In a recent turn of events, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem finds herself at the center of a legal battle over a promotional video she released on social media. The consumer advocacy group Travelers United has filed a lawsuit against Noem, alleging that she engaged in misleading advertising practices. This case, filed on Wednesday, March 13, in Washington, D.C., raises significant questions about the intersection of social media influence and legal disclosure requirements.
The controversy began when Noem shared a five-minute video on social media platforms, praising Smile Texas, a dental practice, for their work on her teeth. The governor recounted a past bicycling accident that led to her needing dental adjustments and expressed her satisfaction with the services provided by Smile Texas. The video, which began with Noem introducing herself as the governor of South Dakota, did not include any explicit disclosure of a financial relationship between her and the dental practice.
Travelers United’s complaint hinges on the allegation that Noem violated the Washington D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by not disclosing any financial ties with Smile Texas in her video. Lauren Wolfe, the lawyer representing Travelers United, stated, “we don’t have any specific proof” that Noem was compensated or received free or discounted services. However, Wolfe added, “It seems highly unlikely that there would not be some sort of material connection.”
The advocacy group’s lawsuit is not only seeking compliance with advertising disclosure requirements but also damages, the amount of which will be determined at trial. Wolfe emphasized that the primary goal is to ensure that Noem writes “ad” at the beginning of the caption on each relevant social media post, in accordance with the law.
The jurisdiction of a D.C. court over this matter is justified by the fact that Noem’s social media posts, which are viewable in Washington, D.C., are subject to the District’s consumer protection laws. Furthermore, the Federal Trade Commission’s nationwide rules clearly state the necessity for social media posts to be identified as advertisements when they are, indeed, promotional in nature.
Noem, with a substantial following of nearly 500,000 on X (formerly Twitter), is considered a prominent figure whose endorsements could significantly sway consumer behavior. This is not the first time Travelers United has taken legal action against individuals for dishonest advertising; they have an ongoing case against a California social media influencer.
The implications for Noem’s office and her social media practices remain to be seen as the lawsuit unfolds. Noem’s office has not yet responded to inquiries about the lawsuit. The case underscores the growing scrutiny over the use of social media by public figures and the importance of transparency in digital endorsements. It also serves as a reminder that the reach and influence of social media are not without legal boundaries and responsibilities.
Related posts:
Consumer advocacy group sues Noem over her Texas tooth promo video
Consumer advocacy group sues Noem over her Texas tooth promo video
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem faces lawsuit after viral endorsement of Texas dentists
