Let's talk about the FTC

It looks as if you are saying that even if the guru is not a US resident, they must still comply with FTC regs? I never see the Pixiwoo sisters putting any type of disclosures on any of their videos. I'm fairly certain they get tons of free stuff that's probably used in their videos. I actually love their videos, but I'd like to know if they must comply just like US gurus. Not just them, but all non US residents.

@Claire I looked into that topic and it seems as though it is just US residents. The FTC is a US based organization and has no say over what non US residents do.

The Pixiwoos seems pretty upfront about the fact that they get a lot of free products and recently made a video telling their viewers just what the affiliate links they post are about.

I just did a report on Elle and Blair! Hope they get a ton of complaints because im so tired of them always finding away around the FTC rules.

I agree that the Pixiwoo's are up front about getting free stuff. I think the main reason I'd like to know exactly what and when is so that when I'm watching their tutorials, I's have a better idea of why they are using certain products. If mean, if they are using those products solely because it's a product placement, I'd be hesitant to go get it.

Anyway, I guess there's nothing to be done about non US gurus since the FTC doesn't apply to them. I guess I just need to be more cautious about taking their videos seriously.

This is completely false. They are NOT required to post FTC disclaimers into their videos. There is nothing that says they must. It is a mere guideline for what they SHOULD do, not required. That is why you see tons and tons of videos without the FTC disclaimer. They don't have to. There is no internet police coming to arrest you and give you an $11,000 fine for not saying if you got a certain beauty product for free. The FTC DOESN'T CARE about the Youtube 'beauty community'. Ever wonder why Kandee Johnson pushes L'oreal products so much? It's because she is sponsored by them. But not ANYWHERE does she ever say that. It's because she doesn't have to. Report them as much as you want, nothing is going to happen. They care about bigger blogging sites, not youtube videos.

Claire25 wrote:I agree that the Pixiwoo's are up front about getting free stuff. I think the main reason I'd like to know exactly what and when is so that when I'm watching their tutorials, I's have a better idea of why they are using certain products. If mean, if they are using those products solely because it's a product placement, I'd be hesitant to go get it.

Anyway, I guess there's nothing to be done about non US gurus since the FTC doesn't apply to them. I guess I just need to be more cautious about taking their videos seriously.

Watch their Q&A video (can't remember if it is in part 1 or part 2) but they talk about their affiliate links and about sponsorship. That should help clear things up about them for you.

Well if the FTC doesn't care about youtube videos, then why did they change the rules and make disclaimers more strict?

I am sure if they get enough complaints about a beauty channel then they will investigate. I wouldn't take the chance if it was my channel.

Also the FTC did investigate Sunlab because they were putting ads online asking people to review their products on youtube, to make a youtube video for payment. I remember Elle made one and then took it down.

So you are an idiot if you think youtube videos aren't required to follow FTC laws and regulations.

The more people who complain to the FTC about a youtube "guru," the more likely they are to investigate. So maybe starting off with a few "gurus" who are the main offenders is the place to start.

"Jane" should also be reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission as well as the Food and Drug Administration since she is pedalling "Defective or Dangerous Products."

"Sweetie Jones" is engaging in "Business/Opportunity Farud" which falls under the jurisdiction f the FTC, FBI, and Postal Inspectors. She has also engaged in "Charity Fraud" on more than one occassion. The FTC and State Attorney Generals cover that.

"Jane," "Sweetie," and most of the rest of them engage in "Product/Service Misrepresentation." The FTC and state Consumer Protection Agencies should be contacted about this (start with the consumer protection agency in the guru's state of residence).

The sponsored/affiliate links are not much different than a "kickback," which is what they are engaging in if they aren't disclosing that your purchase via the links puts cash in their pockets.

Word on the web is... wrote:The more people who complain to the FTC about a youtube "guru," the more likely they are to investigate. So maybe starting off with a few "gurus" who are the main offenders is the place to start.

"Jane" should also be reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission as well as the Food and Drug Administration since she is pedalling "Defective or Dangerous Products."

"Sweetie Jones" is engaging in "Business/Opportunity Farud" which falls under the jurisdiction f the FTC, FBI, and Postal Inspectors. She has also engaged in "Charity Fraud" on more than one occassion. The FTC and State Attorney Generals cover that.

"Jane," "Sweetie," and most of the rest of them engage in "Product/Service Misrepresentation." The FTC and state Consumer Protection Agencies should be contacted about this (start with the consumer protection agency in the guru's state of residence).

The sponsored/affiliate links are not much different than a "kickback," which is what they are engaging in if they aren't disclosing that your purchase via the links puts cash in their pockets.

Work with Melu who seems to be doing some of the legal stuff...u seem to know what ur talking about.

no. wrote:This is completely false. They are NOT required to post FTC disclaimers into their videos. There is nothing that says they must. It is a mere guideline for what they SHOULD do, not required. That is why you see tons and tons of videos without the FTC disclaimer. They don't have to. There is no internet police coming to arrest you and give you an $11,000 fine for not saying if you got a certain beauty product for free. The FTC DOESN'T CARE about the Youtube 'beauty community'. Ever wonder why Kandee Johnson pushes L'oreal products so much? It's because she is sponsored by them. But not ANYWHERE does she ever say that. It's because she doesn't have to. Report them as much as you want, nothing is going to happen. They care about bigger blogging sites, not youtube videos.

Actually they ARE required but you're right there are no internet police that will come out to arrest you. What will happen is if the FTC receives a complaint they will typically investigate and give the person a warning to use a disclaimer. If the person habitually, after a warning, continues not to disclose then they can be fined per incident.

"continues not to disclose then they can be fined per incident."

How is the fine imposed?

athought wrote:"continues not to disclose then they can be fined per incident."

How is the fine imposed?

That is a good question. I've never been fined by the FTC so I have no idea how it's done. I would imagine that the person is taken to court where the attorneys would show the judge that the person in question has violated the law and the person is then issued an injunction with the fines attached. Or it could be like how a state revenue dept simply sends them a bill for any fines owed much like the IRS sends out notices of money owed. I would think the latter is more feasible since it's what the IRS does.

OK I didn't want to be a or admit i was narking....or narcing? i guess narking. Anyway i reported queenbeeuty for one of her videos. She doesn't tell she was sponsored by lancome. You guys need to start reporting people like her. They wrote me back and said they would look into it and some bullshit answer. I wrote back and said "oh i thought they would get fined 1500 what happened to that?" I'm still waiting for the reply.

no. wrote:This is completely false. They are NOT required to post FTC disclaimers into their videos. There is nothing that says they must. It is a mere guideline for what they SHOULD do, not required. That is why you see tons and tons of videos without the FTC disclaimer. They don't have to. There is no internet police coming to arrest you and give you an $11,000 fine for not saying if you got a certain beauty product for free. The FTC DOESN'T CARE about the Youtube 'beauty community'. Ever wonder why Kandee Johnson pushes L'oreal products so much? It's because she is sponsored by them. But not ANYWHERE does she ever say that. It's because she doesn't have to. Report them as much as you want, nothing is going to happen. They care about bigger blogging sites, not youtube videos.

I just saw this and i think you are right

I know that a lot of you may not like Kandee. She just gave birth, and we all know she isn't financially stable. She is going through a special time in her life, a time that is stressful, yet meaningful. It would ruin the life of her child, if you were to report her to the FTC. Not just the newborn, her children. She can't afford it. Maybe someone should message her, strictly telling her that she could be fined, and we will take action against it, if she doesn't update. But don't just go running to FTC.
Now for Meganheartsmakeup, we all know that she NEVER abides by FTC. Feel free to report her. She has the money, we have warned her. Kandee doesn't.
Thank you for your time.[/b][b]

There have been figures posted in Kandee's thread that show she is not hurting financially so save it, please.

Please wrote:I know that a lot of you may not like Kandee. She just gave birth, and we all know she isn't financially stable. She is going through a special time in her life, a time that is stressful, yet meaningful. It would ruin the life of her child, if you were to report her to the FTC. Not just the newborn, her children. She can't afford it. Maybe someone should message her, strictly telling her that she could be fined, and we will take action against it, if she doesn't update. But don't just go running to FTC.
Now for Meganheartsmakeup, we all know that she NEVER abides by FTC. Feel free to report her. She has the money, we have warned her. Kandee doesn't.
Thank you for your time.[/b][b]

wtf are you talking about bich has made $100,000+ from her "glaminars" alone...and then there's money from all the Youtube advertising, subscribers, video views etc...which is probably another $100k. I mean have you seen her huge house? Her SUV? How can you even think she has financial troubles lol.

Please wrote:I know that a lot of you may not like Kandee. She just gave birth, and we all know she isn't financially stable. She is going through a special time in her life, a time that is stressful, yet meaningful. It would ruin the life of her child, if you were to report her to the FTC. Not just the newborn, her children. She can't afford it. Maybe someone should message her, strictly telling her that she could be fined, and we will take action against it, if she doesn't update. But don't just go running to FTC.
Now for Meganheartsmakeup, we all know that she NEVER abides by FTC. Feel free to report her. She has the money, we have warned her. Kandee doesn't.
Thank you for your time.[/b][b]

Uhhhh Kandee has more than enough money lol. And that would be down right wrong to only report Youtubers who have money but not others who break the rules cause they "can't afford it". That is such a lame excuse.

If she can't afford it, she really shouldn't be breaking the law, huh?

KJ makes more $ than most of the other "gurus" combined. And most of that comes from her Scaminars, i.e. Business Opportunity Fraud. She claims she will teach you how to make it in the business and that her certificate will help you. Her certificate is nothing more than a paper she has printed out herself. There is no accreditation or any legitimacy behind it. You might as well print one out on your own, because it is worth as much. The Scaminars offer nothing of any legitimate value. The FTC would LOVE to know about the Scaminars, as would the IRS. They are a big deal.

The Scaminars are like all of thse modeling "agencies" that try to suck young and naive girls in. They promise so much-promise that the girls' modeling aspirations will come true, promise to get the girls modeling jobs, tell them how beautiful they are, and everything they want to hear. The catch is, there is a fee to sign up, and of course a fee for pictures which are done in-house (usually by a friend in on the scheme). The girls pay the fees, maybe take a few lousy pics, and then guess what? No jobs. Better yet, the "modeling agency" closes shop and moves to another location to prey on others. It's one of the oldest schemes out there. The scaminars are just a variation of that type of scam.

https:// www. ftccomplaintassistant. gov/

Even if it's not likely to be fined by a court, it is still unethical to be compensated for products or get a product for free and not disclose it. You can still flag the people that do this, as well. I even think it would be a good idea to report them on this website showing excactly which videos and gurus should be flagged and/or reported. Children are impressionable and even adults can get duped. For advertisers, it's great to use people like Pixiwoo and Michelle Phan and other gurus because we respect then and usually trust their advice. It's wrong to take advantage of that trust. The FTC disclaimers or some disclosure IS needed. What's worse is seeing people push very crappy clothes and products, too. However, I usually see them say they were sent those products. However, I noticed that sometimes they don't disclose who sent it to them.. just that they received it for free.

However, there are such advertisements known as Live Radio Endorsements. You see these a lot on the radio. It's where someone gets paid to review a product, but they act like they are just randomly talking about it. I've always had a problem with ads like this, yet you see very elite radio personalities do this. Some of the ads are obvious, while others are not.

Lumps wrote:


https:// www. ftccomplaintassistant. gov/

Even if it's not likely to be fined by a court, it is still unethical to be compensated for products or get a product for free and not disclose it. You can still flag the people that do this, as well. I even think it would be a good idea to report them on this website showing excactly which videos and gurus should be flagged and/or reported. Children are impressionable and even adults can get duped. For advertisers, it's great to use people like Pixiwoo and Michelle Phan and other gurus because we respect then and usually trust their advice. It's wrong to take advantage of that trust. The FTC disclaimers or some disclosure IS needed. What's worse is seeing people push very crappy clothes and products, too. However, I usually see them say they were sent those products. However, I noticed that sometimes they don't disclose who sent it to them.. just that they received it for free.

However, there are such advertisements known as Live Radio Endorsements. You see these a lot on the radio. It's where someone gets paid to review a product, but they act like they are just randomly talking about it. I've always had a problem with ads like this, yet you see very elite radio personalities do this. Some of the ads are obvious, while others are not.

Well, if they choose to be Youtube gurus, they all should do what required to be qualified by law. I agreed that there non-FTC disclaimers should be reported. I saw Michelle Phan uploads her vids after a few hours she said she wants to show a tutorial and get paid so much even for a junk vid. Of course, at least they should do right with their videos before they upload them.

All I know is that I already reported severl "gurus" to the ftc. I encourage everyone to report these "gurus" that are not following ftc guidlines. The more people that report the better.

You are right, it is completely unethical, but it is not illegal. They might, might get an e-mail warning, if not through the mail, but I can't see it going further than that. They have bigger fish to fry than Blair Fowler, unfortunately for us. Oh, it would be sweet...

next thing ftc will do is tell us what site we should visit