18 USC Sec. 1030(a)(4), presuming, of course, that the positive public exposure that they are selling to their clients is "anything of value", which the fact that they are selling it to their clients for money pretty clearly indicates it is.
At this point we have decades of dealing with this. Shouldn't the default assumption be that someone promoting a product online is being paid to do it, until they somehow demonstrate that they are not?
Yeah I guess that would make sense. I thought the same standards applied to Facebook advertising. I think the FTC sets them. Am I wrong in that thinking?
I'd draw the line at the point where the user/consumer can't easily recognize advertisement as advertisement.
For example, paying people to write blog posts or to friend your client on social media without making the "I'm being paid to do it" part explicit should be illegal.
I know nothing about US law, but shouldn't that be some kind of fraud crime or "confidence trick crime" already?
But why do you think that any hint of being advertising discredits the content? Surely if there's reason to think that, you'd want to know if content is discreditable? Or do you just think that the masses will mistakenly discredit content if they know money was exchanged?
I'm not an expert, but it seems that this is about actually selling something. In addition, if the item is sold by a private person who is not acting in any professional capacity selling then it doesn't apply.
So my naive reading is that having ads is fine, because you are not actually selling something. Having professional information and getting paid is also fine. Having a hobby and occasionally selling something as part of your hobby is fine.
It could possibly fall under misrepresentation[1] law under certain circumstances. For example, as a service company, pretending you have solid revenues might induce a potential client into buying your services (if your client has a policy of only dealing with established companies).
The FTC regulates advertisements. [1] At what point is a statement like "[x] just saved $[y]!" on your own site being shown to a visitor constitute an advertisement for your service? Or is it just advertisements involving a paid third party?
From 1: "Advertisements with specific claims can be substantiated with evidence"
If an entire show is created around a product it will be easy to prove it's against those hypothetical rules. I am more concerned about subtler forms, but it seems that forced paid product placement disclosures are working just fine.
Well we can start with disclosure. If a product was given or money changed hands and it’s not clearly stated on the placement video then if they get caught, massive fines.
It’s actually more nuanced than that. The actual buying/selling of the ad is commerce, but the right to spend your money to buy a specific ad is partially first amendment (and partially not).
> It's why YouTube, Amazon and others require you to disclose that you got the item for free, because that can significantly alter your view and is basically turning you into an ad.
I always assumed that was a legal requirement. Isn’t it technically classed as fraud (or something?) to not disclose that you were sponsored by the resort?
Many countries regulate fraudulent advertising, and the person _paying_ for it would generally be liable (along with the person providing it, usually).
Commercial advertisement comes with many regulations and ethical requirements in every nation. Even in the capitalist hell of the US you are typically not allowed to brazenly lie to consumers to their face. Deception for financial gain is fraud.
reply