# MARKETING VIOLENT ENTERTAINMENT TO

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3Aa22279351af3d7b4

## Record

- **Collection:** Agency decision
- **Document type:** Agency decision

## Text

MARKETING VIOLENT ENTERTAINMENT TO
CHILDREN:
A ONE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP REVIEW OF
INDUSTRY PRACTICES IN THE MOTION PICTURE,
MUSIC RECORDING & ELECTRONIC GAME INDUSTRIES

A REPORT TO CONGRESS

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
DECEMBER 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Commission Reports on Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Sources of Information for this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II. MOTION PICTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Marketing to Children: Ad Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Industry commitments following the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Industry advertising placement since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
a. Television ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
b. Print and radio ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
c. In-theater trailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
d. Promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
e. Internet ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
f. Other steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Analysis of industry practices since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B. Ratings and Reasons for Ratings in Ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Industry commitments following the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Industry advertising practices since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
a. Television ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
b. Print and radio ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
c. Internet advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
(1) Studio Web sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
(2) Theater Web sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
(3) Home video retailer Web sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
d. Other steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Analysis of industry practices since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
C. Box Office Enforcement of the Rating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

III.MUSIC RECORDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Marketing to Children: Ad Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1. Industry commitments following the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2. Industry advertising placement since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
a. Television and radio promotions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
b. Print advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
c. Internet marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. Analysis of industry practices since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
B. Advisory Labels and Reasons for Labels in Ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1. Industry commitments following the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2. Industry advertising practices since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
a. Television ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
b. Print ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
c. Internet ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
(1) Recording company Web sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
(2) Retailer Web sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. Analysis of industry practices since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
C. Industry Efforts to Enforce the Rating System at Point-of-Sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

IV. ELECTRONIC GAMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
A. Marketing to Children: Ad Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1. Industry commitments since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Industry advertising placements since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
a. Television ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
b. Print ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
c. Internet ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3. Analysis of industry practices since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

B. Ratings and Reasons for Ratings in Ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1. Industry commitments since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2. Industry advertising practices since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
a. Television ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
b. Print ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
c. Internet ads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
(1) Game publishers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
(2) Retailers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3. Analysis of industry practices since the September Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
C. Industry Efforts to Enforce the Rating System at Point-of-Sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
1. Mystery shop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2. Online sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

V. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

ENDNOTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

CONCURRING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER ORSON SWINDLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

APPENDIX A: SELF-REGULATORY RATING SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

APPENDIX B: MYSTERY SHOPPER SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
APPENDIX C: DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND TELEVISION,
INTERNET, AND PRINT DEMOGRAPHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In September 2000, the Federal Trade Commission issued a report requested by the President
and Congress entitled, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of SelfRegulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game
Industries (“September 2000 Report”). That Report found that the three entertainment industries
had engaged in widespread marketing of violent movies, music, and electronic games to children
that was inconsistent with the cautionary messages of their own parental advisories and
undermined parents’ attempts to make informed decisions about their children’s exposure to
violent content.
In January 2001, the Senate Commerce Committee asked the Commission to conduct two
follow-up studies to determine: 1) whether violent R-rated movies, explicit-content labeled
music, and M-rated games continue to be advertised in popular teen media, and 2) whether ratings
or labels and content descriptions are included in the advertising. In its first follow-up report
issued in April, the Commission reported that in the months following the September 2000
Report, the movie and electronic game industries had made some progress – both in limiting
advertising in popular teen media and in providing rating information in advertising – but that the
music industry had done little in either area.
Now, in this second and more comprehensive follow-up study, the Commission finds that the
movie and electronic game industries have made commendable progress in limiting their
advertising to children of R-rated movies and M-rated games and in providing rating information
in advertising. The music industry has continued to advertise explicit content recordings in the
most popular teen venues in all media, although it has made improvements in providing explicitcontent labeling information in advertising.
Movies. For the motion picture industry, the Commission found the industry has made
progress in both restricting advertising in popular teen media and in providing rating information
disclosures. The Commission’s review of studio marketing plans for six violent R-rated and three
violent PG-13-rated films revealed no express targeting of either R-rated films to children under
17, or PG-13-rated films to children under 13. In reviewing marketing practices, the Commission

i

found no ads for R-rated movies in popular teen magazines and little promotion of R-rated films
in locations popular with teens. Its check of trailers for R-rated movies revealed none shown
before G- and PG-rated feature films.
The one popular teen venue where studios continued to advertise R-rated films was television.
The Motion Picture Association of America has set no specific limits on ad placements. Although
some studios have announced they will not advertise R-rated movies in venues with a 35 percent
or more youth audience share, this threshold permits continued advertising on popular television
programs that attract larger absolute numbers of underage viewers than programs with a 35
percent or more youth audience share.
In its review, the Commission found the movie industry has made real progress in disclosing
rating information in its advertising. It found studios now routinely disclose both ratings and
reasons for ratings in their television, print, radio, outdoor, and online advertisements – a
significant improvement since the September 2000 Report. Although the Commission identified a
number of studios that have done a good job in making their disclosures clear and conspicuous, it
also found that a significant percentage of rating reasons were not readable.
Music. For the music recording industry, the Commission’s review of ad placements revealed
no change in industry practices since the September 2000 Report. Marketing documents for 13
explicit-content labeled recordings included plans for extensive advertising in the most popular
teen venues in television, radio, print, and online media. Just before the issuance of the
September 2000 Report, the Recording Industry Association of America had recommended that
recording companies not advertise explicit-content labeled recordings in media outlets with a
majority under-17 audience. Shortly after release of the September 2000 Report, however, it
withdrew that recommendation. In the music industry’s view, advertising targeted to all ages is
consistent with its parental advisory labeling program which, unlike the rating programs for
movies and electronic games, does not specifically designate an age for which labeled music may
be inappropriate.
The Commission did find progress in the music industry’s disclosure of parental advisory label
information in its advertising. Recording companies increasingly are complying with recently
announced industry-wide guidelines that the parental advisory be included in all advertising of
ii

explicit-content labeled recordings. Although a promising start and a clear improvement since the
September 2000 Report, continued efforts will be needed to achieve widespread compliance.
Because the industry’s labeling program does not call for providing the reasons for the labels,
such information is not part of the labeling or advertising disclosures.
Games. For the electronic game industry, the Commission found continued positive steps to
limit ad placements in popular teen media, including new industry standards limiting ads for Mrated games where children constitute a certain percentage of the audience: 35 percent for
television and radio and 45 percent for print and the Internet. The Commission found little
advertising on popular teen television programs. However, in its review of marketing documents
for 14 violent M-rated games, the Commission found that all planned at least some ad placements
in media venues popular with teens, although only two expressly targeted an under-17 audience.
The Commission also found continued placements of advertising in youth-oriented magazines and
popular teen Web sites. The industry’s new anti-targeting standards should diminish – but likely
not eliminate – such placements.
The Commission found that the game industry has made substantial progress in providing
accurate and prominent rating information in advertising. With a revised game industry code now
in place that strengthens and clarifies disclosure requirements across all media, there remain only a
few key areas where the code and compliance need strengthening.
Undercover Shopper Survey. For this Report, the Commission again conducted an
undercover “mystery” shopper survey, as it had for the September 2000 Report, to determine
whether unaccompanied 13- to 16-year-olds could purchase tickets to R-rated movies, explicitcontent labeled recordings, and M-rated games. The survey was designed to assess any changes
made in response to the Commission’s recommendation in the September 2000 Report that all
three industries improve their self-regulatory efforts by increasing retail level compliance by, for
example, requiring identification or parental permission for sales to children. The results indicate
that, unlike the commendable progress by the movie and electronic game producers in responding
to the Commission’s recommendations of September 2000, retailers have made few changes since
the first survey. Nearly half (48 percent) of the theaters sold tickets to R-rated movies to the
underage moviegoers, while 90 percent of the music retailers sold explicit content recordings to
iii

the underage shoppers. Neither of these results represents a significant change from the practices
documented in the first survey. Electronic game retailers showed modest improvement in
restricting purchase of M-rated games than last year, with 78 percent allowing shoppers to
purchase M-rated games (compared to 85 percent earlier). Increasing retail level enforcement
remains an important challenge, especially for the music industry.
This Report documents genuine improvements by movie and electronic game producers in the
two areas of study: (1) limiting advertising placements for R-rated movies and M-rated games in
popular teen media, and (2) disclosing rating and labeling information in advertising. It also
identifies recent modest steps taken by the music industry to increase the number of explicit
content labeling disclosures in advertising and to communicate the meaning of the label to parents.
The Report offers suggestions for continuing improvements by all three industries in the areas of
study. Because of First Amendment and other issues, the Commission continues to support
private sector initiatives to implement these suggestions. The Commission believes that in
addition to the role that industry self-regulatory programs can play, individual companies can take
the lead in adopting best practices that go beyond those programs. In this Report, the
Commission points to several companies that have done so. It encourages others to follow their
lead. The Commission will continue to monitor the entertainment industry’s marketing practices
as Congress may direct.

iv

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Commission Reports on Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children
In September 2000, the Commission issued its first report on the marketing of violent
entertainment products to children by the motion picture, music recording, and electronic game
industries (“September 2000 Report”). This report responded to a request from President
Clinton1 and similar Congressional requests2 that the Commission undertake a study to answer
two questions: whether these three entertainment industries promote products that they
themselves acknowledge warrant parental caution in venues where children make up a substantial
percentage of the audience, and whether their advertisements are intended to attract children and
teenagers. After a comprehensive study that included internal industry marketing documents,
consumer surveys, and television, print, and Internet advertising, the Commission concluded that
the answer to both questions was “yes.”
The Commission found that although the three industries have self-regulatory systems that
purport to rate or label their products to help parents make choices about their children’s
entertainment, industry members routinely targeted advertising and marketing for entertainment
products with violent content directly to children. The Commission concluded that such
advertising and marketing efforts undermine each industry’s parental advisories and frustrate
parents’ attempts to protect their children from possibly inappropriate material. It called upon the
industries to strengthen their self regulatory programs by: (1) prohibiting target marketing to
children, and imposing sanctions for violations; (2) improving compliance with self-regulatory
programs at the retail level; and (3) increasing parental awareness of the ratings and labels.
Because of First Amendment issues, the Commission concluded that vigilant self-regulation offers
the best approach to helping parents choose what is appropriate for their children.
In January 2001, the Senate Commerce Committee requested that the Commission prepare
follow-up reports in the spring and fall of 2001 to examine whether the entertainment companies
continue to advertise products labeled or rated for violent content in popular teen media, and
whether rating or label information is included in advertisements of these products. The April
2001 Report provided a “snapshot” of industry advertising practices in the months following the
September 2000 Report. It described in some detail new self-regulatory initiatives by the four
1

industry associations – the Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”), the National
Association of Theatre Owners (“NATO”), the Recording Industry Association of America
(“RIAA”); and the Interactive Digital Software Association (“IDSA”).3 The Commission also
reported its findings, based on its review of television and print advertising and industry Internet
Web sites, that while the movie and electronic games industries had made progress, the music
recording industry had done little to respond to the September 2000 Report. The Commission
continued to urge the industries to strengthen their self-regulatory programs.
This is the second follow-up report. It examines the same issues as the April 2001 Report, but
is based on more extensive information, as described below.

B. Sources of Information for this Report
To prepare this Report, the Commission collected information from a variety of sources. As it
had done for the April 2001 Report, it tracked advertising placement in media popular with youth,
and reviewed advertisements in all media – print, television, radio, and the Internet – to determine
if they include clear and prominent rating and labeling information. In addition, the Commission
reviewed internal company documents provided by nine individual industry members, including
marketing plans for certain R-rated movies, explicit-content labeled music, and M-rated games
released since the Commission’s September 2000 Report.4 The company documents describe,
among other things, where advertisements were placed and the target audiences they were
intended to reach, the nature and extent of promotional activities used to generate consumer
awareness and interest in the products, and company research. In addition, the Commission
undertook an undercover shopper survey – as it had done for its September 2000 Report – to
determine if products rated or labeled for violent content were being sold to children without their
parents present.
More specifically, with respect to the motion picture industry, the Commission reviewed the
marketing of six R-rated films and three PG-13-rated films released by three major studios
between October 1, 2000 and April 1, 2001.5 In selecting these films, the Commission chose Rand PG-13-rated movies whose ratings were based, at least in part, on violent content.6
For the music recording industry, the Commission studied the marketing of fifteen explicit2

content labeled recordings7 released by three major recording companies between October 1,
2000 and March 1, 2001.8
For the electronic game industry, the Commission reviewed the marketing of fourteen violent
M-rated games by three of the major companies in the marketplace.9 The Commission selected
M-rated games issued since the September 2000 Report.10

II. MOTION PICTURES
A. Marketing to Children: Ad Placement
1. Industry commitments following the September 2000 Report
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission found that the movie industry engaged in
extensive marketing of violent R-rated films to children under 17.11 It urged the industry to
prohibit the practice,12 and specifically to stop placing advertisements for R-rated movies in
“media or venues with a substantial under-17 audience.”13 Although the Commission did not
define “substantial” or specify an audience size or share that marketers should consider off limits,
it pointed to the industry members’ own marketing documents that identified the media and
venues most effective in reaching teens.
As described more fully in the April 2001 Report, the MPAA responded to the Commission’s
recommendation by promising that each studio would review its marketing practices in order to
further the goal of “not inappropriately specifically targeting children” in its advertising of films
rated R for violence.14 Four of the seven members of the MPAA, plus one non-member studio,
made specific commitments not to market violent R-rated movies to those under 17.15 Three of
those studios announced they would not advertise R-rated movies in media with a substantial
audience of children under 17, defining “substantial” as more than 35% of the audience.16
2. Industry advertising placement since the September 2000 Report
In April, the Commission reported, based on its review of publicly available information, that
studios were continuing to advertise R-rated films on the most popular teen television programs,
but had stopped advertising in youth-oriented publications.17
For this Report, the Commission’s review of the media plans submitted by the three studios,
unlike those submitted for the September 2000 Report, does not indicate that R-rated films were
3

targeted at children under 17, or that PG-13-rated films were targeted at children under 13.
Although the studios continued to advertise R-rated films on television programs popular with
teens, they largely fulfilled their pledges not to advertise on programs with a youth audience share
of 35% or greater. Further, studios did not target youth audiences through promotions in youthoriented venues or in print ads.
The sections below review the studios’ practices in placing advertising in major media
including television, print, radio, and online.
a. Television ads
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission’s review of studio marketing plans revealed
that studios repeatedly advertised R-rated violent films on television programs with substantial
teen audiences.18 Most of the television campaigns for R-rated movies that targeted children
under 17 were aimed at least in part at children aged 12 and above.19
Since then, the film industry has taken some positive steps to reduce target marketing in this
medium. The three studios submitting marketing documents for this Report, for example, have
adopted policies not to advertise violent R-rated films on television programs with an under-17
audience share of 35% or greater, although two of the studios have excepted certain
programming from their policies.20 All the media plans reveal that the studios have tried to honor
their advertising placement policies. For the R-rated films reviewed, each studio considered the
age composition of television program audiences when considering potential buys; based on this
demographic data, each studio declared certain programs or day parts on certain stations off limits
for advertising. For example, these studios stopped advertising violent R-rated films during most
of the programming day on MTV, given the high percentage of youth viewers.21 Moreover, none
of the studios chose programs for advertising R-rated films on the basis of data showing
programs’ popularity with viewers under age 18.
To supplement information from the marketing plans, the Commission independently
monitored motion picture advertising on television programs with substantial youth audiences.22
It found that studios advertised violent R-rated films on some of the most popular programs with
a substantial youth audience that, despite their popularity, do not have a 35% youth audience
share.23 The monitoring, along with data showing when commercials first aired, also indicated
4

that a number of violent R-rated movies were advertised on programs that likely had youth
audiences over 35%,24 in some instances by studios that had pledged to observe the 35%
threshold. Among the films advertised on these programs were MGM’s Original Sin,
Sony/Columbia Pictures’ Baby Boy and Brother, 20th Century Fox’s Kiss of the Dragon, and
Warner Bros.’ Exit Wounds and Swordfish.25
As the Commission noted in its April 2001 Report,26 the 35% standard would have little effect
if a studio wanted to target teens in advertising R-rated films. This is because many programs that
are very popular with youth – especially network programs, which have the largest audiences, as
compared to cable – have an under-18 audience share less than 35%.27 The top ten daily network
programs all have an under-18 audience smaller than 35%.28 On the other hand, that 35%
audience share includes 17-year-olds, who are permitted to attend R-rated movies with adult
accompaniment.29 Still, even programs geared to the very young do not necessarily meet the 35%
threshold – for example, programs such as Frosty the Snowman (33%), Rudolph the Red-Nosed
Reindeer (31%), Mickey’s Christmas Carol (30%), and Power Rangers (23%) and Digimon
(21%) afternoon specials.30 As one studio document reviewed for this Report explained:
Even NBC’s teen-aimed TNBC Saturday morning block has programs that barely reach
the 35% composition. City Guys at 36% and 32% for its two airings, One World at 35%,
Hangtime at 30% are the only [non-prime-time] network programs not specifically
targeting kids 2-11 or 6-11 that exceed 30%.31
In addition to implementation of the 35% standard, some studios and the networks have taken
additional steps that are likely to discourage targeting youth in advertising R-rated films. Some
networks have decided not to accept advertising for R-rated films in youth-oriented programming,
including some programs that do not garner a 35% youth audience.32 As noted above, in
advertising R-rated films, studios no longer selected programs with the goal of maximizing impact
among viewers under 18.
b. Print and radio ads
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission found ads for R-rated films in youth-oriented
comic books and magazines, including some magazines that were specifically distributed in high
schools.33 For this Report, the Commission reviewed similar publications with a substantial or
majority readership under 17,34 and found much had changed. It found no advertisements for any
5

R-rated film from any studio.35 Moreover, none of the studios’ media plans reviewed for this
Report called for advertising R-rated films in youth-oriented publications; such publications did
figure in the marketing plans for two of the three PG-13 movies reviewed.
With respect to radio advertising, the picture was more mixed. The media plans showed that
one studio collected audience demographic data for spot radio buys,36 and avoided advertising on
certain parts of the day on particular stations because of teen audience shares over 35%.37 The
other two studios did not appear to collect radio audience demographic data. All three of the
studios, however, in coordinating promotional efforts with radio stations, such as free screening
passes, did inform the radio stations that the promotion should take place during a day part when
the audience was age-appropriate.
c. In-theater trailers
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission found that trailers for R-rated films were
shown to audiences containing substantial numbers of youngsters attending PG-13 films,38 and
that theaters did not always honor their policies that trailers should be for films within one rating
of the feature film. 39 The Commission recommended that the industry prohibit placing advertising
for R-rated movies in venues with a substantial under-17 audience. Since then, industry members
have pledged to improve their trailer placement practices,40 and the Commission has found broad
compliance with those pledges.41
For this Report, the Commission reviewed trailers shown before three films – Princess
Diaries (G), Atlantis (PG), and Tomb Raider (PG-13).42 It found no trailers for R-rated movies
shown before either Princess Diaries or Atlantis,43 and found trailers for four R-rated movies
before Tomb Raider.44 Its review of studio documents showed that, with one exception, studios
had requested that trailers for R-rated films be shown before only features rated PG-13 or R.45
With respect to trailers for films not yet rated, but likely to obtain an R rating, studios
apparently are not showing them before either G- or PG-rated features,46 and the three studios
from which the Commission requested documents have instituted specific policies to treat films
anticipated to obtain an R rating as they would a film that has already been rated R.
d. Promotions
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission found that promotions for R-rated films, such
6

as free passes to movie screenings and free merchandise related to the film (e.g., t-shirts, miniposters, etc.)47 were distributed at places where teens congregate. Marketing plans reviewed for
this Report revealed no similar practices. The three studios’ promotional activities for R-rated
films were not directed to youth-oriented groups or locations,48 but to coffee shops, nightclubs,
bars, bookstores, arcades that do not admit children under 18, or other locations that are less
likely to attract teens. The Commission did find that flyers and free passes occasionally were
distributed at locations likely to be popular with teens such as roller rinks, comic book stores,
skate and snowboard shops, and even a “laser tag” facility, but that these activities tended to
occur in just one or two cities and were not widespread.49 In addition, studios advised
newspapers that, in promoting films with retail partners, they should take steps to ensure that
those retailers’ products are age-appropriate in view of the rating. Studios also included language
on screening passes and flyers indicating that children under 17 would not be admitted to R-rated
films without a parent or guardian.
e. Internet ads
Internet advertising on third-party sites was a relatively small component of the ad campaigns
for the films reviewed for this Report. Two of the three studios did little advertising online for
their R-rated films, and the Web sites on which they did advertise did not have substantial youth
audiences. The third studio was active in advertising R-rated movies online, and advertised on
some Web sites popular with youth.50
f. Other steps
Documents received from the studios detail a variety of other steps they have taken to avoid
targeting violent R-rated films to children under 17. Each of the studios encouraged third parties,
including theaters, video retailers, and the press, to enforce the rating system or to inform
consumers that children under 17 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian to attend an Rrated film. Studios declined to arrange actors’ appearances to promote R-rated films on television
programs with 35% youth audiences, and did not provide press kits or other publicity materials to
youth-oriented publications. The studios limited licensing of characters from R-rated films for
age-inappropriate products, such as toys or action figures, and did not cross-promote the films
with companies that sell age-inappropriate products. 51 Studios also began to enforce age
7

restrictions for entry into screenings or previews for R-rated films, which had been overlooked
previously.
The industry also changed its research practices. Studios previously conducted research,
including focus groups, surveys, and trailer tests, on the film preferences of children under 17 for
R-rated films. In response to the September 2000 Report, a major research company, after
consultation with the studios, stopped using children under 17 in test groups for R-rated movie
marketing unless specifically requested by a studio.52 Review of trailer tests and commercial tests
provided to the Commission indicates that the studios did not conduct research for R-rated
movies on children under 17.
3. Analysis of industry practices since the September 2000 Report
It is clear that members of the movie industry have taken a number of significant steps since
the Commission’s September 2000 Report to avoid marketing R-rated films in venues with
substantial youth audiences. The one exception is television advertising. The commitment not to
advertise on programs with youth audiences of 35% or greater, while a positive step, does not
preclude advertising – heavily if desired – on programs with substantial youth audiences. In this
area, the industry has not made the significant changes seen in other areas.
The three studios studied for this Report have largely complied with the MPAA’s 12-point
initiative and their own additional commitments. Each of these studios apparently attempted in
good faith to observe the 35% standard; one, Warner Bros., deserves note for going beyond the
letter of its commitment and avoiding advertising in some media that its commitment technically
would allow.

B. Ratings and Reasons for Ratings in Ads
1. Industry commitments following the September 2000 Report
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission found that while movie advertisements
generally displayed the film’s letter rating, they did not include the reasons for the rating. The
Commission recommended that studios clearly and conspicuously display both the rating and
reasons for ratings in all advertising and product packaging, and encourage the media to include
this information as well. 53
8

In response, the MPAA agreed to “seek ways to include” rating reasons in print and online
advertising, but did not make a similar commitment with respect to television or radio
advertisements. More specifically, it prescribed that rating reasons for all but G-rated films be
included in print advertising above a certain size, Web sites, and outdoor advertising such as
billboards. Member studios agreed to include the rating reason on packaging for new video and
DVD releases and in the preface to those materials, and to encourage theaters and newspapers to
provide rating reasons. NATO members, too, pledged to seek ways to disseminate rating
reasons.
2. Industry advertising practices since the September 2000 Report
In April, the Commission reported that disclosure of rating reasons in the advertising of Rrated films had improved substantially since the September 2000 Report. It found that studios
routinely included reasons for ratings in both print and television advertisements. However, in
many print ads, the reasons were too small to read or were obscured by graphics, and in television
ads they often disappeared from the screen too quickly to be read and understood.
The sections below review the studios’ disclosures of ratings and rating reasons in the various
advertising media.
a. Television ads
Although the MPAA does not require disclosure of rating reasons in television ads, each of
the studios did provide them. In reviewing the television advertising for the nine films studied for
this Report, the Commission found a range of practices. For example, one studio invariably
included rating reasons in its advertisements, and they were prominent and of sufficient duration
to be read, while another provided the rating reasons, in small print, for only one of its films.
For studios’ television ads as a whole,54 most ads included both the rating and rating reasons.
Notably, the rating was provided both in audio and visual formats. The rating reasons, however,
were usually not displayed long enough for a viewer to read them.

9

b. Print and radio ads
To determine the extent to which ratings and reasons were disclosed and legible in print
media, the Commission reviewed more than 1300 ads for R-rated films in magazines and
newspapers, including the youth-oriented magazines discussed in the Advertising Placement
section above,55 as well as additional magazines56 and newspapers.57 With very few exceptions,
the Commission found that the ads displayed both the rating and the reasons for the rating.58
Although that the rating reasons were often not clear and conspicuous, the Commission found
improvement since the April 2001 Report,59 with more than half of the disclosures reviewed for
this Report reasonably clear and prominent. The large majority of ads by Disney/Buena Vista,
Dreamworks, MGM, Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures, and Warner Bros. featured rating
reasons that were of adequate
size, and very few of these
companies’ ads contained rating
reasons that were not readable.
For smaller ads, less than five
inches in height, rating reasons
are not required by the MPAA
and are not included in many
small ads. Nevertheless, some
studios have provided legible
rating reasons in ads as small as
three inches. Two of the studios
indicated they would use letters
next to the rating icon to signal which types of content the film’s rating was based on (e.g., “l” for
“language,” “v” for “violence”). Although this practice exceeds the MPAA’s requirements,
consumers may not understand what the letters signify.
The studios also improved their communication of rating information on ads for home video.
In the print ads reviewed, ratings and rating reasons were usually provided in ads for DVDs or
videocassettes. Although rating reasons were often printed in small type or over ad images that
10

made them difficult to read, the rating letter was usually provided separately from the box art,
making the rating more prominent.
This limited improvement in disclosure of rating information in studios’ home video did not
extend to retailers’ advertising for home videos. A review of “free-standing inserts” by major
retailers, distributed in newspapers, indicates that these retailers’ advertising for videocassettes
and DVDs, with one exception, did not feature the film rating or rating reason.60
For radio, each of the studios studied for this Report included rating reasons in its radio ads,
although not required to do so by the MPAA. Moreover, each took steps to have radio stations
make clear that promotions such as free passes were limited to those 17 or older and include
information about the film’s rating when announcing the promotion.
c. Internet Advertising
(1) Studio Web sites
For its September 2000 Report, the Commission’s review of official movie Web sites revealed
that nearly all the sites displayed the movie’s rating somewhere on the site, but none displayed the
movie’s rating reasons.61 Information from the studios studied for this Report shows that the
studios have since changed their Web sites to provide rating information and to link to additional
sites with rating information as required by the MPAA. A check of the official sites for the nine
films studied reflects that
each of the sites did provide
the rating and, with one
exception, the rating
reason.62
A review of 34 official
movie Web sites from all
studios showed that more
than three-quarters (27 of
34) displayed the films’
rating, usually on either the
teaser page or home page.63
11

Almost as many (25 of 34) provided rating reasons.64 The few sites that offered the opportunity
to purchase movie tickets at third parties’ sites displayed the rating and rating reason in close
proximity to the link to the third-party site. Overall, 25 of 34 sites (74%) linked to at least one of
three rating information sites, usually to both filmratings.com and parentalguide.org. 65 These
figures are similar to those reported in April,66 and represent a significant improvement in the
online disclosure of rating information since the September 2000 Report.
(2) Theater Web sites
The Commission reviewed Web sites for 18 major movie theater circuits,67 a larger group than
reviewed for the April 2001 Report. The Commission found that almost all (17 of 18) of the sites
included the movie ratings, although only seven of 18 (39%) displayed rating reasons. Two thirds
(12 of 18) of the sites provided detailed information about the rating system generally. 68 Ten sites
(56%) linked to at least one rating information Web site.69
Twelve sites offered visitors the opportunity to purchase tickets through third-party Web
sites. All three of those third-party sites displayed the rating, and two – Movietickets.com and
Fandango.com – displayed the movies’ rating reasons. 70

Theater Web Site Review Results

Question

NATO Member
Theaters

Non-NATO
Theaters

All Theaters

Was the rating displayed on the site?

14 of 14 100%

3 of 4

75%

17 of 18

94%

Was the rating reason displayed on the site?

6 of 14

43%

1 of 4

25%

7 of 18

39%

Does the site provide information about the
MPAA ratings system?

8 of 14

57%

4 of 4

100%

12 of 18

67%

Does the site link to rating information at
MPAA.org, filmratings.com, or
parentalguide.org?

7 of 14

50%

3 of 4

75%

10 of 18

56%

12

(3) Home video retailer Web sites
The Commission surveyed rating information practices at the five online movie retailers’ sites
it reviewed for the April 2001 Report.71 Practices have not materially changed. In nearly every
case, the sites provided the movies’ letter rating, but only TowerRecords.com displayed rating
reasons. None of the sites linked to rating information at other sites, nor did any of the sites
provide information on the MPAA ratings.72
d. Other steps
The studios often printed rating information, including the age restriction, on screening passes
and preview invitations. The studios also included rating information on home video packaging,
on the videotape or DVD itself, and on pay-per view and pay-TV.
3.

Analysis of industry practices since the September 2000 Report

The disclosure of reasons for movie ratings has improved considerably. Since the September
2000 Report, when the Commission found that rating reasons were absent from movie
advertisements, studios now widely include rating reasons in television, print, radio, outdoor, and
online advertising. Their remaining challenge is to make the information clear and conspicuous to
consumers in all media.73

C. Box Office Enforcement of the Rating System
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission reported on its nationwide undercover study
that found almost half of the theaters sold tickets to R-rated movies to unaccompanied children
under 17.74 In response, both NATO and the MPAA exhorted theaters to improve enforcement,75
building on previously announced efforts to strengthen enforcement at the box office.
To determine the effect of these changes, the Commission conducted a second nationwide
undercover study.76 The Commission contracted with a “mystery shopper” company that
recruited 13- to 16-year-olds across the country to visit theaters and attempt to purchase tickets
to R-rated movies. The survey results were consistent with those of the Commission’s first
survey. Slightly more than half of the theaters (52%) refused to sell tickets to an R-rated movie
to the shoppers, and only 39% of the cashiers asked the shopper’s age at point of sale. These
figures are essentially unchanged from the survey conducted in 2000. While both the 2000 and
13

2001 surveys show that movie theaters are the most strict of the three industries in restricting
sales to children under 17, theaters can be more effective, particularly with younger children.
One-third (33%) of 13-year-olds were able to purchase tickets to R-rated movies.77 As the age of
the shopper increased, so too did the percentage of purchases of R-rated movie tickets.

FTC Mystery Shop Results By Age - Movies
Q.

Was the shopper able to make the purchase?

No
Yes
# of shoppers

III.

13 years old
67%
33%
69

14 years old
57%
43%
82

15 years old
47%
53%
76

16 years old
38%
62%
73

Total
52%
48%
300

MUSIC RECORDINGS

A. Marketing to Children: Ad Placement
1. Industry commitments following the September 2000 Report
In the September 2000 Report, the Commission found that the music industry engaged in
extensive marketing of explicit-content labeled recordings to children under 17.78 Finding that
such marketing undermines the message inherent in the label that parental review is warranted, the
Commission urged the industry to adopt industry-wide prohibitions on marketing explicit content
recordings in “media or venues with a substantial under-17 audience.”79
The industry’s trade association, the RIAA, notes that the parental advisory labeling program
for music, unlike the age-based rating systems for movies and games, does not designate an age
for which labeled music may be inappropriate. Accordingly, it asserts that marketing explicitcontent labeled music to all ages is consistent with its labeling program:80 it has not changed this
position in response to the Commission’s Report.81
Individual members of the music industry are free to adopt policies on advertising placement,
and two of the three companies contacted for this Report indicated that they consider the
appropriateness of particular media outlets when advertising explicit content recordings.82 It
remains unclear how this consideration affects actual advertising of explicit content recordings.

14

2. Industry advertising placement since the September 2000 Report
In April, the Commission reported, based on its review of publicly available information, that
the major recording companies were continuing to place advertising for explicit content music on
television programs and in magazines with substantial under-17 audiences.
For this Report, the marketing plans submitted by the companies also indicate marketing of
explicit-content recordings aimed at children under 17. Two plans referred to promoting explicit
recordings at high schools; another referenced promotions in “teen magazines.” Although one
marketing plan identified a specific target audience (18 - 34) that did not include children under
17,83 the marketing documents for the remaining recordings detailed plans to place advertising in
media that would reach an audience with a majority or substantial percentage of children under
17.
a. Television and radio promotions
As noted in earlier reports, explicit-content labeled recordings are promoted extensively on
cable television music programs with substantial teen audiences. Frequently, the marketing
documents reviewed included plans to secure promotions on popular after-school and
early-prime-time cable music programs, such as MTV’s Total Request Live, Direct Effect, and
Sunday Night Heat and BET’s Rap City and 106th and Park.84 These programs have a majority
or substantial youth audience.85
Although the marketing documents indicated less use of network and non-music cable
television advertising, several did include plans to advertise labeled recordings on television
programs with large under-17 audiences, such as WWF Smackdown, Malcolm in the Middle,
Dawson’s Creek, and That 70’s Show.86
To supplement information from the marketing plans, the Commission monitored advertising
for explicit-content labeled recordings during 31 popular teen programs.87 The eight-week review
revealed regular advertising for these products on programming during after-school and early
evening hours. Four recording companies – Universal Music Group, BMG Entertainment, EMI
Recorded Music, and Warner Music Group – ran advertisements for explicit content recordings
on Total Request Live, Direct Effect, WWF Heat, 106th and Park, and/or WWF Smackdown.88 A
review of first-airing data showed that all five major music recording companies advertised their
15

explicit content recordings on popular teen shows such as Total Request Live, Direct Effect, and
106th and Park.89
Many of the marketing documents the Commission reviewed for this Report also described
plans to promote explicit content recordings on radio stations with a substantial audience of 12to 24-year-olds. These promotional efforts included seeking radio play of edited versions of
singles, placing advertisements, and providing giveaways of labeled albums.
b. Print advertising
Like those plans reviewed for the September 2000 Report,90 the marketing plans reviewed
here revealed that the recording companies routinely used print advertising to promote their
explicit-content labeled recordings to children under 17. Marketing documents for eight out of 14
explicit-content labeled recordings discussed placing ads in magazines with a majority or
substantial teen audience (such as Metal Edge, Right On!, Seventeen, Skateboarding, and
Thrasher),91 as well as obtaining reviews of recordings, magazine covers, and feature stories
about artists who released the recordings in these same publications.92
The Commission reviewed the June through September 2001 issues of eight magazines with a
majority or substantial readership under 18,93 and found that each of the five major recording
companies had placed advertisements for explicit content recordings in at least two of the
following magazines: Metal Edge, Right On!, Teen, Teen People, Thrasher, and YM.94
c. Internet marketing
As the Commission found in its September 2000 Report, Internet advertising is a key feature
of marketing explicit recordings. Eleven of the 14 marketing plans reviewed for this Report
discussed efforts to promote explicit recordings on popular music or general sites with significant
teen audiences, including mtv.com, bet.com, getmusic.com, iturf.com, music.com, launch.com,
teenpeople.com, and seventeen.com.95 These efforts included artist interviews and chats, banner
ads, featured artist pages with audio and video samples, listening parties, merchandise giveaways,
and reviews of labeled recordings.

16

3. Analysis of industry practices since the September 2000 Report
The Commission’s review reveals no changes in industry practices since the September 2000
Report. The industry members continue to advertise explicit content recordings in the most
popular teen venues in all media – television, radio, print, and online.

B. Advisory Labels and Reasons for Label in Ads
1. Industry commitments following the September 2000 Report
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission found that the music recording companies
rarely included parental advisories in advertising.96 It suggested that industry members clearly and
conspicuously disclose advisories – as well as the reasons for advisories – in all advertising for
labeled recordings. Just before the September 2000 Report’s release, the RIAA had
recommended that by October 2000 recording companies should include clear parental advisories
in print advertising and online retail sites.97 The Commission’s review for the April 2001 Report,
however, revealed that most advertising still did not contain an advisory.98
In the summer of 2001, the RIAA broadened the scope of its disclosure guidelines beyond
print and online advertising. The RIAA recommended that industry members place clear parental
advisories in all television and radio advertising, street marketing samplers, and music
giveaways,99 and that they post, where possible, lyrics of labeled songs on the artist’s Web site or
on songfile.com (an Internet database of over two million songs and their lyrics).100 The RIAA
also announced additional recording industry efforts to increase disclosures in advertising.101 In
particular, the RIAA and the National Association of Recording Merchandisers (“NARM”)
formed a Parental Advisory Implementation Task Force to assist the music companies in meeting
the existing program guidelines. In addition, music industry leaders participated in a “Hip Hop
Summit” to discuss issues associated with rap and hip-hop music, and endorsed the RIAA
parental advisory program guidelines.
Moreover, to increase consumer understanding of the labeling system, the RIAA prepared a
public service announcement and a brochure explaining the labeling system that it placed on its
Web site and is making available to schools, libraries, and other consumer groups.102 The RIAA
did not adopt the policy followed by the movie and electronic game industries of including in
17

advertising the reasons a recording received the label.
Each of the companies that the Commission contacted for this Report has developed written
policies and procedures to encourage full compliance with the RIAA advertising disclosure
policies.103 All now generally require an advisory to appear in all promotions for explicit content
recordings, including television, print, Internet, and outdoor advertising.104
The companies also have committed to publicizing the parentalguide.org site that contains
information on all of the entertainment rating systems.105 In addition, one company will include
the language “edited version available,” along with the standard RIAA advisory, on all
advertisements for recordings with both an explicit and edited version.106 Moreover, all of the
companies have encouraged disclosure of the advisory in cooperative advertising efforts with
retailers and other third parties.107 One company states that it will require that “retailers include
the PA Notice in co-op ads for labeled product” and will encourage other companies with which it
conducts joint promotions to include an advisory in all promotions.108
2. Industry advertising practices since the September 2000 Report
In reviewing corporate practices for this Report, the Commission notes progress in providing
the parental advisories in the advertising of explicit content recordings. The sections below
review the recording companies’ advertising practices in disclosing parental advisories in media,
including television, print, radio, and online.
a. Television ads
As noted, the RIAA’s policy to include advisories in television advertisements was only
recently announced. Its full impact is therefore difficult to measure. Three sample television
advertisements for explicit-content recordings submitted to the Commission for this Report
included no advisory or other information regarding explicit content. However, a recent
spot-check of television advertisements shows an increase in parental advisories in the ads since
the Commission’s last monitoring efforts in late 2000-early 2001. Nineteen of the 48 ads
reviewed contained the parental advisory label. Most of these advisories appeared unreadable;
ads for only three of the recordings (Devil’s Night, the What’s The Worst That Could Happen
Soundtrack, and First Born Second) were presented in a clear, readable format.

18

b. Print ads
The Commission’s review of print advertising shows a mixed picture. With a few exceptions,
the sample print advertisements provided for 14 explicit content recordings did not display any
advisory. When the label appeared in advertising, it usually was a black and white blur too small
for consumers to read. Most of this advertising was disseminated in fall and winter 2000, shortly
after the RIAA’s guidelines for print advertising went into effect in October 2000.
To assess more recent print advertising, the Commission reviewed the June through
September 2001 issues of 11 magazines.109 This four-month review uncovered few clear
advisories in advertisements for explicit content recordings: 17 out of 111 ads for labeled
recordings (15%) contained clear and conspicuous disclosures about an album’s explicit
content.110 Most of the ads (80 of 111) did not carry an advisory at all; some advisories (14 of
111) appeared as a black and white blur, too small or inconspicuously placed to be noticed or
read. However, in the most recent magazine issues, 21 out of 37 ads for labeled recordings
contained an advisory, 18 of which were readable, suggesting progress in communicating this
information to the public.111
c. Internet ads
For this Report, as it had done for the April 2001 Report, the Commission surveyed Web sites
to determine whether industry members were providing online disclosures about explicit content.
It surveyed 40 artist/recording company sites and five major music retailer sites.
(1) Recording company Web sites
The review of official music Web sites shows little change from the Commission’s April
survey.112 Over half of the sites provided notice of a recording’s explicit content. Thirty-six sites
showed a picture of the CD cover, with the advisory label appearing on 16 of the 36 (44%)
covers. Only one of these advisories was legible. Many of the sites used other methods to
communicate the explicit nature of a recording. Twenty-two of the sites (55%) provided
consumers with additional information, usually in the form of an enlarged parental advisory placed
somewhere on the site or a text disclosure stating “explicit” placed near the picture of the CD on
the purchase page (e.g., Web sites for Missy Elliott, Nelly, Redman, Uncle Kracker, Sticky
Fingaz, Pastor Troy, Dr. Dre, Big Punisher, Xzibit).113 In addition, 14 of the 40 sites (35%)
19

provided the lyrics for the explicit content recordings. In the one area of significant change since
the Commission’s earlier survey, ten of the 40 sites linked either to www.riaa.com or to
www.parentalguide.org; previously the Commission had found no links to these sites. 114

Recording Company Web Site Review

YES

NO

#

%

#

%

36

90%

4

10%

Does the advisory appear on the cover art? (of 36)

16

40%

24

60%

Is the advisory readable? (of 16)

1

6%

15

94%

Is there other clear & conspicuous information
about explicit content?

22

55%

18

45%

Is the record offered for sale?

17

43%

23

58%

Is there a link to www.parentalguide.org?

10

25%

30

75%

Does the site contain album cover art?

(2) Retailer Web sites
The survey of the Web sites of five major music retailers also showed results almost identical
to those found in the Commission’s April survey. In both surveys, the Commission reviewed
Amazon.com, Bestbuy.com, CDNow.com, Samgoody.com, and TowerRecords.com to see how
these sites promoted five top-selling explicit content albums. Four of the five retailers provided
some information, usually in a text disclosure that read “explicit lyrics,” “explicit,” or simply “PA”
(for “parental advisory”). Only Amazon.com continued to be in full compliance with RIAA’s
recommendations that online retailers prominently display the parental advisory logo at all stages
of the purchasing process, from search results to the shopping cart.115 Amazon.com provides
advisories that read “explicit lyrics” and appear in large easy-to-read print, prominently displayed,
throughout the purchasing process. Best Buy, CD Now, and Tower Records continue to provide
a more limited disclosure, such as an “explicit” disclosure at one point on the site or the cryptic

20

abbreviation “PA.”116 Samgoody.com has continued to use the disclosure “clean” next to the
edited version, providing consumers with no information about the content of the explicit version.

Music Retailer Web Site Review

Sam

Tower

Goody

Records

5 of 5

5 of 5

5 of 5

4 of 5

2 of 5

3 of 5

4 of 5

4 of 4
when
enlarged

0 of 4

0 of 2

0 of 3

0 of 4

5 of 5

5 of 5

5 of 5

0 of 5

5 of 5

“explicit
lyrics”

“parental
advisory”

“explicit”
and
“explicit
version”

only
“clean”
version
noted

“explicit”

Are clear disclosures at every stage
of the purchasing process?

5 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 5

1 of 5

Is there a link to
www.parentalguide.org?

0 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 5

Amazon

Best Buy

CDNow

Does the site contain album cover
art?

5 of 5

5 of 5

Does the advisory appear on the
cover art?

4 of 5

Is the advisory readable?

Is there other clear and
conspicuous information about
explicit content?

3. Analysis of industry practices since the September 2000 Report
Some members of the recording industry are beginning to comply with the RIAA recent
guidelines on including the parental advisory in all advertising of explicit-content labeled
recordings. Still, the Commission’s review of advertising practices for this Report shows a large
percentage of advertising not yet in compliance. Continued effort will be needed by the RIAA,
individual recording companies, and the music retailers if they want to ensure that the policy takes
effect across the industry.

21

C. Industry Efforts to Enforce the Rating System at Point-of-Sale
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission reported that its nationwide undercover study
had found that 85% of unaccompanied children ages 13-16 were able to buy explicit-content
labeled records at retail stores. 117 A survey of 300 music stores conducted for this Report shows
a similarly high percentage of sales: 90% of the unaccompanied teens, ages 13-16, were able to
buy an explicit content recording.118 Eighty-seven percent of the youngest shoppers – 13-yearolds – were able to buy explicit-content recordings. A breakout by age of the mystery shop
results follows:

FTC Mystery Shop Results By Age - Music
Q. Was the shopper able to make the purchase?

No
Yes
# of shoppers

13 years old
13%
87%
71

14 years old
10%
90%
80

15 years old
9%
91%
79

16 years old
10%
90%
70

Total
10%
90%
300

Such high percentages are not surprising, given the recording industry’s emphasis that its selfregulatory system does not limit the sale of explicit-content recordings to children.
This survey also found that only 12% of shoppers noticed information about the parental
advisory system or about the store’s sales policy regarding explicit-content labeled recordings in
the stores.119

IV.

ELECTRONIC GAMES

A. Marketing to Children: Ad Placement
1. Industry commitments since the September 2000 Report
In its September 2000 Report, the Commission found widespread marketing of Mature(“M”)rated electronic games to children under 17120 – a practice that violated the anti-targeting
provision of the game industry’s comprehensive self-regulatory code.121 The Commission
recommended that the industry improve compliance with its code and also clarify what constitutes
22

targeting. Responding to the Commission’s Report, the IDSA adopted standards to limit
advertising placements – the only industry to do so. Specifically, it set limits on the percentage of
the audience under 17 that could be viewing, listening, or watching ads for M-rated games on TV
and radio (35%), print (45%), and the Internet (45%).122 As the Commission noted in the April
2001 Report,123 this is a positive step that forecloses advertising M-rated games in some of the
venues previously used to reach young teens. Nonetheless, the thresholds permit continued ad
placements for M-rated games in many of the youth-oriented magazines, television programs, and
Web sites that industry members had previously included in marketing and media plans that
targeted 12- to 17-year-olds.
In addition, all three industry members contacted for this Report indicated that they are
making efforts to avoid targeting their M-rated games to an under-17 audience. One company
indicated that it will go beyond the industry’s anti-targeting threshold and adopt a 35% threshold
for print publications.124
Finally, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (“ESRB”) recently informed industry
members that, beginning in November 2001, it will levy a substantial fine against companies that
engage in inappropriate target marketing.
2. Industry advertising placements since the September 2000 Report
In April, the Commission reported that its review of print and television advertising uncovered
no advertising of M-rated games on television programs popular with teens, but continued
widespread advertising in game magazines popular with teens.
For this Report, the Commission’s review of marketing plans submitted by three companies
for four M-rated personal computer (“PC”) games and nine M-rated television console games
revealed ad placements for these products in all media venues popular with teens. Although none
of the plans for the four PC games expressly targeted an under-17 audience, plans for two of the
nine M-rated console games did; both plans were from the same company, and both post-dated
the release of the September 2000 Report. Further, 12 of 13 marketing plans specified ad
placements for M-rated game in venues with substantial, and at times majority, audience shares
under 17.

23

The sections below review the practices of the electronic game industry in placing ads in the
major media, including television, print, radio,125 and online.
a. Television ads
Unlike the marketing plans reviewed for the September 2000 Report, which showed
widespread advertising of M-rated games on popular teen television programs, only two of the 13
marketing plans reviewed for this Report (both console games) mentioned television advertising.
Both, however, did plan placements on shows popular with teens, including MTV’s Jackass,
Total Request Live, and WWF Heat, Titus, Dark Angel, King of the Hill, Simpsons, Malcolm in
the Middle, Mad TV, That 70’s Show, and Xena.126 The Commission confirmed that these
planned ads ran after the release of the September 2000 Report. Some of these ad placements
would have run afoul of the industry’s advertising code’s recently-enacted prohibition against
placing ads for M-rated games on shows with a 35% or greater under-17 audience.127
To supplement information from the marketing plans, the Commission monitored advertising
on network, cable, and syndicated programs popular with teens for an eight-week period
commencing in June 2001. It found little advertising for M-rated games – only three
advertisements for a single M-rated game, Twisted Metal: Black, published by Sony Computer
Entertainment America Inc., which appeared on Titus and MTV’s Jackass and Sunday Night
Heat. A separate review of all first-run ads for M-rated games between January 1, 2001 and
August 20, 2001 revealed that the only other advertisement for an M-rated game was for
Onimusha: Warlords, published by Capcom. The first ad for Onimusha also appeared on MTV.
Thus, for most companies, the improvements in television advertising placements that the
Commission reported in April (suggesting few ads for M-rated games on teen-popular shows)
continue.
b. Print ads
In the September 2000 Report, the Commission found that game companies’ marketing
documents revealed plans to advertise M-rated games repeatedly in magazines with a substantial
percentage of readers under 17. The media plans submitted for this Report show somewhat less,
but still widespread, advertising in print media popular with teens. Although none of the plans for
the PC games targeted teen-popular print media, nine of the plans for console games did target
24

such media, including publications such as GamePro, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Expert
Gamer, The Official U.S. Playstation Magazine, Playstation Magazine, and Tips & Tricks.128
To monitor industry-wide ad placements, the Commission reviewed advertising during a fourmonth period (June-September 2001) in GamePro and Electronic Gaming Monthly, both with at
least 40% readership under 17. This review showed that the percentage of ads for M-rated games
in these publications has dropped slightly to 10% from the 13% the Commission reported in the
September 2000 Report. A breakout of the magazine ads by rating129 is presented below.

The Commission also conducted a more extensive review of five game enthusiast magazines
with a high teen readership – GamePro, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Expert Gamer, 100%
Independent Playstation Magazine, and Tips & Tricks. This review indicated that nine industry
members placed a total of 51 ads for twelve M-rated games over that four-month period: Capcom
(Onimusha, Resident Evil: Code Veronica), Eidos (Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2), Infogrames
25

(Alone in the Dark: The New Nightmare, Unreal Tournament), Interplay (Giants: Citizen
Kabuto), Konami (Zone of the Enders), Sierra (Half-Life), Sony Computer Entertainment
America (Twisted Metal: Black, Extermination), Take 2 Interactive (Rune: Viking Warlord), and
THQ (Red Faction).
The four issues of GamePro reviewed contain four M-rated game ads. Although not in effect
until November, the industry’s revised advertising code would likely affect continued placement
of M-rated game ads in GamePro.130 Such ads would still be allowed in Electronic Gaming
Monthly, The Official U.S. Playstation Magazine, 100% Independent Playstation Magazine, and
other publications with a very substantial, but presently less than 45%, readership under 17.131
c. Internet ads
In the September 2000 Report, the Commission found that ten of the 11 game publishers
studied had placed ads for M-rated games on Web sites popular with teens. Marketing
documents reviewed for this Report show that these practices continue. Plans for three of the
four PC games indicated ad placements on Web sites which typically have a higher percentage
(e.g., 33%) of youth visitors than found in the general Internet population (20%). These sites
include avault.com, cdmag.com, gamespot.com, gamespy.com, ign.com, and ugo.com.132 Two of
ten plans for console games also indicated online advertising targeting teen-popular Web sites,
such as ign.com, ugo.com, and gamespot.com. These ads, however, would not appear to violate
the new prohibition in the industry’s advertising code against ads for M-rated games on web sites
with a 45% or greater under-17 audience.133
3. Analysis of industry practices since the September 2000 Report
The Commission’s review of print, television, and Internet ads and of game publisher
marketing plans suggests that the electronic game industry is limiting its advertising on popular
teen television programs, while continuing to advertise in game magazines and Web sites popular
with teens. Although these ad placements reach substantial under-17 audiences, most would
appear to comply with the new advertising code’s anti-targeting requirements. In short, the new
guidelines are having only a limited effect on altering placement practices, particularly for print
and on-line advertisements, in the industry.

26

B. Ratings and Reasons for Ratings in Ads
1. Industry commitments since the September 2000 Report
At the time of the September 2000 Report, the electronic game industry’s code required the
display of rating icons and, in most cases, content descriptors (e.g., “Realistic Violence,”
“Animated Blood and Gore”) on packaging, in print ads, and online. In television ads it required
a voice-over stating the game’s rating, but not the content descriptor.134 In its report, the
Commission recommended that all advertising contain both the rating and the content descriptors.
Shortly before issuance of the April 2001 Report, the industry revised its code to strengthen
and clarify its disclosure requirements in TV, radio, print, and Internet advertising,135 although it
still did not require content descriptors in television or radio advertising. These revisions
included improving the TV voice-over for 15-second ads,136 specifying that rating information
(rating icon and content descriptors) must be displayed in the lower portion of print ads, and
requiring the disclosure of content descriptors on all publisher Web sites promoting a game even
if the site does not sell games online. The industry also initiated an expanded program of ad
monitoring and, effective October 31, 2001, a sliding scale of warnings, monetary penalties, and
other sanctions based on the seriousness/frequency of violations.
Finally, the IDSA and ESRB continue efforts to increase parent awareness of the rating
system, by, for example, releasing public service announcements and encouraging retailers to
increase store signing explaining the ratings.
2. Industry advertising practices since the September 2000 Report
The Commission’s review for the April 2001 Report showed substantial compliance with the
industry’s code requirements, and considerable improvement over the results reported in
September.137 The sections below review the disclosures of ratings and content descriptors by the
game industry in each of the media.
a. Television ads
In a spot review of TV ads for M-rated and Teen (“T”)-rated games aired during the months
of June and July 2001, the Commission found that all advertisements included the required voiceover of the game’s rating,138 although the voice-over was barely audible in an ad for the M-rated
Twisted Metal: Black, published by Sony Computer Entertainment America. Consistent with the
27

advertising code, no television ad contained a content descriptor. These results are quite similar
to those reported in April.
Just prior to the completion of this report, the Commission became aware of a new television
ad run in October 2001 for Spy Hunter, a T-rated game, published by Midway Home
Entertainment. Midway goes beyond the requirements of the advertising code, and discloses both
the rating and content descriptor in its TV advertising.
b. Print ads
In April, the Commission reported that its review of print ads showed some improvement in
the disclosure of rating information since the September 2000 Report. Ads nearly always
included the game’s rating icon, i.e., M (“Mature”), T (“Teen”), E (“Everyone”) or RP (“Rating
Pending”) and, in a large majority of instances, content descriptors. They also were largely
readable, although often not in compliance with the code’s size requirements.
For this Report the Commission reviewed print ads in eight popular game enthusiast
magazines, GamePro, PC Gamer, Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Expert
Gamer, Tips & Tricks, 100% Independent Playstation Magazine, and Nintendo Power, during a
four-month period (June-September 2001). Nearly a third of the ads reviewed promoted new
games that had not yet been rated. For the games that had been rated, the Commission found
broad compliance with the industry’s advertising disclosure requirements. Only 13% were in
substantial non-compliance either because they failed to display the ratings or descriptors or
because the displayed rating icons or descriptors fell substantially below minimum size
requirements. 139
A breakout of those results appears on the following page.

28

Nearly all of the major advertisers complied fully or substantially140 with industry
requirements. 141 Of the 19 who placed four or more ads for T- or M-rated games during the time
period of the Commission’s review, four (Capcom, Infogrames, Sierra Studios, and Take 2
Interactive) did an especially good job of prominently disclosing rating information, by frequently
using icons and descriptors larger than currently required by the industry’s advertising code.142
Three companies (Activision, Sega, and Take 2 Interactive) placed poster inserts in the magazines
that featured scenes from games but failed to contain a rating icon or a descriptor.143
Of the168 ads promoting games that had not yet been rated, 90 (53%) failed to comply with
the advertising code’s new requirement that there be descriptor boxes in the ads prominently
displaying the Web address and telephone number of the ESRB where parents can get up-to-date
rating information. 144 Although this requirement took effect in March 2001, the ESRB gave
companies until November 1, 2001 before beginning to penalize publishers for non-compliance.
29

Although retailers are not subject to the same self-regulatory requirements as game publishers,
they have been encouraged to follow the ESRB rating system. 145 Therefore, the Commission also
reviewed retailer ads (from Best Buy, Electronics Boutique, Wal-Mart, Toys ‘R’ Us, Hollywood
Video, Target, Chips & Bits, and Amazon.com) in these same magazines. Generally, these ads
promote several game titles with various ratings. With the exception of Chips & Bits and
Amazon.com,146 each of the retailers displayed the rating icon, usually on the clip art showing the
games’ package cover. In addition, the Commission reviewed retailer ads in free-standing inserts
in the Washington Post Sunday edition over a six-week period. Although virtually all of the ads
included the rating on the clip art for the game promoted, the rating was often hard to find and
read. The one consistent exception was Best Buy, which displayed a larger icon for M-rated
games and added the words “Mature rating” next to the clip art for each M-rated game it featured
in its Sunday inserts.147 None of the retailer ads discussed above included content descriptors.
c. Internet ads
(1) Game publishers
The advertising code requires a number of specific disclosures for game publishers’ Web sites.
For example, if the publisher is selling the game online, both the rating icon and content
descriptors must appear on the page where game information, such as price, is provided.148 For
game “demos” and trailers, the site must display the rating icon on the Web page where the demo
and/or trailer is accessed.149
For this Report, the Commission reviewed 30 game publisher sites for M-rated games and
found little change in some areas since the April 2001 Report, and improvements in others. 150
Consistent with the April 2001 Report, 83% of the sites displayed a rating, mostly on the home
page or a teaser page.151 Forty percent of the icons were not clear and conspicuous either because
the rating was too blurry to read or its location not obvious, i.e., a location requiring the viewer
to scroll down the screen, without notice that scrolling was required.152 Although 60% of the
sites displayed content descriptors somewhere on the site (a significant improvement from prior
reports), only 39% of the descriptors were clear and conspicuous. 153 On many sites, visitors could
view the descriptors only by moving the mouse over the rating icon, but no indication was given
that this step was needed to reveal the descriptors.154
30

At the 15 sites offering a demo or trailer, rating information appeared prior to downloading or
viewing 40% of the time – another significant improvement since the April 2001 Report.155 Some
sites went beyond disclosing rating information and restricted access based on age. For example,
the Electronic Arts sites for Alice and Clive Barker’s Undying asked visitors to disclose their age
before downloading trailers or demos and denied access to those entering an age under 17.156 On
the 21 sites where games could be purchased, 90% of the time the rating icon was clear and
conspicuous and appeared on a page that the visitor must click through to purchase the game.157
Somewhat less often (71% of the time) were the content descriptors displayed on these pages,158
and seldom were they clear and conspicuous (27% of the time).
Five game sites warned that they contained subject matter that might not be suitable for
children under the age of 17 or 18.159 Fourteen percent of the sites restricted the purchase of the
games to persons over age 16.160

Electronic Game Publisher Web Site Review

Summaries by Sites

Percentage Yes

Yes

No

25

5

83%

15

10

60%

18

12

60%

7

11

39%

Rating icon at point of download or
viewing of a game clip?

6

9

40%

ESRB rating icon displayed during
purchase process?

19

2

91%

17

2

89%

15

6

71%

4

11

27%

ESRB rating icon displayed on site?
Clear and conspicuous?
ESRB content descriptors displayed on
site?
Clear and conspicuous?

Clear and conspicuous?
ESRB content descriptors displayed
during purchase process?
Clear and conspicuous?

31

(2) Retailers
As noted above, retailers have been encouraged to follow the ESRB rating system. For this
Report,161 the Commission reviewed the marketing of five M-rated games on five retailer sites
(Amazon.com, BestBuy.com, EBGames.com, GameStop.com, and ToysRUs.com162). Only one
retailer (EBGames.com) attempted to provide content descriptors during the purchase process.
On the positive side, all but one retailer uniformly displayed the correct rating icon during the
purchase process.163 The rating icon usually was clear and conspicuous, with the “Mature” icon
clearly visible on the page describing the game and listing its price.164
All of the sites, except BestBuy.com, had pages with extensive ESRB rating information.
Most of the sites placed a “Mature” rating icon on the product-specific page that – if the viewer
knew to click on the icon – linked to pages with ESRB information or the ESRB web site.165
GameStop.com and EBGames.com allowed the visitor to browse for games by the ESRB rating.

Electronic Game Retailer Web Site Review

Amazon
Is rating icon displayed during
purchase process?
Clear and conspicuous?

Best
Buy

EBGames

Gamestop

Toys ‘R’ Us

5 of 5

4 of 5

5 of 5

5 of 5

5 of 5

5 of 5

4 of 4

5 of 5

5 of 5

5 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 5

3 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 0

0 of 0

3 of 3

0 of 0

0 of 0

5 of 5

0 of 5

5 of 5

5 of 5

5 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 0

0 of 5

0 of 5

0 of 5

Are the content descriptors
displayed during the purchase
process?
Clear and conspicuous?
Is there a link to ESRB info. or
ESRB.org?
Clear and conspicuous?

3. Analysis of industry practices since the September 2000 Report
With a comprehensive self-regulatory system in place, the electronic game industry continues
32

to make substantial progress in providing accurate and prominent rating information to the
public.166

C. Industry Efforts to Enforce the Rating System at Point-of-Sale
1. Mystery shop
In its first nationwide undercover survey, the Commission found that unaccompanied children
ages 13-16 were able to buy M-rated games at 85% of the video game retailers. A similar survey
conducted for this Report shows only slight improvement. Seventy-eight percent of the children
still were able to purchase M-rated games, and as many as 66% of the youngest shoppers – 13year-olds – were able to buy an M-rated game. A breakout by age of the mystery shop results
follows:

FTC Mystery Shop Results By Age - Electronic Games
Q. Was the shopper able to make the purchase?
No
Yes
# of shoppers

13 years old
34%
66%
68

14 years old
30%
70%
82

15 years old
10%
90%
77

16 years old
15%
85%
73

Total
22%
78%
300

Even among several of those stores with programs in place to restrict sales,167 73% of the
unaccompanied children were able to buy violent M-rated games.168
2. Online sales
In its survey of 30 game publisher Web sites for this Report, the Commission found that of the
21 games that could be purchased online, 15 could be purchased only by credit card, a practice
that may necessitate parental involvement in sales to children. In addition, three of the sites that
sold games expressly prohibited the sale of M-rated games to children under 17. Sites for two
games (Onimusha Warlords and Heavy Metal: Geomatrix), both from Capcom, warned
purchasers that they “[m]ust be 18 or older to purchase products from the Capcom Online Store.”
The third site (for Blizzard Entertainment’s Diablo II) advised purchasers that by submitting the
purchase request for an M-rated game they “are representing that [they] are either over the age of

33

seventeen (17) or have obtained [their] parent or guardian’s permission to do so.”
Although none of the five retailer Web sites reviewed for this Report expressly prohibited
sales of M-rated games to children under 17, two of the retailers (EBGames and GameStop)
required a credit card to order the game online.169 In addition, the product-specific pages for
Amazon.com and ToysRUs.com stated, “Content suitable for ages 17 or older,” and at
ToysRUs.com, visitors interested in video games initially were presented only with games
contained in a “Kid-Safe Zone” – games rated “Everyone” and “Early Childhood.” Visitors to
ToysRUs.com were informed that for Teen and Mature games, they could click a hyperlink
leading to the general computer and video games store.170

V. CONCLUSION
Responding to the request of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Commission focused its
study on the practices of the motion picture, music recording, and electronic game industries in
two areas: advertising placements in popular teen media and disclosure of rating and labeling
information in advertising. The Commission found that practices adopted in the movie and
electronic game industries since the September 2000 Report go a long way toward addressing
some of the previously identified shortcomings in these areas. Both industries have taken steps to
better communicate rating information to parents, and the game industry and a number of movie
studios have placed some specific limits on ad placements to avoid targeting youth. The music
industry is now beginning to include the parental advisory in advertising, but has not taken steps
to limit advertising to children.
Although there has been real progress in some areas, as documented in this Report, the
Commission concludes, in response to the Commerce Committee’s first inquiry, that all three
industries do continue to advertise violent R-rated movies and M-rated games and explicit-content
labeled recordings in media popular with teens.171 Although R-rated movies and M-rated games
are less likely to be advertised in media with a large percentage of teens in the audience, they
continue to be advertised in programs with a large number of teens in the audience.
In response to the Committee’s second inquiry, the Commission can report nearly universal
disclosure of product ratings in advertisements for movies and games, and increasing, but not yet
34

widespread, disclosure of the parental advisory label in advertisements for explicit content music
recordings. Disclosures of the reasons for movie and game ratings, while not universal, are now
widespread, although still not clear and prominent in many instances. For music, the labeling
program requires no reason for labels so none appears in any advertisements. There are steps the
industries could take to improve in both areas:
C

To make further progress in limiting the use of popular teen media to advertise violent
entertainment products, the industries could adopt industry-wide standards to limit ad
placements that take into account a range of factors that help identify those venues most
popular with teens. Such factors could include, among other things, the percentage of the
audience under 17; the total number of children reached; whether the content is youthoriented; and the popularity with children and apparent ages of the characters or performers.
For particular media, other factors – such as the time of day an ad airs on radio or television –
also could be relevant.

C

To further improve the disclosure of rating and labeling information in advertisements, the
industries could focus on ensuring that both the rating or label and the reasons for the rating
or label are effectively – and clearly – communicated to parents in advertising. This would
entail adoption of industry standards for disclosures of such information in all media, as well
as stepped-up monitoring or sampling by the self-regulatory associations to assure that
disclosures are clear and conspicuous across all media. The electronic games industry, for
example, has just instituted a program to sanction industry members for non-compliance with
its code.

Improvement in both these areas also could be enhanced by programs to impose meaningful
sanctions for non-compliance with code provisions, such as the one recently instituted by the
electronic game industry.
For the motion picture and electronic game industries, some of these steps already have been
taken, or involve practices already followed by some companies that could be standardized for the
entire industry. For the music industry, however, taking these steps would require fundamental
changes in its labeling program, to which it is not yet committed. These would include modifying
the labeling program to require reasons for labels and the disclosure of those reasons in
35

advertisements. It would also require the industry to adopt the underlying premise that some
labeled recordings should not be advertised in popular teen venues.
Finally, on the related issue of whether retailers have adopted effective sales policies that
discourage sales of restricted or labeled products to children, the Commission must report that
there has been almost no progress by any of the three industries in improving their self-regulatory
efforts to increase retail level compliance by, for example, requiring identification or parental
permission for sales to children.
In this area, industries could:
C

Encourage third-party retailers to check age or require parental permission before selling or
renting R-rated/M-rated/advisory-labeled products.
Because of First Amendment and other issues, the Commission continues to support private

sector initiatives to implement these steps. It believes that in addition to the role that industry
self-regulatory programs play in this area, individual companies also can play an important role in
adopting best practices that go beyond those programs. In this Report, the Commission points to
a number of companies that have done so. It encourages others to follow their lead. The
Commission will continue to monitor the entertainment industry’s marketing practices as
Congress may direct.

36

ENDNOTES

1. See Letter from William J. Clinton, President of the United States, to Janet Reno, Attorney
General of the United States, and Robert Pitofsky, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission (June 1,
1999) (on file with the Commission).
2. Legislation calling for the FTC and the Justice Department to conduct such a study was
introduced in both houses of Congress following the Columbine incident. See Amendment No.
329 by Senator Brownback et al. to the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and
Rehabilitation Act of 1999, S. 254, 106th Cong. § 511 (1999); H.R. 2157, 106th Cong. (1999);
145 Cong. Rec. S5171 (1999).
3. The April 2001 Report described the following industry-wide initiatives:
C The MPAA’s 12-point initiative promised: to avoid running trailers for violent R-rated films
before G-rated feature films; to review policies regarding marketing violent R-rated movies to
children; to avoid using children in research for R-rated films; to install compliance officers to
review their marketing practices; to encourage movie theaters to enforce the R-rating
restriction; and to take steps to include the reasons for ratings in print advertisements, on Web
sites, and in home videos. The MPAA member studios – the Walt Disney Company, MetroGoldwyn-Mayer, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corp., Universal City Studios, and Warner Bros. – plus Dreamworks SKG, which is not
an MPAA member, signed on to the initiative. See Motion Picture Association of America, A
Response to the FTC Report (Sept. 26, 2000).
C

NATO’s 12-point initiative: reaffirmed its ID-check policy for R and NC-17 films; promised
not to show trailers advertising R films before any G or PG film, and only before PG-13 films
if consistent in tone and content with the feature film; and committed to appoint an executive
compliance officer and seek additional ways to disseminate rating information. See National
Association of Theatre Owners, Response of the National Association of Theatre Owners to
the Report and Recommendations of the Federal Trade Commission (Nov. 2, 2000) (on file
with the Commission).

C

The RIAA’s revised parental advisory labeling system recommended the use of: broad
standards for making the explicit-content labeling decisions; and guidelines for placing the
advisory in print advertising and on retail Web sites. In July 2001, the RIAA announced that
its members supported placing the advisory label in all advertising for explicit content
recordings, as well as increasing efforts to provide parents with information about the labeling
system. See Testimony of Hilary B. Rosen, President and CEO, Recording Industry
Association of America, House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, July
20, 2001.

C

The IDSA’s revised Advertising Code of Conduct (“AdCode”) limited ad placements in
37

magazines, television shows and Internet sites popular with teens. The Entertainment
Software Rating Board (“ESRB”) stepped up its enforcement of the AdCode, and began to
develop additional sanctions for repeat violators of its provisions. See Testimony of Douglas
Lowenstein, President, Interactive Digital Software Association, House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and the Internet, July 20, 2001.
4. This Report, while more inclusive than the April 2001 Report, is not as comprehensive as the
September 2000 Report. The number of companies, as well as the number of entertainment
products studied, is significantly smaller than the number studied for the September 2000 Report.
For the most part, therefore, the results of this study are not directly comparable to the results of
the previous studies. Also, the findings in this Report do not purport to be statistically projectable
to industry practices as a whole.
5. The Commission sent requests to Miramax Film Corp., Paramount Pictures, and Warner Bros.
These studios were selected because, during the period of review, they had released the most
films rated R based, at least in part, on violent content. Each studio cooperated in supplying its
marketing materials.
For a description of the MPAA rating system for motion pictures, see Appendix A.
6. These films were selected after taking into account factors such as the extent of the marketing
of the film during the review period, the number of theaters where it was released, and the amount
it grossed.
7. Because the recording companies do not keep track of which recordings received the parental
advisory label due to violent content, as opposed to some other explicit content, the Commission
requested materials for recordings labeled for any reason due to their “explicit” content (which
could include strong language and/or depictions of sex, violence, or substance use). The
Commission did not attempt to evaluate which recordings contained violent lyrics. Albums were
selected based on their appearance as a top selling recording on the Billboard 200 chart of
February 3, 2001, and on marketing information collected for the April 2001 Report.
For a description of the RIAA labeling system for music, see Appendix A.
8. The Commission sent requests to EMI Recorded Music, N.A., Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.,
and UMG Recordings, Inc. The companies were selected on the basis of industry data showing
that they were the largest distributors of explicit-content labeled music during the review period.
Each company cooperated in supplying materials.
9. The Commission sent requests to Activision, Inc., Capcom Entertainment, Inc., and Eidos
Interactive, Inc. The companies were selected on the basis of their size and the extent of
marketing of M-rated games during the review period. Each company cooperated in supplying its
marketing materials.

38

For a description of the ESRB rating system for electronic games, see Appendix A.
10. The Commission selected all the games rated M for violence that were marketed in the review
period and not previously reviewed by the Commission.
11. September 2000 Report at 13-14. A high percentage of the companies’ internal marketing
documents showed explicit target marketing to children; others, while not explicit, appeared to
target children. Id.
12. Id. at 54.
13. Id.
14. Motion Picture Association of America, A Response to the FTC Report, Sept. 26, 2000. See
also Marketing Violence to Children II: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Commerce,
Science and Transp., 106th Cong. (Sept. 27, 2000) (statement of Mel Harris, President and Chief
Operating Officer of Sony Pictures Entertainment) (presenting MPAA initiatives), available at
2000 WL 1530870. The MPAA meets with the studio compliance officers periodically to review
compliance, but does not independently monitor studios’ advertising placement and does not have
a system of sanctions to penalize any studios that “inappropriately specifically” target children.
Although the “not inappropriately specifically target” language gives the studios latitude to
specifically target a youth audience for an R-rated film in circumstances where the studio deems
such targeting to be appropriate, some studios – including Disney, Dreamworks, Fox, and Warner
Bros. – committed not to market R-rated films to youth. See Marketing Violence to Children II:
Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science and Transp., 106th Cong. (Sept. 27,
2000).
Not every studio is an MPAA member. Apart from Dreamworks, independent studios –
including Artisan (maker of Blair Witch Project) and USA Films (maker of Traffic) – have not
signed on to these initiatives. Independent studios that want their film to be rated must provide
their advertising materials to the MPAA for compliance review, regardless of whether the studios
are MPAA members, but need not abide by other MPAA policies such as the commitment to
review marketing to avoid inappropriately specifically targeting those under age 17.
15. Marketing Violence to Children II: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Commerce,
Science and Transp., 106th Cong. (Sept. 27, 2000), Fed. News Serv., LEXIS, Legis Library,
Hearng [sic] File.
16. Id.
17. April 2001 Report at 14. The Commission’s independent monitoring of television advertising
placement for the April 2001 Report revealed that “studios continue to advertise R-rated movies
at the times and on the programs that are most effective in delivering those ads to teen viewers.”
Id. at 6.

39

18. September 2000 Report at 14.
19. Id.
20. One of the studios, Warner Bros., publicly committed not to advertise on any program with a
35% under-17 audience. Both of the other studios, without announcing the policy formally,
internally committed to respect the 35% threshold, but excepted certain programming from the
35% standard, e.g., they may advertise on programs with an audience share greater than 35% that
air after 9 p.m. or on certain programming formats such as sports. Additional studios, as noted
above, have announced that they have adopted a 35% standard, but others have not. Because the
three studios that submitted documents to the Commission used demographic data for audience
share under age 18 (as opposed to age 17) in determining whether programs had a 35% youth
audience share, the actual threshold they applied was somewhat less than 35%. Unless otherwise
noted, television audience data cited in this report and in Appendix C indicate the programs’
under-18 audience share. Nielsen television audience data are divided into age groups between
ages 17 and 18, rather than between ages 16 and 17.
The 9 p.m. cutoff is one hour earlier than the 10 p.m. cutoff used by the Federal
Communications Commission to limit the time that “indecent” programming may be broadcast on
television. The FCC presumes children are in the audience between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and
therefore prohibits “indecent” programming during that time. 47 C.F.R. § 73.3999. Five of the
top ten cable shows and two of the top ten network shows in terms of audience size among 1217-year-olds started at 9 p.m. or later.
21. This is in sharp contrast with the past, when studios heavily advertised R-rated films on MTV.
According to one article, “MTV is the holy grail in marketing [motion pictures] to the 12-to-24
demo....” Tim Swanson, MTV’s Ad-vantage [sic]: Teen-targeting cabler plugs summer pics,
Daily Variety (July 18, 2001). Six of the top 10 cable programs for teens age 12-17 aired on
MTV.
22. The Commission monitored 19 network and cable programs for eight weeks in June and July
2001. See Appendix C, Table A for a list of the programs. The Commission also reviewed
syndicated programming airing on five channels in New York City and Los Angeles for two to
three hours daily during June and July 2001. See Appendix C, Table B for a list of the programs.
23. Commercials for violent R-rated films airing on programs with substantial youth audiences
included, for example, Columbia’s Baby Boy on Grounded for Life, Jackass, Jamie Foxx,
Livewire, Sister Sister, Sunday Night Heat, and WWF Smackdown; Fox’s Kiss of the Dragon on
Jackass, Moesha, Sister Sister, and The Simpsons; MGM’s Original Sin on Jackass and WWF
Smackdown; Sony Pictures’ Brother on Jackass, Sunday Night Heat, and 106th & Park; and
Warner Bros.’ Swordfish on Dawson’s Creek, Grounded for Life, and Jamie Foxx.
24. In most cases, the Commission does not have audience data for the precise time the studios
considered placing ads or for the precise dates that the ads were aired. Therefore, ad placements
40

that appear to violate a studio’s commitment may have been based on projected youth audiences
under 35%. Indeed, studio documents that provided both actual and estimated audience
demographics indicate that some ads aired on programs with actual audiences over 35% that had
been projected to have audiences under 35%. Although it is not possible to predict the
composition of the actual audience that will view a program, when studios advertise on programs
with an estimated youth audience approaching 35%, it is likely that they will exceed that threshold
from time to time.
It is also possible that audience data for some of these programs on the precise dates ads aired
would indicate youth audience shares below 35%. At least some of the programs, such as
Jackass, Road Home, and 106th & Park, would very likely have been projected to have youth
audiences above 35%, however, because the programs and/or the day part and channel on which
they are aired perennially reach an audience over 35%. See note 25, infra.
25. The Commission’s television monitoring suggests that at least five movies were advertised on
programs with a youth audience of 35% or greater. For example, ads for MGM’s Original Sin
appeared on Jackass, WWF Smackdown, and Drew Carey; Sony’s Brother on 106th & Park,
Jackass, and Sunday Night Heat; Sony’s Baby Boy (repeatedly) on Jamie Foxx, WWF
Smackdown, and Sunday Night Heat; 20th Century Fox’s Kiss of the Dragon on The Simpsons
(repeatedly), Fresh Prince, Moesha, Jamie Foxx, Jackass, Home Improvement, and Drew Carey;
and Warner Bros.’ Swordfish on Jamie Foxx.
Data identifying the programs on which each ad for violent R-rated films first aired – or “first
airing” data – showed ads for two films on programs likely to have had an over 35% youth
audience. Ads for Baby Boy first aired on Jackass (38% youth audience according to Nielsen)
and Sister Sister (40%). Sony/Columbia Pictures did not commit to advertise only on programs
with youth audiences under 35%, so this advertising does not necessarily violate any specific
commitment. Sony did commit, however, to review its advertising practices to avoid
inappropriately specifically targeting children. Also, an ad for Exit Wounds first appeared on
MTV’s Road Home, at a time of day that had a 50% youth audience according to Nielsen data.
Warner Bros. did commit to avoid advertising on programs with a 35% youth audience. It is not
clear whether this placement was a result of a mistake by a Warner Bros. ad buyer or by MTV, or
whether the ad was intentionally aired at that time.
Note that the audience data provided here for syndicated programs are for the particular
“spot” markets where those programs were aired. Therefore, these data do not correspond to the
Nielsen data reported in Appendix C, which reflect the audience nationwide.
26. See April 2001 Report, Appendix A.
27. One studio analysis indicated that there were eight prime-time network programs – all on one
of two networks – with a 35% youth share in the fourth quarter of 2000; in syndication, there
were only six programs over 35%. There were no programs over 35% during late night network
television, and only children’s programming (such as Saturday morning programs) exceeded that
41

percentage during the networks’ early morning day part. Data are for shows airing more than
once in the same time period.
28. These were the top ten Nielsen-ranked programs in terms of the number of viewers 2-17 years
old. Of the top ten syndicated weekday programs based on the number of viewers 2-17 years old,
only three have a youth audience share over 35%.
29. As noted in n.20, supra, the three studios that submitted documents to the Commission for
this report used television demographic data for people 18 and above. Teens age 17 make up
approximately 1.4% of the U.S. population, see Resident Population Estimates of the United
States by Age and Sex: April 1, 1990 to July 1, 1999, with Short-Term Projection to November
1, 2000 (Population Estimates Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau), and make up
a slightly larger percentage of the television viewing audience. A program with a 35% under-18
audience would have a lower percentage of under-17 viewers. The size of the difference would
vary depending on the particular program.
30. These programs aired in December 2000. It is likely that parents watching these programs
with their children make up a portion of the audience for these programs, reducing the percentage
of children in the measured audience.
31. These programs were identified in another studio’s media plan, for a PG-13 film, as “Teens”
programs.
Even studio marketing plans that expressly target teens advertise on programs with youth
audience shares below 35%. This was evident from the media plans examined by the Commission
for the September 2000 Report which found that youth-targeted films were primarily advertised
on programs with a youth audience share below 35%, and even shows with 22% age 6-17
audiences were characterized in media plans as “youth-targeted.” It was also evident from the
media plans examined for this Report for the two PG-13 films that expressly targeted teens. Only
20 of 125 programs on which these PG-13-rated movies were advertised had a youth audience of
35%.
32. It is possible for studios to evade these requirements, if they choose to do so, by making
“spot” buys in local markets instead of nationwide buys directly from the network. See
September 2000 Report at n.86.
33. September 2000 Report at 17-18.
34. June to September 2001 issues of the following 17 comic books and magazines – all with a
substantial youth audience – were reviewed to assess ad placement: 100% Independent
PlayStation; CosmoGirl; DC Comics; Electronic Gaming Monthly; Game Pro; Marvel Comics;
Metal Edge; Nintendo Power, Right On!; Seventeen; Teen; Teen Movieline; Teen People;
Thrasher; Tips & Tricks; WWF; and YM. See Appendix C for additional details.

42

35. In April, the Commission also reported it found no ads for R-rated films in youth-oriented
publications. April 2001 Report at 6.
36. Demographic data are not available on radio audiences for children under age 12.
Nevertheless, some stations have audiences with 35% of the listeners in the 12-17 age group, and
in some cases almost 50% of the audience in that age group.
37. Although that studio apparently did in fact advertise during restricted day parts on some
occasions, its compliance with that policy in general suggests that those placements were made
mistakenly. On other occasions, when the studio’s tracking indicated that some radio buys were
proposed for restricted times, those buys were not made.
38. Some of these PG-13 films were targeted at audiences as young as six years old. September
2000 Report at 15.
39. September 2000 Report at 16.
40. All but one MPAA member, plus Dreamworks, agreed that they would request that theaters
not show trailers for R-rated violent movies before G- or PG-rated films. See Marketing Violence
to Children II: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science and Transp., 106th
Cong. (Sept. 27, 2000), Fed. News Serv., LEXIS, Legis Library, Hearng [sic] File. Paramount
Pictures, while not adopting the industry policy with respect to trailers before PG-rated films, did
agree to request theaters not to show trailers for violent R-rated films before G-rated films.
NATO pledged that each member theater would not show such trailers before any G or PG film,
and only before PG-13 films if the trailers are consistent in tone and content with the feature film.
41. The few violations of the pledge not to run trailers for R-rated films before G- or PG-rated
feature films appeared to be the result of decisions by individual theater operators. A few NATO
member theaters showed trailers for R films before PG-13 films that were arguably inconsistent in
tone and content with the feature film.
42. The Commission contracted with TES, a commercial trailer checking service. It checked 125
theaters across the country showing Tomb Raider, 128 showing Atlantis, and 85 showing
Princess Diaries. The check took place June 15-17 and August 3-5, 2001. Princess Diaries was
the only major G-rated movie release during summer 2001.
43. The Commission checked more theaters and more screens than had been tested previously. It
found trailers for five PG-13-rated films shown before the G-rated Princess Diaries; most of these
films’ trailers were shown in only a few theaters. These trailer placements do not violate either
the MPAA’s or NATO’s commitments. It should be noted that incompatibility of trailers with
feature films – whether trailers for R-rated films before PG-13 features or trailers for PG-13 rated
films before PG- or G-rated features – does give rise to complaints from parents. See, e.g., Cindy
Richards, Terror in the Trailers, Chicago Sun-Times (July 25, 2001) at 37 (suggesting that
exhibition of trailer for PG-13-rated Planet of the Apes before PG-rated Shrek was inappropriate).

43

44. Showing trailers for R-rated films before PG-13-rated features does not violate MPAA
commitments, and only violates NATO’s pledge if the two films’ tone and content are
inconsistent. Theaters frequently preview R-rated movies before PG-13 films.
45. One studio requested that a trailer for an R-rated film be shown before one PG-rated feature.
46. The NATO and MPAA initiatives do not forbid the exhibition of trailers for films likely to
garner an R-rating – but not yet rated – before G or PG films. Yet, only one trailer for an unrated
film that was later rated R was shown before a G- or PG-rated movie – a trailer for Universal’s
then-unrated American Pie 2 was shown before PG-rated Atlantis at one theater. American Pie 2
was not rated R on the basis of violent content, however.
47. September 2000 Report at 17. The Commission found that street marketing teams distributed
items at places popular with teens, such as malls, teen clothing stores, sports events, high schools,
youth organizations, and arcades. The Commission did not review promotional activities in its
Spring Report.
48. In one instance, free passes to an R-rated film were distributed to students through a high
school.
49. PG-13-rated film promotions continued to be targeted to high school groups and youth
organizations, but there is no evidence that the promotions were directed to children under age
13.
50. The Commission reviewed Nielsen//NetRatings demographic data on 28 Web sites on which
the studio advertised. Of these 28 Web sites, five had youth audiences over 35%, and two more
had youth audiences over 30%.
51. One exception was a third party’s promotional campaign for one product related to an R-rated
film. The product’s marketing was directed in part to snowboard shops, and street teams were
sent out to hype the product at World Wrestling Federation tours. Ads were featured in MTV
radio, MTV.com, wrestling programs, and MTV. The third party assured the studio that the
“marketing campaign will focus on outlets which appeal to all age groups, such as MTV and the
[WWF].” As noted above, MTV is a key outlet for marketing to youth on television. See supra
note 21. Further, wrestling programs attract substantial youth audiences. See Appendix C at A2.
52. No such special requests were made for any of the six films that the Commission reviewed.
53. September 2000 Report at 55.
54. The Commission reviewed ads for violent R-rated movies from seven studios.
55. See supra note 34.

44

56. In addition to the 17 magazines with a substantial youth audience that were reviewed to assess
ad placement, the following seven publications (June to September 2001 editions) were reviewed
to assess whether ratings and rating reasons were provided: Computer Gaming World; Expert
Gamer; PC Gamer; Rolling Stone; Spin; Vibe; and Wizard.
57. The Commission reviewed ads in the following newspapers with a general circulation (not
targeted to children): Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago
Tribune, The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, Dallas Morning News, Los Angeles Times, [New York]
Newsday, New York Post, New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News,
Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and Washington Post. See Appendix C, Table H.
58. Fourteen ads did not include the rating reasons.
59. In its review for the April 2001 Report, the Commission found more than 30% of the ads
unreadable; for this review it found less than 20% unreadable. Of 1322 ads reviewed, 699 were
clearly readable, 339 were small but marginally readable, and 270 were unreadable.
60. The Commission reviewed inserts from Best Buy, Circuit City, Kmart, Toys ‘R’ Us,
CompUSA, Target, Staples, and Amazon.com. Best Buy clearly disclosed the film ratings. No
retailer provided rating reasons. It is possible that the rating information was not included in key
art provided to the retailers by the studios.
61. See September 2000 Report, Appendix H.
62. The site that did not provide the rating reason did link to rating information at another site.
63. The Commission examined the following 34 motion picture Web sites in July 2001: 3000
Miles to Graceland, Along Came a Spider, Amores Perros, Angel Eyes, Apocalypse Now Redux,
Baby Boy, Bones, Brother, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, Collateral Damage, Crimson Rivers,
The Deep End, Deuces Wild, Exit Wounds, The Forsaken, Frailty, Ghosts of Mars, The Heist,
Impostor, Jeepers Creepers, Joy Ride, Kiss of the Dragon, Knockaround Guys, Memento,
Novocaine, One Night at McCool’s, O, The Salton Sea, Session 9, Sexy Beast, Swordfish, Tailor
of Panama, Weight of Water, and With a Friend Like Harry. Some of these films were released
by studios that are not MPAA members.
64. There were exceptions. In some cases, rating information was absent altogether. For
example, Commission staff could not find any rating on the sites for three movies from Lions Gate
(Amores Perros, Frailty, and The Weight of Water). Newmarket’s Memento site did not include
rating information; furthermore, when browsing the site, a visitor could view a picture of a dead
body with a bloody, nearly decapitated head. The sites for Warner Bros.’ 3000 Miles to
Graceland and USA Films’ Session 9 required the visitor to navigate through the site in order to
find the rating. To view the rating for Session 9, it was necessary to click on an unmarked link to
another screen where a small, blurry rating could be found at the bottom of the page.
65. Warner Bros. had very clear and visible links to these three sites on its movie sites.
45

66. In the review for the April 2001 Report, 30 of the 35 sites checked (86%) displayed the film’s
rating and 25 of 35 (71%) provided the film’s rating reason.
67. The Commission examined the following motion picture theater Web sites: AMC, Carmike,
Century Theatres, Cinemark, Clearview Cinemas, Edwards Theatres Circuit, General Cinemas,
GKC Theatres, Goodrich Quality Theatres, Hoyt’s Cinemas, Kerasotes Theatres, Loews
Cineplex, Marcus Theatres, National Amusement, Pacific Theatres, Regal Cinemas, Silver
Cinemas/Landmark Theatres, United Artist, and Wallace Theater Corp. and reviewed practices
pertaining to the following motion pictures: Baby Boy, Brother, Kiss of the Dragon, Made,
Memento, Scary Movie 2, Sexy Beast, and Swordfish.
68. Several of the chains, including Century Theatres, Cinemark, General Cinemas, and Regal
Cinemas, provided especially extensive rating information. National Amusement had an excellent
feature for providing rating information: the site displayed a small rating guide on nearly every
page that linked to more extensive information. The sites for AMC, Century Theatres, Edwards
Theatres Circuit, and Wallace Theater Corp. had clear warnings that children under 17 would not
be admitted to R-rated features at their theaters without a parent or guardian.
69. All of these sites provided a link to the MPAA web site, while three also linked to
filmratings.com. National Amusement linked to both of those sites, as well as to
parentalguide.org.
70. Movietickets.com had a warning that: “Children under 17 will not be admitted without an
adult.” The third ticket seller, Moviefone.com, set up the ticketing process so that one could not
purchase only a “child” ticket to an R-rated movie. None of the sites required purchasers to
p

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3Aa22279351af3d7b4. Public record. Not legal advice.