FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials

[learnmore]

Source: FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials

Although it may be difficult or may not be even feasible for FTC to enforce this but it will make lot of folks change the way they use testimonials.

What do you think? Are you changing the wording on your sales pages?

You can have a look at this thread as a backgrounder:98% Of Salesletters To Become Illegal Soon? What's The Warrior Solution? :)

[DAS_Matt]

Definitely something people should take the time to look over. Thanks for the post.

[LB]

Total insanity.

It's all selective enforcement.

[Scott Ames]

I think I'll add a disclaimer to anything I sell now.. Results not typical, expect nothing.

Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect

[LB]

Originally Posted by Scott Ames

I think I'll add a disclaimer to anything I sell now.. Results not typical, expect nothing.

Under these new terms, that's not enough.

You have to actually say WHAT results buyers can expect. Good luck with that...

Even if you attempted to comply with the above rules I can imagine the FTC hauling you into court and battering you with multiple lawyers to put holes all through the "methodology" you used to arrive at your conclusions.

That's why it's all selective enforcement. It'll be easier for the FTC to go after people...it's all about revenue for the government.

[Kevin AKA Hubcap]

One part of me feels that this is a good thing but another feels like its a way for the FTC to put undue pressure on small business not to mention larger businesses using the FTC as a proxy to drive down competition and I think the biggest problem will be selective enforcement.

I think we can all agree that the hidden continuity offers (you know which ones I'm talking about) should be exposed and dealt with but I wonder how large a net the FTC will cast and I really wonder if it will catch any big fish or will they swim out of large pre-cut holes.


Take a look at some of the tv, print, radio, and web advertisements/endorsements/commercials. A large percentage of commercials are endorsements, the majority of which use actors to portray an "average consumer". If those commercials are ok why can't someone do something similar on a blog?

I also have a problem with this statement from the FTC's press release...

Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect.

The quote above mentions a consumer and his/her experience. Does this mean that I can hire an actor to talk about a "typical" consumer experience and it won't be flagged by the FTC?

And what is a result that consumers can generally expect? Say you're selling a nutrition program to help people lose weight and become more fit. It's composed of sensible eating guide lines and exercise recommendations.

The program is solid but will only work if people follow it. How can you, as a seller, know what people will act on and what they won't. All that you can do is provide good, useful information. You can't force someone not to eat that donut or drink that liter of soda yet those will be the people that say the program doesn't work.

Think about all the cereal commercials that say "part of a nutritious and balanced breakfast" eventhough the cereal is nothing more that colored sugar.

Like I said... I'm all for scammers getting their due but the fact that you can have two companies using the exact same methods and the FTC can selectively prosecute one and not the other is not s good thing and will lead to abuses in my opinion.

Kevin

[5starAffiliatePrograms]

I blogged about this in detail this AM.

There are 2 parts to these guidelines. 1) Accurate testimonials 2) Reviews and endorsements disclosure for financial gain.

I am MUCH MORE WORRIED about part 2 of the guidelines, which I haven't seen anyone discuss in this thread yet.

I’m especially concerned with the reviews and endorsements issue. The FTC does not state HOW monetary disclosure needs to be made. Much of the wording focuses on bloggers, but they also mention “other word of mouth marketers” which certainly would include affiliates.

REVIEWS & ENDORSEMENTS “These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.”

Also of note and not mentioned on the FTC site. The new guidelines supposedly go into effect
Dec. 1 according to the Associate Press news story I cited on my blog today.

So what impact do you think this has on affiliates??? Obviously if you do affiliate reviews you should disclose. But a single affiliate link could be seen as an 'endorsement' of a product. Do you think affiliates need to disclose every affiliate link or what???

[HeySal]

I’m especially concerned with the reviews and endorsements issue. The FTC does not state HOW monetary disclosure needs to be made. Much of the wording focuses on bloggers, but they also mention “other word of mouth marketers” which certainly would include affiliates.

That will be a bit interesting.....but considering that these rules go into effect on December 1st - and fines for violations being set at $11,000 a pop, I'd think there are quite a few people with review sites that better get on the stick and suss it all out - and keep their eyes open for the announcement of what the disclosure guidelines are going to be.

[sbucciarel]

It will be next to impossible for them to police millions of posts. They will pick and choose their fights, as indicated below.

"The FTC's published discussion of its rules indicates that the agency will rely mainly on self-regulation, with enforcement action only in the most egregious cases, much as it does in dealing with online fraud."

[steve39]

I wonder if the FTC has any power or influence outside of the US? Also, if I have a blog with affiliate banners near the content, could that be considered an endorsement? If that is the case, then are we also responsible for 3rd party ads such as adsense and other advertisements we might have running on our site?

Personally, I think they are really going after the blatant abusers like flog owners and forced continuity scams. That was really getting out of hand anyway and needed to be dealt with.

This could be interesting...

[Dana_W]

Yeah, saw this article in the NY Times this afternoon:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009....html?_r=1&hpw

Definitely rethinking putting up review sites.

Does this affect people who already HAVE review sites up? Does everyone have to go back and change their wording or add disclosures?

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by Dana_W

Yeah, saw this article in the NY Times this afternoon:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009....html?_r=1&hpw

Definitely rethinking putting up review sites.

Does this affect people who already HAVE review sites up? Does everyone have to go back and change their wording or add disclosures?

Yes, I am sure it affects already existing sites as well as new sites, but like they say in the article, this will be pretty much impossible for them to monitor except for the big cases.

[Centimetro]

Originally Posted by Kevin AKA Hubcap

One part of me feels that this is a good thing but another feels like its a way for the FTC to put undue pressure on small business not to mention larger businesses using the FTC as a proxy to drive down competition and I think the biggest problem will be selective enforcement.

The second part of you is right. Vague guidelines like these are NEVER a good thing

[Greg Jacobs]

This is %100 in direct response to floggers jacking obamas and oprahs brand for the grants and teh berries. Though now that it is here, it will be a selective enforcement nightmare and can cross over into anything.

[plugsnpixels]

I like to think I "promote" rather than "review", but we'll see.

[TelegramSam]

They tend to attack those that have the means to pay their "law-breaking" fines.

They do their homework. They find "law-breakers". Check their "confidential" tax records, income statements and balance sheets. They follow the money, otherwise it wouldn't be "worth" most prosecutions.

Obviously the suspicious company or individual must be ripping the public off big time, as they are "breaking the law" and are profiting from it. So we must "protect the public" and prosecute.

Usually a deal will be done where the person being attacks realises that they can't win as the cards are stacked against them.

They don't have a leg to stand on as the FTC has "found" a member of the public who is willing to complain about the "injustice and hardship caused".

So the person or company coughs up a few hundred grand or more in seized assets and so the FTC is able to grow its pot of funds for the "public good" and another "scammy" marketer and his family bites the dust.

Well boys and girls, it's time to hitch up the wagons and move even further out West.

Ooops!!! Cr*p, there is no where else to go to get away from these bureaucrats.

Bang, bang. BANG.

That'll teach the blood-suckers.

[TheRichJerksNet]

If you use real testimonials fom real people that actually use the product/service, then what's the big deal ???

Maybe I missed something ...

James

[Centimetro]

Originally Posted by TheRichJerksNet

If you use real testimonials fom real people that actually use the product/service, then what's the big deal ???

Maybe I missed something ...

James

Yeah, you missed something...

It has very little to do with whether or not your testimonials are real. Fake testimonials are obviously deceptive and I'm sure has been against the rules for a long time.

What people are worried about with these new guidelines is that there are very unspecific clauses that suggest that testimonials, even if real, must portray "typical" results, or clearly state the difference between the testimonials and the typical results.

How and who determines what results are "typical"? Who knows. Will it actually be a big deal? Maybe not, but I'm just pointing out that fake testimonials aren't really the issue here

[TheRichJerksNet]

Originally Posted by Centimetro

Yeah, you missed something...

It has very little to do with whether or not your testimonials are real. Fake testimonials are obviously deceptive and I'm sure has been against the rules for a long time.

What people are worried about with these new guidelines is that there are very unspecific clauses that suggest that testimonials, even if real, must portray "typical" results, or clearly state the difference between the testimonials and the typical results.

How and who determines what results are "typical"? Who knows. Will it actually be a big deal? Maybe not, but I'm just pointing out that fake testimonials aren't really the issue here

Is this not what disclaimers are for ? I mean I guess it depends upon the sales letter if it is listing some kind of screenshot for making money or something, but disclaimers should take care of that because not everyones results will be the same...

James

[ccmusicman]

Here is the problem with the testimonial part.

Take Make money Online.

Say someone says: "I made 100k a month with this product!"

Then lets say that that statement is 100% true. That person really did make that kind of money a month.

But, we all know that 90% of people that buy do nothing with the product and make no money. So we would have to add this disclaimer:

"Disclaimer: The above testimonial is not typical. Instead, most people don't really make anything with this product."

And if you really wanted to cover your butt, you would probably want to list statistics.

And having this disclaimer at the bottom of the page wouldn't fly. It would need to be in big bold letters right under the testimonial.

However, I think with a bit of humor, you could turn this for you by saying this:

"That testimonial is rare. Only 10% will actually make money. And of those, only 5% will make near that money. But you want to know why? Because most won't take action on it!"

I would include that in the sales letter - then you are covered AND you are still promoting well - you do want your customers to consume your products.

Rob

[brchap]

We all know that the sales letter has to "sell the sizzle", and make the potential buyer believe that buying your product could lead to untold riches, happiness, more sex, better sex, better behaved pets, kids and spouses...

But, we also know that after they purchase your product, they actually have to DO SOMETHING. They cannot simply print out the PDF on their laser printer, stick it under their pillow at night, and then wake up with the desired results.

The FTC is following the standard modus operandi for any governmental entity (or large organized religions): If we can't directly make money from it, REGULATE IT.

Also, as far as the other "interpretation" is concerned:

The FTC will require that writers on the Web clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products. The commission also said advertisers featuring testimonials that claim dramatic results cannot hide behind disclaimers that the results aren't typical.

Where does that leave affiliates? Will we have to disclose that we make money any time anyone buys a particular product? I can't imagine that going very well.

[Elliott]

Why do so many like to start chanting "the sky is falling"? Or, "the sky will surely be falling"?

Mlm companies have for years been subjected to these same kind of rules, and they are still peddling stuff. All of them post "earnings disclaimers", for example.

The folks that perhaps should be worried here, are the "IM system" peddlers who trumpet that "Joe made $111,374 in 36 hours using this system, now being revealed to the public for the very first time EVER!" They will be sitting ducks. That's the kind of advertising got the mlms in trouble in the first place.

Product claims have also been regulated for years, that's nothing new.
As for the business about "reviews", I read this as meaning that if you pretend a paid endorsement is your personal review of a product, without disclosing the fact that you were paid to publish it, you could be in trouble. Again, big deal.

But the "gurus" with their good old boys networks who glowingly endorse each others newly launched products, they may have some cause for concern.

Elliott

[Pat Jackson]

Originally Posted by brchap

Where does that leave affiliates? Will we have to disclose that we make money any time anyone buys a particular product? I can't imagine that going very well.

This is the one that worries me the most.

Depending on what it actually entails I probably won't be hosting my sites in the US anymore.

[ECS Dave]

As I didn't know this thread was here, here's a link to a reply posted on the "other" thread, LOL...

Bloggers, Marketers & Affiliates Beware! FTC Has Laid The Smackdown!

Be Well!
ECS Dave

[gvannorman]

Originally Posted by brchap

Where does that leave affiliates? Will we have to disclose that we make money any time anyone buys a particular product? I can't imagine that going very well.

Im not sure ont hsi...but the it says that we have to disclose any product that is reviewed by us and we make money on it. I personally just started in affiliate marketing and havent reviewed any product as of yet, but I am going to promote a few products as soon as I get my traffic levels up where it will make it worthwhile...if your only getting 20 hits a day...why bother wasting time on promoting products...promote your blog/site.

After I get upto 100 or more hits a day then Ill start promoting products plus keep the promotion going for my blog/site. Just a thought.

As long as we are not reviewing a product then the earnings shouldnt have to be disclosed. But, if your really worried about it, have an attorny read it and explain it in more detail.

[islander1]

Originally Posted by steve39

I wonder if the FTC has any power or influence outside of the US?

I don't see how the FTC could enforce this on people outside of the U.S., but we may want to stay away from U.S. based web hosting companies, etc.

I hate to say this cause it may not be politically correct in this forum, but this is what happens when you elect socialists to run your government. These kind of people are all about control.

I think this is only the beginning of the kind of stuff we'll see from this current U.S. administration. Us marketers need to prepare to adjust to many changes like this in the near future.

[Daniel Brock]

Originally Posted by islander1

I hate to say this cause it may not be politically correct in this forum, but this is what happens when you elect socialists to run your government. These kind of people are all about control.

I think this is only the beginning of the kind of stuff we'll see from this current U.S. administration. Us marketers need to prepare to adjust to many changes like this in the near future.

Bingo!!!! Internet is the one easy way for people to break out of the system that they(government) have spent so long trying to create.

So naturally, they must regulate it to clamp down on the people who have power, but "shouldn't".

Here is what they want:

Go to college -> take out student loan(debt) -> force yourself into workplace because you have to pay off debt -> buy fancy cars and houses you can't afford further trapping yourself in their system -> have kids -> get into more debt -> get locked into job for the rest of your life because you are now enslaved.

What they don't want:

kid drops out of college -> starts internet business -> has money to buy whatever they want and NO debt -> can now do whatever he/she wants to do.

Sure, you can always start your own physical business. But that is just way harder than jumping online and spending $50 to make a fortune.

[TelegramSam]

Originally Posted by Daniel Brock

Bingo!!!! Internet is the one easy way for people to break out of the system that they(government) have spent so long trying to create.

So naturally, they must regulate it to clamp down on the people who have power, but "shouldn't".

Here is what they want:

Go to college -> take out student loan(debt) -> force yourself into workplace because you have to pay off debt -> buy fancy cars and houses you can't afford further trapping yourself in their system -> have kids -> get into more debt -> get locked into job for the rest of your life because you are now enslaved.

What they don't want:

kid drops out of college -> starts internet business -> has money to buy whatever they want and NO debt -> can now do whatever he/she wants to do.

Sure, you can always start your own physical business. But that is just way harder than jumping online and spending $50 to make a fortune.

Very well said, and oh so accurate!

( By the way though, where do I spend that $50 to get myself a fortune? )

[JackDuncan]

The more truth in advertising, the better for all of us. Deceptive ads bring down all the marketers out there because it increases shopper skepticism and distrust. Outrageous claims are not the way to build business. In the long run, moral, ethical and legal means are the way to true success!

[khairulazan]

We should consider some solution to this

[spearce000]

On reading the announcement on the FTC website, one paragraph stood head and shoulders above the rest IMHO:

The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.

(my emphasis above)

The law is already on the books. They (the FTC) have just decided to interpret it differently. It will almost certainly not be widely enforced until a legal precedent has been set. Which means they'll probably pick on some poor affiliate marketer and hang him/her out to dry rather than go after a big corporation with an army of Wall Street lawyers and megabucks to pay them with. Either way, I suspect the US Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of all this. You just have to hope you're not the one they decide to pick on.

Originally Posted by steve39

I wonder if the FTC has any power or influence outside of the US?

Whether they like it or not, America's laws end at America's borders. If you're outside the US and have your website or blog hosted on a server in your own country, you probably don't have a lot to worry about ... for now.

Which brings up another (slightly off-topic) question. As governments the world over seek to regulate the Internet more and more, what's to stop the US (or any other government for that matter) from insisting that only websites that comply with their rules can be accessed from within their jurisdiction and blocking out those which don't? If China can censor Google, anything is possible.

[learnmore]

I just saw this post by Copy Blogger, he gives some tips on how to see the opportunity in this situation: How to Turn Affiliate Marketing Disclosure Into a Selling Point | Copyblogger

[apollocreed]

Originally Posted by Daniel Brock

Bingo!!!! Internet is the one easy way for people to break out of the system that they(government) have spent so long trying to create.

So naturally, they must regulate it to clamp down on the people who have power, but "shouldn't".

Here is what they want:

Go to college -> take out student loan(debt) -> force yourself into workplace because you have to pay off debt -> buy fancy cars and houses you can't afford further trapping yourself in their system -> have kids -> get into more debt -> get locked into job for the rest of your life because you are now enslaved.

What they don't want:

kid drops out of college -> starts internet business -> has money to buy whatever they want and NO debt -> can now do whatever he/she wants to do.

Sure, you can always start your own physical business. But that is just way harder than jumping online and spending $50 to make a fortune.

The FTC crackdown was on the plate way before the "socialist" government was in power. (by the wa the U.S democrats are far more rightwing compared to most European right wing parties)

The government like any self serving entity, wants as much amoney as possible in order to sustain and grow itself. The governemnet gets most of its money from taxes.

As a result, the only thing the governemnt cares about is to mximise the amount of taxes it collects. If you make more money as a kid having your own interent business and also therefore pay more taxes, the government will love you. This is simply because you are making it richer.

I think your logic in thinking that the governement wants the people it governs to remain poor and in debt is very false.

The reason the FTC is cracking down is because of the greed and corruption of certain members of our community of making false promises and ripping off people.

Apollo

[Joe118]

I have no problem with sticking the following disclaimer on all my sites:

================================================== ====
I am an affiliate of product X and will get paid a commission if you purchase the product.
================================================== ====

Very simple and straightforward.

If you've actually used the product then I would write something like this:

================================================== =====
While I am an affiliate of product X and will get paid a commission if you buy the product from my site, I have used this product and my opinion is XYZ.
================================================== =====

Opinions are still legal in this country as far as I can tell

[bobsedge]

As someone with too much experience with the FTC, here is what this is about.

First, the FTC is always selective. They pick an industry and then go after a few players in that industry. There will not be a sting on small bloggers. But the big guys better watch out, because they will be looking for someone to make an example of with this.

If you have a review site and/or have testimonials where there can be an alternative motive, you have to say so. In other words, if you are a columnist and writing an article on the best digital camera, you have nothing to worry about. But if you are a blogger and the reviews of the camera include an affiliate link, you basically have to state that you will be making money if the reader clicks on the link and makes a purchase.

With testimonials, if the person giving the testimonial is an affiliate, you better state that as a footnote in the testimonial.

The FTC can't enforce this across the board but if you are the unlucky SOB they go after, they have you.

And you never get dragged into court by the FTC. It doesn't get that far because a defense costs $1 million for starters. When you get sued by the FTC you plan your surrender. It starts with losing your assets and your business.

Even if you have the money to fight, they have not lost in court since 1979 when Amway beat them.

This is serious stuff and the power "gurus" out there better watch out because I guarantee that at least one will be in the news in the next 12 months because of this.

[ramone_johnny]

Man if its not Google, its the government.

[bobsedge]

The celebrity endorsement section of this makes me believe that the main target here is still infomercials.

But the testimonial section has some interesting ramifications. If you include a claim in a testimonial you now have to include whether the claim is typical and if its not typical, what is.

So a testimonial may look like this.

"Wow, I made $153,000 in six minutes using John's super duper lead generation system. And that was only the beginning...."

Note: the testimony you just read is not the typical results. The typical results are that 98 percent of users will stick this product on the shelf and never use it. Another 1.5 percent will earn ...


It could get interesting

[hyperlite]

A short disclaimer at the bottom of your page will take care of this. No big deal.

Either way this seems like one of those laws they won't enforce.

[Steven Wagenheim]

People, you gotta understand that there is a HUGE difference between a
review and a testimonial.

This...

"In John Doe's book, <insert title> he goes over the following:

Chapter 1 - blah, blah, blah
Chapter 2 - blah, blah, blah

etc.

is not the same as

This...

"In John Doe's book <insert title> he shows you a great way to cure,
treat, conquer, whatever <insert problem> and it is certain to work for
you 100%.

Just telling somebody what a product contains is NOT the same thing as
making claims that it will do anything.

If you keep your reviews to the facts of what is being given and make it
clear that you can't make any guarantees as to success with the product,
you have NOTHING to worry about.

Otherwise, Amazon.com would have to shut its doors.

Think I'm kidding?

Take a look at some of the products they sell and some of the writeups
on them.

Some come very close to endorsements.

Sticking to the facts will keep you out of trouble.

** DISCLAIMER ** As I am not a lawyer, I make no guarantees that the
above advice is 100% accurate. But it's a lot safer than raving about
that penis enlargement contraption you've been hawking when you weren't
born with one to begin with.

Use a little common sense folks.

[Jay Truman]

Originally Posted by bobsedge

The celebrity endorsement section of this makes me believe that the main target here is still infomercials.

Probably has more to do with Oprah, Obama, Dr.Oz, Rachel Ray, and all the other celebrities floggers used to promote CPA offers. Im sure its no coincidence this law came about right after all those marketers were rounded up by the AG.

[bobsedge]

Here is the thing, these rules are not put in place to round up everyone that breaks them, they are put into place to give the FTC more clout in going after the people they want to go after.

They always have people in mind when they make these changes. That being said, even if IM'ers are not in their sites now, it doesn't mean these rules won't be used against them later.

[GarrieWilson]

Originally Posted by spearce000

Whether they like it or not, America's laws end at America's borders. If you're outside the US and have your website or blog hosted on a server in your own country, you probably don't have a lot to worry about ... for now.

Hate to break it to you but you are sadly mistaken.

Thanks to international treaties signed by your government, they can come after you if you sell/promote to any one in the US.

It's not likely they will but they could. They will more than likely have your government do it.

Which brings up another (slightly off-topic) question. As governments the world over seek to regulate the Internet more and more, what's to stop the US (or any other government for that matter) from insisting that only websites that comply with their rules can be accessed from within their jurisdiction and blocking out those which don't? If China can censor Google, anything is possible.

Already being done in a way. There is no federal US law requiring privacy policies (last I looked) but California requires them. So if you want to sell to people in California, you better have one. If not, Arnold will terminate you.

[Jim Hallmark]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

People, you gotta understand that there is a HUGE difference between a
review and a testimonial.

Use a little common sense folks.

Couldn't agree more Steven. The panic wave here is generally not warranted. Will changes need to be made in how we operate? Certainly, but folks that's how we get paid in the first place, by our marketing! A little innovation is all that's going to be required in most cases.

[linkedinlincoln]

1- this wont really effect the market as a whole I think. Big time scammers (the target of this in my mind) are already under close scrutiny. And the fed's (though I'm sure they try ) don't have nearly the man power to clean up the mess below the radar... Most information or diet/health products make a couple hundred sales a week. which is enough to make a decent living as the owner, but not enough to raise the ire of the FTC.

2-Secondly, as a lot of government intrusion seems to do, this new set of guidelines will add several layers of bureaucracy without getting at the root of the problem.

The language is specific, if you use a consumer testimonial that "promises" or otherwise implies a specific result, then you must also show the "typical" result, which would be disastrous for companies selling products that don't live up to the hype. Except, they can still make the bogus claim, they just can't do it in testimonial form.

So, I say "BS Product X can make you billions of dollars" and then I have my friend Brad pose for a picture and say "Gee, I sure am glad I found BS Product X. This is life changing stuff! -Brad from Nebraska"

Now the claim has been made, Brad has essentially reinforced without saying anything actionable, and since I don't have have to counter my claim under the new guidelines because it was me saying it not Brad, I have an implied government endorsement courtesy of the FTC...

If anything, this will help the scammers who are willing to get "creative"

Meanwhile, who it really hurts are honest bloggers. Somehow if I print material and mail it or pass it out on a street corner, I'm protected by the first amendment, but if my words are stored and transmitted digitally (Tv, Blogs etc) I am under a level of scrutiny which essentially inhibits free speech.

If I review a product, and as a thank I get a free copy of said product, I have to disclose that. That's whether I actually endorsed the product or not, or even give it a good review. If I do happen to give it a positive review, my word becomes somehow tainted when I should have been a non-issue in the first place.

Unhappy about this to say the least. Rewarding dubious "creativity" in the name of the public good... While underming the credibility of digital media. I wouln't be surprised if print media lobbyists were supporting this.

-Kathy

[graham41]

i am soooo pleased ... finally good copywriters will florish and scam artists and those who exaggerate be damned. I AM SOO PLEASED !!

If this had happened 6 years ago a lot of honest innocent people with dreamswould not have been fleeced of thier savings by marketers with nothing to offer but shallow dreams

[blur]

Wouldn't this apply to the same print lobbyists too?

[thmgoodw]

Originally Posted by Dana_W

Does this affect people who already HAVE review sites up? Does everyone have to go back and change their wording or add disclosures?

If you've been driving 65mph in a 65mph zone, but they decrease the speed limit to 55mph, you couldn't be punished for driving 65mph prior to the enactment (actually the effective date) of the lower speed limit, but you certainly would be punished for driving 65mph after the the law goes into effect.

Same analysis here. You will be OK up until Dec. 1, then anything on the internet will be fair game (obviously subject to jurisdictional and citizenship issues).

[Joe Giannetti]

no more over inflated claims.....sounds good to me.

[thmgoodw]

Originally Posted by islander1

I don't see how the FTC could enforce this on people outside of the U.S., but we may want to stay away from U.S. based web hosting companies, etc.

There are two intertwined elements here.

First, the U.S. courts have in the past (and will continue in the future) to allow lawsuits against foreign residents not residing in the U.S., if such party does things like sell products to Americans. The U.S. courts will do what they think they need to do to protect american consumers.

Second, is the enforceability of any such judgment against you. If you ever step foot on U.S. soil, then certainly you would be in trouble then. In addition, with the various treaties and global agreements in place, there is a decent chance that the U.S. would be able to go after your assets in your country.

[Scott Ames]

Originally Posted by graham41

i am soooo pleased ... finally good copywriters will florish and scam artists and those who exaggerate be damned. I AM SOO PLEASED !!

If this had happened 6 years ago a lot of honest innocent people with dreamswould not have been fleeced of thier savings by marketers with nothing to offer but shallow dreams

Scan artists don't really care about following laws so they won't even blink at this. The assumption is that this rule change will solve all the ills of marketing. I doubt it very much. Honest marketers will jump through hoops to comply, but mostly it will give the government a big hammer to wallop anyone that makes a mistake.

The way its written there is going to have to be a lot of case law to narrow down what is acceptable and what is not. Lawyers love this.