New Regulations - Wayne Strnad Exchange - business and community

FTC for You and Me

Dear Consumer,

First, although there very well might be some conjured justification for the new FTC rules, with exceptions, or should we say, advertising by big Phara and the medical industry (wonder if the FTC talked to the FDA), we shall clearly state that anything you find in this website is for commercial intent i.e. making money.  Products are recommended.  In some cases we are an affiliate.  In others, we expose the corruption that happens in government - all levels.  Do we charge for this?  For the most part, no.

The new ruling does open up for discussion (which the general public was not invited to attend, nor was it advertised or found in any major newspapers) questions about the decisions for the new rulings with regards to the FDA and how they are in that proverbial bed with the AMA and the Pharmaceutical companies and pretty much exempt from their governing endorsements and testimonials.

You can read their new and improved nonsense by clicking on this link:  http://ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm

Second, it is the right of any citizen of the United States of America to voice their opinion.  When someone uses a product that they find helpful, are they not allowed to tell others about it through whatever means that are available?  In the technology field today, things such as blogs and social networks are just another media, similar to the newspapers and magazines of years past.  As such, the opinions are protected by 1st Amendment rights and as such, you are not required to disclose any sources in the publishing business or sale of a product;  newspapers have advertisers that help pay for production costs and reporters; reporters, writing a story, are really offering another opinion of something.  Is the reporter required to disclose any "endorsement" that periodically "pops-up" on the website hosting his/her story?  After all, the consumer who reads that reporters work all the time, might be prone to clicking on one of those Google Adwords that is being paid for by the advertiser.

Well, what's the difference between a person placing a link to the product?  Do we now need to consider the persons "status" i.e. an expert, entertainer, or whatever.  The end result is exactly the same - they both make money if the consumer buys the product.  It appears that they need to go back to the drawing board with this law. 

According to the new rules they must disclose any relationship.  However, and please view this documents Example 3, http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf it's ok for an announcer if he is a spokesman for the advertising drug company.  At what point did the announcer become a spokesperson?  Is the number of times a commercial appears on the TV, so as to saturate the market, that it becomes assumed the announcer is a spokesman?  This needs some retooling in thought!  Compare Example 3 and 6, the home fitness system.  What if the entertainer owned the company?  Why can an entertainer not be an announcer?  News radio is full of announcers and they read from scripts and many consider them entertaining.

Third, some people work as consultants.  Picture the person that consults for the restaurant business.  If, in his/her daily activities, the person is asked their opinion of what is a good restaurant in such and such an area of town, then should this person have their ready made script that they carry with them, to disclaim they worked for the restaurant in the past, although they might not have a relationship now?  Heck, this consultant might be liable because the people he referred actually went there and mentioned the fact that so and so recommended the restaurant.

Point is, there are flaws in nearly every one of the examples that are given.

So, to make sure that you, the consumer, is well informed, this site is disclosing that we may make money off of some of the products that you'll find in this store.  Did I mention it was a store?  Are not stores open for business to make money?  Sort of implied, right?

Just to satisfy more bureaucratic nonsense, created by an even larger bureaucracy that is costing the taxpayers billions of dollars to monitor this stuff and try and enforce laws that should never have been written to begin with, we consider, via this disclosure, to be in complete compliance with the law.  Here is some legal mumbo jumbo for all that have read thus far and have not turned away because they heard of other types of governmental nonsense before.

For More Information Contact:

The FTC