The IAB Thinks the FTC's rules for Regulating Bloggers are Unfair and Unconstitutional
The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has some harsh words for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). They want the FTC to withdraw the new regulations requiring bloggers to disclose financial ties to companies. The IAB said the rules “unfairly and unconstitutionally” penalize online media, while leaving traditional media untouched. They also invoked the first amendment right to free speech.
The IAB also took issue with the size of the possible fine for violating the rules. The FTC indicated a fine of $11,000 is possible for offending individuals. They later clarified their position, claiming the fine was a “worst-case scenario” that would be used only for chronic offenders.
These attempts as calming the concerns of bloggers seem to only be marginally successful. The IAB wants the fines eliminated despite the FTC’s assurances. They say that they aren’t asking for special treatment for bloggers. “Rather, we’re saying the new conversational media should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as other communications channels,” said Rothenberg, of the IAB. So, is the FTC overreaching, or is the internet overreacting?

![]()
arch-chancellor
October 16, 2009 at 5:13am
That they get signaled out like this? I don't see the FTC going after ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, New York Times, LA Times, or the Washington Times like this.
I think it's a reaction to one too many instances of some guy in his mommy's basement getting famous because he did the job the old media used to do.
![]()
big_montana
October 16, 2009 at 11:57am
I agree, especially when the so called main stream media is more into making (making up?)the news than reporting the news. Look at the furor that was caused by Rush Limbaugh looking to purchase a minority interset in the Rams caused. CNN and MSNBC along with the sports channels and who knows how many locals, repeated a concocted quote attributed to Rush as evidence of his racism: "Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back; I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark." The only problem is Limbaugh never said it. Retractions or corrections of the record have been relegated to such places as Twitter, where CNN's Rick Sanchez tweeted, "we didn't confirm quote. our bad." So to recap, Rush has been on the air 15 hours a week for 21 years and the best the media could come up with was a fake quote? Maybe the mainstream media needs to be held to the same, or higher, standards than online bloggers as they are more dangerous!!!
![]()
compro01
October 16, 2009 at 12:23pm
AFAICT, that has nothing to do with this.
This is regarding product reviews and whatnot, preventing marketers from secretly offering bloggers incentives (free stuff, money, etc.) to give them a positive review (or conversely, a negative review of a competing item/service). This requires that blogger to disclose that they recieved whatever in exchange for the review.
![]()
arch-chancellor
October 16, 2009 at 5:16am
Maybe it's not a bad idea. We just saw how some guy in his mommy's basement got the entire old media into a tizzy by putting some false information into wickedpedia.
![]()
i1patrick
October 15, 2009 at 6:33pm
There is NOTHING wrong with requiring a blogger who is being paid to post a favorable opinion about something to disclose that financial relationship. The IAB is completely wrong on this. Anything less than fair disclosure of such a financial relationship is nothing less than an attempt to deliberately deceive the public.
More importantly, the IAB basing its objection on "affording the same rights and freedoms as other communications channels" is a vacant argument. By law, a TV spokesman MUST be identified as a "paid spokesman" to clarify for the audience whether the opinion being stated is personal (i.e. based on that person's experience) or is the result of a contractual agreement.
















