« Patent Issued to Local.com for Enhanced Directory Assistance Services | Main | Go to SES Berlin or SES Chicago for "Five Brand New Things" »
October 10, 2009
Wake Up! - The FTC is screwing with bloggers
If you are a blogger in the US your life is about to change big-time.
You have just entered the Twilight Zone...
New FTC guidelines (read full version) described in the official press release state:
1 - "the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."
and
2 - the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement - or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media."
My reading of this is very disturbing.
Here is a possible scenario:
- You - a "social media" "celebrity" "blogger" (this is anyone who has more than a few followers on Twitter or some number of subscribers to their blog RSS feed) reviews a book, product, or service - making it an "endorsement"
- You got a copy of the book to review, or got a free trial of the product, or a free trial of the service
- You did not mention the freebie in your blog post
- If someone does not like your blog posting you can be sued
To try to regulate bloggers as if they were professional journalists or compensated endorsements is asinine (incidentally - these guidelines do not apply to professional journalists!) The FTC is trying a land-grab into Internet regulation so they can extend their bureaucratic tentacles and justify their continued existence and funding. All of this is being done under the slogan of their official tagline "Protecting America's Consumers". This of course begs the questions - "from whom?"
This is a screwy world we live in, but the whole premise of blogging on the Internet is predicated on the notion that anyone can have frank and open discussions about any topic of their choosing. Most bloggers do not get paid and do not make any money directly or indirectly from their blogging efforts. They try to build their reputation and disseminate information that their followers may find useful. They never claim to be "objective" and often hold very strong, peculiar, and very personal opinions.
It has always been "buyer beware" on the Internet. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded that we should carefully consider the source and reputation of any information that we encounter online. We certainly don't need a chilling effect on the whole online conversation from a huge government agency.
It is ironic that this is happening under the direction of a man who was elected with the strong support of the Internet community and specifically active social media leaders. Unfortunately typical liberal-leaning tendencies are also to regulate people's lives via the government in order to protect them against unscrupulous big-business practices.
Don't get me wrong - frankly I don't care if the assault on individual liberties comes from the left or right (the four FTC commissioners who voted unanimously for the new guideline were all appointed by Bush). But I do care when big brother injects themselves into normal Internet discourse this heavy-handedly.
Fight this unconstitutional over-reach - these are simply regulations from unelected bureaucrats within the executive branch.
Let's make our voices heard and protect the First Amendment and our ability to have unfettered discourse without fear of lawsuits online.
BTW - no one paid me to "endorse" this position on the new FTC regulations - I guess that my butt is now legally covered (at least for this blog post).
Posted by Tim Ash on October 10, 2009 7:12 PM
Comments
Tim
Great post - the implications of this could be huge and it is definitely over-legislation.
I often talk about the products that I like, and companies sometimes send me them for free. Just because I have a social media presence doesn`t mean that I shouldn`t be allowed to talk about products (even if they do send me some for free). It is my social life online - I make no assertions that I know what the heck I am talking about, and most people know that it is my opinion.
Thanks for writing a great post :)
- Krista
Krista Neher October 11, 2009 10:11 AM
What is so hard or overreaching about disclosing the fact that you received the product for free?
Chris Hajer October 11, 2009 2:52 PM
So does this mean that consumer reports and all reviews written by anyone at CNET, Amazon, eHow or any of the other review sites where articles or information is disseminated whereby the "editor" of the article received the item or software or whatever at no charge specifically for the review needs to disclose that fact?
What if the author includes a byline like "from time to time when reviewing a product or software the item or software was provided to the reviewer at no cost, which in know way changes my opinion of said item". Would this cover it?
- Noah
noah October 11, 2009 11:40 PM
You know i think this could cause problems in addition to anyone that has an affiliate program with vendors that provide services to their community. Where the blog may discuss many product. ALso what if a banner ad pops up that is related to products that you have previously discussed in the blog.. Is that an offense or is it ok? this sucks.
bobby edelman October 12, 2009 1:21 AM
This is related to the item I shared recently, from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR).
This is troubling - though I guess we should've anticipated it...
Aakash October 12, 2009 3:47 AM
Everyone, you know what's coming next. A surcharge on blogs, it won't be called a tax but a surcharge to form an agency that protects us from ourselves.
Also, anyone who has a bone to pick with you will now have another avenue to distract you with.
Why doesn't the FTC and SEC hone their skills to find the next Bernie Made-Off with the billions Guys.
Ric October 12, 2009 1:31 PM
Wow, I wonder where the FTC is going to find all of this manpower to fight all of these bloggers? I suppose they will open up a "snitch" portal, just like Google did, to take advantage of the millions of competitors our there that will do their work for them.
I do not feel that this will stick at all. It is just too absurd to stand up.
SEO consultant October 12, 2009 2:56 PM
I really don't think this is going to be a big deal. Bloggers who give good reviews to products they don't like won't be popular for long anyway and disclosure is almost always a good thing.
By the way you can be fined by the FTC. You can be sued by anyone, anytime and for pretty much anything and you don't have to lose the lawsuit to lose.
Jim L October 12, 2009 4:20 PM
So if I say I like such and such product but I did not get it for FREE but purchased it, this would not apply to me? This only applies to products that are sent to you for free? Wow. I've been blogging for years and have never had a product sent to me for free just because I liked it on my blog. I get over 100 hits a day on my blog too. Where are my freebies? HAHA
This is stupid. Just some other agency trying to put their nose where it does not belong. Slowly watch all of your rights go bye bye if this kind of stuff is allowed.
Sky October 12, 2009 5:55 PM
Wow, this is a terrible, misleading article. The person has no idea how the Ftc acts/enforces the law. Please stop acting like a paranoid idiot.
BTW, the FTC is comprised of Democrats and Republicans. The current chairman was appointed to the role of chairman by President Obama.
mitwee October 12, 2009 7:09 PM
Jim L.
I don't think that this is about bloggers who give good reviews to products they don't like. In fact it has nothing to do with the blogger's opinion of what they review.
For example, I may get a book in the mail and hate it after reading it. I may then give it a terrible review. But I can be sued simply because I did not disclose that the author/publisher sent it to me for free instead of me buying my own copy.
"Real" journalists get freebies of stuff to review all of the time and are not required to disclose the material consideration. My publisher (Wiley Press) sent hundreds of copies of my book to journalists and editors in the online marketing arena in the hopes that they would look at it and review it.
Journalists are supposed to be professional and objective. So why is it that uncompensated non-professional bloggers (many of whom have very strong and biased opinions and clearly say so) are being held to a higher standard and may be subject to lawsuits? It just does not make any sense to me.
Tim Ash 
October 13, 2009 12:40 AM
Noah,
Report and reviews by people on CNET are presumably done by paid professional journalists, and they are exempt from the new blogger rules.
As far as I can tell, there are no "safe harbor" provisions or disclaimer language that is allowed to be used. You MUST disclose every instance of financial or in-kind consideration.
Tim Ash October 13, 2009 12:57 AM
