A blogger, by virtue of his or her independence, their non-affiliation, it is felt that the public will possibly assume, according to the FTC, the same standard ‘traditional’ media enjoys may apply. Therefore, deception may occur without disclosure. After all, it costs little if anything to set up a blog. There is no financial investment or reputation driving consistent, credible review quality. The simple truth is that drug companies, consumer electronic manufacturers, vitamin and diet promoters, among many other businesses, have turned to the internet as an end-around of govt. oversight.

In the example you provide of a certain ‘Joe Soap’, the FTC makes it clear that a blogger endorsement follows upon a consistent, repetitious relation to a given business. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing in the new Guidelines that remotely suggests a citizen blogger writing for their family would be required to disclose anything! However, should travel companies establish a relation over time with ‘Joe Soap’, the citizen blogger, then yes, disclosure would eventually be required. But even then, the details of the restaurant and bar comps., the discount on sandals, would fall well outside of the Guidelines.

You must remember that the Guidelines are but a first attempt to address the growing problem of internet fraud and mis-representation, of the pernicious, sometimes injurious trafficking of the false testimonials of shills, of all those ‘gaming’ the system. Even wine writers!

But your concerns about Greybeard may be put to rest!

And as for a SWAT team breaking down the door, if a mother had given her child a dietary supplement advertised on a fake ‘family’-issues blog as improving children’s health that was, in fact, injurious, then that mother would likely want some legal recourse.

I read two daily newspapers. Their reviewers of books, wines, theatre, movies, travel and vacations all get them free. Readers know that.

But Joe Soap writing a personal blog for their family or whatever has to disclose what was paid for?

“Went on great holiday (paid for) found buzzy bar wherethey make great margaritas (bought 6 barman gave me one on the house), had great pub meal (2 for 1 discount) and waiter brought us a great grappa with the bill (on the house). Saw great sandals in shop (on sale, got 50%off)…..”

Wine writers on blogs must disclose while writers in magazines and newspapers don’t? Is this official recognition that the blogosphere is more influential than traditional media?

Also not clear who is affected. It is US bloggers, or writers on blogs hosted in the US? Can you Greybeard write freely while your other writers risk a SWAT team breaking down their doors?

And if a blogger writes that they paid for goods they review, who will or can prove them wrong?

Re wine, what about wines you taste at trade shows? How about if you pay to attend a wine show but the pours are free once inside the show?

It is a standard that needs to be applied not just to the blogosphere but to all winewriting–and, of course, to all comments on product quality.

I cannot see where any responsible critic should be opposed. There are no onerous reporting requirements. To my mind, the entire wine community would be advanced by taking a united stand for openness and absence of taint in our writings.

And the FTC is not a law-enforcement agency. Violations of the Guidelines will be recommended to law enforcement on a case-by-case basis, and then only in instances of egregious, flagrant and repeated abuse of the public trust.

An important caveat: the FTC has very little interest in themselves actively ‘policing’ the blogosphere. The important wrinkle here is that consumers now have the FTC’s Complaint link to report violations. This, I believe, is the most important development.

Most wine bloggers who have a readership already do disclosure, so I think the ultimate eventuality is that the fringe will shake out, which is probably better off for everybody anyway.

Again, nice post.