New FTC rules: US bloggers must disclose payments for reviews

As reported by the Associated Press, the Federal Trade Commission in the US will try to regulate blogging for the first time, ‘requiring writers on the web to clearly disclose any freebies or payments they get from companies for reviewing their products’.

“Violating the rules, which take effect December 1, could bring fines up to $11,000 per violation. Bloggers or advertisers also could face injunctions and be ordered to reimburse consumers for financial losses stemming from inappropriate product reviews.”

Full story at this link…

Also see Jeff Jarvis’ post for a comment round-up, and his take on the changes.

Jarvis writes:

“The FTC also concedes that it treats critics at publications differently – less stringently – than bloggers. Don’t they realize that people on travel and gadget and food publications get freebies all the time. I’ve long believed that ethics alone should compel them to disclose. But the FTC doesn’t.”

Similar posts:

• Jarvis reflects on name-calling in the blogground
• Nieman Journalism Lab: Matthew Ingram on the WSJ’s social media policy
• Buzzmachine: Kai Diekmann, Bild editor and brand
• AP: FTC to monitor blogs for ‘tainted reviews’
• Buzzmachine: Could Google’s Wave be new reporting tool?

Behavioural ads form of ‘free speech’, says Newspaper Association of America

The Newspaper Association of America (NAA) has weighed in on the debate surrounding behavioural targeting of newspaper ads online, saying privacy standards proposed by the US’ Federal Trade Commission (FTC) could ‘infringe on newspapers’ First Amendment rights’, according to a report on Online Media Daily.

Targeted online advertising, says the group, is “not only truthful advertising speech, but advertising speech that meets their [the audience's] interest”.

Ads are a form of free speech so long as they are not misleading, the association wrote in its comments to the commission:

“Efforts to restrict what newspaper websites publish, and the basis by which editors and advertisers make decisions regarding what to publish, run directly counter to core First Amendment rights, and can amount to a prior restraint.”

The Guardian recently pulled out of a behavioural advertising deal with Phorm, because of ethical concerns, while web creator Tim Berners-Lee voiced concerns over Phorm’s technology.

The FTC’s guidelines on this form of advertising suggest websites allow users to opt-out of the tracking process and seek consent before making use of sensitive information relating to users’ behaviour.

Similar posts:

• WAN 2008: Le Figaro: 20% of revenues from online by 2010
• BBC to launch online ‘ethical fashion’ magazine
• Yahoo! announces details of targeted advertising service Amp!
• CMLP: Anonymity of online speakers protected in District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• Guardian: IAB launches behavioural advertising code