This is page 2 of:

Social Media Makes It Easy To Blog Or Tweet Your Way Into FTC Fines

January 31st, 2013

But that is so 2009. Since then, many new ways have sprung up for retailers to interact with consumers or potential consumers. Apps enable sharing of information. Twitter enables people and companies to exchange information and ideas. Not to mention photo- and video-sharing Web sites and, yes, even food porn. Companies share information not only through their Web sites, their marketing materials, their advertising and their social media marketing but even through the Facebook postings of their employees.

This creates a legal and regulatory thicket for them to navigate. If an employee of a company posts a rave review of a company product without disclosing his employment status, is this “deceptive”? If he or she simply “likes” the endorsement of someone else, or reposts a rave review by someone else, again without disclosing the affiliation, does this violate the FTC regulation? What about so-called independent rating services—Angie’s List, Yelp or others—that allow comments to be posted? They have the potential of being abused by both consumers and retailers.

And finally, what about entities like Reputation Defender that use tools like Google hacking to lower the page ranking of “bad” pages or bad reviews and to raise the page ranking of “good” pages or good reviews? If effective, these programs can present to the consuming public an inaccurate—or at least an incomplete—picture of the value of a good or service.

Of course, the answer is “be reasonable.” The devil is in the details.

The law will allow a great deal of latitude in online and social media marketing. The touchstone is whether, taken as a whole, the advertising is “fraudulent or deceptive.”

Take food porn. The reason, presumably, that Foodspotting is worth $10 million is because people using it believe it to be a place to get unbiased, unstaged and candid images of restaurant food (although The New York Times reported on one restaurant that permitted consumers to photograph their meals, but only in the kitchen, telling the consumers, “Wouldn’t that look better on a marble surface?”).

If Foodspotting is co-opted by the restaurants themselves, who post unrepresentative and staged pictures, not only is the Foodspotting brand diminished, but the activities might be seen as fraudulent and deceptive.

The area of regulation is in flux, as is the technology. So just ask yourself: If I was consuming this media, would I think of it as deceptive? There are no easy answers, and that’s what keeps lawyers in business. And remember, leave the gun. Take the cannoli.

If you disagree with me, I’ll see you in court, buddy. If you agree with me, however, I would love to hear from you.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.