Should internet advertisers be subject to the same advertising requirements as those who advertise offline?
Yes I do believe that internet advertisers be subject to the same requirements all for the purpose of having rules that keep things in check and from spiraling out of control on the internet. There are so many different kinds people on the internet now a days who are so eager to take advantage of other people through the means of false advertisement or through other means.
The requirements would try to prevent the following situations:
- “Don’t make false claims.
- Paid promoters, influencers, and affiliate marketers who promote brands in exchange for money or products must conspicuously disclose this material relationship. If they don’t, the brand can be held responsible.
- Don’t make scientific claims without substantive proof to back them up”.
There are many ways that you can fight when you are wronged by false advertisement and one of the ways would to do a lawsuit against the false advertiser. People on the internet sometimes lack a sense of integrity when they are in the wrong, some will try to prevent you from getting any money back on an item that they bought from them.
“The lawsuit asserts that RevGuard, et al. deceptively billed people who bought a tooth-whitening product.[1] A negative option plan generally refers to transactions in which a seller interprets the customer’s failure to take an affirmative action — typically cancelling an offer — as consent to be charged for goods or services on a recurring basis.”
“In the FTC v. RevGuard case, the FTC alleges that the defendants’ checkout pages were structured so that once a customer made a purchase, they were instantly redirected to another page that displayed a large yellow “complete checkout” button. The commission further alleges that when customers clicked to “complete checkout” they were enrolled in a second negative option plan for additional products. According to the FTC, the offending checkout page looked like an order confirmation”.
“Though the FTC commonly cracks down on negative option schemes, this case has significant implications for merchant transaction companies. Specifically, the FTC’s co-defendants list included: (1) service providers that perform the fraud’s “back office” functions; (2) intermediate holding companies that obscure financial transactions; and (3) merchant entities that obtain merchant accounts, web domains, and credit-card settlement bank accounts.[2] In essence, this case raises concerns for entities that did nothing more than open merchant accounts”.
“Furthermore, and far more troubling, is that the asset freeze applied to the aforementioned three groups of co-defendants, not just the affiliate marketers who actually profited from the scheme.[3] In particular, the Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court declared that the asset freeze applied to “. . . [d]efendants and their officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly . . . .”[4]
If the the online world do not follow the same rules as the offline world there will be many people who will be un protected from the evils of false advertisement. Another evil can be the stealing of someone’s else work and passing it as their own or making up their own facts and giving people that its real facts. “The POM Case began in 2010 when the FTC filed an administrative complaint alleging that POM Wonderful, LLC (“POM”) and related executives had made false, misleading, and unsubstantiated representation in violation of the FTC Act.
In May 2012, a judge found that nineteen of POM’s promotional materials violated substantiation rules by improperly implying that products treated, prevented, or reduced the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction.
The Court held that POM parties were liable under the FTC Act and ordered the company to cease and desist from making further claims about the health benefits of any food, drug, or dietary supplement — unless the claims were non-misleading and supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
Advertising requirements were made for a reason, to protect people from losing money or keep people from making false claims and passing them on as real claims.
Sources
[3] FTC v. RevGuard, LLC et al. Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order Granting Asset Freeze, Appointment of a Temporary Receiver, and other Equitable Relied, and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue § 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment