Comments on: FTC to Regulate Blogger Claims (I was Not Paid to Say This)

By: IAB’s Brilliant Open Letter to the FTC on Blogger Rules — Technology Liberation Front

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:56:41 +0000

[...] open letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Jon Leibowitz about the agency’s new disclosure rules for bloggers. Rothenberg’s entertaining and brutally honest letter is a rarity for a trade association [...]

By: gmcgath

gmcgath — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:58:55 +0000

The FTC standards explicitly apply a standard to blogs which isn't applied to "traditional media":

The Commission acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different
disclosure requirements than reviewers in traditional media. In
general, under usual circumstances, the Commission does not consider
reviews published in traditional media (i.e., where a newspaper,
magazine, or television or radio station with independent editorial
responsibility assigns an employee to review various products or
services as part of his or her official duties, and then
publishes those reviews) to be sponsored advertising messages.
Accordingly, such reviews are not “endorsements” within the meaning of
the Guides.

The guidelines are extremely vague about who is subject to disclosure requirements. This is a chilling effect directed specifically at online communications.

By: What I Don’t Get about the FTC’s New Blogger Guidelines — Technology Liberation Front

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:37:34 +0000

[...] Like James Gattuso, I have a lot of questions about the Federal Trade Commission’s new “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,” especially as they apply to bloggers. (And over at Silicon Angle, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins has been doing a great job keeping tabs on the many questions and hypothetical situations that others have been posing about the new rules). But the one thing I just can’t wrap my head around is how the FTC plans to enforce these rules against those speakers or media outlets who have print publications which are fully protected by the First Amendment. So, I was pleased to see my favorite press critic Jack Shafer of Salon, ask the same question in his latest column: Because of a pesky thing called the First Amendment, the guidelines don’t apply to news organizations, which receive thousands of free books, CDs, and DVDs each day from media companies hoping for reviews. But if the guidelines don’t apply to established media like the New York Review of Books, which also happens to publish reviews on the Web, why should they apply to Joe Blow’s blog? Regulating bloggers via the FTC while exempting establishment reporters looks like a back-door means of licensing journalists and policing speech. [...]

By: MaryanneCarter

MaryanneCarter — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 23:32:44 +0000

Don't you think that if a blogger puts in a disclaimer that some of the posts may or may not be paid/sponsored that would be enough to keep the blogger out of trouble?

By: gmcgath

gmcgath — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:58:55 +0000

By: MaryanneCarter

MaryanneCarter — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:32:44 +0000

Don't you think that if a blogger puts in a disclaimer that some of the posts may or may not be paid/sponsored that would be enough to keep the blogger out of trouble?

By: jamesgattuso

jamesgattuso — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:25:26 +0000

Good catch — I should have said “video system” and not “video.” The larger value does make a difference. I am still troubled by a conclusion that the blogger here is a paid endorser, and subject to fines. The guidelines of course do have much flexibilitiy, this is only an illustration, but that doesn't provide much comfort for bloggers not wanting to risk an unfavorable ruling. Of course, as you say, many bloggers can and do put in disclaimers on their own, but that is far different than requiring them by law.

By: cryptozoologist

cryptozoologist — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:16:28 +0000

thie disturbing thing about this to me is it seems to run afoul of the first amendment in that it abridges the freedom of the press. there is nothing sinister about the intent of this regulation. if it applied equally to bloggers and the mainstream press i really do not think the chilling effects would be substantively observable. the real problem as i see it is that once again, bloggers are somehow deemed not to be considered the press. somehow it is not recognized that thomas payne and benjamin franklin were in essence bloggers. franklin was a printer by trade and he published anything he felt like writing about. today the cost of entry is lower and one no longer needs a printing press and the skills to use it, a computer (perhaps owned by the public library, something else tied closely to franklin) and an internet connection is all that is required.

while i'm on the subject, i'd like to mention that internet anonymity is something that is perpetually under attack and subject to a double standard with regard to the print media. i mention it here because the federalist papers were written by james madison, john jay and alexander hamilton and were published anonymously under pseudonyms like 'publius'.

if these misguided modern sensibilities were applied during the founding of our republic, we would live in an entirely different and in my opinion diminished country.

By: dm

dm — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 06:17:17 +0000

It's not clear that it's any more chilling on speech than, say, libel laws.

By: bobexample

bobexample — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 05:06:09 +0000

To say product recommendations dry-up is either wrong thinking or a scare tactic--I prefer to think you are stupid than a demagogue.

A reviewere would just put
"They gave me the game to review"
in the review and be done with it.

Takes 10 seconds and costs nothing.

By: dm

dm — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 04:46:36 +0000

I think the proposed fines are draconian, but “these comments are based on a product that manufacturer X sent me” is pretty standard practice among the blogger-reviewers I follow — I even know bloggers who refuse such gifts.

In your argument you make a bit of a jump from “video game system” to “video” (that is, from a $200 gift to a $10 one). Either one rates a comment, and yes, should be mentioned by the reviewer.

By: Cord Blomquist

Cord Blomquist — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:14:26 +0000

James, you beat me to this topic! Very good post.

Anyone care to guess how quickly this will be struck down in the courts as a violation of the 1st Amendment?