FTC's Disclosure Rules Apply To Bloggers... But Not Celebrities?
from the double-standards... dept
The FTC's highly questionable disclosure rules have been in effect for a bit over a month now, and it appears that even the FTC doesn't understand who they apply to or how they apply. And that's the problem. Apparently, someone noticed that actress Gwyneth Paltrow lavished praise on a resort in Marrakech, Morocco, and wondered if Paltrow had paid for her stay there -- noting that it was the grand opening of the place, with lots of stars -- and Hollywood publicists asked about this said there was "not a chance in hell" that someone like Paltrow paid to attend. In fact, they wonder if Paltrow was even paid for her "appearance." So, how do the FTC rules apply? She was pitching a place that most likely gave her something quite valuable for free. That should be disclosed, right? That was the whole point of the FTC rules, right? Well, maybe not. When asked about it, the FTC hemmed and hawed and claimed that "celebrity endorsements are different." Why? Because consumers might "understand that celebrities are always getting free stuff." Right, but wasn't the whole reason that these new disclosure rules were instituted in the first place that bloggers and others were supposedly (though, I believe it to be exaggerated) "always getting free stuff" too? Basically, these FTC rules sound like the sorts of things that are totally subjective, whereby the FTC can crack down on someone they don't like if they have nothing else to use, but will leave others untouched.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bloggers, celebrities, disclosure, ftc, gwyneth paltrow
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The FTC really backed their asses into a corner with this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Desk regulations
As you noted when it was proposed, this new policy is dumb because it's dumb, not because it is and will be improperly enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Desk regulations
Hmm, selective enforcement of a law against selective enforcement is now resulting in more selective enforcement. How typical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Desk regulations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Desk regulations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure glad I was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhhh...
They can't fine you, without Congress giving them the power to violate free speech requirements. Congress can't and won't do that - ever.
The Disclosure rules mean nothing, unless YOU let them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhhh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhhh...
What about fining the people paying you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please correct me if I'm wrong, which happens most of the time.
Given that statement, can you clarify your stance on the safe harbor topic? It seems like a decent parallel to the above story, since the FTC would like this rule to affect some but not others, based on some obscure definition.
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong, which happens most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong, which happens most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong, which happens most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please correct me if I'm wrong, which happens most of the time.
Hi Lux. No, that's not what I said -- though you raise a good point. What I said was that *for many* they do not use their blogs for journalistic purposes, and thus should not be considered journalists.
And I stand by that.
At the same time when they *do* use it for journalistic purposes, they should be covered by laws that protect journalists.
You shouldn't regulate based on the platform but the usage. I think that anyone doing journalistic work should be covered by shield laws -- not "anyone who blogs."
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selective Selectivity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selective Selectivity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selective Selectivity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Selective Selectivity
All they need to do is just pass one law that makes everything illegal and then use *sensible* selective enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Selective Selectivity
Exactly. Everybody knows celebrities are special and shouldn't be subject to the same laws as other people. That just wouldn't make any *sense* at all. That's why selective enofrcement is so important: to keep things like that from happening. I'm glad the FTC and at least some of the readers here seem to understand that.
Note to Mike: Selective enforcement isn't just for grannies, it's for celebrities too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're not subjective, it's class warfare against the poor. If you're rich and powerful or work for the RIAA/MPAA or some other rich and powerful organization you're exempt. It only applies to poor independent individuals who can't afford to bribe the FCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yes you too are a celebrity
and yes i have a pending list just like the cria , i might pay you later or never i dunno but i will maybe ....honest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like the rule, but i demand equal inforcement
Gwyneth Paltrow going to a opening of a hotel on her own, paying full freight for it by herself, and then raving about it, is very different thing than her going on a paid junket and then raving about it. The potential consumers have a right to know. If she paid for it by herself she does not need to disclose it, if it is paid for by her she does. It is very simple. I am ok with her saying "even if i were not paid to go here, I would love to go"; but for fairness I need that disclosure.
I do not think it should require a new regulation but should be already covered under simple consumer fraud. Which is why it should belong to the FTC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Celebrities' and Tabloid reporters' slap of reality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They should also pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]