiff must demonstrate a materially misleading act under an objective “reasonable consumer” standard and injury. These provisions have increasingly been invoked to challenge both explicit origin claims and implied origin messages communicated through patriotic imagery, slogans, or flags.

Reputational risks for brands

Three recent matters illustrate the financial and reputational risks for brands with inaccurate or unsubstantiated MUSA claims:

1. In November 2025, a California class action challenged a leading coffee brand’s “America’s Coffee” slogan and prominent US flag imagery, alleging that the branding communicates an implied US-origin message despite overseas sourcing and processing. Plaintiffs brought claims under California and New York consumer protection statutes and cited the FTC’s guidance on implied origin claims.

2. Filed in September 2025, a pending class action in New York challenges the marketing copy of orange juice products for allegedly implying a US origin with the phrase “Owned By Florida Farmers” adjacent to an American flag, despite the products containing blended juices from Mexico and Brazil.

3. In April 2025, a California jury awarded approximately USD2.36 million against a tea purveyor after finding that statements such as “Manufactured in the USA” and “America’s Classic” misled consumers regarding where essential tea inputs were grown and processed abroad. The verdict underscores that foreign agricultural inputs and overseas processing may negate an unqualified US-origin message, even if US blending or packaging occurs.

Key considerations for brands

Brands should consider creating product-level origin maps that confirm final assembly (or processing) and significant pre-final processing occurs in the US, as well as that components or ingredients are all or virtually all US-sourced before making any unqualified claim. If foreign content or processing is present and material, make qualified claims with clear, conspicuous, and accurate disclosures crafted to match the product’s actual manufacturing profile.

Companies are also encouraged to review brand assets and packaging – including slogans, flags, and patriotic imagery – to avoid conveying an implied US-origin message that cannot be substantiated, and to recalibrate where foreign inputs or processing could undermine a reasonable consumer’s understanding. Additionally, organizations may wish to consider strengthening internal compliance programs, pre-clearing marketing statements, and documenting country of origin substantiation to reduce exposure to both federal actions and private class litigation.

Learn more

For more information, please contact the authors.