FTC is coming for the bloggers

[JMJ]

Rockefeller can't have people competing against he and his cronies propaganda machines. I'm sure this is just a first of it's kind in web regulation.

FTC: Bloggers must disclose any freebies or payments they get for writing product reviews
By Deborah Yao, AP Business Writer
On Monday October 5, 2009, 2:47 pm EDT


The Federal Trade Commission will try to regulate blogging for the first time, requiring writers on the Web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products.

The FTC said Monday its commissioners voted 4-0 to approve the final Web guidelines, which had been expected. Violating the rules, which take effect Dec. 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.

The commission stopped short of specifying how bloggers must disclose conflicts of interest. Rich Cleland, assistant director of the FTC's advertising practices division, said the disclosure must be "clear and conspicuous," no matter what form it will take.

Bloggers have long praised or panned products and services online. But what some consumers might not know is that many companies pay reviewers for their write-ups or give them free products such as toys or computers or trips to Disneyland. In contrast, at traditional journalism outlets, products borrowed for reviews generally have to be returned.

Before the FTC gave notice last November it was going to regulate such endorsements, blogs varied in the level of disclosures about these potential conflicts of interest.

The FTC's proposal made many bloggers anxious. They said the scrutiny would make them nervous about posting even innocent comments.

To placate such fears, Cleland said the FTC will more likely go after an advertiser instead of a blogger for violations. The exception would be a blogger who runs a "substantial" operation that violates FTC rules and already received a warning, he said.

Existing FTC rules already banned deceptive and unfair business practices. The final guidelines aim to clarify the law for the vast world of blogging. Not since 1980 had the commission revised its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials.

Cleland said a blogger who receives a freebie without the advertiser knowing would not violate FTC guidelines. For example, someone who gets a free bag of dog food as part of a promotion from a pet shop wouldn't violate FTC guidelines if he writes about the product on his blog.

Blogger Linsey Krolik said she's always disclosed any freebies she's received on products she writes about, but has stepped up her efforts since last fall. She said she adds a notice at the end of a post, "very clear in italics or bold or something -- this is the deal. It's not kind of buried."


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/FTC-Bl....html?x=0&.v=2

[whitebark]

Times like these I'm glad to be north of the 49th. Still sucks they will go after the American companies dealing with us up here. Wish Ron Paul was president - he understands true commerce.

[DomainsInc]

Haha, good luck enforcing that. The majority don't have anything to worry about unless you are someone a big company doesn't like. Its more or less a loophole so they can shut you down if they want. Kinda sucks.

[Seraphim]

Google has a complete stranglehold on information flow within the United States, and the FTC is worried about bloggers?

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Google has a complete stranglehold on information flow within the United States, and the FTC is worried about bloggers?

Google archives pretty much everything you do online and hell I guess even offline now for the government. Why would they touch them?

[Focus]

Yeah....IF they know who you are lol

Gotta love changing your anonymous I.P. everyday...

[draggar]

What the truck????

Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.

So if I write a review about a product and someone gets a lemon - they can sue me?

Sorry, but either that's a violation of my freedom of speech or the consumers MUST compensate me when they buy a product I reviewed and liked it.

[Leading Names]

Originally Posted by draggar

What the truck????



So if I write a review about a product and someone gets a lemon - they can sue me?

Sorry, but either that's a violation of my freedom of speech or the consumers MUST compensate me when they buy a product I reviewed and liked it.

Exactly what I was thinking. Only in America

- Rob

[thevirtual]

This law makes sense for the most part.

Originally Posted by DomainsInc

Haha, good luck enforcing that. The majority don't have anything to worry about unless you are someone a big company doesn't like. Its more or less a loophole so they can shut you down if they want. Kinda sucks.

You think they are doing this to censor the internet? A bit too paranoid? How will big companies use this for their advantage?

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by thevirtual

This law makes sense for the most part.



You think they are doing this to censor the internet? A bit too paranoid? How will big companies use this for their advantage?

It will be used to shut down blogs/sites the Government disagrees with. Most laws are never to protect the people they generally have hidden purposes. IE seat belt law is to protect insurance companies and add to government revenue not the person driving.

[ordersomething]

Are you worried about the FTC coming to get you?

You should be worried about this instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdqNkWg0Dr8

.

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by ordersomething

Are you worried about the FTC coming to get you?

You should be worried about this instead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdqNkWg0Dr8

.

What a twat.

[ordersomething]

Originally Posted by Seraphim

What a twat.

Defamation of character, much?

.

[Seraphim]

Originally Posted by ordersomething

Defamation of character, much?

.

If you don't like the political section of this forum, then why you do keep posting worthless comments in it? Ask Adam to remove it from today's posts/unread posts, I think that would be the more constructive course of action.

[thevirtual]

Originally Posted by JMJ

It will be used to shut down blogs/sites the Government disagrees with. Most laws are never to protect the people they generally have hidden purposes. IE seat belt law is to protect insurance companies and add to government revenue not the person driving.

There is nothing in there to suggest what you are saying. Why would the government care about a site that does product reviews? Don't you think they would be more worried about people that are talking about violent opposition to the gov't on TV for instance?

[ordersomething]

Originally Posted by Seraphim

If you don't like the political section of this forum, then why you do keep posting worthless comments in it? Ask Adam to remove it from today's posts/unread posts, I think that would be the more constructive course of action.

Are you trying to suppress my freedom of speech, sir?

[whitebark]

And how long before people start reporting their competitors on the internet to have them harassed and maybe even closed down by the fines they must pay? You can be sure companies will pay others or their own inside employees to hunt down bloggers and have them reported as well. Stupid stupid stupid.

[Doc Com]

Why worry about the FTC when there are bigger things to worry about.

Aliens
Obama
Iran
UFO's
Mayan Calendar
Aliens
global warming
fossil fuels
NASCAR
Panthers 0-3 start
Jon and Kate spliting up
Aliens

[HarveyJ]

This legislation is aimed directly at douchebags like Mike Filsaime who get other douchebags with "big names" like Eben Pagan to circle jerk endorse each others products, then they host a seminar that they charge people hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to attend, get rich off it, and leave the poor schmucks who went on the advice of someone who's blog they trusted out of pocket by a few grand.

Shit like the launch of 'The Arbitrage Conspiracy' is a text book example of what this case is about: People claiming an "info product" or some rubbish had earnt them thousands with little to no effort even before it was released, or they'd had any real contact with the "creator".

This is almost entirely aimed at forced continuity / rebill offers, and mostly in the BizOpp, Health, and loan niches.

[jasdon11]

Originally Posted by HarveyJ

This legislation is aimed directly at douchebags like Mike Filsaime who get other douchebags with "big names" like Eben Pagan to circle jerk endorse each others products, then they host a seminar that they charge people hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to attend, get rich off it, and leave the poor schmucks who went on the advice of someone who's blog they trusted out of pocket by a few grand.

Shit like the launch of 'The Arbitrage Conspiracy' is a text book example of what this case is about: People claiming an "info product" or some rubbish had earnt them thousands with little to no effort even before it was released, or they'd had any real contact with the "creator".

This is almost entirely aimed at forced continuity / rebill offers, and mostly in the BizOpp, Health, and loan niches.

The funny thing is, that a large number of the people who cough up for these things, are the same people who coughed up for the previous one, and the one before that...if the first one worked for them they wouldn't need to keep paying for the next 'unmissable' event.