9 ms·

US law already requires influencers to disclose ads. (And the FTC says that US law includes foreigners whose audience is reasonably likely to include Americans)

by eli 5y ago

US law already requires influencers to disclose ads. (And the FTC says that US law includes foreigners whose audience is reasonably likely to include Americans) https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dis...

k1rcher 5y ago
This is enormously surprising to me. I can't seem to find any links to official legal code or documents on that page (seems to be a guide for influencers). What I'm specifically interested in, is what happens when as an influencer you _don't_ disclose an ad? Are there fines? Is it a series of "stern warnings", akin to the Comcast emails you'd get for pirating big Hollywood studio movies from public trackers on a home connection? An n-strikes and you're out system? Influencers (in joint union with targeted advertisements-- and even more tangentially cross-site/browser/device fingerprinting) has made me extremely embittered and disillusioned to social media in general, going so far as to delete old accounts made while I was younger and even abandoning certain platforms. (early-mid-20's here btw)
- jasode 5y ago
  >What I'm specifically interested in, is what happens when as an influencer you _don't_ disclose an ad? Are there fines? Of course, not everyone is caught and punished but if you're big enough to attract the scrutiny of the FTC, they do issue fines for not disclosing ad sponsorship. Example: https://www.marketingdive.com/news/ftc-fines-detox-tea-company-1m-over-instagram-ads/573703/ https://www.marketingdive.com/news/ftc-fines-detox-tea-compa...
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    Thanks for link! In that case, fined the company, but not the influencers? I mean, it makes sense, the influencers are small potatos in many cases just hustling to get by. But... the company probably just takes the risk as a potential cost of doing business (especially when enforcement is so rare; in this case they were fined $1 million which isn't peanuts, but I wonder what % of their profits it was...), and the influencer has no incentive to worry about it at all unless the company paying them tells them to.
    - fouc 5y ago
      when an influencer is making $10k/mo or more, they probably have incorporated, or they're a sole proprietorship.
elif 5y ago
Yep exactly like US law forbids email, SMS, and phone spam...
jrochkind1 5y ago
It seems to be WILDLY unenforced then, no? In the USA, it doesn't seem to be done. I was actually shocked -- and then realized how naive I was -- when i was talking to someone at a party who had a tiktok where she reviewed garden products, to find out that it wasn't just "free product", she was literally getting paid by the companies to give them good reviews, and from the tiktok you wouldn't know she wasn't just reviewing things she had bought on her own independently. It did seem to me like this was probably a problem for the FTC, but I realized, oh, this is just how it's done now, nobody ever discloses.
- mountainb 5y ago
  Most of the statutes that can only be enforced by the federal government are like this: it's not just the FTC. Federal law enforcement is a teensy tick on top of an enormous dog which is crime. The FTC is really small compared to its purported bailiwick. It would need more lawyers than the largest law firms in the US to accomplish anything close to its responsibilities, and it would need to duplicate the FBI to act as its enforcement/investigation arm. Most of the jobs at the FTC aren't even lawyer jobs, but are in more analytical roles.
  - tbihl 5y ago
    Unfortunately, this means that there is no equal treatment under the law, which means that the rule of law is only partial.
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      Now you’re getting it
      - tbihl 5y ago
        then the question that will never be solved: scale down/simplify the laws to what can be enforced, or exoand the bureaucracy to try to meet the demand signal...
- 5y ago
silisili 5y ago
The law is gutless. Spend like 30s on any Youtube channel. I really wish they'd actually enforce this one.
- cma 5y ago
  "This phone really shows fingerprints, so I would knock it down a notch, except this easily fixed with this dope x brand skin, so it's ok!"
  - silisili 5y ago
    Just recently I was trolling through youtube looking for tool reviews and insights. One in particular that stood out to me, the first video, the presenter(rather well known) blasted a brand of tool, saying he didn't understand why they even existed, seemed underpowered, overpriced, etc. A week later he had a video showcasing their tools, and at least tagged it 'sponsoredContent', as if anyone reads those. He featured them on about 3 more videos saying how surprising they are and good value. Really gross to watch. Youtube is about as helpful as Amazon reviews anymore.
- driverdan 5y ago
  YouTube is better than the FTC at this. There are very clear rules for any sponsored or paid content and channels can get deleted if they don't follow it.
purple_ferret 5y ago
How exactly do they go about enforcing this? Two recent possibilities: Steve Harvey randomly changing his twitter icon to an nft: https://twitter.com/IAmSteveHarvey https://twitter.com/IAmSteveHarvey -Seems somewhat likely to me somebody paid him to do this in order to pump the NFT release Steph Curry tweeting about crypto advice and then the next day announcing he's been hired as a 'brand ambassador' for FTX: https://twitter.com/StephenCurry30/status/1435047716950667264 https://twitter.com/StephenCurry30/status/143504771695066726... - Obviously was all set up as a marketing reveal
dathinab 5y ago
German law does so too since a long time, in a way absurd enough that some people started labeling everything as ad as it's too risky for them not to do so even through they might not do any "advertisement" at all. The curt ruling wasn't about the curt now newly forcing posts to be labeled but it was about creating a bit more clarity when it needs to be labeled and when not.
BrandoElFollito 5y ago
What happens when these foreigners don't?
- krono 5y ago
  "Fuck around and find out" AKA Absolutely nothing until your actions affect the wrong entity
  - BrandoElFollito 5y ago
    I think this will be quite similar to non-EU business that do not have an actual legal foothold in the EU: nothing happens (because what actually could?). I am actually surprised by some US businesses (local newspapers for instance) that make the effort to use GDPR cookies instead of not giving, as you say, a fuck.
beezischillin 5y ago
I’ve seen disclaimers in YouTube videos by just about every channel with a larger audience for years now. I don’t really browse through publications on the daily enough to tell you about those (I get linked to articles directly most often than not nowadays) but I vaguely remember news about a whistleblower outing one of the bigger video game sites about two years ago, revealing that a staggering number of their posts was paid for advertising.

by eli 5y ago

k1rcher 5y ago

This is enormously surprising to me. I can't seem to find any links to official legal code or documents on that page (seems to be a guide for influencers). What I'm specifically interested in, is what happens when as an influencer you _don't_ disclose an ad? Are there fines? Is it a series of "stern warnings", akin to the Comcast emails you'd get for pirating big Hollywood studio movies from public trackers on a home connection? An n-strikes and you're out system? Influencers (in joint union with targeted advertisements-- and even more tangentially cross-site/browser/device fingerprinting) has made me extremely embittered and disillusioned to social media in general, going so far as to delete old accounts made while I was younger and even abandoning certain platforms. (early-mid-20's here btw)

jasode 5y ago
>What I'm specifically interested in, is what happens when as an influencer you _don't_ disclose an ad? Are there fines? Of course, not everyone is caught and punished but if you're big enough to attract the scrutiny of the FTC, they do issue fines for not disclosing ad sponsorship. Example: https://www.marketingdive.com/news/ftc-fines-detox-tea-company-1m-over-instagram-ads/573703/ https://www.marketingdive.com/news/ftc-fines-detox-tea-compa...
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  Thanks for link! In that case, fined the company, but not the influencers? I mean, it makes sense, the influencers are small potatos in many cases just hustling to get by. But... the company probably just takes the risk as a potential cost of doing business (especially when enforcement is so rare; in this case they were fined $1 million which isn't peanuts, but I wonder what % of their profits it was...), and the influencer has no incentive to worry about it at all unless the company paying them tells them to.
  - fouc 5y ago
    when an influencer is making $10k/mo or more, they probably have incorporated, or they're a sole proprietorship.

elif 5y ago

Yep exactly like US law forbids email, SMS, and phone spam...

jrochkind1 5y ago

It seems to be WILDLY unenforced then, no? In the USA, it doesn't seem to be done. I was actually shocked -- and then realized how naive I was -- when i was talking to someone at a party who had a tiktok where she reviewed garden products, to find out that it wasn't just "free product", she was literally getting paid by the companies to give them good reviews, and from the tiktok you wouldn't know she wasn't just reviewing things she had bought on her own independently. It did seem to me like this was probably a problem for the FTC, but I realized, oh, this is just how it's done now, nobody ever discloses.

mountainb 5y ago
Most of the statutes that can only be enforced by the federal government are like this: it's not just the FTC. Federal law enforcement is a teensy tick on top of an enormous dog which is crime. The FTC is really small compared to its purported bailiwick. It would need more lawyers than the largest law firms in the US to accomplish anything close to its responsibilities, and it would need to duplicate the FBI to act as its enforcement/investigation arm. Most of the jobs at the FTC aren't even lawyer jobs, but are in more analytical roles.
- tbihl 5y ago
  Unfortunately, this means that there is no equal treatment under the law, which means that the rule of law is only partial.
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    Now you’re getting it
    - tbihl 5y ago
      then the question that will never be solved: scale down/simplify the laws to what can be enforced, or exoand the bureaucracy to try to meet the demand signal...
5y ago

silisili 5y ago

The law is gutless. Spend like 30s on any Youtube channel. I really wish they'd actually enforce this one.

cma 5y ago
"This phone really shows fingerprints, so I would knock it down a notch, except this easily fixed with this dope x brand skin, so it's ok!"
- silisili 5y ago
  Just recently I was trolling through youtube looking for tool reviews and insights. One in particular that stood out to me, the first video, the presenter(rather well known) blasted a brand of tool, saying he didn't understand why they even existed, seemed underpowered, overpriced, etc. A week later he had a video showcasing their tools, and at least tagged it 'sponsoredContent', as if anyone reads those. He featured them on about 3 more videos saying how surprising they are and good value. Really gross to watch. Youtube is about as helpful as Amazon reviews anymore.
driverdan 5y ago
YouTube is better than the FTC at this. There are very clear rules for any sponsored or paid content and channels can get deleted if they don't follow it.

purple_ferret 5y ago

How exactly do they go about enforcing this? Two recent possibilities: Steve Harvey randomly changing his twitter icon to an nft: https://twitter.com/IAmSteveHarvey https://twitter.com/IAmSteveHarvey -Seems somewhat likely to me somebody paid him to do this in order to pump the NFT release Steph Curry tweeting about crypto advice and then the next day announcing he's been hired as a 'brand ambassador' for FTX: https://twitter.com/StephenCurry30/status/1435047716950667264 https://twitter.com/StephenCurry30/status/143504771695066726... - Obviously was all set up as a marketing reveal

dathinab 5y ago

German law does so too since a long time, in a way absurd enough that some people started labeling everything as ad as it's too risky for them not to do so even through they might not do any "advertisement" at all. The curt ruling wasn't about the curt now newly forcing posts to be labeled but it was about creating a bit more clarity when it needs to be labeled and when not.

BrandoElFollito 5y ago

What happens when these foreigners don't?

krono 5y ago
"Fuck around and find out" AKA Absolutely nothing until your actions affect the wrong entity
- BrandoElFollito 5y ago
  I think this will be quite similar to non-EU business that do not have an actual legal foothold in the EU: nothing happens (because what actually could?). I am actually surprised by some US businesses (local newspapers for instance) that make the effort to use GDPR cookies instead of not giving, as you say, a fuck.

beezischillin 5y ago

I’ve seen disclaimers in YouTube videos by just about every channel with a larger audience for years now. I don’t really browse through publications on the daily enough to tell you about those (I get linked to articles directly most often than not nowadays) but I vaguely remember news about a whistleblower outing one of the bigger video game sites about two years ago, revealing that a staggering number of their posts was paid for advertising.