Exempt Intrastate Offers: Advertising and Soliciting on Websites and Social Media

Oct 31, 2014

Reading Time : 3 min

While Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 generally prohibits the interstate sale of unregistered securities, Section 3 of the Act provides exceptions for certain classes of securities “where there is no practical need for registration or where the benefits of registration are too remote.” (Preliminary notes to Rule 147). The exceptions include securities “offered and sold only to persons resident within a single State or Territory,” where the issuer is also a resident of that State or Territory. (§ 3(a)(11)). In the Securities Act rules, Rule 147 further clarifies the 3(a)(11) exemption, elaborating on the determination of the issuer and offerees’ states of residence (Rule 147(c) and (d) respectively). However, while issuers qualifying for the Rule 147 exemption can avoid registration with the SEC, they must still comply with “any state laws relating to the offer and sale of the securities.” (Preliminary notes to Rule 147). 

In light of the broad accessibility of Internet content, intrastate issuers who wished to use online advertising and solicitation faced a challenge. Advertisements meant to reach only residents of the issuer’s state could be viewed by Internet users outside of that state. But with the ability of Internet users to provide their residence information before viewing content and the ability of advertisers to geotarget viewers based on their Internet protocol (IP) addresses, issuers gained the power to limit their solicitations. The question then became whether these limitations would meet the requirements of Rule 147.

In April 2014, the SEC clarified in Question 141.03 that issuers hoping to utilize the Rule 147 exemption could use the Internet for general advertising and solicitation if they implemented measures to limit the offers to people within the issuer’s state. In the context of an offering conducted within state crowdfunding requirements, those measures have to include:

  1. limiting access to information about a specific investment opportunity to persons who confirm they are residents of the relevant state “(for example, by providing a representation . . . such as a zip code or residence address)” and
  2. providing a disclaimer and restrictive legend clarifying “that the offer is limited to residents of the relevant state under applicable law.” (Question 141.04).

Earlier this month, the SEC suggested what might be a simpler method of limiting the offer to those within the relevant state. The issuer can “implement technological measures” that limit any offers to persons with an IP address originating within the issuer’s state or territory and prevent offers to any others. (Question 141.05). However, the offer must still contain a disclaimer and restrictive legend as stated above. (Question 141.05). This clarification could allow issuers to skip the opt-in step where the viewer must verify they are residents of the relevant state before viewing the solicitation or advertisement. The simplification could greatly increase the number of views and potentially improve the effectiveness of the communication.

Advertising opportunities on “third-party Internet portal[s]” (Question 141.04), which may include social media sites or other popular webpages, may offer advertisers the ability to limit ads to viewers with IP addresses within a given state. This ability to deliver different content based on the geolocation of the viewer is called geotargeting or geomarketing. Geotargeting has the benefit of saving the advertiser money by only advertising to the target audience. Now, in light of the SEC’s recent C&DI, geotargeting may also have the benefit of allowing advertisers to comply with the requirements of Rule 147 without requiring viewers to opt-in. Similarly, issuers may be able to utilize geotargeting on their own websites, limiting offering content to viewers of their state. 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.