Last week, a district court in Maryland ruled that Tyson was not immune from false advertising liability based upon a United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) label ruling.

The flap over advertising came when Plaintiff competitors Perdue Farms and Sanderson Farms, alleged that Tyson had been running a series of consumer ads that contained the message “Raised without Antibiotics,” what Plaintiffs called an unqualified Raised without Antibiotics claim (“RWA” claim). Plaintiffs further alleged defendant was running ads with a similar, but qualified RWA claim, namely, “aised Without Antibiotics that Impact Antibiotic Resistance in Humans.” Plaintiffs complaint alleged the unqualified RWA claim was literally false on its face, and the qualified RWA claim was misleading and therefore false by implication. In fact, Plaintiffs claimed, the defendant’s chicken feed contained inophores which are in fact, antibiotics.

By way of background, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) of the USDA originally approved the unqualified RWA claim, but quickly revoked the approval and informed defendant it could no longer use the unqualified RWA claim on its label. It was silent as to advertising, since the FSIS has no jurisdiction outside of labeling. It later approved defendants qualified RWA claim. In its moving papers, defendant crowed that because the statements were approved for use on defendant’s chicken labels, the pecking order had already been established: plaintiffs Lanham Act claims must be dismissed on the ground that the labels’ language was already approved by the USDA.

In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss on the unqualified RWA claim, the court held that defendant could not rely on a former position held by the USDA “to defend itself against allegations that it continues to run false and misleading advertisements carrying the ‘Raised Without Antibiotics’ language.” Regarding the qualified RWA claim, the court noted that both sides were winging it on cited case law, because it could find no cases that involved “whether a USDA-approved label insulates a company from allegedly false non-label advertising under the Lanham Act.” The court noted that while the USDA may have jurisdiction over chicken labels, it does not have congressional authority to regulate advertising. Accordingly, “a label approved by the USDA may nonetheless be false or misleading in other contexts.” Looks like defendant doesn’t have a leg (or thigh) to stand on.

Increasingly, teenage celebrities are being used by marketing companies to gain a competitive edge in the increasingly growing teen market share. USA Today Online reported today that several large retailers and merchandisers have signed teenage singers and actors to hawk their wares, including Fergie, who was recently retained to give the MAC Cosmetics “Viva Glam” line a boost, the 15 year old Sprouse twins from The Suite Life with Zach and Cody, and basketball’s Stephon Marbury.

Clearly, using these Hollywood “role models” is a strategy that works. The Zandi Group, a marketing research firm, indicates that teenage spokespersons are perfect for clothing and product lines directed at teens because teens already try to emulate celebrity style. Legally, however, using underage spokespersons to target minors can be tricky. While going after teenage dollars is relatively fair game, many young stars attract even younger consumers, including ‘tweens (those under 13), which can lead to problems with the major television networks, with self-regulatory agencies, such as CARU, and in some cases, with the FTC with parents. Many major networks have guidelines consistent with those at CARU that do not allow certain celebrity advertising during times when children under 13 are likely to be looking at television. The practice of Host Selling (airing commercials featuring a teen celebrity at the same time as the teen’s program is scheduled) is not allowed by most networks, and CARU’s self-regulatory guidelines also proscribe the message that buying a certain product will make a kid more popular among his friends or smarter in class.

Practice Pointer: Attorneys should remind their clients that while many teens have their own money, in many cases, that money comes from their parents, who frown upon hard-sell tactics. In particular, parents do not like to be nagged about the purchase of a product they feel is too expensive, compromises their child’s integrity, or is sexually provocative. Generally speaking, clients should use common sense about the type of promotion they engage teenagers to endorse.

Electrolux turned the tables on former distributor-turned-competitor Imig, Inc., which filed a complaint against the famous vacuum and home appliance company, for interfering with relationships with perspective customers. Electrolux filed several counterclaims, alleging that Imig copied Electrolux’s protected trade dress, copyright protected user manuals, and that Imig made false claims in its advertising.

The district court dismissed all of Imig’s claims on summary judgment, and found for Electrolux on copyright infringement and false advertising. The court found that Imig had copied the user manuals in violation of U.S. Copyright law. From a false advertising perspective, the court found that specific numerically based claims about the Imig vacuum’s superiority were false on their face, because the products did not actually meet those objective standards. The remaining counterclaims proceeded to trial. On March 31, 2008, the court issued its finding that Electrolux had not met its burden of establishing a protectable trade dress in its vacuum and therefore, did not find Imig liable.

The facts show that Imig, afraid that it would lose its distributorship of the Electrolux SANITAIRE brand, developed its PERFECT brand vacuum as a replacement. Discovery produced evidence of copying: in creating the PERFECT design, Imig referred its Chinese manufacturer to the specifications of the SANITAIRE line. It was also revealed that Imig’s patent attorney sent a letter to a patent research company noting his clients’ desire “to make a private label vacuum cleaner that is virtually identical in appearance” to defendant’s vacuum. The court also noted numerous visual similarities between the SANITAIRE vacuum and the PERFECT vacuum.

Notwithstanding Imid’s clear intent to copy, the court did not find liability. The court noted that Electrolux had not met its burden of establishing trade dress infringement. In order to establish trade dress infringement, the court wrote, a company must show that the product design is distinctive and that consumers are likely to be confused by seeing the distinctive trade dress on another product. The court held that the elements claimed by Electrolux were functional in nature, and that the company had not proved otherwise, despite Electrolux’s survey evidence showing consumers recognized the various elements of the vacuum as being uniquely from the SANITAIRE brand. The court also determined that secondary meaning had not been established, even though the product had been in use for several years. Addressing the issue of confusion, the court, citing Cadbury Beverages, Inc. v. Cott Corp. determined that Eletrolux had to show a “probability – not merely a ‘possibility’ – of confusion,” a burden that it also did not meet. Even with the victory on the copyright and false advertising claims, we’re guessing Electrolux thinks the decision, well, sucks.

Practice Note: One method of distinguishing trade dress elements is to use “look for” advertising tactics in marketing the products. If a product contains non-functional elements that truly distinguish the product, a company can generate recognition around those features by directing clients to look for them when they make a purchase. Such use may be more persuasive than survey evidence in making clear to both customers and competitors what elements of a design are trade dress.

For years, health crisis centers for pregnant women have fought against rogue elements providing false information about abortion services. Using the Internet and phonebook advertising, anti-abortion groups pose as counseling centers and pretend to offer counseling and information services about abortion to pregnant women. In actuality, these groups direct viewers to fake sites that provide false information about abortion options, and provide counseling designed to persuade women to keep their unwanted babies, even when keeping the baby represents a significant risk to the mother’s health.

This month, women’s health centers are asking women to contact their congressperson about a bill recently introduced to “direct the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe rules to prevent deceptive advertising of abortion services.” The ”Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act” would provide special guidelines specifically related to how crisis centers would be able to advertise what they offer.

Practice Note: The bill seeks to tie the act to the already existing powers held by the FTC under Section 5 of The FTC Act, which regulates false and deceptive advertising. Even if the bill does not pass, under the current power, the FTC could independently go after these agencies for their deceptive ads.

The National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau has found that Wal-Mart’s claim that it saves Wal-Mart shoppers $2500.00 a year is misleading, and the self-regulatory organization has requested Wal-Mart discontinue the advertising campaign.

The Wal-Mart ad campaign claim is not based on the actual savings of Wal-Mart shoppers, but rather on a calculated number derived from a study it commissioned in 2005. The study in 2005 found that Wal-Mart’s advertising focus on low prices, had resulted in an actual overall price drop in consumer products of 3%. A 3% drop is roughly equal to $287 Billion, which means roughly $2500.00 per household. The statistic, therefore, represents the cost savings to every household, whether the consumer shops at Wal-Mart.

Practice Note: In any advertisement where a measurable statistic is used, the ad sponsor should be able to point to evidence supporting that statistic. Even when a statistic is numerically accurate, as it is here, if the implication is false, then the ad may be deemed false, too. The test for misleading advertising is not merely what is said, but what is implied by the statement.

A U.S. District Court in Nevada granted Plaintiff Paradise Canyon’s motion for preliminary injunction against Defendant Integra Investments for Integra’s advertising of its resort properties. The court found Defendant attempted to lure consumers into buying homes by creating a false impression of association with Plaintiff’s famous Wolf Creek Golf Club.

Paradise Canyon owns and operates the famous Wolf Creek Resort and Golf Club in Mesquite, Nevada. The club is renown for its golfing and has been featured as one of the “50 Toughest Courses” in the world. Plaintiff holds four trademark registrations in various classes that include the words WOLF CREEK. Defendant owns a 33 acre parcel of land adjacent to the golf club, which it had earlier attempted to name “Wolf Creek Estates,” but was enjoined from doing so by a court order. Defendant now calls its community Hidden Wolf, and has created advertising to entice buyers to the new development. One such advertisement begins, “WORLD CLASS GOLFING” and goes on to suggest that residents of Hidden Wolf can “play this amazing [Wolf Creek] course every day – just by stepping outside your door.” Various other ads reference the Wolf Creek Golf course by name and then suggest that Hidden Wolf provides access privileges to the famous club.

The court found that while the statements in the ads were not literally false (Defendant never stated it was part of Wolf Creek), the ads had a tendency to deceive potential buyers into thinking a Hidden Wolf home purchase came with golf privileges.

Practice Note: Clients should look critically at their use of third party trademarks in advertising. There are many ways in which defendant might have fairly used the WOLF CREEK. For instance, making an association with the town of Mesquite, which is home to the Wolf Creek Resort, and noting Hidden Wolf’s proximity to the resort, would likely have achieved the same marketing effect without raising the ire of Plaintiff.

Reuters is reporting that the well-known rock band Smashing Pumpkins has filed suit against Virgin Records, claiming that the record company sullied its image by associating it with a Pepsi/Amazon promotion.

According to the law suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, March 24, 2008, the band claims Virgin used the band’s name, music and images in its “Pepsi Stuff” Promotion, which allows Pepsi drinkers to purchase selected merchandise. In the law suit, the Smashing Pumpkins claim that by using the Band’s image and music as part of the promotion, Virgin has falsely given consumers the impression that Smashing Pumpkins endorsed and was affiliated with the Pepsi Stuff campaign.

Practice Note: Promotions Sponsors must not advertise their promotion in such a way that they create a false sense of Sponsorship with a third party. For instance, while a Sponsor may list the brand name of the prize to be awarded, it may not be able to display a third party trademark or call special attention to that brand in its advertising.

Debunking the myth that a group of attorneys can never agree on anything, 30 attorneys general recently sent a letter to the administrator of the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, requesting that the organization investigate the aggressive marketing campaigns that surround the promotion of new energy drinks that mix caffeine and alcohol (a trend started by want-to-have-it-all professionals whose drink of choice is a Vodka and Red Bull cocktail).

The recent boom in energy-alcohol drinks, coupled with the super-sweet alcohol “soft drinks” is sparking a trend by consumers of drinking alcohol beverages designed to feel alcohol-free. If nothing else, the proliferation of drinks like Anheuser Busch’s Bud Extra, Miller Brewing Company’s Sparks, and other alco-energy drinks like Charge and Liquid Core, make clear that such drinks are speeding up the cash conveyor for large companies.

AGs nationwide are concerned that the aggressive position marketers are taking with these drinks, coupled with the “outlandish” health-claims related to the consumption of these energy-pops are misleading. Moreover, many AGs believe that the target market is underage drinkers. Slogans like “You can sleep when you’re 30” and references to “pulling an all-nighter,” appear, at least in the minds of the attorneys general, to be focusing on the under 21 crowd.

Practice Pointer: Even when a marketing campaign is legally sound, and regardless of the product, when companies engage in advertising that is directed at a younger crowd, they run the risk of having parents and watchdog groups complain if the message, however understated, suggests a behavior that is either illegal, or promotes unhealthy habits. Attorneys should advise their clients to be prepared for fallout when launching aggressive marketing campaigns.

The latest trend in customer loyalty and brand value is the creation of the Limited Edition gift card. Currently, consumers can purchase the gift card for the value of the card. When the value is depleted, the gift card is theirs to keep. The retention by the consumer of the commemorative card is associated with a positive perspective on the client.

Recently, the Texaco Company has begun selling what it calls commemorative gift cards, featuring the image of Juan Pablo Montoya on the cards and touting it as a limited edition card. Currently, the special edition card costs no extra.

Some state laws forbid the charging of a sizeable premium for a gift card. This new twist, however, paves the way for companies to recoup any losses they may rack up in the creation of the cards themselves. So long as the card is legally a “limited edition,” and there is some real value associated with collecting the card, companies may start trying to push the envelope with regard to charging a premium for gift cards. It appears that the “free drinking glass with fill-up” days are long over.

The advent of the DVR has turned those hard-earned advertising dollars into mush as target customers easily zip past commercials to get to their favorite shows. And while YouTube, GoogleVideo, and other easy-upload sites have been hosting bootlegged-and-previously televised commercials since their inception, only recently has the advertising industry stopped using their legal muscle to take down these rogue postings and adopted a if-you-can’t-beat-’em-join-’em attitude.

Indeed, actually getting consumers to affirmatively seek out commercials seems to be the new craze. And it’s working. In fact, many companies, like Burger King, are using YouTube and other social networking sites, to launch full-scale campaigns. The grainy, slightly do-it-yourself style of the ads is actually adding to their appeal. In some cases, it’s unclear whether the ads are corporate sponsored or created by individuals, another attractive component for the Gen-X-Zers whose mantra seems to be “don’t hard-sell me.”

This ad recently appeared on YouTube, to the delight of consumers. The controversy it sparked is only adding to the commercial’s viewership. Moreover, Smirnoff likely didn’t have to make a million-plus ad buy as it would have for television.

If your spidey senses are tingling because you’re wondering about alcohol beverage control laws, misleading advertising claims, CARU challenges and the like, stay tuned. Ad law is getting interesting again.

At attorney in New York is seeking class action status in a lawsuit filed against Starbuck’s for its coupon campaign that closed early after the tell-a-friend response got out of hand. The Starbucks chain offered its employees an email coupon for a free cup of coffee and allowed the employees to pass the coupon onto friends and family. Evidently having not learned from Napster, within hours, the friends and families contacted numbered in the thousands, and Starbuck’s, inundated with coupons, was forced to shut down the promotion early.

New York attorney, Peter Sullivan, sued. According to the Orange County Register, he believes that “Starbucks should account to the thousands of consumers who relied upon the advertisement, went out of their way to stop by a Starbuck’s and ended up being charged $3.00 for coffee.”

Hardly a “bait and switch” in this attorney’s opinion, (the measure by which a jury is likely to judge the Starbuck’s debacle), Starbuck’s may be able to show that it was merely an honest mistake and a good deed that got out of hand. Moreover, it’s not likely that all that many people went out of their way to get the free drink, considering there’s a Starbuck’s on most corners. Still, it would have been wise for the coffee chain to attach certain restrictions on the coupon.

Practice Pointer:
Viral marketing coupons are popular and companies endeavoring to use them should take certain precautions to insure that it is not overwhelmed with responses. Some examples are as follows:

The FTC has ordered Sunmark to pull its matchmaking advertising campaign because the ad misleads consumers into thinking that the company has a higher marriage rate than it can prove. The ads amounted to false advertising, under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Sunmark, which operates a matchmaking service, ran advertisements in national magazines in which it claimed that it was responsible for the marriages of 3,478 of its members. In fact, only about 950 of its members actually married other members; 1600 members were married to third parties not related to the site. Another 800 members included in the count were dating, but had not actually married. The ads, which ran in magazines for 2 months, suggested that Sunmark’s matchmaking rate was 8%, when in fact it was only 4.7%.

Practice Note: To rectify the blunder, Sunmark could have placed a disclaimer in its advertisement, noting that of the 2,550 actual marriages, only 950 marriages were member-to-member. Simply stating that “some” marriages were not member-to-member, however, would have been insufficient. Indeed, the FTC cited another matchmaking company for failing to provide the actual number of non-member marriages, even though it placed a disclaimer in its ad.

On April 6, 2006, the FTC entered judgement against OptIn Global, which advertised, inter alia, home mortgages via e-mail, in violation of the Federal CAN-SPAM Act. Under the Act, companies may not send e-mails that are primarily advertisements unless the e-mail contains an opt-out provision, and truthfully informs the e-mail recipient who is sending the communication and for what purpose.

The judgment calls for OptIn to return the roughly half million in revenue that it made running the advertisements, and adds a penalty of $2.4 million, effectively gutting the company. Finally, it imposes on the company and its affiliated companies (of which there are at least 12 DBAs) specific duties should it advertise in the future, that go beyond the provisions of CAN-SPAM, making it so they Can’t Spam any longer.

Practice Pointer: The Federal CAN-SPAM Act lays out specific guidelines for commercial advertising that must be adhered to in sending e-mail communications that are primarily commercial in nature. Most notably, those guidelines state that the email must:

The National Advertising Division (“NAD”) has requested that 1-800-patches.com discontinue many of its advertising claims on its Green Tea 300 product because the claims are misleading.

In one instance, an ad states that Green Tea 300 is “30 Times more potent than regular green tea.” The ad goes on to ask clients to “Join Oprah” in losing 10 pounds. In addition, the ad shows a doctor extolling weight loss virtues of Green Tea and quotes him as saying, “[Lose] 10 pounds in six weeks. I will guarantee it.”

In its defense, 1-800-patches.com stated it based its potency claim on the fact that Green Tea 300 has 30 times more polyphenol than green tea steeped in a testing laboratory (the company did not pay for the study; it merely read the findings). The polyphenol count is the only measure by which 1-800-patches.com makes its claim. The company claims the “Join Oprah” and doctor guarantee portion of the advertising was specifically related to an episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show in which a doctor guaranteed a weight loss of 10 pounds for a diet regimen that included consumption of Green Tea (although not the Green Tea 300 product).

NAD correctly found that advertisers may not make claims using consumer testimonials or expert endorsements that cannot be substantiated by the advertiser. Moreover, advertisers must have appropriate scientific evidence to support scientific claims. The use of Oprah’s name and a quote by a doctor each suggested an endorsement of the company’s product that was not accurate. Ultimately, 1-800-patches.com pulled the questionable advertising.

Practice Pointer: While it was improper for 1-800-patches.com to suggest an endorsement of its product by either a doctor or a celebrity that it didn’t have, it would have been acceptable to have mentioned the television show. For instance, the advertiser could have stated “A recent episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show highlighted the virtues of green tea.” Depending on the size and placement of such a statement, such use would likely not suggest an affiliation between the advertiser and the celebrity.

SC Johnson & Sons, Inc., through the National Advertising Division (“NAD”), challenged Colgate-Palmolive’s recent claims pertaining to Murphy Soft-Wipes pre-moistened dust cloths. Among the claims SC Johnson found questionable were those found in a newspaper FSI, stating the product:

SC Johnson, a Colgate-Palmolive competitor, asserted that the claims made in the advertising and on the product packaging were false, misleading, and unsubstantiated, and requested substantiation of the claim that the Soft-Wipes actually repelled dust. In response, Colgate-Palmolive provided NAD with proprietary evidence showing that the Soft-Wipes comtained anti-static agents that, when applied to a surface, created electrical charges that repelled dust.

Because SC Johson was not allowed to view the actual claims (Colgate-Palmolive released them only to NAD, claiming trade secret in the results), it tested the product in its own laboratories and provided those non-proprietary results to NAD. The SC Johnson results show that there was no difference in the dust collection rate of surfaces cleaned with a regular dust product and surfaces cleaned with a Soft-Wipe.

In reviewing the evidence from both parties, NAD found that in fact, Colgate-Palmolive had not met its burden of showing that there was a reasonable basis for claiming that the Soft-Wipes actively repelled dust. Colgate-Palmolive issued a statement vehemently disagreeing with the findings of NAD. Nonetheless, it has relaunched the product with a new advertising campaign, pending new test results.

Practice Pointer: Under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the advertiser has the initial burden of presenting a reasonable basis for its claims. While a “reasonable basis” can amount to internal laboratory testing of a premise, standard practice is to have tests conducted by an independent laboratory.

Kraft Foods, which markets drinks under the Capri Sun label, got a clean bill of health this week from the Children’s Advertising Review Unit, (“CARU”), which requested the food conglomerate substantiate its claims that its childrens sports drink “hydrates better than water.”

Kraft provided CARU with a study conducted at the University of Georgia that found Kraft’s sports drink actually helped to keep healthy, active children hydrated better than water alone. In addition to the foregoing, Kraft provided CARU with information collected from several associations devoted to athletics that had come to the same conclusion; namely, that drinking sports drinks, especially during prolonged intentive exercise, can help children stay hydrated.

Practice Pointer: Counsel should encourage its corporate clients to engage in whatever forms of industry self-regulation are available. Not only is the process generally faster and cheaper than being subjected to a private action or an FTC investigation, but it encourages Congress to allow the self-regulatory process to proceed, rather than enacting statutes that may hinder commercial progress.

Beware of Secret Downloads.
Take Two Interactive and subsidiary publisher Rock Star Games have been deflecting the firestorm fueled by their latest video game release, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (“GTA”).

Yesterday, the Australian Office of Film and Literature Classification revoked its original adult rating for the game, making GTA illegal to sell, advertise, or distribute in the country. This follows a decision by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to re-rate the game after it was alterted to “secret downloads” readily available on the web that added additional sex and violence scenes dubbed “Hot Coffee.”

The revocation by Australia coupled with the re-rating by the FTC has prompted certain large retailers, like Wal-Mart Stores to remove the game from sale. This has forced the company to ratchet down their sales predictions for the game by $40 Million.

Take Two is about to take two more: PC World reports that the company is facing two class-action lawsuits from plaintiffs alleging that the company engaged in false advertising and fraud when it failed to disclose hidden content that would have otherwise classified the game as adult. Ouch. That scalds.

Practice Pointer: Companies should be encouraged to participate honestly in the self-regulation process.

The FTC and the Department of Health and Human Services is planning a jointly sponsored workshop on Marketing, Self-Regulation, and Childhood Obesity on July 14th and 15th in Washington, D.C. The workshop will be the first of its kind and aims at bringing together the concerns and interests of the medical community, food and beverage marketers, media, and entertainment companies to discuss the issue of children’s obesity.

HHS secretary Michael Levitt has identified children’s obesity as one of the “major health challenges facing the nation.” The two-day workshop, says FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majora, will allow affected industry professionals to devise strategies for dealing with the new issue and perhaps creating a self-regulatory body between industries.

Practice Pointer: Clients should be encouraged to participate in and support self-regulatory bodies. These bodies can actually work to reduce the amount of adversarial proceedings against private companies, and reduce the cost of reworking advertising.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states that allow their own in-state wineries to ship wine to consumers may not bar out-of-state wineries from also selling directly to those same consumers. This is of particular significance to direct-to-consumer wineries who are too small to use wholesalers to get wider distribution. Advertising and marketing analysts expect to see a boom in wine advertising in the coming months.

Roughly 23 states maintain laws on their books that bar out-of-state shipments of alcohol to consumers in-state unless the shipper either has a “brick-and-mortar” presence in the state (California & New York), or uses a wholesaler licensed to distribute in the state (Michigan). The Court points out that states that do not allow alcohol shipment from any company — in-state or otherwise — to their constituency, do not have to accept out-of-state shipments.

Consumer advocates say that the Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the consumer who may see prices reduced and selection increased. We’ll drink to that!

After a year-plus of wrangling with the FTC, Tropicana has agreed to discontinue its claim that drinking its Heart Healthy juice is guaranteed to lower bad cholesterol.

The FTC alleged that many of the claims made to consumers regarding its Tropicana Orange Juice were unsubstantiated, including the claim that Tropicana had clinical evidence to support a 10-point drop in blood pressue simply by drinking three glasses of its juice a day.

Without admitting guilt, Tropicana agreed to a consent order that would prohibit claims that any of its products will have a positive effect on the risk of heart disease, cancer, or stroke, unless it is substantiated with “competent and reliable scientific evidence.”

Given the current concern over obescity in America, its likely that the FTC will continue to look closely and carefully at food claims.

Practice Pointer: Until recently, many companies regarded an “FTC Warning” as advisory in nature. Clients who are making claims relating to food products should be made aware that the FTC appears now to be cracking down on health claims (be they “low fat,” “heart healthy,” or otherwise), and more and more companies will feel the weight of Congress behind them.