Stop Tweeting - or we will take you to court!

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345382/Twitter-Liz-Lurley-Lily-Allen-face-possible-court-action-endorsing-luxury-items.html

Stop Tweeting - or we will take you to court! Watchdog's crackdown on celebrities who plug products on Twitter


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/08/article-1345382-0CAFA1F3000005DC-823_468x286.jpg



Dozens of celebrities, including actress Liz Hurley and singer Lily Allen, face possible court action over claims that they are endorsing luxury items on their internet blogs and Tweets without declaring that they have been paid by the companies concerned. Actors, pop stars and TV presenters who fail to mention that they have a financial interest in ‘plugging’ goods such as cars or perfumes online could be contacted by the Government’s consumer watchdog in the coming weeks. The crackdown has been ordered by the Office of Fair Trading, which has the power to take offenders to court.

The first such case of its kind was brought last year against a PR firm which was found to be paying bloggers to write in glowing terms about the company’s clients. Now enforcement officers are examining possible breaches of the law by celebrities involved in secret deals with manufacturers of luxury goods. The OFT refuses to discuss ongoing investigations but officials are known to be keen to crack down on what they regard as possible breaches of the consumer protection laws laid down in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Elizabeth Hurley’s Twitter page contains at least ten references to Estee Lauder’s ‘divine’ skincare products. She has been the public face of the cosmetics company for 17 years. Her spokesman would not comment on whether the deal obliges her to Tweet on its behalf.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/08/article-1345382-0CB0E54D000005DC-322_468x641.jpg



Lily Allen, whose Twitter page has more than 2.5 million followers, wrote: ‘Apparently there is a brand new Playstation Move waiting for me at my office in the morning. Tres exciting.’ The computer gaming company was involved in the launch of Miss Allen’s new clothes shop, Lucy in Disguise, in Covent Garden, London, in September. Asked about a possible connection with the singer’s online musings, Miss Allen’s spokesman said: ‘It’s nobody’s business.’ Fashion designer Henry Holland Tweeted excitedly about his new Range Rover twice last year. ‘It’s the dream! Waiting for me in the car park!’

The steady drip drip drip of lost freedoms and liberty.. and the show just rolls on (looking at polls in Oldham East its clear to see people still haven't woken up). Why should a private subject need to state their interests before they speak? These laws are here to protect the stupid from their own stupidity, if Lily Allen tweets a long list of expensive products and I go and buy them all well more fool me - it's my own fault.

Government involving itself with the internet and why? money and control - they don't want to miss out.

Thoughts? should the internet be free from government interference?

[Fez]

The internet is the holy grail of our age of information, obviously as PPUK guy I'm likely to say that, but it really is. It's freedom of communication, speech and anonymity that keeps it what it is today. I can hop on to any message board or any commenting box, type in a pseudonym and post whatever opinion I want no matter how extreme or poorly written. Given general rules of websites, it might be removed, but I have a right to say it. I have a right to speak out and do as I wish.

If Lily Allencakes just so happens to tweet ''[product] is good." and I go out and buy it, then I'm buying it for myself. I'm not going out absolutely forced, it's a recommendation - not a barking order. It could be seen as advertising and there are links to it, but more than likely the celebrity in question just picked one up or got sent one and wants to tweet about it. My private business should not be the government's business.

[Catzsy]

Well I am guessing that it is 'product placement' and free advertising for the company and they rely on revenue from advertising to keep the site going. The celebrities are probably getting paid for it and so making money off the back of Twitter. I can see their point here.

[Fez]

Well I am guessing that it is 'product placement' and free advertising for the company and they rely on revenue from advertising to keep the site going. The celebrities are probably getting paid for it and so making money off the back of Twitter. I can see their point here.

Yeah but how can you differentiate between a celebrity buying something or a celebrity being paid to plug something?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I am guessing that it is 'product placement' and free advertising for the company and they rely on revenue from advertising to keep the site going. The celebrities are probably getting paid for it and so making money off the back of Twitter. I can see their point here.

What has that got to do with the government?

[Inseriousity.]

Product placement on TV would just be annoying and reminds me of Truman show where she advertises coffee halfway through an argument. But advertising on the internet is different because the internet is more open and it wouldn't wreck any tv program!

speaking of advertising... www.habboxforum.com/comps (http://www.habboxforum.com/comps) (don't sue me :()

[Fez]

But advertising on the internet is different because the internet is more open.

With the US government shutting down 'illegal' filesharing sites everyday (hence my signature) while refusing to give tax breaks to various entertainment bodies (thus why everything costs so much to download 'legally') the internet is not open at all. Your I.P, your address and your name are all at the fingertips of the government - they can invade your privacy whenever they want.

Say you 'pirate' something and the publishers behind it decide to take everyone of the pirates to legal action. That would mean, under the Digital Economy Act in the UK, they would be able to cut off your internet indefinitely without trial. That means everyone in your household would not be able to access the internet and all of your information would be held by not only the government but the publishers who sought legal action.

In fact, to drive my point even more home:


WARNING all 637,000 @wikileaks followers are a target of US gov subpoena against Twitter, under section 2. B http://******/koZIA

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/23939621570215936


Too late to unfollow; trick used is to demand the lists, dates and IPs of all who received our twitter messages.

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/23943796899184640

This may appear as massively off-topic but if we take this into account when dealing with the 'celebrity endorsements' on Twitter, then the private information of those celebrities could be just taken without any of them knowing.

The internet is not an open place, it's a place of cyberwars between government bodies and freedom of speech.

[Inseriousity.]

That's why I said more open, not completely open! :P

[Catzsy]

Yeah but how can you differentiate between a celebrity buying something or a celebrity being paid to plug something?

Well luckily that's not for us to decide.


What has that got to do with the government?

Well if the matter is reported to the Office of Fair Trading they take action if they think fit but you have a point if Twitter don't like it thy can sue.

@ Seriousity - product placement is soon to be allowed on the BBC.

[RedStratocas]

you think this is bad? the u.s. government is targeting all followers of wikileaks on twitter for subpoenas. (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/us-subpoenas-wikileaks-tweets-and-why-this-could-affect-you/7610)

[alexxxxx]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345382/Twitter-Liz-Lurley-Lily-Allen-face-possible-court-action-endorsing-luxury-items.html

Stop Tweeting - or we will take you to court! Watchdog's crackdown on celebrities who plug products on Twitter


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/08/article-1345382-0CAFA1F3000005DC-823_468x286.jpg




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/08/article-1345382-0CB0E54D000005DC-322_468x641.jpg




The steady drip drip drip of lost freedoms and liberty.. and the show just rolls on (looking at polls in Oldham East its clear to see people still haven't woken up). Why should a private subject need to state their interests before they speak? These laws are here to protect the stupid from their own stupidity, if Lily Allen tweets a long list of expensive products and I go and buy them all well more fool me - it's my own fault.

Government involving itself with the internet and why? money and control - they don't want to miss out.

Thoughts? should the internet be free from government interference?

i wouldn't say this is a loss of freedoms as i guess this has been the law for quite a while. However i don't see in principle why this shouldn't be allowed - Twitter in fact is an advert for those celebrities anyway, some set up by record companies etc, who endorse products on advertisements, i don't see why people can't understand that everything they read on twitter is actually coming from their mouth anyway.