More companies could start leaning into Made in USA claims—but they have to do it right

President Trump’s impending tariffs on many foreign-made goods has piqued consumers’ interest in products made stateside, which could spur more companies to center marketing around “Made in USA” claims. This could be a smart move—if companies don’t take liberties with it.

When they do, or at least a company’s competitors think they do, it’s often the job of Phyllis Marcus, VP of the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs, along with her team of attorneys, to vet these “Made in USA” claims. BBB National Programs is an independent, nonprofit entity formed in 2019, when the Council of Better Business Bureaus restructured, and now oversees advertising industry self-regulation programs.

Outside of those applying to automobiles, textile, wool, and fur products, there are no laws requiring consumer goods companies to report US content of their products. However, if they do, “they have to do so carefully,” because there are plenty of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations around what they can say, Marcus told Retail Brew.

While it currently has a “robust body of cases,” NAD has yet to see an influx of cases related to Trump’s tariffs, but they could be coming, Marcus said. “We do predict based on the current economic climate that making these claims may become more important to companies, advertising programs, and campaigns,” she added.

Marcus—who previously spent more than 17 years at the FTC, including as its chief of staff in the division of advertising practices—broke down NAD’s process of regulating these claims, and recent cases it’s taken on.

Made to order: The FTC’s regulations extend beyond packaging; marketing materials like websites, seals, tags, and stamps are all fair game, Marcus noted. For a product to truly be deemed “Made in USA,” she added, the FTC says “all or virtually all” parts of it must be US-sourced and manufactured. Otherwise, a company can use a qualified (i.e., more descriptive) claim, something like “Assembled in the USA” or “Designed in the USA.”

The FTC has its own process to determine whether to take on cases like these, but NAD takes on all cases brought by competitors that are national and advertising-related where it must weigh in on whether “Made in USA” claims are backed up, she said.

When a company comes to NAD with one of these cases, the organization opens an inquiry to examine those claims, asking the company in question to back them up with materials (information like sourcing agreements, ingredients, processing and manufacturing locations). It’ll then determine whether those “Made in USA” claims are or aren’t substantiated, and publish a decision. If they’re not substantiated, NAD will suggest they either change or stop using those claims. Companies either can comply, appeal the decision if they don’t agree with it, or refuse to follow the recommendations (which isn’t frequent, but “happens sometimes,” Marcus said), and NAD will then refer this refusal to the FTC.

While NAD doesn’t have the power to issue monetary penalties (the FTC does, starting in 2021, and it’s distributed more than $15 million worth of penalties since then), it’s a fairly transparent system, so it issues press releases and states whether a case is being referred to the FTC, Marcus said. The FTC has a section on its website of BBB National Programs referral cases.

Case in point: Last year, SC Johnson & Son, owner of personal care product brand Method, brought a challenge to NAD against competitor Proctor & Gamble’s personal care brand Native regarding several of its advertising claims, including Native’s claims its products were “Born in the USA,” because the brand was founded in San Francisco. NAD determined that claim is synonymous with Made in USA, and since P&G did not provide evidence to NAD to support this, NAD recommended Native stop use of this phrase. P&G said at the time it “respectfully disagrees” with the decision but removed those claims during NAD’s proceedings.

Sometimes, a more descriptive tweak does the trick: Last year, oral care brand GuruNanda challenged competitor Oral Essentials’s use of Made in USA on advertising because some of its ingredients are sourced outside of the US. Oral Essentials agreed to modify its claims to “Made in USA with US and globally sourced ingredients.” Similarly, in 2023, Bath & Body Works brought a challenge against competitor Goose Creek Candles, which was making a Made in USA claim, and NAD ultimately recommended the company modify the claim to “poured in the USA with the highest ingredients from around the world,” which Goose Creek agreed to.

Ultimately, these efforts are centered on the “important tenets” of avoiding deception and ensuring consumer trust, Marcus said.

“Companies advertise for a reason, and they seek competitive advantage for a reason, and these claims can be very powerful when they’re made on a package or in advertising,” she said.