The Federal Trade Commission, in the name of protecting America’s consumers, released new guidelines on Monday requiring bloggers and social media users disclose paid endorsements starting December 1, 2009.
The regulations are being described as unnecessary, too vague, totalitarian and a digital double standard since they don’t apply to traditional media at TheAtlanticWire.com.
After December 1, be careful out there when you blog about a listing or even the latest software product that you run across that you want to share.
As usual, there is always an opportunity. Does someone want to come up with the shortest legal disclosure for use with the 140 character limit on twitter? Oh yeah, I received no monetary compensation for this post on my review of the FTC’s new requirements.
Brian Brady says:
This should be interesting for those us who promote listings or loan programs via social media. Here’s the disclosure, Al:
“I might get paid if you (buy this house) borrow this money”
October 7, 2009 — 5:45 pm
Greg Swann says:
Needless to say, I think this is well beyond stupid. But, even so, it’s not something to mess with. The fine is the Fed classic — $11,000 per violation.
October 7, 2009 — 6:26 pm
Greg Dallaire says:
This is what happens when you have a president who surrounds himself with people who don’t believe in free speech and commend Hugo Chavez for running such a great and noble media power.
This whole fairness doctrine is beyond disturbing. I guess if you can’t answer common sense questions just take over the whole ability of free speech. Oh wait I thought I learned all about this in facebook I feel we’ve been down this road many times but now it’s on a grand scale.
October 7, 2009 — 6:56 pm
Greg Dallaire says:
Not facebook I meant history lol social network marketing has taken over my brain……
October 7, 2009 — 6:58 pm
Sean Purcell says:
I was just getting ready to post on this Al. You did a better job than what I had though…
I couldn’t help but think of previous articles here on BHB about Agent Genius and their inability to comprehend the appearance of impropriety along these lines. Interestingly enough, we all knew it was wrong without big brother’s stamp of confusion. Yet another serving of “guidance” from the center of mis-guided guidance.
October 7, 2009 — 7:05 pm
Jody Cowdrey says:
…except the $11,000 fine isn’t true:
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/jennifer-vilaga/slipstream/ftc-bloggers-its-not-medium-its-message-0
October 7, 2009 — 8:22 pm
Greg Swann says:
> except the $11,000 fine isn’t true
Damn straight. If you can’t trust a Fed, who can you trust?
In fact, as the FTC’s own document states, bloggers are to be regulated under Section 5 of the FTC Act at 15 USC 45, which actually only provides for fines of up to $10,000 per violation.
Not only have you corrected a trivial error, you have demonstrated to everyone paying attention that neither federal mouthpieces nor the mainstream media can be trusted.
October 7, 2009 — 9:10 pm
Ryan Hartman says:
So if I mention by way of comment (or even “like”) on facebook that Brian did a good job with one of my clients… then he sends me a referral a few weeks later… I might have to prove… or did Respa already have this covered?
Confusing all of it… never saying anything, ever again…
October 8, 2009 — 5:56 am
James Boyer says:
I heard about this on public radio the other day. This is beyond stupid. Why can’t they just get rid of most of the people who work in this government department and save us the tax money.
October 8, 2009 — 7:29 am
Al Lorenz says:
Brian, you still have 100 characters on twitter to make your point, after your disclosure!
Greg: One good thing about a $10k fine is it doesn’t take many of them before, instead of paying them for each occurrence, you have a good war chest to hire an attorney. Of course, that’s a great productivity booster for society…
October 8, 2009 — 11:42 am