A wall of client logos is not decoration. It is a claim that those companies endorse you, and the regulator says so explicitly: “the name or seal of an organization can be endorsements.” A case study carrying a number is a second claim, about what your service generally produces, and that one has a substantiation standard attached that most B2B marketing pages fail.

Neither of these is exotic. They are the two most common assets on a B2B site, and the rules governing them come from three different places with three different claimants: a regulator, the client, and in some cases the individual named.

The good news is that all three exposures close with the same short list of habits. Those habits have to hold everywhere the client’s name appears, on the site, in a deck and inside an ad account, which is easier when one firm answers for all three surfaces.

Three separate questions, three different people who can act

Before the detail, it helps to see that displaying a client reference raises questions that do not share a legal home.

Whether it implies an endorsement. That is the regulator’s question, under the endorsement guides and the general prohibition on deceptive practices.

Whether it misuses a mark. That is the client’s question, under trademark law, and it is a private civil action rather than an agency matter.

And whether it uses a person. That is the individual’s question, under state right of publicity law, for which there is no federal statute at all.

One boundary worth knowing early. The consumer reviews rule, with its per-violation penalties, does not reach entity endorsements: staff guidance states that the terms consumer testimonial and celebrity testimonial “do not include endorsements by business or other entities.” A logo wall is outside that rule.

Which does not make it safe. It remains inside the endorsement guides and inside Section 5 if it conveys approval that was never given. The difference is the size and the source of the exposure, not its existence.

And the client claim is the likelier one in practice. Regulators pursue consumer harm. A client who sees its logo on a page it never approved sends a letter, and that letter arrives faster than any agency ever would.

What the guides say about names and seals

The rule here is short and the consequence is not obvious until you read it.

An endorsement is broader than a quote. It means “any advertising, marketing, or promotional message for a product that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser.”

And it includes marks. “Verbal statements, tags in social media posts, demonstrations, depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual, and the name or seal of an organization can be endorsements.”

Organisational endorsements carry an extra requirement. They are “viewed as representing the judgment of a group whose collective experience exceeds that of any individual member”, so “an organization’s endorsement must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure that the endorsement fairly reflects the collective judgment of the organization.”

Which matters for the quote under the logo. A line of praise from one enthusiastic user, presented as the company’s view, is an organisational endorsement supported by one person’s opinion.

The endorsement must also be honest and current. Endorsements “must reflect the honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experience of the endorser”, and where the advertisement represents that the endorser uses the product, they “must have been a bona fide user of it at the time the endorsement was given.”

And the advertiser carries liability for all of it. “An advertiser may be liable for a deceptive endorsement even when the endorser is not liable.” The guides prescribe guidance, monitoring and remedial action, adding pointedly: “While not a safe harbor, good faith and effective guidance, monitoring, and remedial action should reduce … an advertiser’s odds of facing a Commission enforcement action.”

Three distinct legal exposures arising from displaying client names and logosThree distinct legal exposures arising from the display of client names and logos on a business website, each governed by a different body of law and each actionable by a different party. The first exposure concerns implied endorsement and is a regulatory question. The endorsement guides define an endorsement as any advertising, marketing or promotional message that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, and state that depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual, and the name or seal of an organization, can be endorsements. Endorsements by organizations carry an additional requirement, being viewed as representing the judgment of a group whose collective experience exceeds that of any individual member, so that an organization’s endorsement must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure it fairly reflects the collective judgment of the organization. Agency staff guidance confirms that the consumer reviews rule does not reach endorsements by business or other entities, so a logo wall falls outside that rule’s civil penalties while remaining inside the guides and the general prohibition on deceptive acts. The second exposure concerns trademark and is a private question, arising where use of a mark is likely to cause confusion as to the affiliation, connection or association of the user with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of goods, services or commercial activities, and giving rise to a civil action brought by the mark owner rather than by any regulator. The third exposure concerns the right of publicity where an individual rather than a company is named or depicted, for which no federal statute exists, the right arising instead under state statutes and state common law and varying between states. In practice the second exposure materialises fastest, since a client noticing an unapproved logo sends a letter more quickly than any agency proceeds.One logo wall, three exposuresImplied endorsementWho acts: the regulator”The name or seal of anorganization can be endorsements.”Outside the reviews rule.Inside the Guides and Section 5.TrademarkWho acts: the clientConfusion “as to the affiliation,connection, or association”, or asto “sponsorship, or approval”.A letter arrives faster than an agency.Right of publicityWho acts: the individualNaming or depicting a personrather than a company.No federal statute. State law,varying by state.And the extra requirement on organisational endorsementsIt “must be reached by a process sufficient to ensure that the endorsement fairly reflects the collective judgment of the organization.”Which means the quote under the logo mattersOne enthusiastic user’s line, presented as the company’s view, is an organisational endorsement backed by one opinion.
A regulator, the client, and possibly an individual. The middle one moves fastest and is the one most often ignored. Source : 16 CFR 255.0(b), 255.4(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1)(A), and state publicity statutes (2023)

The trademark question, and the defence that is not a permission

Using a client’s mark to say truthfully that they are a client is generally defensible. It is worth understanding on what basis, because the basis is narrower than “we only said something true.”

The claim you would be defending. Using a mark in commerce in a way “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval” of goods or services.

The defence courts recognise. Nominative fair use, which originated in a case where “the use of the trademark does not attempt to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the cachet of one product for a different one.”

One circuit’s formulation has three prongs. That use of the mark “is necessary to describe both the plaintiff’s product or service and the defendant’s product or service”; that the defendant “uses only so much of the plaintiff’s mark as is necessary”; and that the conduct or language “reflect the true and accurate relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s products or services.”

And the third prong is where logo walls fail. A former client presented among current ones, a pilot presented as a partnership, a subsidiary’s logo standing in for a group: each misstates the relationship while using a true mark.

It is an affirmative defence, which matters procedurally. You raise it after being sued. It is fact-intensive and applied case by case. It is not a permission slip you can rely on in advance.

And there is a separate, narrower statutory defence for use “otherwise than as a mark” of a term “descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services”. Do not conflate the two; they cover different things.

Which leads to the boring recommendation that removes the whole question. Written permission, naming the specific uses and the specific assets, obtained while the relationship is good.

The three requirements of the nominative fair use defence in trademark lawThe three requirements a defendant must satisfy to establish the nominative fair use defence to a trademark claim, as formulated by one federal appellate circuit and applied in a subsequent district court opinion, together with the reason the third requirement is the one most commonly failed by client logo walls. The doctrine originated in a case describing nominative fair use as occurring where the use of the trademark does not attempt to capitalize on consumer confusion or to appropriate the cachet of one product for a different one. The first requirement is that the use of the plaintiff’s mark be necessary to describe both the plaintiff’s product or service and the defendant’s product or service. The second is that the defendant use only so much of the plaintiff’s mark as is necessary to describe the plaintiff’s product. The third is that the defendant’s conduct or language reflect the true and accurate relationship between the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s products or services. Logo walls typically satisfy the first two requirements, since naming a client is necessary to describe the client relationship and a logo is no more of the mark than necessary, but fail the third in three recurring ways, namely presenting a former client among current ones, presenting a pilot or trial engagement as a partnership, and displaying a subsidiary’s logo as though it represented an entire corporate group. Each of these uses a genuine mark while misstating the relationship, which is precisely what the third requirement forbids. Two procedural characteristics of the doctrine matter. It operates as an affirmative defence, meaning it is raised in response to a claim already brought rather than functioning as advance authorisation, and it is fact intensive and applied case by case, having been held sufficient to defeat summary judgment rather than to resolve the question. A separate and narrower statutory defence exists for use otherwise than as a mark of a term descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe goods or services, which covers different circumstances and should not be conflated with nominative fair use.The defence, and where logo walls fail it1. NecessityUsing the mark is “necessary to describe both the plaintiff’s … and the defendant’s product or service”.2. Minimality”Only so much of the plaintiff’s mark as is necessary to describe plaintiff’s product.”3. Accuracy of the relationshipConduct or language must “reflect the true and accurate relationship between plaintiff and defendant’sproducts or services.”The three recurring failures, all on prong threeA former client shown as current. A pilot shown as a partnership. A subsidiary’s logo standing in for a group.And it is an affirmative defence: you raise it after being sued. It is not permission you can rely on beforehand.
It is an affirmative defence raised after a claim, not a permission relied on in advance. The third prong is where most walls break. Source : Century 21 Real Estate Corp. v. Lendingtree, 425 F.3d 211 (3d Cir. 2005), as applied in Stirista v. Skydeo (D. Del. 2025) (2025)

The number in your case study is a claim about everyone

This is the part with the most specific rule and the least awareness of it, and it applies to every B2B case study carrying a percentage.

What showing one client’s result is read as saying. An advertisement relating one or more consumers’ experience “on a central or key attribute of the product will likely be interpreted as representing that the endorser’s experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the advertised product in actual, albeit variable, conditions of use.”

So the claim is not “this client got 40 percent.” It is “you will generally get around 40 percent”, whether you meant that or not.

Which sets the obligation. “The advertiser should possess and rely upon adequate substantiation for this representation.” And failing that, the advertisement “should clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances”, with substantiation for that figure too.

And testimonials do not count as the evidence. “Consumer endorsements themselves are not competent and reliable scientific evidence.” A wall of happy quotes does not substantiate the claim the wall makes.

The disclaimer everyone uses does not work. A disclosure such as “Results not typical” or “These testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and you are not likely to have similar results” is “insufficient to prevent this ad from being deceptive.”

And that is not an opinion, it was tested. The Commission tested both wordings in consumer research, and reports that “neither disclosure adequately reduced the communication that the experiences depicted are generally representative.”

What to write instead, in the FTC’s own examples. “The average homeowner saves $35 per month”, “the typical family saves $50 per month during cold months and $20 per month in warm months”, or “most families save 10% on their utility bills.”

With one further caveat on those figures. Even a correct typical-result disclosure can mislead “if they only apply to limited circumstances that are not described in the advertisement.” If your average holds only for a segment, say which segment.

And one small rule that is easy to breach accidentally. Advertisements presenting endorsements by what are represented to be “actual consumers” should “utilize actual consumers”, or clearly disclose that the people shown are not.

How a quantified client result is interpreted and the substantiation required for itHow United States advertising rules interpret the publication of a quantified client result and what substantiation that interpretation requires. An advertisement containing an endorsement relating the experience of one or more consumers on a central or key attribute of the product will likely be interpreted as representing that the endorser’s experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve with the advertised product in actual, albeit variable, conditions of use. The claim being made is therefore not that a particular named client obtained a particular result but that customers will generally obtain approximately that result, regardless of the advertiser’s intention. The advertiser must accordingly possess and rely upon adequate substantiation for that representation of general performance, and where such substantiation is absent the advertisement should clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances, with adequate substantiation held for that disclosed figure as well, and the disclosure must alter the net impression of the advertisement so that it is not misleading. Testimonials cannot supply the evidence, the guides stating directly that consumer endorsements themselves are not competent and reliable scientific evidence. The commonly used disclaimer is expressly insufficient, since a disclosure such as results not typical, or a stronger version stating that testimonials are based on the experiences of a few people and the reader is not likely to have similar results, is stated to be insufficient to prevent the advertisement being deceptive, a conclusion reached through consumer research in which neither disclosure adequately reduced the communication that the experiences depicted are generally representative. Acceptable alternatives given by the commission state the typical outcome directly, such as the average homeowner saves thirty five dollars per month, the typical family saves fifty dollars per month during cold months and twenty dollars per month in warm months, or most families save ten percent on their utility bills, subject to the further caveat that a typical figure applying only to limited circumstances not described in the advertisement may still mislead.”This client got 40 percent” says something elseWhat the reader is taken to understandThat the endorser’s experience “is representative of what consumers will generally achieve … in actual, albeitvariable, conditions of use.” Whether or not you meant it.The fix that does not work”Results not typical.”Or the stronger version. Both were tested:“neither disclosure adequately reduced thecommunication”.The fix that doesState the typical result, substantiated:“the average homeowner saves $35 per month""most families save 10% on their utility bills”And your testimonials are not the evidence”Consumer endorsements themselves are not competent and reliable scientific evidence.”One more caveat on the typical figure: if it holds only for a segment not described in the ad, it can still mislead.Say which segment. That sentence is usually the difference between a defensible page and a deceptive one.
The disclaimer was tested and failed. The alternative is a typical figure you can substantiate. Source : 16 CFR 255.2(a), (b), (c) and (e)(2) (2023)

The individual in the case study

Where a named person appears rather than only a company, a third body of law engages, and it is not federal.

There is no federal right of publicity statute. The right exists under state statutes and state common law, and it varies between states. Federal courts hearing these claims apply state law: a state privacy statute prohibiting unauthorised use of a living person’s “name, portrait, or picture” for advertising purposes in one state, a separate statutory provision and a parallel common law right in another.

Which has a practical consequence for a national campaign. A permission adequate under one state’s law may not satisfy another’s. The variation is real and it is not resolvable by finding the one correct clause.

The nearest federal analogue is false endorsement, the same trademark provision covering confusion as to sponsorship or approval, which can reach the unauthorised use of a person’s identity in advertising.

And the honesty note. No federal document was located stating in terms that no federal right of publicity exists. The conclusion follows from the consistent application of state law by federal courts. State it that way.

So the permission you want names the person, not just the company. A marketing sign-off from a company contact is not the same thing as that individual agreeing to appear by name, photograph and title in your advertising.

The separate legal treatment of naming an individual compared with naming a client companyWhy naming an individual in marketing material raises a legally separate question from naming the client company that individual works for, and why that question has no single national answer. The right of publicity, governing commercial use of a person’s name, likeness or identity, has no federal statute. Federal courts hearing such claims apply state law throughout, one court applying a state privacy statute prohibiting the unauthorised use of a living person’s name, portrait or picture for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade, while noting that another state’s analysis rested on a common law right of publicity alongside a separate state privacy statute, and a third state’s claim proceeded under its own privacy statute. The consequence for a company running a national campaign is that a permission adequate under one state’s law may not satisfy another’s, and this variation cannot be resolved by locating a single correct contractual clause. The nearest federal analogue is the false endorsement provision of trademark law, covering use likely to cause confusion as to affiliation, connection, association, sponsorship or approval, which can reach unauthorised use of a person’s identity in advertising but is a distinct cause of action with distinct elements. An honesty qualification applies to the underlying proposition, since no federal document was located stating in terms that no federal right of publicity exists, the conclusion instead following from the consistent pattern of federal courts applying state statutes and state common law to such claims, and it should be stated in those terms rather than as a quoted authority. The practical implication is that permission obtained from a company contact for marketing purposes is not equivalent to that individual separately agreeing to appear by name, photograph and job title in advertising material, and the two should be obtained as distinct consents.Naming a person is not naming a companyThere is no federal right of publicity statuteFederal courts hearing these claims apply state statutes and state common law throughout. The right exists,and it exists differently in different states.What that means in practiceA permission adequate in one state maynot satisfy another’s requirements.The nearest federal analogueFalse endorsement under trademark law:confusion as to sponsorship or approval.Honesty note: no federal document states this in terms. It follows from how federal courts consistently decidethese claims. Stated as an inference, not as a quotation.So get the person’s consent, not just the company’s. A marketing sign-off is not an agreement to appear by name.
No federal statute governs this. The right sits in state law and varies, which a single permission clause cannot resolve. Source : Federal court application of state publicity statutes, Walkowicz v. American Girl Brands (W.D. Wis. 2021) (2021)
Contents of a single page client reference permission covering endorsement, trademark and publicity exposuresThe contents of a single page permission document that addresses the endorsement, trademark and right of publicity exposures arising from displaying client references, structured so that it can be obtained once at the point when the client relationship is favourable. The first clause identifies the specific assets that may be used, naming the logo files, the wordmark and any product screenshots, rather than granting a general permission. The second clause identifies the specific placements in which those assets may appear, distinguishing a website logo wall from a sales deck, a paid advertisement, a conference stand and a press release, since these carry materially different exposure. The third clause states whether a quantified result may be published and if so which figure and expressed on what basis, this being the clause that determines whether a substantiation obligation arises for a claim about general performance. The fourth clause states whether any individual may be named, photographed or given a job title, obtained from that individual rather than only from a company contact, since the right of publicity belongs to the person and not to their employer. The fifth clause states what happens when the engagement ends, specifying whether existing materials may remain in circulation, whether the logo must be removed from the website within a stated period, and whether the client may be described as a former client. The sixth clause records the date and the signatory’s authority, so that the permission can be shown to have been given by a person able to give it. The practical reason for obtaining this document early is that a client asked for permission during a successful engagement grants it readily, whereas the same request made after a dispute, a change of contact or the end of the relationship is frequently refused, at which point the material must be removed.One page, six clauses, signed early1. Which assetsNamed logo files, wordmark, screenshots2. Which placementsSite, deck, paid ads, stand, press release3. May a number be published?Which figure, on what basis. This one triggers substantiation.4. May a person be named?Signed by that person, not by their employer5. What happens when it endsRemoval deadline, and may you say “former client”?6. Date and signatory authorityGiven by somebody able to give itWhy the timing matters more than the draftingA client mid-success says yes without thinking. The same request after a dispute or a change of contact is refused.Six clauses close a regulatory exposure, a private trademark claim and an individual’s state law right at once.
Six clauses, signed while the relationship is good, which is the only time it is easy to obtain. Source : Method, over the endorsement guides, trademark practice and state publicity law (2026)

What to do with this

Build a one-page permission and use it every time. It should name the assets you may use, the specific placements, whether a quantified result may be published, whether the individual may be named and pictured, and what happens when the engagement ends. Get it signed while the relationship is good, because that is the only time it is easy.

Audit the logo wall against the third prong of the fair use test: does each logo reflect the true and accurate relationship today? Former clients presented as current ones, and pilots presented as partnerships, are the two failures that recur.

Then take every number on your site and ask what it claims about the average customer. If you can substantiate the average, publish the average. If you cannot, publish the case without the number, or do the work to know it. The disclaimer route has been tested and does not work.

And treat testimonials as what they are: evidence that someone was pleased, not evidence that your service performs. The guides say so in one sentence, and it is the sentence that decides most of these pages.

The adjacent pieces are customer reviews and what the law allows and urgency and scarcity claims that hold up.