Re:FTC to Crack Down on Paid Celebrity Posts That Aren’t Cle...
by sjtgraham on Friday August 05, 2016 @11:15AM
(#12232930)
Valentine v. Chrestensen: First Amendment does not protect “purely commercial advertising.”
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:FTC to Crack Down on Paid Celebrity Posts That Aren’t Cle...
by rayiner on Friday August 05, 2016 @11:30AM
(#12233054)
That case was overturned by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_State_Pharmacy_Board_....
Re:FTC to Crack Down on Paid Celebrity Posts That Aren’t Cle...
by sjtgraham on Friday August 05, 2016 @12:15PM
(#12233460)
Thanks. Glad to have an actual lawyer appear at times like these :)
So is this legal?
Re:FTC to Crack Down on Paid Celebrity Posts That Aren’t Cle...
by rayiner on Friday August 05, 2016 @03:28PM
(#12235135)
Right now the boundary for restrictions on commercial speech seems to lie right around labeling for GMOs. Calorie labeling is okay because its purely informational, factually neutral, and has a direct link to a real concrete government interest. GMO labeling is on the border because there is a strong political element to it, and there is no proof GMOs (unlike too many calories) are actually bad and therefore it does not implicate a government interest.
I would think the FTC's action is substantially over that line.
Re:FTC to Crack Down on Paid Celebrity Posts That Aren’t Cle...
by count on Friday August 05, 2016 @11:22AM
(#12232988)
What if they actually love the product, AND happens to be paid for it?
ie: already drink a specific type of liquor, liquor company finds out and offers to sponsor them...
Re:FTC to Crack Down on Paid Celebrity Posts That Aren’t Cle...
by cgriswald on Friday August 05, 2016 @11:31AM
(#12233066)
Which probably makes this difficult to enforce. Agent meets with advertiser. No promises are made. Celebrity posts about loving product. Then advertiser sponsors them. Defense: "I like the product and was doing this to help get the job."