« Yelp to Allow Local Business Response to User Reviews | Main | Digg Says Diggbar is SEO Friendly (But You Can Still Block It If You Want) »
April 10, 2009
FTC's Proposed Social Media Marketing Regulations Target Bloggers
If the Federal Trade Commission has its way, bloggers and social network users will soon be liable for their reviews of businesses and products. New regulations would allow them to be sued for anything they write that would be false.
Supposedly, these new regulations would be restricted to "pay-per-post" content, but I'm sure lawyers will find a way to target all content. (Hint: they already do. These regulations would help, yes, the lawyers!)
The FTC should go back to elementary school. That's when kids learn that opinions are not true or false - only facts are. They even have homework assignments about it.
When you see a celebrity endorse a consumer brand in traditional advertising, does anyone really believe that celebrity uses the brand? Or do we know think that they use some high-end brand that 0.000001% of America can afford?
Is the FTC suddenly going to be tailing Padma Lakshmi to see if she really does eat Hardee's Western Bacon Thickburgers on a stoop in New York City? Especially since there isn't a Hardee's in New York City? (Oh you thought that was Chicago? It's not. There are no Hardee's there either.) (Apologies to Chris Applebaum.)
And here's the clincher. Are they going to punish politicians for all of their false advertising? Both the promises that never get fulfilled and the attacks that stretch the truth?
For a government agency full of people staffed by politicians, going after bloggers for truthiness is like the pot calling the kettle black.
That's just my opinion. What's yours? Leave a comment below, if you dare. The FTC may allow you to get sued for it later.
Related Reading:
FTC Updates Online Behavioral Ad Policy; Google Approves
FCC Takes White Spaces Initiative Globalf
Posted by Nathania Johnson on April 10, 2009 11:31 AM
Comments
I don't think this is such a bad idea. Libel is libel. Defamation is defamation. We don't have an inalienable right to lie.
Right now bloggers aren't held to the same standard as journalists even though many position themselves as such. Given the blurring of lines between blogs and hard news, I think it's a good idea to require people to identify which side of the line they're on.
It wouldn't change anything related to reviews or opinions -- it would just require bloggers to identify their writing as such instead of suggesting or implying that their work is actual news or facts. We have laws to require truth in advertising, so why not truth in blogging?
@CarriBugbee
Carri Bugbee April 11, 2009 3:14 AM
I'm holding out for buying the CE and waiting for perhaps a version with all the DLC bundled with it later this year, though it probably wouldn't come with the lunchbox and bobblehead.
rajaram April 11, 2009 5:49 AM
I have not read the proposal so I can only go by what you are saying in this bog. But if they are trying regulate peoples opinions then yes they are going to have a very hard time with that one.
But if they are trying to stop people especially bloggers who write blogs as fact when the blogger never even looked at the item they are blogging about and are passing their opinion off as fact not opinion then I can see this.
But no, to try to regulate someones opinion is wrong to stop their trying to pass opinion off as fact may not be such a bad idea in some cases. But as the government goes nothing ever come of good that they try to regulate.
Bright Blessings
TheTiny1
Charles Ellibee April 11, 2009 2:03 PM
Carri,
My thinking is that if "Libel is libel," then why do we need special regulations just for social media marketing.
Sure, no one should go out there and lie, but a lot of what we're dealing with here is perspective and opinion. It's subjective.
Nathania Johnson April 11, 2009 2:28 PM
Are we more concerned about our readers and consumers or a our bank accounts? A good marketer can make due without untruth.
Responsible and ethical marketing has not been a primary concern and therefore, the net is quickly becoming an animal house of criminals and slanderers.
The people who have something to fear are people who are not being truthful.
If a marketer has to rely upon untruth to market a product, person or service, then maybe that product, person, or service should not be marketed.
Kimberly Saia April 11, 2009 4:23 PM
Why don't we just move to a communist country. Isn't one thing in this country ever going to remain free from government regulation. I think it is just BS to now want to regulate blogs. Gimme a break!
Bruce April 12, 2009 2:22 PM
This vindicates Google's clampdown on "paid to Blog" programs. Anyone who has been around a while remebers the FTC's clampdown on Sponsored Ads/links. The FTC has always believed that users have to be able to distinguish paid reviews from a non transaction unbiased review or search listing.
A celebrity endorsement is a transaprent situation and an aples to oranges comparison Paid blogging isn't. So comparisons of bloggers to celebrity endorsements is an apples to oranges comparison.
Bloggers should say and acknowledge that a payment of goods or $'s was received for doing a review. Otherwise users have no way to know and that is the concern of the FTC and it should have also been a concern for bloggers but it seems they are more interested in $'s than transparency.
Terry Van Horne April 13, 2009 4:04 PM
Amazing ..... this is just another example of government over reach. It appears that it will start with bloggers who are marketing, with trial lawyers involved look for expansion into our right of free speech ....
The Watch Dog April 20, 2009 6:36 PM
