FTC 15 U.S.C. 45 and the now infamous Section 5

As a fledgling blogger I was all eyes and ears when news broke about the Federal Trade Commission's amendment of their endorsement guidelines, i.e. Section 5 of FTC 15 U.S.C. 45

How would this affect me, my freedom of speech and the medium which I use to express my opinions? I thought about it and thought about it and am still thinking about it. I definitely understand the FTC's concern with blogging and product endorsement, but am torn between "the man," principles and politics.

Yes, as a blogger - I am free from the constraints of objective journalism; the web is my OpEd oyster! I enjoy the freedom of saying whatever I want about whatever I want no matter how relevant or irrelevant the topic. But would I really want to risk the credibility of my opinion by selling out to a company for a few of my words on webspace? Absolutely not.

Before I really start, I'd like to highlight the difference between receiving a free product to review and receiving gifts or compensation in exchange for a review. It's common practice for reviewers from a wide variety of media outlets to receive the "item" they are reviewing for free - music critics get free cd's and movie critics get free movie tickets. However there is a major difference between getting a free movie ticket and getting every dvd that a production house has released as a "Thank You" for writing a review. This difference does not change meaning from journalist to blogger, and rightfully so.

Product reviews are reviews not advertisements. If you are accepting checks or unnecessary freebies from product manufacturers for a "review" - you're actually being paid as a low rent advertiser. If it's money your getting, watch out! The money you receive can be taxed as income which makes you a business and your blog a billboard not a forum for expression. It's highly unlikely that a bad product review will come from a blogger who is being supported somehow by a manufacturer. To not disclose that sponsorship is even worse, like selling couch insurance. Faux blogging is a dishonest, icky practice and is as ugly as the faux hawk! I'd hate to be the one to support "the man" in this instance, but I kind of agree with the FTC's intentions.
Although well intentioned, Section 5 of FTC 15 U.S.C. 45 is very problematic. The FTC in it's press release stated:

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.

So what does that mean? What constitutes a "material connection"? Does the donated product to be reviewed count? What about those movie critics and music reviewers, would they have to disclose every ticket to a movie or concert that they received for free?

The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091006-709182.html ) reported that "the FTC didn't set a specific dollar threshold; instead, it called for disclosure whenever a reward is large enough that it might affect the credibility of the endorsement itself." How vague can the FTC be? At least I think that they would let a free movie ticket slide, but what is large enough? Some people are more easily swayed than others - a small freebie to one person might not mean anything, but to another may be so awesome that they blog about it for days! So, now I am confused - what kind of gift or support warrants a disclosure?
The FTC have stated that their guidlelines will apply to social networking sites. Tweets and facebook status updates will be regulated by the FTC's guidelines. Is there enough space to add a little disclaimer on everything you tweet? Are tweeters and bloggers really at risk of sounding like campaign ads everytime they tweet?

There is a huge practicality issue with Section 5 and its application in the internet age. Even the FTC stated that, " In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act." So who is to enforce these guidelines and police everyday bloggers and Joe Schmoe twitterers? Are we really worth it?

With Section 5, the FTC is also reigning in celebrity "endorsements." Celebrities are much more of an appropriate target for regulation by the FTC. Celebrities blog, they tweet, they go on talk shows, walk on red carpets and get a lot of free stuff to subliminally sell. Celebrities are glorified walking billboards - they don't really acquire free designer wardrobes because they deserve it. The FTC has every reason to regulate celebrity endorsements as public figures, but why someone like me?

Casting their regulations on average bloggers seems like a stretch for the FTC, but I think I finally get it. Some bloggers have a network larger than others, and as we know, the speed at which information travels now and the overall laziness of some people not vetting what they read has not only changed the way we process news but the way we are targeted as consumers. The FTC is acknowledging the speed of information in the digital age, and are sending bloggers like me a reminder that consumer ethics are still important. Let's hope Section 5 doesn't create another RIAA internet police state.