Good Morning! We are in the process of creating a new website for our FI. When going thru the new site with the committee the other day I noticed that the FDIC logo was located at the bottom of our Trust and Wealth Management pages. I suggested removing the logo since these products are not FDIC insured. I received pushback on this, for some reason, as I really believe this to be a simple fix. I have reiterated the fact that I believe it needs removed again today but have not received a response back yet - it is still early. Am I overreacting on this? I was sure this was something that I have heard discussed in many seminars etc. But I seem to be the only person with a problem with FDIC being located on the pages.

Thanks!

From part 328.3 of the FDIC's rules:

(e) Restrictions on using the official advertising statement when advertising non-deposit products--(1) Definitions--

(i) Non-deposit product. As used in this part, the term "non-deposit product" shall include, but is not limited to, insurance products, annuities, mutual funds, and securities. For purposes of this definition, a credit product is not a non-deposit product.

(ii) Hybrid product. As used in this part, the term "hybrid product" shall mean a product or service that has both deposit product features and non-deposit product features. A sweep account is an example of a hybrid product.

(2) Non-deposit product advertisements. Except as provided in § 328.3(e)(4), an insured depository institution shall not include the official advertising statement, or any other statement or symbol which implies or suggests the existence of Federal deposit insurance, in any advertisement relating solely to non-deposit products.

(3) Hybrid product advertisements. Except as provided in § 328.3(e)(4), an insured depository institution shall not include the official advertising statement, or any other statement or symbol which implies or suggests the existence of federal deposit insurance, in any advertisement relating solely to hybrid products.

(4) Mixed advertisements. In advertisements containing information about both insured deposit products and non-deposit products or hybrid products, an insured depository institution shall clearly segregate the official advertising statement or any similar statement from that portion of the advertisement that relates to the non-deposit products.

(f) Official advertising statement in non-English language. The non-English equivalent of the official advertising statement may be used in any advertisement, provided that the translation has had the prior written approval of the Corporation.

Also, if there is any question as to whether your website is an advertisement:

(a) Advertisement defined. The term "advertisement," as used in this part, shall mean a commercial message, in any medium, that is designed to attract public attention or patronage to a product or business.

Thank you Adam! I have been talking with the head of the Trust department and I did provide him with the above information. I'm not sure why there is such an issue with removing the FDIC logo itself from those pages. I'm waiting to hear back from him again to see where we are at.

Thanks again for your response!

And it really needs to be replaced with the not-not-not language.

Design your footer with a slug that can be populated with either a graphic version of the membership statement or the not-not-not language, also in graphic form. (Nothing says these notations have to be text--just look like text.) Control the graphic to be displayed with an "if/then" selector based on the nature of the page. Include comments in the html indicating the regulatory authority for this design.

When you say not-not-not language, I am assuming you mean:

• are not insured by the FDIC;
• are not deposits or other obligations of the institution and are not guaranteed by the institution; and,
• are subject to investment risks, including possible loss of the principal invested.

I have since been told by one person that they believe our website is an "information only" website so it does not really fall under the rules for advertisements. And by another person (pretty high up in the bank) that the other two local banks have in house legal departments and their websites have these logos so we have a very strong argument to handle our website in the same manner. And since we share many of the same customers, we wouldn't want to confuse our customers by doing something different.

I feel like I'm at a brick wall and should say "do what you want"..... Yes, I only have 2 1/2 years experience in compliance, but I have 18 years of banking under my belt. I do know a few things.

Without being totally difficult - what do I do? Say "this is my suggestion" and leave it at that?

"Suggest" they review this: http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/1998/fil9879a.pdf
From the last paragraph on page 6:
The FDIC and NCUA consider every insured depository institution’s on-line system top level page, or “home page”, to be an advertisement.

The concept of an "information only" website is a throwback to the earliest days of bank use of the internet. It was meant as a label for any web presence lacking transaction capability or other customer interactivity--not some sort of general exclusion from advertising requirements. The rules for advertising vary from one regulation to the next, but ALMOST ANYTHING that's worth the cost of development and deployment will probably fit within the advertising rules for the product or service you are presenting.

It's up to the department heads to take the risk or not (IT or marketing I suppose) and you to identify them. Personally, I'd probably fight this one since 1. it is easy & 2. will likely be looked at. I usually pick my battles, and since they don't have any solid reasoning against your recommendation, I'd explain I couldn't fight it for them if picked up in an exam.

If found, your examiners could pry a bit deeper. If it is shown you made the recommendation and they rejected it, they could even dig in to your CMS and doubt its effectiveness. Compliance starts from the top, and if the top isn't buying in... you may have more problems.

I am coming up against a similar issue. My problem is that they want to put a blanket disclosure on all pages that have all the Member FDIC, EHL, Not-Not-Not. I have recommended they don't and am in the process of making them a work sheet outlining each rule's requirements.

I could use some assistance. We have pages that have both bank deposit employees and investment employees or family advisors which get into the hybrid stuff. Departments, names of employees with their titles may be listed but no actual specific products or services. Does the presence of these employees trigger the not-not-not rule?