Slashdot Mirror
FTC States Bloggers Must Disclose Paid Reviews
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that in the first revision of how endorsements and testimonials work since 1980, bloggers will now be required by the FTC to clearly disclose freebies or payments they received for product reviews. "the commission stopped short Monday of specifying how bloggers must disclose any conflicts of interest. The FTC said its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final guidelines, which had been expected. Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation. The rules take effect Dec. 1."
Maybe the astroturfing garbage will finally stop... or at least be more obvious.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
So we'll be seeing fewer reviews on slashdot, then?
What about bloggers that are not U.S. citizens?
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Stop calling it lobbying and call it by its real name: bribery. Will the politicians be fined to death in slices of $11K?
Penalties include up to $11,000 in fines per violation. Note to self: require a payment of at least $12,000 to endorse a product in my blog.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I may be incorrect on this, but do american politicians need to do the same, i don't believe they do (when considering modern lobbying)?
It's a funny country when the random blogger on the interwebs is held to a higher standard than those that govern.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States (it looks like ethic reform bills have been repeatedly struck down... surprise on that on eh?)
What's considered a blog? Is a twitter message included? What about facebook status updates? Affiliate links? It seems that almost every message that mentions a product on sites that make money will now have to include a disclaimer.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
if they ever catch this 'Anonymous Coward' guy, they will throw the book at him.
This isn't about the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). It's about the Federal Trade Commission--the FTC.
A blogger is one thing and an advertiser is another. Getting paid in exchange for publishing advertising copy is definitely something that is (and should be regulated).
The actual FTC guidelines (Section V) don't use the word 'blog' in the guideline itself. Instead, they talk about 'endorsements' and define them like this:
(b) For purposes of this part, an endorsement means any advertising message (including
verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other
identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that
consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party
other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to
those of the sponsoring advertiser. The party whose opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience
the message appears to reflect will be called the endorser and may be an individual, group, or
institution.
They give a bunch of specific examples (which do mention blogs), including one of astroturfing which implies this applies to appstore, amazon reviews (which would be nice). It does seem as if they mean things like twitter should be covered. There's also a bunch of circumstances they describe where you don't have to mention your affiliation, eg if you're a sports star with a clothing contract and always wear that brand off the field as well as on, or if you appear in a clearly-labelled advertisment giving a testimonial and are only paid for the ad - its a different if you have a financial interest in the product.
The FTC rules only apply to people in the US. Once again this is an example of how one country's laws are meaningless on the Internet. They will simply pay non-Americans to astroturf. You cannot tell whether someone is typing with an American accent on the net - although cultural references can sometimes give it away.
I worked as a videogame reviewer for a number of years and the amount of bought and paid for "reviews" in that game is just silly. I once panned MGS3 (for being all hype and cutscene and little substance) and got a nasty letter from them stating they would not continue to reimburse me or advertise for our site... we were a totally independent site and took no money or ads in the first place.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
ANY statement of endorsement in print, media, or on the web, where ANY form of payment, discount, freebie, etc was given, with or without a request for a favorablke posting, requires disclosure
My wife's gardening website includes a link to her friend's wedding bouquet service with language indicating my wife's endorsement.
While she was not paid for that link, they have known each other for 50 years. So many, many free gifts have been exchanged in that time. Even money has probably changed hands between them at some time during their association.
Is a disclaimer required on her site? Because if so, then this is a win for the mega corporations. If I can't recommend my friend's service, then only massive corporations will get any advertising at all.