FTC - why can't I just tell MY story...

[Hyaku_Man]

The law is stupid, but as with any law if you are being responsible you can fly under the radar. I don't think they made this law to screw over people who are being straightforward about their own experience. They made it to stop jerks from lying through their teeth to sell a hidden rebill. They're overshooting with the wording so they can smash those marketers without obstacle.

I don't think it's the government's place to encourage consumers to be irresponsible and stop reading the fine print, but I'm not really scared by it because I always try to offer value to the consumer.

[SageSound]

Steve, I've posted several replies in a few threads, and everybody prefers to ignore my comments.

If you look at the bigger picture, I really don't think this is the problem they're trying to address with these regulations.

If consumers are spending $40 billion dollars a year on weight-loss products, and have been for a decade, and yet the obesity rates have been climbing year after year after year, it's pretty dang clear that the "typical" results are quite far from what these snake-oil vendors are claiming. In fact, many research studies show that severely obese people spend abnormally high amounts on one diet fad after another. Statistically, you could easily conclude that the "typical result of most of them is ... you'll GAIN weight!

The top complaints received by the FTC every year are regarding being ripped-off by scammers who make exaggerated claims like this and have no way to back them up. Many of them are fly-by-night and even though they advertise "100% money-back guarantee!", they've packed up and moved on by the time people have figured out they've been duped.

The FTC has been trying to do something about these guys for years, but they've been fairly ineffective, as anybody who has observed the growth of weight-loss, hair-regrowth, penile and breast enhancement product markets can attest.

Anyway, why are you trying to debate with a bunch of armchair wannabe lawyers who are regurgitating reinterpretations of opinions based on second-hand information?

If you take most of the stuff being said here literally, then 90% of the media ads we are bombarded with every day are about to disappear in the forms we currently know them to be. They'd be replaced with shorter ads having 10-second voice-overs at the end by some guy speaking 200 wpm reading a list of disclaimers that some lawyer told them would protect them if the FTC got nosy.

One thing is fairly predictable: headlines like "Who else wants to make $30,000 a month working one hour a day in your bathrobe?" are going to be disappearing, and replaced by more reasonable headlines.

If you or I post something on our OWN blog, where we're reporting on our OWN activities over time, then based on the ENTIRE UNIVERSE of people who we KNOW participated in that EXACT set of activities (ie., one), the "typical" results are EXACTLY what we reported. Where's the problem there?

One thing is for certain: there will be some court cases and the courts will either clarify the legal boundaries of these "guidelines", or they'll declare them null and void. That's how things work.

The funny thing about all of this is ... people are going haywire over these FTC guidelines set up to curb false claims, yet they showed up just one week after Google launched something that allows anybody to post grafitti over any web site making ANY CLAIMS THEY WANT, with no recourse or ability to block those comments by the owner of the site being grafittied. So, what happens if dozens of SideWiki graffitiers start using it to post false and misleading claims on every ad and promotional site they encounter?

You're either going to have to convince Google that they're false, or face the FTC charging YOU with allowing others to make false claims on your site!

Hmmm..... things get murkier and murkier....

-David

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

I think Winebuddy makes a valid point.

If I use a system that makes me per month and can show documented
proof (my tax returns) that I make this money, why can't I state this on
my sales page?

What, I'm not allowed to report my own results with my own product that
I created even if I say "I can't promise this system will make you any money
at all?"

Quite honestly, if I did this (which I do right now on my sales pages with
no testimonials) and the FTC comes after me, I'll take my chances in court
because I think that is stretching the intent of the law beyond what it was
intended to do.

** Disclaimer ** I am not a lawyer and can't 100% say that my feelings
on this are right, but I am sure enough that I would be willing to take
my chances in court. Everybody else has to do what they feel is right.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by SageSound

So, what happens if dozens of SideWiki graffitiers start using it to post false and misleading claims on every ad and promotional site they encounter?

You're either going to have to convince Google that they're false, or face the FTC charging YOU with allowing others to make false claims on your site!

Not so. Those comments are Google's site, not mine. They're ABOUT my site, but I'm not publishing them.

Furthermore:

C. Comments Concerning the Liability of Endorsers and Advertisers for Endorsements Disseminated Through New Media

Several comments questioned whether the advertiser should be liable for statements made by endorsers who use new media. One suggested that the advertiser should be liable for comments of an “endorser” only if the advertiser had the ability to control the consumer’s statements. Thus, if consumers are free to say what they wish about the product – or, if they choose, to say nothing about it – the advertiser should not face potential liability.

[Aljiro]

Originally Posted by Steven Wagenheim

The problem with this whole law, ruling, whatever you want to call it, is
that it is "vague" enough so that you honestly don't know what you can
and can't do, not entirely.

Sure, the obvious violations are just that, obvious.

But when you start talking about "typical" and telling your "own story", a
common and highly effective sales letter strategy, that's when it gets
fuzzy.

Let's say I'm suffering from constipation and I find just by eating more
fiber and regularly exercising I "cure" my constipation and write a book
telling people what I did to cure it.

I then write a sales letter stating the following:

"Discover How A 45 Year Old Man Cured 17 Years Of Chronic Constipation"

And I tell my story of how I suffered from this problem and then, when I
discovered what I needed to do to get rid of it, my constipation was gone.

How in the name of all that is right in this world is this against any kind
of rational law if I also include...

"I can't promise that what I discovered will work for you, but it has made
a dramatic change in my life"

in the sales copy itself?

Okay, based on what has come down from the FTC, is this or isn't the
above scenario within or against the law?

1. There are no testimonials other than my own personal experience,
which I do not consider a testimonial.

2. There are no claims made that the person getting this info will receive
any results at all.

If anybody here can tell me absolutely 100% for sure that the above
scenario is against FTC guidelines, I want them to show me, citing the
actual wording in the law that says this.

Because if what I just described is against the law, then every sales
page in the Clickbank Marketplace under health and fitness needs
to be taken down.

I'm all for "protecting" people and coming after the scammers, but if what
I just described is going to land anybody in jail, then there is something
seriously wrong with this law and we are all in very big trouble.

Thanks for bringing this up Steve.

I get your point and things are a bit clearer for me.

Though I'm curious where this thread will lead to.

[MichaelHiles]

The funny thing about all of this is that any book that has been pubished - even those from Harvard Press, about any kind of management topic, philosophy, theory, etc... could all be considered to be in violation of the FTC as they don't include the requisite "average results" etc...

Take for example, Jay Conrad Levinson's "Guerilla Marketing", a very popular marketing book. If the publisher continues to print the book without any of the requisite disclaimers, there's trouble for everyone involved.

The a$$hattery is big with this one.

[winebuddy]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

The funny thing about all of this is that any book that has been pubished - even those from Harvard Press, about any kind of management topic, philosophy, theory, etc... could all be considered to be in violation of the FTC as they don't include the requisite "average results" etc...

Take for example, Jay Conrad Levinson's "Guerilla Marketing", a very popular marketing book. If the publisher continues to print the book without any of the requisite disclaimers, there's trouble for everyone involved.

The a$ is big with this one.

Agreed. Does anyone know how to point someone at the FTC to some of these threads? Maybe they could have someone join us in this discussion?

Now that would be awesome!

[Steven Carl Kelly]

"Average results" aren't always required.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by Kirk Ward

If you don't think we are headed for mob rule, then you haven't been watching the news and seeing who gets what. We are at the "circus and bread" stage of decline in a republic, and the democracy part is starting to show through.

Hi Kirk,

that wasn't the point I was making. It wasn't me that brought up the idea of "mob rule."

I guess the point I should have made in response to the original "mob rule" comment was that I would consider mob rule to include allowing unscrupulous marketers to ride roughshot over consumers and regulations unchecked by a higher governance.

Just because they (wrongly) believe it is their "right" to do so.

Marketers can't have it both ways. They can't insist on doing as they please without consequence *and* at the same time seek to preserve the integrity of the very structures and institutions that protect them from chaos.

Tom

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

The funny thing about all of this is that any book that has been pubished - even those from Harvard Press, about any kind of management topic, philosophy, theory, etc... could all be considered to be in violation of the FTC as they don't include the requisite "average results" etc...

Take for example, Jay Conrad Levinson's "Guerilla Marketing", a very popular marketing book. If the publisher continues to print the book without any of the requisite disclaimers, there's trouble for everyone involved.

The a$ is big with this one.

You'll have to explain to me why the above is true, I may be missing what you're saying here. Can you elaborate why these books would be subject to "average results" statements?

[MichaelHiles]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

You'll have to explain to me why the above is true, I may be missing what you're saying here. Can you elaborate why these books would be subject to "average results" statements?

Because it's making claims about the specific success of a single case study without the disclosure of the "averages".

Buy my book that tells you how to be successful.

I show you how to be successful because of a case study.

I don't tell you the average results of the other 25,000,000 people that bought my book.

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

Unfortunately, it is not I that doesn't get it. "WE" in a civilized society DO have that duty - not some nameless, faceless, government entity - but as individuals.

Since when do citizens go out of their way to protect people from anything? If it weren't for all the scams, this would have never been necessary. It's not a nameless gov entity ... it's called the FTC and it exists to protect consumers from the scammers and thiefs, much the same as police exist to protect citizens from murder, theft, and other crimes. I wouldn't put my fate in the hands of "citizens."

[MichaelHiles]

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Since when do citizens go out of their way to protect people from anything? If it weren't for all the scams, this would have never been necessary. It's not a nameless gov entity ... it's called the FTC and it exists to protect consumers from the scammers and thiefs, much the same as police exist to protect citizens from murder, theft, and other crimes. I wouldn't put my fate in the hands of "citizens."

Well, I'd argue that the police are there to protect you from those things.

In fact, the supreme court ruled that an officer has no specific duty to protect someone.

Cops are "first responders" after an incident happens - they're there to take pictures, write a report, and hose the blood off the pavement.

[JohnMcCabe]

[Insert standard CYA -IANAL, etc.]

Winebuddy/Steve, as I read the memo outlining the change, you as product creator, don't count. If you create some process and tell your own story, it's considered an advertisement, rather than a third-party endorsement.

Edit:

As an advertiser, you would still fall under the already established rules for advertising (documentation of claimed results, etc.)

Sal, you said:

We're talking fines of $11,000. $11,000 dollars? Now it's pretty obvious to me that they are NOT going after the major players......such as pharmaceutical companies. Is an $11,000 dollar fine impetus for a pharmaceutical company to publicly state that 25% of all people that use one of their drugs suffer from debilitating side effects or death from use of their product? They are after small businesses. Period.

Again, as I read it, that $11,000 fine is per incident, not per piece of creative.

If a drug company creates an ad that fails to make the proper disclaimers, the fine isn't $11,000 for the ad. It's $11,000 multiplied by the number of times the ad is presented. If an ad runs 10,000 times nationwide, times $11,000 per incident, the fine could be $110,000,000. $110 million in fines is definitely an impetus to comply.

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

Pretty soon, they will go after Steve's Constipation Cure.

THAT is my problem with it.

Unless you're a multi-million dollar scammer, I doubt they will ever come after anyone. That's not to say that they shouldn't if you are a scammer, but it simply won't be possible for the FTC to police all the small fry. They will make cases out of big operations and that's it. They said in their own publication that they weren't big enough to police millions of posts and this will be largely self-regulated.

Ridiculous to speculate that they are going to run out of "things to do" and start targeting every marketer on the Internt.

[sbucciarel]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

Well, I'd argue that the police are there to protect you from those things.

In fact, the supreme court ruled that an officer has no specific duty to protect someone.

Cops are "first responders" after an incident happens - they're there to take pictures, write a report, and hose the blood off the pavement.

Well that's not exactly true. By removing serial killers from society, that's one serial killer that won't harm someone else. By arresting drunk drivers, he's not likely to kill someone that night. They are also investigators who investigate criminals before others are harmed. Unlike the citizens who ignore the screams of a victim because they don't want to be involved. However imperfect, I'm glad there are agencies to protect victims and potential victims.

For those who are freaking out over the FTC Rules, read this thread

An FTC thread that you REALLY should read

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by MichaelHiles

I don't tell you the average results of the other 25,000,000 people that bought my book.

According to the FTC, you don't have to.

[rtrotter]

Originally Posted by tomw

Marketers can't have it both ways. They can't insist on doing as they please without consequence *and* at the same time seek to preserve the integrity of the very structures and institutions that protect them from chaos.

Well the government cannot have it both ways either. They want to make laws that protect people who are too stupid to read and think for themselves. On the other hand, the government will not allow ignorance of the law as a defense if you break the law.

[tomw]

By the same token, any company owner too stupid to appraise himself of the laws and regulations governing his endeavours shouldn't be in business.

And certainly any official of a registered or incorporated company should not be afforded leniency for breaking them simply because they could not be bothered to read the incorporation documents that they signed or familiarise themselves with the regulations governing the industry from which they erroneously profited.

Surely?

Also, why should a consumer be forced to read every single word in order to protect themselves from deception in cases where an unscrupulous marketer has either gone to great lengths to hide them or used them to cover themselves in regard to outlandish, false and misleading headline claims? Or in any other situation.

Consider this example:

If your child has a nut allergy and you give her a candy bar that has some five point copy hidden in the seal fold of the wrapper stating "may containing traces of nuts" and she ends up in the emergency room after eating it, who's fault is this?

1> Yours for being too "stupid" to take the time to search for and read the notification?
2> Hers for being "stupid" and trusting her father and eating it?
3> The confectionary company's for their great marketing tactic of hiding the warning away?
4> All of the above?

Wouldn't life be much simpler (and safer) if the warning was on the front, prominent enough so that a parent doesn't have to worry about putting their child's life at risk whenever giving her a treat?

Tom

[rtrotter]

So, company owners that don't bother to do their homework are at fault but consumers who don't bother to do their homework prior to purchasing need to be protected.

I guess you think that's fair.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by rtrotter

So, company owners that don't bother to do their homework are at fault but consumers who don't bother to do their homework prior to purchasing need to be protected.

I guess you think that's fair.

I don't see why any customer should have to do homework to the kind of extent required in many cases. They pay their money, they rightly expect and are entitled to value for it.

Why should they have to search for 6 point disclaimer copy hidden away somewhere that states:

You paid a thousand dollars for this product and although in the headline I promised you it was going to make you rich, the truth is that my super duper twenty four hour millionaire maker system has only really worked once and that was subject to market conditions or factors that are no longer applicable. The headline figure quoted didn't take into account advertising costs, development costs or payments that I had to make to my affiliates. Oh yeah and it took me about a year of training and hard work to put myself in a position where I had the knowledge, skills, contacts and systems to make that revenue in twenty four hours. I've tried to replicate this success on many occasions but stupidly blown most of my original income on the kind of costs that I hid from you. So now I'm up $h*t creek without a paddle and frankly, desperate for money. If it still worked, obviously I wouldn't be wasting your time or money with this deceptive sales pitch as I would be milking my system for all it's worth. As such, I decided to package up what I did once as a couple of ebooks and some really crappy screen capture videos that I made at home in about an hour and sell them to really stupid people like you. They call it an infoproduct. Frank Kern and all those guys say that selling infoproducts would make me rich. I read it in a course I bought from one of them for two thousand dollars. They even helped me out by writing some testimonials detailing how amazing and revolutionary my course is and I only have to pay them eighty five percent of all of my profits. So now I'm hoping to eek out a living on the internet by ripping off unsuspecting desperate people just like you that can't really afford to spend the kind of money I'm asking for something that won't really work. For now I'm just gonna keep my head down and hide from the FTC until I make enough money to stay at the Hard Rock Hotel in San Diego where all really cool internet marketers hang out and finally I'll be able to act like I'm one of the big boys, even though you're only my second customer and I still owe a few instalments on Frank Kern's course. Anyway, thanks for the grand. So long sucka!

Tom

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by rtrotter

So, company owners that don't bother to do their homework are at fault but consumers who don't bother to do their homework prior to purchasing need to be protected.

I guess you think that's fair.

I think it is fair that consumers are easily misled by false claims and that regulations which make such claims less likely are, generally speaking, good ones.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by winebuddy

OK - been reading all the threads on the new FTC stuff and it occurred to me that I could just write and tell MY story.

I won't promise or guarantee or even insinuate that others can replicate it. I'll tell you what I did and how I did it and if you want the complete step by step on it, then buy this and download it.

I could also easily say in the copy that maybe this will work for you and maybe it won't - but it worked for me.

Thoughts?

BTW, in case I was not clear:

The above is, IMO, perfectly acceptable under the new FTC guide.

[rtrotter]

Let me ask, what percentage of companies do you think are unscrupulous marketers? What percent of companies do you think treat consumers unfairly?

[Victoria Neely]

Originally Posted by tomw

Consider this example:

If your child has a nut allergy and you give her a candy bar that has some five point copy hidden in the seal fold of the wrapper stating "may containing traces of nuts" and she ends up in the emergency room after eating it, who's fault is this?

1> Yours for being too "stupid" to take the time to search for and read the notification?
2> Hers for being "stupid" and trusting her father and eating it?
3> The confectionary company's for their great marketing tactic of hiding the warning away?
4> All of the above?

Wouldn't life be much simpler (and safer) if the warning was on the front, prominent enough so that a parent doesn't have to worry about putting their child's life at risk whenever giving her a treat?

Tom

If I had a child with a peanut allergy, you bet I'm going to look for the warning on that candy bar or any other treat. Even if the candy bar was peanut-free, I'd *still* think twice about it, because I'm going to assume most candy bars are tainted with peanuts. Checking food would be my responsibility as a parent, and I'd feel horrible, absolutely HORRIBLE if my child went to the emergency room because I wasn't careful.

I'm all for having a simple warning somewhere. But I wouldn't expect the candy bar company to put a prominent peanut warning on the front of the packaging, because the vast majority of people don't have a peanut allergy. If peanut warnings must be displayed prominently on the package, then why not eggs, milk, wheat, soy, and shellfish? Some people are highly allergic to those things, too. How about big sugar warnings for diabetics?

As for the rest of us, we're mostly concerned about weight gain and health problems we might get as a result of eating junk food. We could use flashy warnings for high fat, high sugar, and migraine-triggering MSG.

I guess I just believe people need to take responsibility for themselves instead of depending on companies to do their thinking for them. Businesses exist to make money. It's simply not in their best interest to make their products sound mediocre or to go out of their way to list reasons why you shouldn't buy their product. They better not sell "snake soil" or lie about their products, but otherwise I don't see why they should be punished for looking out for their bottom line.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by rtrotter

Let me ask, what percentage of companies do you think are unscrupulous marketers? What percent of companies do you think treat consumers unfairly?

Not sure if you're asking me or someone else, so perhaps I'll answer:

I have no idea what the percentage is. All I know is that, based on my years in the online marketing arena, I would estimate that the number of unscrupulous marketers ONLINE is exceptionally high. Much higher than offline and certainly much higher than most people probably think.

Too many unscrupulous marketers online will have a severely negative impact on the legitimate marketers online by eroding consumer trust in online marketing messages. In fact, it's already happened, examples occur right here in the Warrior Forum.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by vneely

If I had a child with a peanut allergy, you bet I'm going to look for the warning on that candy bar or any other treat. Even if the candy bar was peanut-free, I'd *still* think twice about it, because I'm going to assume most candy bars are tainted with peanuts. Checking food would be my responsibility as a parent, and I'd feel horrible, absolutely HORRIBLE if my child went to the emergency room because I wasn't careful.

I'm all for having a simple warning somewhere. But I wouldn't expect the candy bar company to put a prominent peanut warning on the front of the packaging, because the vast majority of people don't have a peanut allergy. If peanut warnings must be displayed prominently on the package, then why not eggs, milk, wheat, soy, and shellfish? Some people are highly allergic to those things, too. How about big sugar warnings for diabetics?

As for the rest of us, we're mostly concerned about weight gain and health problems we might get as a result of eating junk food. We could use flashy warnings for high fat, high sugar, and migraine-triggering MSG.

I guess I just believe people need to take responsibility for themselves instead of depending on companies to do their thinking for them. Businesses exist to make money. It's simply not in their best interest to make their products sound mediocre or to go out of their way to list reasons why you shouldn't buy their product. They better not sell "snake soil" or lie about their products, but otherwise I don't see why they should be punished for looking out for their bottom line.

I appreciate your POV, but I really can't agree with it.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by vneely

I guess I just believe people need to take responsibility for themselves instead of depending on companies to do their thinking for them. Businesses exist to make money. It's simply not in their best interest to make their products sound mediocre or to go out of their way to list reasons why you shouldn't buy their product. They better not sell "snake soil" or lie about their products, but otherwise I don't see why they should be punished for looking out for their bottom line.

I agree to an extent but the problem arises when companies go out of their way to deceive and then we need checks and balances to penalise (and hopefully prevent) them.

Tom

[tomw]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Not sure if you're asking me or someone else, so perhaps I'll answer:

I have no idea what the percentage is. All I know is that, based on my years in the online marketing arena, I would estimate that the number of unscrupulous marketers ONLINE is exceptionally high. Much higher than offline and certainly much higher than most people probably think.

Too many unscrupulous marketers online will have a severely negative impact on the legitimate marketers online by eroding consumer trust in online marketing messages. In fact, it's already happened, examples occur right here in the Warrior Forum.

You're right and this is due, in no small part, to a lack of real and perceived accountability.

Tom

[Collette]

Originally Posted by Jason_V

Actually, while humorous, there is an example that relates directly to the new guidelines:

YouTube - Jamie Lee Curtis and Activia Yogurt

Activia is going to have to:

A: Prove that Jamie Lee Curtis no longer has irregular bowel movements and that this will be the "typical" results for all who eat it.

B: Disclose that she is being paid a "crap load" <pun intended> of money for endorsing Activia.

P.S. Did you catch that small print disclaimer during? I guess that won't be good enough anymore.

Pay close attention to the script.

At NO point does JLC say, "I used Activia, and these were the results."

Instead she:

- Quotes easily verifiable facts drawn from an easily verifable source (the newspaper).

- Says she "DISCOVERED something than MAY help"

- Goes on to say (in essence) "Here's how added fibre in your diet can help you with this problem (facts not in dispute). Activia has fibre in it. "

- And finishes up with "And Activia tastes great."

NOWHERE in all this does she say, "Activia cured my constipation problem, and it will/can cure your constipation."

In fact, she never even says she has, or had, a problem with constipation. Or that she sought any kind of relief from constipation.

Nor does she say, "Activia can cure constipation problems."

This ad, in no way violates the FTC guidelines. It's squeaky clean.

Yet the overall impression is that JLC has uses/has used Activia to help her constipation problem.

This ad is an example of how skilfully written copy helps you obey the FTC rules AND still sell effectively.

THIS is why... Words Matter.

[DogScout]

"Nor should Example 6 to Section 255.0 be read to suggest that every appearance by a
well-known personality will be deemed an endorsement. As the Commission previously noted,
this example was added “to illustrate that the determination of whether a speaker’s statement is
an endorsement depends solely on whether consumers believe that it represents the endorser’s
own view.” Id. Example 6 does not expand the scope of potential endorser liability but merely
“clarifies that whether the person making the statement is speaking from a script, or giving the
endorsement in his or her words, is irrelevant to the determination.” Id. In this example, the
celebrity’s statement that the home fitness system being advertised “is the most effective and
easy-to-use home exercise machine that she has ever tried” would clearly be understood by
consumers as an expression of personal belief. Moreover, new Example 7 to Section 255.0
presents a situation in which well-known persons who appear in advertising are not deemed to be
endorsers."

[Collette]

BTW: Print-published books are considered "expressions of personal beliefs" and are covered under First Amendment Right.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by Collette

Pay close attention to the script.

Excellent analysis.

Originally Posted by Collette

THIS is why... Words Matter.

Very much so.

[Jeremy Wilson]

Wouldn't life be much simpler (and safer) if the warning was on the front, prominent enough so that a parent doesn't have to worry about putting their child's life at risk whenever giving her a treat?

Well, honestly, to paraphrase the comedian Denis Leary, we could take cigarettes put them in a black pack with a skull and crossbones on the front with "you will eventually DIE if you smoke enough of these" in huge letters and the cigarette industry would still be a multi billion dollar business.

And people would still sue the tobacco companies for selling a dangerous product because they were not aware of the dangers. :-)

To take the candy bar example further, they would not only need to make warnings about peanut allergies prominent but also every other kind of allergy that might flare up from any combination of the ingredients.




Then, the legal battles would start because some obscure allergy that only .0001% of the population has was not included and those allergy sufferers feel discriminated against.

Then the various groups representing the various allergy sufferers would want to make sure their allergy were more prominently displayed on the wrapper.

Does the most common allergy need to be listed in larger font or a different color? OR maybe the really rare allergies should take prominence because they are so rare?

Millions of tax payer dollars would be wasted, millions of people would be directly or indirectly involved.

Or

Keep the candy wrappers as they are, and worry about the extremely rare and very few legitimate instances of allergic reactions on a case by case basis.


I get your point, I truly do.

My point is that most things could probably be resolved in a common sense fashion. Like say having an area on all ingredient labels dedicated to listing ingredients that typically cause allergic reactions would work well (although we know what would happen if somethign was left off by accident)

But instead we get crazy mezzy bloated expensive and wasteful solutions to most all issues/problems that end up helping practically no one.


The FTC is going to go after the big scammers but the little guys need to worried to, especially the affiliates of the big scammers. Once a company is cracked down on, the FTC can then begin to follow where the money and customers come from and that is where we will initially see the some of the smaller guys take a hit as a result of some sort of association with the bigger companies/scammers

[magentawave]

Originally Posted by tomw

Heading in the opposite direction of Rand's view of Capitalism is no bad thing. Capitalism leads to disregard for the very idea of democracy (if such a thing ever has or ever will exist) and altruism and hands power over the masses to the wealthy few.



Tom

Awwww, your little marxist philosophy would be sooooo cute Tom - if it weren't so dangerously naive. Every tangible thing you have is because of capitalism Tom. The food you eat, the car you drive, the clothing you wear, THIS forum, etc., etc., etc.


The reason why this "ruling" is so F-ed up is because it is:

• Extremely vague.
• It assumes that every adult is a little baby that needs to be looked out for by the nanny state.
• It will give EVERY competing website OUTSIDE the U.S.A. a huge advantage over every site within the U.S.A. because they won't need to comply with these rules.

The vagueness of this reminds me of the persecution inflicted on Howard Stern by the FCC. The problem that Stern faced was that the rules were vague. He used to say directly to the head of the FCC: "Be specific as to exactly what we can say or do and we will comply." But instead he and Infinity Broadcasting were hit with multiple million dollar fines that finally drove him over to satellite (and a big fat juicy $500 million dollar contract - we should be so lucky!).

Steve

[Steven Wagenheim]

As for the Activia ad, Collette is absolutely right. At no point does JLC make
any claims about the product.

The only line in that whole ad that you can even look at in question is the
one about the clinical trials. But if Activia has those on file and can show
them to the FTC, then their butt's covered.

Again, I am no lawyer and this is just MY opinion.

Ultimately, we're all going to have to wait and see how this goes down
because the truth is, unless we are part of the FTC or a lawyer trained in
this area, we are just guessing.

And we all know what kind of trouble THAT can get us into.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by magentawave

Awwww, your little marxist philosophy would be sooooo cute Tom - if it weren't so dangerously naive. Every tangible thing you have is because of capitalism Tom. The food you eat, the car you drive, the clothing you wear, THIS forum, etc., etc., etc.


The reason why this "ruling" is so F-ed up is because it is:

• Extremely vague.
• It assumes that every adult is a little baby that needs to be looked out for by the nanny state.
• It will give EVERY competing website OUTSIDE the U.S.A. a huge advantage over every site within the U.S.A. because they won't need to comply with these rules.

The vagueness of this reminds me of the persecution inflicted on Howard Stern by the FCC. The problem that Stern faced was that the rules were vague. He used to say directly to the head of the FCC: "Be specific as to exactly what we can say or do and we will comply." But instead he and Infinity Broadcasting were hit with multiple million dollar fines that finally drove him over to satellite (and a big fat juicy $500 million dollar contract - we should be so lucky!).

Steve

Thanks for attempting to patronise me, but you seem to have missed the



and the fact that it was simply a quip.

I know which side my bread's buttered and have a network of successful evil capitalist companies to ensure I have jam too.



Tom

[rtrotter]

So let's see, on that peanut warning, since the allergic reaction is NOT typical it should be stated as not typical and that the average response is happy feeling due to how wonderful the candy is. That would comply with the new FTC rules.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by rtrotter

So let's see, on that peanut warning, since the allergic reaction is NOT typical it should be stated as not typical and that the average response is happy feeling due to how wonderful the candy is. That would comply with the new FTC rules.

Except that food safety warnings are the responsibility of the FDA, not the FTC. So, really, it doesn't apply here...

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by magentawave

The reason why this "ruling" is so F-ed up is because it is:

• Extremely vague.
• It assumes that every adult is a little baby that needs to be looked out for by the nanny state.
• It will give EVERY competing website OUTSIDE the U.S.A. a huge advantage over every site within the U.S.A. because they won't need to comply with these rules.

I'm not Tom, but can you point out all the parts where the FTC guide (not a ruling, this law has been in effect for decades) is "extremely vague"? I've read the entire document several times, and I actually think they did a pretty good job in developing a large number of examples.

[magentawave]

Originally Posted by tomw

Thanks for attempting to patronise me, but you seem to have missed the



and the fact that it was simply a quip.

I know which side my bread's buttered and have a network of successful evil capitalist companies to ensure I have jam too.



Tom

Ooops! Well then I am really very sorry about that Tom.

Steve

[rtrotter]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Except that food safety warnings are the responsibility of the FDA, not the FTC. So, really, it doesn't apply here...

FDA would regulate to insure safety of the product and FTC to make sure you are advertising it correctly.

Of course the most correct warning would be it contains peanuts and although you have never had a peanut allergy you could still have a reaction any time you eat it.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by rtrotter

Of course the most correct warning would be it contains peanuts and although you have never had a peanut allergy you could still have a reaction any time you eat it.

True story... I bought a jar of chunky peanut butter the other day and on the label it said: "Warning: May contain peanuts".

I would certainly HOPE so!

[tomw]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

True story... I bought a jar of chunky peanut butter the other day and on the label it said: "Warning: May contain peanuts".

I would certainly HOPE so!

Unless they bought it from David Schwimmer's Dad's mixed fruit and nut company...then you never know.



Tom

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by tomw

Unless they bought it from David Schwimmer's Dad's mixed fruit and nut company...then you never know.

I don't understand that comment, but I will assume it is funny!

[DASHBOY]

So why ain't the late night "Get Rich Quick" advertisments on the TV not getting hit with this rule too?

They are just as bad if not worse!!

Graeme

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Originally Posted by DASHBOY

So why ain't the late night "Get Rich Quick" advertisments on the TV not getting hit with this rule too?

The law itself has been around for decades and these TV ads have been covered by them for a long time. The new "guides" are just administrative interpretations of the law which are published to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act. The guides 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.

So if you find a deceptive ad on TV, you have the right to report it.

[tomw]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

I don't understand that comment, but I will assume it is funny!

It's from Curb Your Enthusiasm...

Tom

[winebuddy]

FTC hits prime time - front page of AOL....

'Results Not Typical' Banned From Diet Ads - That's Fit

[nimcus38318]

Originally Posted by Jason_V

Actually, while humorous, there is an example that relates directly to the new guidelines:


Activia is going to have to:

A: Prove that Jamie Lee Curtis no longer has irregular bowel movements and that this will be the "typical" results for all who eat it.

B: Disclose that she is being paid a "crap load" <pun intended> of money for endorsing Activia.

P.S. Did you catch that small print disclaimer during? I guess that won't be good enough anymore.

I think we should all protest Activia until they truly explain what "biphidous regularis", their active ingredient, is. That has always made me laugh. Could you come up with a more stupid name that sounds scientific?

Sorry, just my pet peeve with Activia.

[marlon]

I think this new law is just great.

And just to help book publishers comply with typicality of results, I've taken the liberty to assist them in rewriting titles for a few best sellers:

1. The Bible -- For .12 percent of the world's population
2. How to win friends and influence people (works for .02% who read and actually try it)
3. Swim With The Sharks And Don't Get Eaten (unless you're the 99.9% who buy this book, don't read it and get eaten anyways)
4. How to write good english (works for appoximately .05% of buyers!)
5. How to write a good advertisement (.10% of the time...)
6. Awaken The Giant Within (Works for .003% of Readers)
7. The 10 Commandments (as followed by .0000001% of readers)
8. Tested Advertising Methods That Work For Almost No One
9. How I Raised Myself From Failure To Success In Selling But Don't Get YOUR Hopes Up Because We Know You Are Average And Won't Be Able to Do Jack Squat
10. Warren Buffets Secrets That Work for .00002% Of Buyers
11. How to have great sex approximately .02% of the time
12. Fill in your OWN favorite new book title

And I can't wait to see the new SUBWAY commercial where Jared lost 108 lbs while the average Subway customer gained 20 lbs because they also pig out on pizza and beer.