The statement sets out two separate government roles. The FTC acts against deceptive acts and practices in origin claims, while foreign-origin markings on imported products are regulated primarily by U.S. Customs under the Tariff Act of 1930. The clearest takeaway for anyone reading origin claims: passing the Customs test does not, by itself, make a "Made in USA" promotion permissible.
Two regulators, two jobs
The statement notes the FTC's deception authority for origin claims and that foreign-origin markings are regulated primarily by Customs. Specifically, Section 304 of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. § 1304, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Customs Service, requires that all products of foreign origin imported into the United States be marked with the name of a foreign country of origin.
That is a marking requirement aimed at imported goods. It is not the same question as whether a marketer may affirmatively advertise a product as "Made in USA." The statement treats these as related but distinct issues.
The Customs test: substantial transformation
Where an imported product incorporates materials and/or processing from more than one country, Customs considers the country of origin to be the last country in which a "substantial transformation" took place. The statement defines substantial transformation as a manufacturing or other process that results in a new and different article of commerce, having a new name, character and use that is different from that which existed prior to the processing.
These determinations are made case by case through administrative determinations by the Customs Service. There is no single formula that resolves every product.
Where Customs determines that a good is not of foreign origin, meaning the good undergoes its last substantial transformation in the United States, there is generally no requirement that it be marked with any country of origin. And for most goods, neither the Customs Service nor the FTC requires that goods made partially or wholly in the United States be labeled with "Made in USA" or any other indication of U.S. origin.
Why "not foreign" is not the same as "Made in USA"
This is the statement's most consequential point. The fact that a product is not required to be marked with a foreign country of origin does not mean that it is permissible to promote that product as "Made in USA." The FTC will consider additional factors, beyond those considered by the Customs Service in determining whether a product is of foreign origin, in determining whether a product may properly be represented as "Made in USA."
So a marketer reading only the import-marking rules can reach the wrong conclusion. Clearing the substantial transformation test affects the marking obligation; it does not settle the advertising question, which the FTC assesses under its deception analysis.
Symbols, phrases and brand names
Whether any particular symbol or phrase, including an American flag, conveys an implied U.S. origin claim will depend upon the circumstances in which the symbol or phrase is used. Ordinarily, however, the Commission will not consider a marketer's use of an American brand name or trademark, without more, to constitute a U.S. origin claim, even though some consumers may believe, in some cases mistakenly, that a product made by a U.S.-based manufacturer is made in the United States.
That "without more" is doing real work. The same brand name may sit inside a broader context that does convey an origin message. The statement points to circumstances rather than a fixed list of banned words.
A labeled hypothetical
Hypothetical: imagine a product assembled from imported components, with the final manufacturing step occurring in the United States. As depicted by the statement's general tests, one might ask whether that last step amounts to a substantial transformation, which would bear on the import-marking analysis. Even if the answer were favorable, the statement's reasoning signals that a "Made in USA" promotion still faces the FTC's additional factors. The hypothetical illustrates the ordering of questions; it does not predict any outcome.
What the source does not say
The statement notes that Customs and the FTC have responsibilities related to country-of-origin claims, but the supplied text does not set out the complete list of FTC factors for a "Made in USA" representation. It states only that additional factors exist.
The text does not resolve, for any specific product category, whether a given process counts as a substantial transformation; it states that such determinations are made case by case. It does not state that any particular phrase is always acceptable or always deceptive. It also notes the statement addresses only issues related to U.S. origin claims and urges marketers to consult the U.S. Customs Service in developing appropriate country-of-origin labeling.
Nothing in the supplied text establishes a compliance test result, a labeling approval, or an enforcement outcome for any named company or product.
How to read origin claims in coverage
- Separate the import-marking question (Customs, substantial transformation) from the advertising question (FTC deception analysis).
- Treat "no foreign marking required" as a marking statement, not an endorsement of "Made in USA."
- Look for whether a brand name is accompanied by other context that may convey an origin message.
- Expect case-by-case language rather than categorical rules.
For readers tracking how claims travel, the distinction between a regulatory marking duty and a marketing representation is the substantive point. The statement's own structure keeps those threads apart, and reading them together is what prevents treating one regulator's conclusion as another's permission.