News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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.”
Re:FTC to Crack Down on Paid Celebrity Posts That Aren’t Cle... by rayiner on Friday August 05, 2016 @11:30AM (#12233054)
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."