Well-known radio advertiser settles in false advertising lawsuit

[Martin Gilbert]

Which part of it do you believe is "a violation of the law?"

A radio talk show host who isn’t a registered investment advisor urging his listeners to buy gold from his sponsor.

 

[bturner1]

I bought a bunch of silver when it was $15 an ounce and sold it when it reached $41 an ounce about a year or so later. I am still holding some gold I bought at half the price it's going for now. I'll sell it someday.

 

[TheBigA]

A radio talk show host who isn’t a registered investment advisor urging his listeners to buy gold from his sponsor.

Here's the way to report it:

ReportFraud.ftc.gov

 

[radiofan2023]

A radio talk show host who isn’t a registered investment advisor urging his listeners to buy gold from his sponsor.

But there’s usually a disclaimer tag that the spokesperson isn’t giving investment advice, the same way that there’s a long winded disclaimer on national sportsbook gambling ads that gives different states gambling helpline numbers if you have problems with gambling. Do you also think the Marlboro man only smoked reds and was an actual cowboy? There is some responsibility on a listener’s part to evaluate what they’re being sold and who’s selling it to them.

 

[Martin Gilbert]

I bought a bunch of silver when it was $15 an ounce and sold it when it reached $41 an ounce about a year or so later. I am still holding some gold I bought at half the price it's going for now. I'll sell it someday

But there’s usually a disclaimer tag that the spokesperson isn’t giving investment advice, the same way that there’s a long winded disclaimer on national sportsbook gambling ads that gives different states gambling helpline numbers if you have problems with gambling. Do you also think the Marlboro man only smoked reds and was an actual cowboy? There is some responsibility on a listener’s part to evaluate what they’re being sold and who’s selling it to them.

No such disclaimer has been made by this particular talk show host, nor by others ”advising” their listeners to buy gold from their gold sponsors who are “the only gold company I trust.”

 

[radiofan2023]

No such disclaimer has been made by this particular talk show host, nor by others ”advising” their listeners to buy gold from their gold sponsors who are “the only gold company I trust.”

So file a complaint with the FTC and if they think it's worth investigating, they will.

 

[davideduardo]

https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/complaints_about_broadcast_advertising.pdf

That is a reference to laws and regulations outside the FCC jurisdiction and which the FCC neither monitors nor enforces:

"Stations are restricted from broadcasting material that promotes certain lotteries; advertises cigarettes,
little cigars or smokeless tobacco products; or perpetuates a fraud. Some advertisements also may
violate regulations that fall under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies, such as the Food and Drug
Administration or the Federal Trade Commission"

The case of lotteries, tobacco are extensions of Federal laws. Please cite one instance where the FCC has fined, sanctioned or penalized a station for broadcasting such ads.

 

[davideduardo]

No such disclaimer has been made by this particular talk show host, nor by others ”advising” their listeners to buy gold from their gold sponsors who are “the only gold company I trust.”

Can you imagine how many people the FCC would have to employ to regulate about 18,000 AM, FM, translator and LPFM signals? Then there are all the TV stations.

Most are 24 hours a day, and many either don't stream or geozone their stream, so the FCC would have to have staff in multiple shifts in hundreds of locations across the USA and its territories.

 

[TheBigA]

No such disclaimer has been made by this particular talk show host, nor by others ”advising” their listeners to buy gold from their gold sponsors who are “the only gold company I trust.”

Looking at the FTC site, the only people they prosecute are those who promise gold, take money from listeners, and then fail to deliver the gold they promised. There have been several of those people. But if this says he trusts them, that's his free speech right. Perhaps he does trust them, but it's not required. There are scams out there. People need to do their due diligence. They can't rely on the government or radio to do it for them.

 

[davideduardo]

Looking at the FTC site, the only people they prosecute are those who promise gold, take money from listeners, and then fail to deliver the gold they promised. There have been several of those people. But if this says he trusts them, that's his free speech right. Perhaps he does trust them, but it's not required. There are scams out there. People need to do their due diligence. They can't rely on the government or radio to do it for them.

Martin Gilbert needs to look at the definition of "puffery", which is acceptable and legal.

 

[Hole in your radio]

But there’s usually a disclaimer tag that the spokesperson isn’t giving investment advice, the same way that there’s a long winded disclaimer on national sportsbook gambling ads that gives different states gambling helpline numbers if you have problems with gambling. Do you also think the Marlboro man only smoked reds and was an actual cowboy? There is some responsibility on a listener’s part to evaluate what they’re being sold and who’s selling it to them.

The disclaimers I hear on numerous radio spots are at many times the speed of normal speech. They can't be deciphered. Same goes for TV spots, bottom of the screen at the smallest usable fonts.
This gives the ad buyer plausible deniability. Congratulations, ad buyer. You're still just tricking your listeners/viewers into purchasing decisions you know are unwise. Well done.

 

[Hole in your radio]

It is not media's job to evaluate every claim made in advertising. If that were true, even the largest media companies could not accept advertising. And it would be death for local "ma and pa" merchants and entrepreneurs who could not advertise because no medium would accept the cost of qualifying a small budget account.

Some media used to consider their obligation to screen incoming spots for fraudulent statements. I've worked for radio stations that had a "Standards and Practices" department to help keep the station clean, legal and maintain its integrity with the audience. They also had a Public Affairs department but these things existed to comply with FCC rules, something about "serving the public interest as a public trustee." How quaint.

 

[TheBigA]

Some media used to consider their obligation to screen incoming spots for fraudulent statements. I've worked for radio stations that had a "Standards and Practices" department to help keep the station clean, legal and maintain its integrity with the audience.

And even then, they took tobacco money knowing the product caused cancer. Those spots passed standards & practices.

 

[Hole in your radio]

It is not media's job to evaluate every claim made in advertising. If that were true, even the largest media companies could not accept advertising. And it would be death for local "ma and pa" merchants and entrepreneurs who could not advertise because no medium would accept the cost of qualifying a small budget account.

Some media used to consider their obligation to screen incoming spots for fraudulent statements. I've worked for radio stations that had a "Standards and Practices" department to help keep the station clean, legal and maintain its integrity with the audience.

 

[davideduardo]

Some media used to consider their obligation to screen incoming spots for fraudulent statements. I've worked for radio stations that had a "Standards and Practices" department to help keep the station clean, legal and maintain its integrity with the audience.

"Standards and Practices" used to be tied to the NAB Code, which included things like restrictions on beer and wine ads and prohibition of hard liquor. The NAB dropped the code when the government found it to be a form of collusion.

Today, S&P (at the few station groups that have such a department) mostly examines the compliance of ads with existing legislation and, in a few cases, a company policy on use of certain words and terms. They do not test products in a lab or on the road or in a homeowner's residence to see if claims are true; they are not Consumer Reports.

 

[davideduardo]

And even then, they took tobacco money knowing the product caused cancer. Those spots passed standards & practices.

... and they passed because, at the time, it was legal to sell and advertise tobacco products.

 

[Hole in your radio]

"Standards and Practices" used to be tied to the NAB Code, which included things like restrictions on beer and wine ads and prohibition of hard liquor. The NAB dropped the code when the government found it to be a form of collusion.

Today, S&P (at the few station groups that have such a department) mostly examines the compliance of ads with existing legislation and, in a few cases, a company policy on use of certain words and terms. They do not test products in a lab or on the road or in a homeowner's residence to see if claims are true; they are not Consumer Reports.

David, you're correct. I was at a station that went a little further I suppose.

 

[SomeRadioGuy]

Some media used to consider their obligation to screen incoming spots for fraudulent statements. I've worked for radio stations that had a "Standards and Practices" department to help keep the station clean, legal and maintain its integrity with the audience. They also had a Public Affairs department but these things existed to comply with FCC rules, something about "serving the public interest as a public trustee." How quaint.

LOL what stations ever had an S &P department? I 've never heard of that....

The disclaimers I hear on numerous radio spots are at many times the speed of normal speech. They can't be deciphered. Same goes for TV spots, bottom of the screen at the smallest usable fonts.
This gives the ad buyer plausible deniability. Congratulations, ad buyer. You're still just tricking your listeners/viewers into purchasing decisions you know are unwise. Well done.

Some disclaimers are required by law... with car ads its about minute specuific detail; of what care theyre advertising or some financing deal, i wouldnt call it an unwise decision.

 

[davideduardo]

Some media used to consider their obligation to screen incoming spots for fraudulent statements. I've worked for radio stations that had a "Standards and Practices" department to help keep the station clean, legal and maintain its integrity with the audience. They also had a Public Affairs department but these things existed to comply with FCC rules, something about "serving the public interest as a public trustee." How quaint.

You might peruse this book that covers regulation in general: https://www.worldradiohistory.com/B...adcast-Programming-Krattenmaker-Powe-1994.pdf

Or check the variety of books on the subject at BOOKSHELF REGULATORY: The rules and regulations of Radio & TV in the USA

Or the NAB books at: NAB PUBLICATIONS: National Association of Broadcasters

 

[davideduardo]

David, you're correct. I was at a station that went a little further I suppose.

Yes, there were such companies. Bonneville during the time of Arch Madsen ( NAB PUBLICATIONS: National Association of Broadcasters) was such a company.