I’m not an attorney.  I tried reading the Federal Trade Commission’s “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”  But I honestly couldn’t get past page one.  Page 1 is not even the conclusion of the table of contents.   (FTC Guide)

What I was able to glean from the document, and this is not a legal interpretation, is that you shouldn’t lie about a product just ’cause you are getting paid to do so.  I think that about wraps up the complicated wranglings of the doc.

For those of you that read that last statement and thought to yourself, “what does that mean…exactly,” the remainder of the post is for you.

If an individual is compensated by an advertiser to promote or endorse a product or service, then that endorsement meets the FTC’s rules that apply to the other forms of testimonials.  Compensated does not strictly mean a cash payment, but rather any inducement for service.

The revised Guides have the greatest impact on what is loosely described as “New Media.”  This New Media comprises, but is not exclusively the domain of, blogs.  And while is has been argued that the previous Guides need not be revised at all, since industry regulation and the Commission’s own enforcement is enough to keep our consumers safe from unlawful or untruthful statements by advertisers, it has in fact been so altered.

What is important to keep in mind, is that the advertiser and the blogger can be held liable for claims made by the person submitting the post, should the post be misleading and be a “compensated” endorsement.  I draw a line between the blog owner and the person submitting the post, because in many cases, blogs have paid contributors.  Comments made by the paid contributor can be held against the blog owner and the advertiser.

Additionally, if you read or quote a statement presented by the advertiser, and the statement is false or misleading, and you are being compensated to do so, you can be held liable for the statement.  Even if your compensation is based on presenting the exact “script” as provided by the advertiser.  As was the case with FTC v. Publishing Clearing House, Inc., 106 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1997)  Basically, endorsers are not released of their responsibility because they have,”…an obligation to make reasonable inquiries of the advertiser that there is an adequate basis for assertions that the script has them making.”  Notice of adoption on page 20.

What does that mean?  It means that you cannot play dumb and say that you were hired to make the claims and that since you are not an expert, you simply relied on the advertiser to provide you with truthful information.  On the advertiser side, you can’t compensate a blogger to write a review of your product, and be shocked that they made false claims about the amazingness of your product.

In truth, this will likely never affect 99% of us.  There is nothing wrong with being compensated for a written opinion of a product, even if that opinion is coerced  to the side of approval.  What you can’t do is make false statement about the validity of a product, or make unduly claims about the effectiveness of a product while being compensated to do so.

And if all other moral indicators are not pointing to run, be sure to let those that might listen / read your comments know upfront that you are a being paid to make the statements you are making.  You can thank the likes of Acai Berry offers for the crackdown.  If you are upfront about what you are doing, there is nothing to worry about.