Related posts

• Update: FTC moves ahead with blog regulation (5)
• Update: FDA backs off raw oyster ban (6)
• Required FTC blogger disclosure (34)
• October 22 roundup (2)
• May 12 roundup (1)

Related posts

• Turnabout in demon-nurse case (0)
• September 19 roundup (3)
• June 16 roundup (2)
• August 13 roundup (2)
• April 20 roundup (1)

Related posts

• August 20 roundup (0)
• Suing Google over search results (5)
• November 4 roundup (8)
• November 2 roundup (1)
• November 18 roundup (5)

Related posts

• Required FTC blogger disclosure (34)
• May 12 roundup (1)
• Wise law blog, Toronto (0)
• What happened to the slavery reparations movement? (27)
• Welcome Volokh Conspiracy readers (0)

Related posts

• Update: FDA backs off raw oyster ban (6)
• February 22 roundup (3)
• U.K.: Europe court says prisoners have right to use artificial insemination (2)
• The publicity squeeze (2)
• Sorry, locavores (7)

Related posts

• Why they aren’t running the cartoons (4)
• Soda suits: Banzhaf browbeats school officials (3)
• September 29 roundup (9)
• Pro bono as profit center, cont’d (3)
• October 23 roundup (2)

Related posts

• October 2001 archives, part 3 (1)
• March 25 roundup (2)
• June 2003 archives, part 2 (1)
• June 12 roundup (3)
• July 14 roundup (3)

…let me make clear that I dumped a lot of “change” into the Democratic change wagon – I have given or raised millions of dollars for Democratic candidates over the last several years. My goal was to put people in office that did good public policy. Well, I guess I needed to wake up literally and figuratively. … Now, the FDA runs and hides from the Oyster industry. … Democratic candidates – do not bother calling, this “change” machine is out of order.

*Marketing disclosure for the FTC’s benefit: when I spoke at the recent AEI food safety panel an employee of one of Marler’s journalistic enterprises presented me with one of his promotional t-shirts.

Related posts

• FDA vs. fresh oysters (17)
• April 20 roundup (1)
• “It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed” (14)
• Welcome Shane Warner listeners (0)
• Unclear on the concept (29)

Related posts

• Suit: plaintiff was too stupid to be admitted into law school (14)
• September 19 roundup (3)
• Scary Stephen King text message worth $175 in class action settlement (2)
• November 21 roundup (0)
• Lerach: “Everybody was paying plaintiffs” (7)

My new article on the Federal Trade Commission’s very bad new rules on endorsements and social media is now up at City Journal.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the FTC held a conference call for reporters to dismiss concerns as unfounded. “They are not rules and regulations, and they don’t have the force of law,” said Mary Engle, associate director for advertising practices at the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection — which may be narrowly true but is hollow reassurance at best, since the guidelines plainly are meant to signal where the commission intends to aim its future enforcement efforts, and since not all bloggers will be willing to defy the guidelines on the assumption that courts will refuse to go along with the FTC’s interpretations.

“We are not going to be patrolling the blogosphere,” Engle also claimed. “We are not planning on investigating individual bloggers.” And: “We’re not interested in playing gotcha in the gray areas.” And yet the guidelines are again and again written in such a way as to reserve the Commission’s discretion to do any and all of these things. Ann Althouse, as before, is rightly scornful:

Oh, good. You’re not planning…

I’m so relieved.

“We’re not interested in playing gotcha in the gray areas.”

Not yet. But once the law is on the books, will you never feel tempted? Nothing will motivate you to venture into the gray?

Of course the FTC, like other regulatory agencies, is frequently drawn into enforcement not because it has been patrolling some area as such, but because some interested party (a competitor, a disgruntled employee, an ideological critic, a litigation opponent) calls the attention of enforcement staff (or the press) to the purported violation. Is the FTC really saying, “Yes, we’ve declared blogging in such-and-such a manner to be illegal, but we’re planning to look the other way?”

More on the rules: New York Times (reactions in world of online fashion journalism); Dear Author (new rules “will be rife with abuse and misuse and uneven application”); David Johnson/Digital Media Lawyer; BNA TechLaw (endorsing agency reassurances); Robert Siegel, Mind Your Own Damn Business Politics (guidelines “might bite traditional media after all”).

P.S. Randall Rothenberg of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade group, notes that in recent days “the FTC has been furiously backtracking about their implications, in an apparent attempt to soothe the blogosphere”, but calls the reassurances “disingenuous”. More: PaidContent.org (IAB considers the rules constitutionally dubious under First Amendment); Ars Technica. And some more new links:

• According to one report from a children’s literature conference, the FTC’s Engle says Amazon bookstore arrangements must be re-disclosed anew with each linked post, but — in a seeming departure from what colleague Cleland said a week ago — otherwise “independent” book reviewers need not disclose free review copies [A Chair, a Fireplace, and a Tea Cozy]
• Gordon Crovitz in Monday’s WSJ (FTC backtracking in face of reaction; “Do employees of a company have to disclose the fact of their employment every time they comment on its products through their personal Facebook accounts?”)

Related posts

• Required FTC blogger disclosure (34)
• Bloggers: beware of overpraising (1)
• “Considering the explosion of new media, regulation is inevitable” (2)
• Yes, it has come to this (11)
• WSJ op-ed on same-sex marriage and religious exemptions (6)