Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The importance of promoting brands and products on digital platforms has continued to grow as advertisers are learning how to use social media to reach out to specific populations by harnessing the power and goodwill of the people on these platforms that are popular with and influence particular niche groups of interest. These so-called “influencers” can have thousands, or even millions and tens of millions of followers, and be popular both broadly and within a segment such as C++ software engineers. These influencers might organically discuss a product or brand if they like it, but advertisers may also seek them out to leverage their social media presence (on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, etc.) to endorse or promote a product for some form of consideration. Therein lies the issue: When is the influencer an objective critic, and when is she a paid spokesperson? Obviously, the consumer will weigh the credibility, objectivity and veracity of the two types of speech differently, as they would treat the distinction between any other types of commercial and editorial speech. Only here, unlike on TV, it is more difficult to tell commercial verses editorial messages apart.
'Material Connection'
Enter the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has now for years consistently warned advertisers, brands and influencers about the need for adequate disclosures when there is a “material connection.” See, “Do Tell,” Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine (May 2017, p. 28). A material connection is a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give an endorsement, and can be a business or family relationship, monetary payment, or the gift of a free product. However, despite the increase in social media endorsements and clear material connections to products and brands, advertisers, brands and social media influencers have failed to strictly adhere to the FTC's disclosure requirements and repeated warnings. Based on this lack of compliance, the FTC has recently ramped up its enforcement actions to ensure such endorsements adequately comply with FTC regulations and to warn advertisers, brands and influencers to take heed.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.