‘Made in USA’ Claims Face Increased FTC Scrutiny Ahead of America’s 250th Anniversary

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission) in April 2026 announced a coordinated enforcement sweep targeting allegedly deceptive “Made in USA” claims, signaling increased scrutiny of US-origin advertising across industries. The sweep follows President Donald Trump’s March 13, 2026 executive order directing the FTC to prioritize enforcement against false or misleading American-origin claims and comes as companies ramp up patriotic marketing campaigns ahead of the United States’ 250th anniversary in July 2026.

Made in USA (MUSA) claims, also referred to as “US origin claims,” are claims that call out or emphasize a brand, product, or service’s domestic origin, affiliation, or presence. We previously wrote about MUSA claims and legal standards in May 2025. Since then, regulatory enforcement and private litigation involving these claims have continued to increase, driven in part by renewed focus on domestic manufacturing, increased regulatory action, and the continued prospect of litigation.

On July 1, 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson declared July as Made in the USA Month, reiterating the Commission’s commitment to protecting consumers from deceptive origin claims. That same month, the FTC issued warning letters to companies reminding them to comply with the FTC’s MUSA requirements. As noted below, two of those letters proved to be a preview of formal enforcement actions to come.

The National Advertising Division (NAD) has also been active in this space, reviewing challenges and initiating inquiries involving potentially misleading MUSA representations against companies making potentially misleading MUSA representations. NAD’s decisions have reinforced the FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard, which requires that “all significant parts and processing that go into the product” are of US origin.[1] Under the standard, a product advertised as “Made in the USA” should contain, at most, only negligible foreign content.

On the litigation front, we previously wrote about the landmark verdict in Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., in which a California jury awarded $2.36 million in damages to tea buyers in California who brought a class action lawsuit against a prominent tea manufacturer for labeling its tea products (which are made from imported tea leaves) as “Manufactured in the USA 100%.”[2] New MUSA class actions have continued to be filed at an elevated rate, with more than 20 filed in 2025.

At the policy level, on January 13, 2026, President Trump nominated David MacNeil—founder and CEO of WeatherTech and a longtime advocate for domestic manufacturing—to fill a vacant seat on the Commission. The nomination was widely regarded as a signal that MUSA enforcement would remain an FTC priority. Just two months later, the president issued Executive Order 14392: Ensuring Truthful Advertising of Products Claiming to be Made in America. The order directs Chair Ferguson to prioritize enforcement against sellers and manufacturers making false or unsubstantiated American-origin claims “wherever appropriate.”[3] Less than a month later, the FTC announced its sweep, discussed in more detail below.

APRIL 2026 ENFORCEMENT SWEEP: OVERVIEW AND KEY TAKEAWAYS

On April 14, 2026, the FTC announced a coordinated enforcement sweep involving three law enforcement actions against companies alleged to have made deceptive MUSA claims. Of note, two of the companies—Americana Liberty LLC and Three Nations LLC (collectively, Americana Liberty) and Oak Street Manufacturing Company, LLC (Oak Street Manufacturing)—were recipients of the FTC’s July 8, 2025 warning letters mentioned above.  

In each case, the FTC alleged violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Made in USA Labeling Rule—and in one case, additional violations of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Act) and rules—on the grounds that the companies made unqualified Made in USA claims despite relying on imported components or foreign manufacturing processes.

Each matter was resolved through a stipulated order entered in federal court, pursuant to which the defendants, without admitting or denying the allegations, agreed to injunctive provisions restricting future origin claims, ongoing substantiation and compliance obligations, and monetary relief, including one settlement imposing the largest consumer redress payment to date under the Made in USA Labeling Rule.[4]

This LawFlash discusses each in turn below.

TouchTunes Music Company, LLC

The FTC alleged that TouchTunes falsely marketed its electronic dartboards as Made in the USA, despite the fact that many components essential to the products’ function—including computer chips, cameras, and flat-screen monitors—were manufactured outside the United States. Although TouchTunes completed final assembly domestically, the FTC took the position that this did not satisfy the “all or virtually all” standard. The matter was resolved with a stipulated order requiring $625,000 in consumer redress, the largest ever obtained under the Made in USA Labeling Rule, along with prohibitions on future misrepresentations and a consumer notice requirement.

Americana Liberty

Following its issuance of a July 8, 2025 warning letter, the FTC brought an action against Americana Liberty and Three Nations, as well as their individual principals, alleging that they repeatedly and prominently advertised American flags, US military flags, and patriotic flag display accessories using claims such as “Made in the USA,” “All-American Made,” “100% Made in the USA,” “100% American Made Tough,” and “Built by Americans for Americans.”

According to the FTC’s complaint, several of the products were wholly imported from China, and others contained significant Chinese-sourced components. The defendants also allegedly violated the Textile Act and rules by failing to include mandatory country-of-origin disclosures on their flag labeling. The matter was resolved with a stipulated order requiring $167,743 in consumer redress, along with prohibitions on future misrepresentations, a requirement of certain disclosures concerning textile fiber products, and a consumer notice requirement.

Oak Street Manufacturing (d/b/a Oak Street Bootmakers)

The sweep also targeted Oak Street Manufacturing, which, like Americana Liberty, received a July 8, 2025 warning letter concerning its MUSA claims. The FTC alleged that Oak Street deceptively marketed its boots, loafers, moccasins, and other footwear as “Handcrafted in the USA,” “handcrafted 100%” in the United States, made “from heel-to-toe, using no pre-assembled components from overseas,” and “More than Made in USA™.”

According to the complaint, Oak Street’s products incorporated imported components and foreign manufacturing, including uppers manufactured in the Dominican Republic, outsoles sourced from Brazil, and, for certain products, final assembly performed outside the United States. The matter was resolved with a stipulated order requiring $75,000 in consumer redress, along with prohibitions on future misrepresentations, restrictions on future US-origin and country-of-origin claims, and ongoing compliance obligations.

In addition to the three enforcement actions, the FTC issued closing letters to two companies that had been under investigation for making unqualified Made in USA claims without proper substantiation or support. The closing letters serve as a reminder that proactive responsiveness to FTC outreach can, in appropriate circumstances, resolve potential compliance concerns short of formal enforcement. However, as stated in its April 2026 press release, the Commission warned both companies that it “reserves the right to monitor and take further action, including potentially filing a federal lawsuit.”

Key Takeaways

The April 2026 enforcement actions reflect a more exacting and increasingly costly approach to MUSA claims. Below are key takeaways for companies to consider:

• Component-level scrutiny and the limits of domestic assembly: The enforcement actions reinforce that final assembly in the United States does not, by itself, support an unqualified Made in USA claim. In TouchTunes, for example, the FTC alleged that US-assembled electronic dartboards were deceptively marketed as Made in the USA when key components, including processing hardware, imaging systems, and display units, were sourced abroad. TouchTunes serves as a reminder that domestic final assembly is not a safe harbor. Companies should expect continued scrutiny of supply chains at the component level, particularly where imported inputs are central to the performance or identity of the product.
• Warning letters as a precursor to enforcement: The progression from 2025 warning letters to 2026 enforcement actions illustrates the FTC’s use of a staged enforcement approach and underscores the potential consequences of failing to respond adequately. Both Americana Liberty and Oak Street Manufacturing received warning letters months before the formal complaints were filed and failed to take sufficient corrective action in the interim. Companies that receive FTC warning letters regarding MUSA claims (or other conduct) should assess claims promptly, evaluate substantiation, and take corrective action where necessary.
• Individual liability: Americana Liberty reinforces that the FTC may look beyond the corporate entity when individual owners or officers are alleged to have participated in, directed, or controlled the challenged advertising conduct. In addition to pursuing action against the companies, the FTC sought to hold the companies’ individual principals liable—alleging that they falsely advertised and labeled patriotic flag displays and related products as Made in the USA. Companies should be mindful of individual exposure for officers, owners, and other responsible personnel.
• Broad applicability across industries: The FTC’s sweep spanned three distinct product categories, including consumer electronics, patriotic textiles, and footwear. In each case, the FTC challenged representations made through a range of marketing channels, including product labeling, online advertising, and digital sales platforms. The breadth of the sweep highlights that FTC scrutiny is not limited to any particular industry or product type. Any company making US-origin representations in advertising, labeling, product listings, social media, or other digital marketing materials may face similar scrutiny, regardless of industry or distribution model.
• Escalating monetary stakes: The $625,000 redress obtained in TouchTunes marks the largest consumer redress to date under the Made in USA Labeling Rule, and the approximately $867,000 in aggregate relief across the three actions reflects a clear willingness by the FTC to pursue meaningful monetary remedies for unsupported origin claims. These outcomes, coupled with the $2.36 million jury verdict in Bigelow, underscore that the financial exposure associated with Made in USA claims has increased materially across both regulatory and private litigation contexts. Companies should expect that unqualified or inadequately substantiated origin claims may result in parallel enforcement risk, including FTC action and follow-on civil litigation.
• Beyond the MUSA rule: The enforcement actions also confirm that Made in USA compliance does not operate in isolation. In Americana Liberty, the FTC paired its Made in USA allegations with claims under the Textile Act and its implementing rules, based on the failure to include required country-of-origin disclosures on textile products. This approach reflects a broader enforcement posture in which US-origin claims are assessed alongside other applicable labeling and disclosure requirements. Companies should therefore evaluate Made in USA representations in conjunction with product-specific regulatory regimes, particularly where overlapping disclosure obligations may independently require qualification or clarification of origin claims.

LOOKING AHEAD

The FTC’s April 2026 sweep signals that Made in USA enforcement will remain a near-term priority, backed by existing statutory authority, the March 2026 executive order, and agency leadership that has demonstrated a continued focus on promoting domestic manufacturing through accurate origin claims. The agency’s willingness to seek monetary relief, coupled with its use of warning letters as part of a broader enforcement pipeline, reflects a more structured and proactive approach to policing US-origin claims.

Companies should expect continued scrutiny of both traditional and digital marketing channels, coupled with sustained focus on supply chain transparency and claim substantiation. As enforcement expectations evolve, companies that proactively reassess their US origin claims, ensure alignment between marketing and manufacturing realities, and implement clear, well-substantiated messaging will be better positioned to mitigate risk in this environment.