Policy Statement Concerning the Suppression of Accuracy in Artificial Intelligence Systems

lied misrepresentations, half-truths,\24\ and instances where only a ``significant minority'' of consumers are misled.\25\ Moreover, courts have recognized the Commission's deception authority requires the entity to substantiate the representation it makes about its products or services with sufficient evidence.\26\ At its core, the Commission's deception authority is based on ``well-established principles of advertising law and common sense.'' \27\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ See, e.g., FTC v. Pukke, 53 F.4th 80, 104 (4th Cir. 2022); FTC v. Moses, 913 F.3d 297, 306 (2d Cir. 2019); FTC v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 631 (6th Cir. 2014). \24\ See, e.g., Novartis Corp. v. FTC, 223 F.3d 783, 787 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Fanning v. FTC, 821 F.3d 164, 170-72 (1st Cir. 2016); Kraft, Inc. v. FTC, 970 F.2d 311, 322 (7th Cir. 1992). \25\ ECM Biofilms, Inc. v. FTC, 851 F.3d 599, 610 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC, 777 F.3d 478, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2015)). A small proportion of consumers, such as 10%, can constitute a ``significant minority.'' See, e.g., Telebrands Corp., 140 F.T.C. 278, 325 (2005), aff'd, 457 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2006) (10.5% is significant); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. FTC, 481 F.2d 246, 249 (6th Cir. 1973) (10-15% is significant). \26\ See, e.g., POM Wonderful, 777 F.3d at 490-91; FTC v. Direct Mk