FTC offers mixed message on celebrity endorsements

By Eriq Gardner

It's no secret that celebrities get perks for being famous. Free clothes, cutting-edge technology, tickets to hot events.

Question of the day: Should the FTC give celebrities more latitude than non-celebrities in disclosing these perks?

Ever since the federal agency announced it would be cracking down on advertisers and endorsers who aren't completely transparent in revealing in-kind payments, bloggers have been up-in-arms over the new guidelines.

One example is a writer for Daily Finance who figured he had a gotcha when he reported in December that actress Gwyneth Paltrow probably didn't pay for a night at the La Mamounia Hotel in Marrakech, Morocco, before lavishing the hotel with praise in her digital newsletter. Paltrow didn't disclose whether her night of Morocco high-life was provided free of charge.

We let out a huge yawn upon seeing this news. But the writer followed up on his "scoop" and got Rich Cleland, the associate director of the FTC's advertising division, to address the situation by suggesting that celebrities should be treated differently.

"Celebrity endorsements are a little different than person-on-the-street endorsements," he said. "Would consumers understand that celebrities are always getting free stuff? It's a factual question."

We're a little confused. In announcing its changes in October, the FTC specifically addressed celebrities and said they "have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media."

That seems clear enough, no? Now the FTC seems to be suggesting a possible change of heart.