The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced this week that it would be policing blogs and social media for the first time, cracking down on “reviewers” and advertisers who fail to provide full disclosure in endorsements, sparking intense outrage among the regulated. Violators can be subject to $11,000 fines per infraction.



"Given that social media has become such a significant player in the advertising area, we thought it was necessary to address social media as well," explained the FTC’s assistant director of advertising practices Richard Cleland, describing the agency’s first overhaul of its endorsement policies in almost 30 years. The proposal was adopted with the unanimous approval of all four commissioners.   

 

More than 80 pages of confusing new rules will now govern bloggers’ and even social media users’ activity. If they are paid to write an endorsement, or even if they receive an item for free and then write about it, everything must be noted “clearly and conspicuously.” There are also provisions mandating that people disclose any “material ties.”



When companies give a reviewer a product to write about, they “should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance,” explains an example provided in the FTC rules. How should people know whether the FTC will consider something an endorsement? According to the regulations: “The facts and circumstances that will determine the answer to this question are extremely varied and cannot be fully enumerated here …”



In addition, the rules purport to require everybody to disclose “typical” results of using a product, to be determined by the FTC on a case-by-case basis. “The new rules would require bloggers to clearly disclose what type of results they should expect to receive from a product. Currently, advertisers only have to display a small "results not typical" tagline if they feature an endorser who had an unusual level of success with their product. Now, they have to disclose what the average consumer should expect,” notes PC Mag.  



The new advertising regime also covers celebrities, research funding, and even people posting a message through a social networking website. A writer for PC World points out that they can even apply “to anyone commenting on blogs, in forums, and in chat rooms. They apply to employees of a company who become a 'fan' of their employer on Facebook or say something nasty about a competitor's product on Yelp.”



Some groups were delighted by the news, like the Consumer Federation of America. "Consumers are increasingly dependent on the Internet for purchase information," a spokesman for the organization told the Associated Press. "There's tremendous opportunity to steer consumers to the wrong direction." But the decision has also stirred up a hornet's nest of protest, and state laws against fraud already exist.  



The rules will be impossible to enforce properly, point out some malcontents. The agency has a staff of around 1,000, and considering that there are millions of blogs and even more people who use social networking programs like Facebook, it does indeed seem like the regulations will be difficult to apply. But they do succeed in creating uncertainty among Internet users, and there is certainly the potential for selective enforcement.   



Critics across the internet are blasting the new policies, which will become effective December 1 of this year, as unconstitutional, unnecessary and inappropriate. Other opponents have mocked the plan, writing pieces facetiously endorsing multiple products and ridiculing the FTC. Some have been downright offended: “Should bloggers be legally bound to prove that they are not unethical liars?” wondered one writer.

 

Another outraged blogger wrote the FTC an open letter:


"Dear Federal Trade Commission:



This is my blog, not your blog. I will write whatever I choose to write, I'll write it for whatever reasons I choose to write it, and I'll disclose as much or as little about those reasons as I d*** well please.



If you think you can squeeze $11,000 out of me over it, feel free to try. You won't get a dime you don't take at gunpoint, and the only way you'll stop me from continuing to write as I please is to stick me in jail or kill me.

   

 Yours in liberty (hah!),
    

KN@PPSTER"


People are right to be angry. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” That obviously includes unconstitutional agencies created by Congress as well. 



While some bloggers may behave unethically, they will be discovered and discredited. State laws already prohibit fraud. Plus, people should be trusted to assume responsibility and use discretion and proper judgment when searching for information even without federal intrusion. And the government should stop making excuses to regulate everything, continuing its never-ending expansion of power.  


Alex Newman is an American freelance writer and the president of Liberty Sentinel Media, Inc., a small media consulting firm. He is currently living in Sweden and has spent most of his life in Latin America, Europe and Africa. He has a degree in foreign languages and speaks Spanish, French, Portuguese, German, Italian and a little Swedish and Afrikaans. In addition, he earned a degree in journalism from the University of Florida, with emphasis on economics and international relations.



 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

DDW said:

	This government Becomes more pitiful and pathetic and loathsome every single day. It makes me want to puke. And to any government goons/thugs out there who may be reading this, know here and now that I, Dan Whitehead of Irving, Texas, utterly despise you and have nothing for you but contempt.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 09, 2009
Votes: +7

DDW said:

I seem to recall Reading many years ago in a piece on the latter days of the Roman Empire, that the bureaucrats, somehow, managed to make it illegal to criticize them. It would seem it is indeed true that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Apparently the bureaucrats of ancient Rome were the same pitiful, wretched, small, power hungry squealing things they are in these "modern" times.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 09, 2009
Votes: +8

Still Free said:

Big Brother will be watching ??? Much easier to police us bloggers than say, the Southern Border? And how will they accomplish this? Why they'll probably be forced to hire some MORE government workers to watch us watching them. Who was watching ACORN, FANNIE-MAE, FREDDIE MAC, and on and on .... ? On, that's right, we're just some little old taxpayers venting upon observations, not the big boys doing the lobbying or contributing ... silly me, thinking we could not only have a thought, but we could post that thought or opinion as well ...

report abuse vote down vote up

October 10, 2009
Votes: +6

fleck said:

Freedom of Press Issue Too Alex Newman's quote The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." should read: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;” This is also a freedom of the press issue. I mention this because the courts treat each of these issues differently and we will want to use both angles when this is challenged.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 11, 2009
Votes: +2

William the Lesser said:

	JBS standing up for Bloggers' rights? Isn't this the same outfit that fired its most prolific contributor a few years ago for the supposed offense of publishing a personal blog?
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 12, 2009 | url
Votes: -1

riverroach said:

That you Mr. Grigg? Hey William the Lesser, is that you Mr. Grigg. I would have fired you too, if your blog was anything like the post above! The things that Vance and Don and yourself perpetrated against the JBS that led to the theft of Robert Welch University from the JBS is sickening. Oh and I noticed, Robert Welch University is doing so well under Vance's leadership. Crawl back under your rock sir. If you are not Mr. Grigg, my apologies.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 12, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

William the Lesser said:

	Your memory is faulty, Mr. Roach -- -- given that William Grigg was NOT on the Vance Smith side of the 2005 leadership dispute, and had NOTHING to do with Vance's seizure of RWU. So you might add that misrepresentation to the list of things for which an apology would be in order. Is your version of those events the story currently being circulated by the folks running the JBS?
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 12, 2009 | url
Votes: -1