Made in the USA? Prove It: FTC Marks America's 250th with Crack Down on Domestic Origin Claims

The United States had barely finished blowing out 250 candles on its birthday cake when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) decided to remind corporate America what “Made in USA” is actually supposed to mean. On July 6, 2026, the FTC sent a pointed message to the marketplace: unsubstantiated “Made in USA” claims will not go unnoticed. The FTC sent warning letters to several companies advertising products as “Made in USA” — and, in at least one case, “Made in Texas” — despite information suggesting that the products were imported in whole or in significant part.

This latest salvo is part of a broader and accelerating enforcement pattern that in-house counsel at companies using domestic origin claims in advertising and labeling should take seriously. FTC warning letters are official notices from the FTC to a company that certain of its practices are likely unlawful. These letters may precede a formal investigation or litigation, depending in part on the company’s response to the letter.

JULY 2026 WARNING LETTERS

The seven recipients of the July letters include companies selling music drums, industrial laser machinery, coordinate measuring machines, and e-cigarettes.

The claims at issue include:

• “handmade in Austin, Texas”
• “#americanmadeus”
• “#madeincali”
• “manufactured in the USA”
• “built in the USA”
• “created by American workers, engineers and innovators”

The FTC has made clear that consumers who pay a premium for U.S.-origin goods are entitled to products that are actually “all or virtually all” made domestically, and that companies making such claims without adequate substantiation should expect agency contact. An unqualified “Made in USA” claim is a claim without conditions, caveats, or explanations regarding the origin of the product, and the FTC's interpretation of what constitutes an unqualified U.S.-origin claim is broad: avoiding the word “made” does not mitigate risk, as the letters demonstrate that claims framing products as “manufactured,” “built,” and “created” domestically were all treated as actionable unqualified claims.

Critically, the letters also called out claims made in hashtags — meaning that even a single hashtag referencing domestic origin, such as “#madeincali,” can trigger FTC scrutiny.

APRIL 2026 ENFORCEMENT SWEEP

The warning letters are not the FTC’s first Made in USA action this year. On April 14, 2026, the FTC announced law enforcement actions involving three companies and their Made in USA claims. These actions followed President Trump's March 13, 2026, executive order directing the FTC to prioritize enforcement involving potentially deceptive “Made in America” and similar U.S.-origin claims. The three cases demonstrate the range of product categories and types of supply chain arrangements that can give rise to liability:

• FTC v. TouchTunes Music Company, LLC: The FTC alleged that TouchTunes falsely claimed its electronic dartboards were “Made in the USA,” even though many components essential to the products’ function — including computer chips, cameras, and flatscreen monitors — were manufactured outside the United States, notwithstanding that final assembly occurred domestically. To resolve these allegations, on March 27, 2026, TouchTunes stipulated to a proposed order providing $625,000 toward consumer redress — the largest monetary relief in a Made in USA Labeling Rule case to date — along with notice requirements and prohibitions on unsubstantiated country-of-origin claims and a requirement to notify consumers of the settlement.
• FTC v. Americana Liberty LLC and Three Nations LLC: Following a July 2025 warning letter, the FTC brought an enforcement action against Americana Liberty, Three Nations, and their principals, alleging that they falsely advertised and labeled American flags, U.S. military flags, and patriotic flag display products with 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 complaint, several products were wholly imported from China and others contained significant or essential foreign components. The defendants were also alleged to have violated the Textile Act and related rules by failing to include mandatory country-of-origin disclosures. As of April 6, 2026, the proposed settlement imposed a $2 million judgment, most of which is suspended, premised on the companies’ compliance efforts. $167,743 of the suspended judgment was due shortly after the settlement was signed and designated for consumer redress. The defendants were also required to provide notices to consumers and prohibited from making future unsubstantiated country-of-origin claims.
• FTC v. Oak Street Manufacturing Company, LLC: Also following a July 2025 warning letter, the FTC alleged that Oak Street falsely claimed its footwear products were "handcrafted 100%" in the United States with "no pre-assembled components from overseas" and were "More than Made in USA™." In reality, Oak Street used a factory in the Dominican Republic to produce the upper portions of certain footwear and sourced outsoles from Brazil, with some products not even undergoing final assembly in the United States. As of April 29, 2026, the proposed settlement imposed a $350,000 judgment, most of which is suspended, premised on the company’s compliance efforts. $75,000 of the suspended judgment was due shortly after the settlement was signed and designated for consumer redress. The defendant is also prohibited from making future unsubstantiated country-of-origin claims.

RISK ASSESSMENT AND FUTURE ENFORCEMENT OUTLOOK

The FTC’s actions in the first half of 2026 establish a clear and escalating trajectory for FTC “Made in USA” enforcement. The risk level for retailers and manufacturers using domestic origin claims in traditional advertising, e-commerce listings, product labels, social media, or hashtags should consider assessing these claims in light of the FTC’s actions. Companies operating in the industries mentioned above should take extra caution, as it is not uncommon for the FTC to focus its efforts on other companies in similar product categories. This means that even a competitor’s noncompliance could create regulatory exposure for your company.

The March 2026 executive order also directed the FTC to consider proposing regulations related to the verification of origin claims on online marketplaces, suggesting that additional rulemaking targeting e-commerce platforms could further expand liability risk for companies selling through digital channels.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. Audit Domestic Origin Claims. Expand claims review beyond formal product labels or traditional advertising. Review all touchpoints where U.S.-origin language appears, including product packaging, websites, e-commerce listings, sales decks, press releases, and social media (including hashtags). Pay particular attention to state-level claims (e.g., “Made in Texas,” “Made in California”), as these can be treated as unqualified “Made in USA” representations subject to the FTC's “all or virtually all” standard. Ensure that a substantiation file exists and is current for each claim that will be retained.
2. Understand that Final Assembly in the U.S. Is not Enough. A recurring theme across the April enforcement actions is that domestic final assembly does not, by itself, satisfy the FTC’s standard. The FTC considers “all or virtually all” to mean that the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing goes into the product in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components are made and sourced in the United States. Counsel should map the supply chain for any product bearing a domestic origin claim and confirm that every significant component and all processing steps meet this threshold.
3. Treat a Warning Letter as a Litigation Precursor — Not Just a Request for Information. The FTC's enforcement actions against Americana Liberty and Oak Street each followed a July 2025 warning letter, demonstrating that warning letters can be direct precursors to federal court complaints. If your company receives a warning letter, engage outside counsel immediately, preserve all relevant records, and develop a remediation plan that can be presented to the FTC promptly. Proactive remediation can be the difference between a closing letter and litigation.