Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hosted an event to explore digital marketing for children. This is a rough transcript. If you have 5 hours to spare, you can watch the video that will be posted on the event page soon. The big question is whether the FTC will update its updated testimonials and recommended guides (or issue other orders) with requirements for children based on this event. (As an aside, these things used to be called “workshops”. For reasons that are obscure, that term now seems obsolete at his FTC. Soirées, galas, thought raves, Or what if you want to change brands?)

The event was born out of customer testimonials and suggested changes to the Recommended Guide. In issuing an update for comment, the FTC basically punted additional guidelines just for child-focused testimony. For years, the FTC has said that all of its guidance applies to all consumers, regardless of age, but the sophistication of the target audience is critical when determining what disclosures are effective. degree should be considered. In the proposed amendment, the FTC would place a Place Marker for Endorsements for Children, stating: In such cases, practices that are not normally an issue in adult-oriented advertising can be problematic. At the same time, the FTC scheduled this event to gather more information.

The day was split into three panels, looking at children’s cognitive ability to understand advertisements and advertisement disclosures, the potential harm of children viewing blurry advertisements, and potential fixes for the same problem. . Her Mamie Kresses, director of the Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU), reviewed the state of self-regulation and set the table by summarizing recent cases in the digital space.

There has been a fair amount of debate over the FTC bar for adopting rules directed at advertising for children under the FTC’s unfair jurisdiction. Congress introduced this ban after he called the National Nanny after the KidVid era, when the FTC was ridiculed for its excesses and tried to ban certain ads directed at children. However, this does not prohibit the FTC from engaging in rulemaking for conduct it deems misleading or deceptive directed at children online. there was little discussion of West Virginia vs EPAthe Supreme Court ruled that regulatory agencies must have “the explicit approval of Congress” to make regulations related to “major issues” of political or economic importance. But the FTC has shown no slack in its zeal to start rulemaking (more on that in tomorrow’s blog reviewing today’s public committee meeting).

As for the event itself, aside from the outlier views (advocates who argue that parents can effectively police, and many children’s advocates who argue that all digital advertising directed at children should be banned). , our sense is that the FTC will likely add some more specific guidelines for online disclosure of advertising directed at children. This includes adopting her CARU requirement to repeat audio and video disclosures. It wouldn’t surprise me if the FTC recommended using very simple language in disclosures like “advertising” and “paid”.

YouTube has described its current program as icons and other specific disclosures for children, as well as accompanying educational programs. This includes research showing that children understand these disclosures. Quantitative research on children’s comprehension of advertising disclosures is clearly a best practice.

It is not clear whether the FTC will use the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’s definition of a “child” and focus on recommendations for people under 13 and over 13. It is unclear whether the FTC will focus on recommendations for people under the age of 13 and those over the age of 13. Because there has been much debate about harm: harm to older children up to 17 years of age and those who are not neurotypical, and disproportionate harm to children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds.

The day was very confusing in terms of what advertising is and what brand-created content is. Some presenters focused on advertising as a way to promote their products and services. Some presenters did not seem to recognize such a distinction and seemed to imply that content created by brands is commercial in nature. While I doubt we’ll make detailed decisions about where to put it, it’s definitely an area that brands creating content (and who doesn’t these days?) need to pay attention and continue. You have to think carefully about where you draw the line.

There has been quite a bit of discussion about advergaming. In the first panel, which focused on children’s cognitive abilities, the panel talked about virtual influencers and noted that many avatars seemed very friendly. We speculated that they were more likely to view influencers as friends and trustworthy.

The FTC is open to additional comments and particularly welcomes quantitative research in this area. I’m extending the comment period for another month.

[View source.]