Web celeb product whores told to put on the red light – or else

And would you believe it? The Kardashians are front and center

America's trade watchdog has warned more than 90 celebrities that they need to disclose when they are paid to promote a product – or risk facing an investigation.

Among the red-faced celebs: David and Victoria Beckham, Jennifer Lopez, actresses Shay Mitchell and Vanessa Hudgens, and most of the Kardashian clan – Kourtney, her mostly drunk husband Scott, and Pepsi embarrassment Kendall Jenner.

US regulator the FTC acted after advocacy group Public Citizen sent a letter [PDF] back in November complaining about the blatant endorsements on social media network Instagram where the "influencer" failed to disclose they had been paid. The letter included screenshots of each.

In response, the federal regulator's consumer protection bureau sent out letters "reminding" them that they "should clearly and conspicuously disclose their relationships to brands when promoting or endorsing products through social media."

As well as providing a slapdown, the FTC pointed to a copy of its extensive guidelines that outline exactly what it expects people being paid for hawking products to do. For example: include the "material connection" they have to the company above the "more" link in Instagram streams. And don't try to hide your #whoredom in a series of hashtags.

Last year, the FTC formally warned fashion retailer Lord & Taylor about paying people to post pictures wearing one of its dresses without disclosing the fact. It did not impose a fine, but noted that it is able to charge a civil penalty of up to $16,000 per violation, so the company faced an $800,000 fine if it repeated its actions.

Want to look like this? Use this product that I definitely didn't get paid to promote


While some of the endorsements were blatant – such as actress Vanessa Hudgens weirdly holding open a box of "Graze" snacks and noting that she is "obsessed with @grazeusa. Snacks just make life better #Grazesnacks" – in others it was hard to make out the product past the "influencer's" half-naked body (who'd have thought that posting pictures of yourself in your underwear would gain followers on social media?).

Ever the class act, Scott Disick – who literally makes his living by endorsing products and appearing on TV being a dreadful person – didn't even bother to pretend, providing a promo code for Lyft plastered across his image.

As with a growing proportion of the posts flagged by the FTC, Disick has since taken the images down.

While the FTC takes the careful approach of simply noting the posts and reminding celebs of the rules, Public Citizen is less coy.

"Non-disclosed advertising is rampant," it complained, noting that its list of 113 "influencers" was only "illustrative, not exhaustive."

It goes on: "Instagram has become a Wild West of disguised advertising, targeting young people and especially young women. That's not going to change unless the FTC makes clear that it aims to enforce the core principles of fair advertising law."

Its president Robert Weissman also argued why it was important: "It is often unclear whether an Instagram user is paid to post a product endorsement or if they genuinely use it. That's exactly why brands are using influencer marketing as a primary way to reach young consumers.

"But without clear disclosure, brands are deceiving consumers and reaping the monetary benefits. Even worse, non-disclosed influencer advertising covertly promotes products that could harm consumers, especially impressionable teens and young adults." ®

Other stories you might like

  • Venezuelan cardiologist charged with designing and selling ransomware
    If his surgery was as bad as his opsec, this chap has caused a lot of trouble

    The US Attorney’s Office has charged a 55-year-old cardiologist with creating and selling ransomware and profiting from revenue-share agreements with criminals who deployed his product.

    A complaint [PDF] filed on May 16th in the US District Court, Eastern District of New York, alleges that Moises Luis Zagala Gonzalez – aka “Nosophoros,” “Aesculapius” and “Nebuchadnezzar” – created a ransomware builder known as “Thanos”, and ransomware named “Jigsaw v. 2”.

    The self-taught coder and qualified cardiologist advertised the ransomware in dark corners of the web, then licensed it ransomware to crooks for either $500 or $800 a month. He also ran an affiliate network that offered the chance to run Thanos to build custom ransomware, in return for a share of profits.

    Continue reading
  • China reveals its top five sources of online fraud
    'Brushing' tops the list, as quantity of forbidden content continue to rise

    China’s Ministry of Public Security has revealed the five most prevalent types of fraud perpetrated online or by phone.

    The e-commerce scam known as “brushing” topped the list and accounted for around a third of all internet fraud activity in China. Brushing sees victims lured into making payment for goods that may not be delivered, or are only delivered after buyers are asked to perform several other online tasks that may include downloading dodgy apps and/or establishing e-commerce profiles. Victims can find themselves being asked to pay more than the original price for goods, or denied promised rebates.

    Brushing has also seen e-commerce providers send victims small items they never ordered, using profiles victims did not create or control. Dodgy vendors use that tactic to then write themselves glowing product reviews that increase their visibility on marketplace platforms.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022