Australian Senate Inquiry Investigating ScientologyChurch of Scientology in France convicted of organized fraud!Infinite Complacency: Must-read commentary on the Scientology Fraud Verdicts
The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. 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. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.
As iterated throughout his lengthy letter, Rothenberg and others fear that the FTC will now be on the hunt for bloggers reviewing and endorsing products, which he argues will squelch social media."In terms of bloggers and other endorsers...I don't think that there is any reason for concern," said Cleland, stressing, "We have explained on a number of occasions that we do not have civil penalty authority." In other words, he told me, the FTC is not planning an enforcement sweep against bloggers. Also, he confirmed, the FTC has no authority to fine anybody (despite countless erroneous reports to the contrary).
Excellent information. The downside here, I think, is that it will more likely effect your average blogger who just happens to like [insert product or service or film or whatever here], and not Scientologists or apologists trying to game Google / Bing / Yahoo search engines with fraudulent endorsements.
The Scientologists will continue to blithely ignore the law when it fails to suit their purposes. That's going to be a big stumbling block. Either that, or they will start screeching about religious discrimination or some other bullpoop once they aren't allowed to dishonestly game search engines with faux blogs and mandatory "success stories" and other such crap in order to trick more unsuspecting people into the clutches of one of their front groups.The average blogger who may wish to comply with laws will feel stifled, and there is possible a First Amendment violation there. It comes down to proof: how do those who wish to enforce the law or report violations of the law deal with dishonest blog-based endorsements by shills while still allowing people--who DO NOT benefit in any way directly or indirectly (via promoting their pet religion / cult / business interest)--to continue expressing their opinions about products, services, etc.?
We do not bring law enforcement actions based on, or to enforce, the Guides. The Guides are not binding law. They are intended to be educational – to inform advertisers and others how the Commission will view the use of endorsements as it enforces the prohibition in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act against deceptive and unfair practices.We assume that the targets of our law enforcement actions will come to our attention by the same means as always, including the staff’s own viewing of ads and our monitoring of current events and advertising trends, consumer complaints, competitor complaints, and referrals from self-regulatory bodies.
