Do Old WSOs Have to Be Edited By Dec 1 for FTC Compliance?

[Ron Douglas]

- "Make 10,000 a Month Working 15 Minutes per Day - Guaranteed!"
- "Earn $1,500 Right Friggin Now"
- "Make So Much Money That You'll Date a Super Model and Get Lucky Tonight"
- "Drive a Ferrari Just Like Me by Noon on Thursday"
- "Automate Your Blog Posts and Make Cash Fly Out Your Monitor Instantly"

All exaggerations of course - but it seems like the more outrageous and seemingly easy to do the better your WSO will do.

But what about Dec 1st? Do all these WSOs need to be edited and toned down to comply?

[Hesaidblissfully]

From my understanding, yes. Unless the author/merchant can verify his claims and indicates what the "average" user can expect in terms of results.

OTOH, I believe that the new regulations are complaints-driven, which means that WSO's might not even make it onto the FTC's radar unless they start getting complaints about them.

And as always, not a lawyer. Just my interpretation.

[Ken Preuss]

Agreed with the previous poster... with one important caveat:

1) Technically yes, all WSO's (existing or new) should conform to the new FTC regs starting December 1st

2) It is *highly unlikely* that any WSO will end up on the FTC's radar - the FTC will go after the biggest culprits as they've been doing recently (e.g. infomercials, diet supplement websites, health websites, biz opp sites with massive traffic & exposure, etc.)

That being said, here's the caveat as it relates to WSO's:

I predict that Warriors themselves will somewhat "enforce" the FTC compliance in the WSO section.

As hard core as Warriors can be, there's no doubt in my mind that we will begin to see a shift in WSO titles and copy based on the natural "inner policing" that takes place here among members.

My .02,
Ken

[Imran Naseem]

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

- "Make 10,000 a Month Working 15 Minutes per Day - Guaranteed!"
- "Earn $1,500 Right Friggin Now"
- "Make So Much Money That You'll Date a Super Model and Get Lucky Tonight"
- "Drive a Ferrari Just Like Me by Noon on Thursday"
- "Automate Your Blog Posts and Make Cash Fly Out Your Monitor Instantly"

All exaggerations of course - but it seems like the more outrageous and seemingly easy to do the better your WSO will do.

But what about Dec 1st? Do all these WSOs need to be edited and toned down to comply?

Well thats up to Allen.

I am sure the FTC are going to go after the bigger fish but we will see.

[Steven Carl Kelly]

Why would an expired/closed WSO need to altered?

[Steve Sieloff]

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

. . . But what about Dec 1st? Do all these WSOs need to be edited and toned down to comply?

Ron,

That's a simple, but interesting question. (Which means that the simpler the question, the more difficult it is to answer )

So, after reading your question, the following occurred to me.

The WSO forum isn't your local newspaper, isn't your local TV station, isn't a magazine on a newstand, isn't a cable network, TV network, or a late-night shopping channel, etc.

You're talking about a paid advertising section of a privately owned forum that isn't really a general public advertising outlet (or is it?).

I'm not sure a WSO would fall under the new rules at all unless, as the previous post said, the FTC gets a bunch of complaints. I would think you could hype up a WSO all you want.

However, the minute you add a line to your WSO copy that says, "See the full sales page here" that links to your page on the web, now your sales hype is available to every consumer that sees it. That would surely make it fall under the new rules.

hmmm. As I think about it a little more, I may have actually added more questions to your question instead of answering it.

[Hesaidblissfully]

Originally Posted by Steven Carl Kelly

Why would an expired/closed WSO need to altered?

I think Ron's just referring to WSO's that have already been posted prior to December 1st. If the WSO's no longer being sold, then there'd be no point in changing it.

[Ron Douglas]

Originally Posted by Steve Sieloff

You're talking about a paid advertising section of a privately owned forum that isn't really a general public advertising outlet (or is it?).

I see your point but I think a publicly available section of one of the top 1,000 sites on the Internet is more on the radar than some might think.

[Imran Naseem]

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

I see your point but I think a publicly available section of one of the top 1,000 sites on the Internet is more on the radar than some might think.

Does that mean every single person who has a headline like that will change it because of this? Or if they do not change it the FTC are going to come after them?

Sure, this site gets a lot of traffic but I am sure the FTC will have a much bigger target in mind

[indexphp]

The FTC won't come after you... and if they do, they'll tell you to take it down first.

And from what I know... the latest FTC stuff is for testimonials anyways.

[Gene Pimentel]

If the WSO is still capable of attracting business, then yes, it will need to be in compliance. If your old WSO is no longer accepting purchases, it would be wise to close it if it is not in compliance.

[TelegramSam]

Probably not just big fish.

They will want to catch and make examples of a few sardines.

[Ron Douglas]

Originally Posted by indexphp

The FTC won't come after you... and if they do, they'll tell you to take it down first.

And from what I know... the latest FTC stuff is for testimonials anyways.

That's what we hope, but the US Government is in such a deficit that I wouldn't be surprised if they start hitting everyone they can with fines. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

[Don Schenk]

I'm certainly not a lawyer - in fact I don't even dress like one. So with that said...

Look at what Jeff Walker is doing. After this latest blast for PLF, he is going to take down all the case studies - which of course are testimonials from folks with the largest success in using his product.

I'm afraid Ron's point about the WF being a top site on the net is right on target. I would think some of these WSO headlines could be a problem for those selling the WSO, but, even more of a problem for Allen. It's his site.

BTW - If I go put on clothes that make me look like an attorney, will that help?

:-Don

[Ron Douglas]

Originally Posted by Imran Naseem

Sure, this site gets a lot of traffic but I am sure the FTC will have a much bigger target in mind

I don't know Imran. Was Kern really a 'big target' years ago?

[Steven Carl Kelly]

It doesn't matter how popular a site is, whether it's the top site on the Web or the last site on the internet. All ads on all sites are subject to compliance.

[butters]

It wouldn't surprise me if the FTC already has a list of people they will target to make an example of. If they dont comply by dec 1 then they will be made an example of, just to let the lesser guys know they are serious.

[GeorgR.]

I would never USE a title like "Make $2000 in 3 days", unless i am 100% certain that it works [otherwise i wouldnt use such a title in the first place!]....so the only ones negatively affected would be people making false claims and scammers.

You dont make a WSO and claim such things..and then IN the WSO tell people the earnings are way lower or the numbers are only a rare exception. Certainly a red flag.

[Frank Donovan]

Originally Posted by Ron Douglas

- "Make 10,000 a Month Working 15 Minutes per Day - Guaranteed!"
- "Earn $1,500 Right Friggin Now"
- "Make So Much Money That You'll Date a Super Model and Get Lucky Tonight"
- "Drive a Ferrari Just Like Me by Noon on Thursday"
- "Automate Your Blog Posts and Make Cash Fly Out Your Monitor Instantly"

Ron, maybe it's just me. But I don't think those kind of headlines belong in the WSO forum anyway - FTC or not.


Frank

[Ron Douglas]

Originally Posted by Frank Donovan

Ron, maybe it's just me. But I don't think those kind of headlines belong in the WSO forum anyway - FTC or not.


Frank

I agree with you Frank but if you scroll down the WSO forum right now you'll see some real winners.

[Jesus Perez]

I'm sure Allen will put a blanket disclaimer on the site since he too makes money from links.

[DogScout]

There is a 'publish date' on every post. Just as Cosmopolitan isn't coming to your house to make sure you don't have any of the pre-FTC old guideline ads in one of their magazines... don't know, but think pre 12/01 posts fall under the old guidelines. (but not under the lax enforcing of them. Some of the guides were not really 'new' merely better explained, not much better, but a little better. Lol)

(See a lawyer)

If the WSO thread is 10,000 posts, I hardly think they will get changed in a couple of days anyway. (The board deleted and re-created maybe.)

There are still sites selling bogus (or at least questionable) medical remedies that were published by someone prosecuted for them, still up and partially functioning. (Though the product never arrives and your credit card is not charged) but the questionable information is still there. Apparently the FTC was more interested in prosecution than actually removing information that might lead people astray.

I know publication date has a bearing, just don't know how much. I'll ask my trademark lawyer Monday... (the 1st. Lol.)

My understanding is that Allen enjoys the same protection his host does and the culpability is with the person that made the post. Again, see a lawyer. I said to see a lawyer so much, I wasn't really any help at all. :S

[Ricky Parker]

That would be nice to see them change come Dec. 1st. Not so many bull**** titles anymore.

[Profit-smart]

Everybody say it with me

(To the tune of Usa-Usa-Usa)

"ftc, ftc, ftc, ftc"

Come ON guys! All this fear over the FTC is really starting to bug me, Theres nothing wrong with enforcing more ethical guidelines on modern advertising.

That said, I dont think discontinued products apply to the new FTC rulings.