@ironman: And that distinction is a big pile of nothing. If I transfer money from your bank account to mine you weren't physically robbed of anything either.

If you did it without my consent, you would be physically stealing my money. If I have a dollar bill in my hand, and you take it from my hand, you are stealing it from me. If I go to McDonals and see that they say they have less transfats in their food than BK, and I CHOOSE to believe them, then I might CHOOSE to give them my money in return for a product. See here is where the important part is, any consumer that willingly gives up money, gets something in return. That my friend, is not stealing. That is a TRADE of goods and services for cold hard cash.

@ironman: I can use a very similar argument to the one you just used to show why false advertisement is defrauding people of their money... however, I think my previous posts are already explanatory enough so I won't repeat the same points.

While I believe they have good intentions, I don't really see a "problem" that they're trying to solve and I fear for how this set-up can be abused down the line ...

More and more people are evaluating all media source (including bloggers) and determining if they have any biases before we trust any information they put out; and (for the most part) these bloggers have to have some credibility with us before we will trust any recomendations they make. For the most part, when someone reads something from a blogger who has an obvious bias they either accept it (if they share the same bias) or they treat it in a similar fashion to an advertizement. I personally haven't seen anyone who has bought anything where there was any evidence that they were "tricked" into buying the product by a blogger who was in the pocket of a company.

With that said, most bloggers comment on things that they have a conflict of interest in because they have special knowledge and opinions about those things. It doesn't matter if you're talking about political or commercial blogs, this has the potential to be used as a weapon by large companies and massive political parties to silence people with limited resource who disagree with the worldview they want to create.

Apple developer who wants to praise a new iMac? Not going to happen, Microsoft will just complain to the FTC ...

Environmental scientist working for a company who is contracted by the oil companies wanting to clarify some misconceptions about how "Unenvironmental" oil companies are? Nope, not going to happen, Greenpeace will just complain to the FTC ...

@HappySqurriel: They can't complain to the FTC if the apple developer or scientist openly state their occupations (which is normally what would happen anyway... an honest professional will usually post their occupation at their website).

As for the impact of these bloggers, personally I do a lot of web searches to find out things about a product. It's perfectly possible for someone to find a blogger's page on some product and it influencing the person no matter how slightly. I don't know if there are any studies on the impact of viral marketing and such things though.

Makes me think of American political ads. I'm just expecting to see a Gametrailers review or something giving a terrible PS3 game 95%, and then hearing right at the end "Sony Computer Entertainment America is responsible for the content of this review." Or a review of a Nintendo game, ending with "I'm Satoru Iwata, and I approve this review!"

Off Topic....but is payola to pay what cashola is to cash? If it is...inFamous. If not...my bad.

Actually, I don't think that this law will affect professional review sites much. The point is to target ads which are masquerading as a private opinion on a blog. Professional review sites (using the term 'professional' a little loosely, here :P) put their ads in banners and sidebars, leaving no doubt that those are ads and that the review site has recieved money from the publisher. The conflict of interest is implicit, and the disclosure is pretty much a part of the deal.

Now, if a publisher is trying to cut a deal where they actually do directly pay for specific review content, then the reviewer could run afoul of this law. And they damn well should.

all of the sudden sonys and Microsoft expenses are going to drop ...funny thing is so will the amount of wii hate...hmmmmm

I find it amusing that some people are jumping to conclusions, much like in politics.

Regulation does not mean = control.

Regulation means say IGN can't mouth off about a certain game being awesome when they receive free trips to disneyworld.

Do you really think the FTC gives a damn if you critique something on your twitter account? Get real.