"Number one: Payola is deceptive to the audience..." I don't see this being a problem even then because there's no actual harm. The audience is there to see an

"Number one: Payola is deceptive to the audience..." I don't see this being a problem even then because there's no actual harm. The audience is there to see an LPer do an LP sponsored or not. The content of the LP is still entertaining. What WB's agency did was give them explicit instructions to hide disclosures and avoid negative comments. The reason why PewDiePie and other LPers involved aren't being fined regardless of whether they've conformed to these requests or not (in the case of PewDiePie he actually put the disclosure in the description so legally he's off the hook regardless of how you or I feel) is due to the fact the regulation came out AFTER the fact. "Number two: Payola is harmful to the economy in that it has a "rich get richer" effect..." Unless there's a communist revolution in the near future I'm not seeing this as criminal as it's not criminal in and of itself. So don't try this angle unless you can show me a law that says rich people can't get richer categorically. I'm not interested in moral assessments in a legal situation I just want the legal facts not one's moral sentiments. "Also, disclosing at the top of a video description is not enough as those descriptions do not get carried forward when the video is shared on other media outlets (Facebook, twitter, etc)." Then I think the new regulation needs to be expanded to enforce content non-modification on presentation via third parties (DMCA could work here I think as the justification). "I'm not sure when the FTC made the rule official, and so he might get a pass based on timing..." The FTC as not fine PewDiePie and in their press release they've made no further mention of it him other than an example of some of the LPers that were working with the agency hired by WB. And since the regulation came AFTER the game and LPs were done they're not going to be fined, ever. So just deal with the fact his annoying self is going to be gracing YT for the foreseeable future (even I cringe at that thought, eew). But the fact you all are overblowing the actual legal impact of this case demonstrates a critical break from the reality of it and dishonesty on part of sites like the Verge (at least Variety reported that PewDiePie clarified the situation rather than tried to ignore it like the Verge has done so far). So, now I refuse to go to the Verge's site until they add to the beginning of the article that PewDiePie and other LPers are not in violation of the regulations as is. Until then I'm going to call out the writer and the Verge as dishonest. If they want to win me back start by reporting the facts and not supposition.