US law already requires influencers to disclose ads. (And the FTC says that US law includes foreigners whose audience is reasonably likely to include Americans)
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dis...
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/dis...
In the USA, it doesn't seem to be done. I was actually shocked -- and then realized how naive I was -- when i was talking to someone at a party who had a tiktok where she reviewed garden products, to find out that it wasn't just "free product", she was literally getting paid by the companies to give them good reviews, and from the tiktok you wouldn't know she wasn't just reviewing things she had bought on her own independently.
It did seem to me like this was probably a problem for the FTC, but I realized, oh, this is just how it's done now, nobody ever discloses.
Federal law enforcement is a teensy tick on top of an enormous dog which is crime. The FTC is really small compared to its purported bailiwick. It would need more lawyers than the largest law firms in the US to accomplish anything close to its responsibilities, and it would need to duplicate the FBI to act as its enforcement/investigation arm. Most of the jobs at the FTC aren't even lawyer jobs, but are in more analytical roles.
Cynically, for years I've been treating pretty much every single product review I encounter as though it's bought by the manufacturer. Ya know, since the internet is a giant steaming pile of algorithmically generated bullshit (for the most part).
Sting operations seem like a practical way to enforce this rule.
(Not that I consider the rule a good one: in fact, if as others here say, the rule is "WILDLY unenforced" in the US, then I say either start enforcing it more or get rid of it.)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't this the problem of enforcement period? How can you tell I didn't just buy this garage full of Playstations and throw away the receipt? How can you tell he was pushed over that cliff, and he didn't just trip? In the case of paid advertisements, at least you've got a paper trail connecting the advertiser and the, ugh, influencer.
Probably by finding the financial records that you received payment from the brand.
Influencers (in joint union with targeted advertisements-- and even more tangentially cross-site/browser/device fingerprinting) has made me extremely embittered and disillusioned to social media in general, going so far as to delete old accounts made while I was younger and even abandoning certain platforms. (early-mid-20's here btw)
Of course, not everyone is caught and punished but if you're big enough to attract the scrutiny of the FTC, they do issue fines for not disclosing ad sponsorship. Example:
https://www.marketingdive.com/news/ftc-fines-detox-tea-compa...
I mean, it makes sense, the influencers are small potatos in many cases just hustling to get by.
But... the company probably just takes the risk as a potential cost of doing business (especially when enforcement is so rare; in this case they were fined $1 million which isn't peanuts, but I wonder what % of their profits it was...), and the influencer has no incentive to worry about it at all unless the company paying them tells them to.
Two recent possibilities:
Steve Harvey randomly changing his twitter icon to an nft: https://twitter.com/IAmSteveHarvey
-Seems somewhat likely to me somebody paid him to do this in order to pump the NFT release
Steph Curry tweeting about crypto advice and then the next day announcing he's been hired as a 'brand ambassador' for FTX: https://twitter.com/StephenCurry30/status/143504771695066726...
- Obviously was all set up as a marketing reveal
I really wish they'd actually enforce this one.
The curt ruling wasn't about the curt now newly forcing posts to be labeled but it was about creating a bit more clarity when it needs to be labeled and when not.
AKA Absolutely nothing until your actions affect the wrong entity
I am actually surprised by some US businesses (local newspapers for instance) that make the effort to use GDPR cookies instead of not giving, as you say, a fuck.