This seems like an overreach of the government's power more than anything. And if anyone is to blame, it seems like the responsibility should be on the Youtube creator to do the disclosure and not Warner Bros(so they should fine "PewDiePie" rather than Warner Bros), since they ultimately broadcast the noncompliant material.
It seems like this happens in the newspapers all the time. I'm actually unfamiliar with the FTCA. I reread pg's essay[1] and I guess the main difference with sponsored content in the newspapers is that the reporters don't directly benefit from the sponsored content. I don't know - there's an awful lot of sponsored content on news sites nowadays, and I always imagined the reporters did it for the money.
Is it actually illegal to take money to publish sponsored content in a newspaper without providing a notice of this?
The rule isn't that it's illegal to take money. The rule is that “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” are illegal with respect to advertising. Obviously that's a very broad stroke, so there are guidelines[1] put out by the FTC which give examples of what is considered fair and what's deceptive. In particular the disclosure should be part of the ad, not located somewhere else that a party might not have access to (e.g. YouTube videos are often embedded. You won't see the description box in that case, and will have no indication that you're watching paid content.) It's WB's product; they're the one's who needed to make sure their paid ads were compliant. Kjellberg/PewDiePie is based in Sweden, so the FTC guidelines don't concern him except insofar as he's doing commerce in the US.
I think that an important part of it is that WB controlled where the disclosure had to be (below the fold in the notes section). Because of that, it's WB fault, not the YouTube creator.
Point taken. From the wording below, it appears that it didn't even begin to get to court, so maybe 'settlement' is the wrong word too. It sounds like all they really did was issue a complaint, which WB agreed to listen to.
--------------
The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the proposed consent agreement was 3-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly.
The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through August 10, 2016, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Interested parties can submit comments electronically by following the instructions in the “Invitation to Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice.
> From the wording below, it appears that it didn't even begin to get to court, so maybe 'settlement' is the wrong word too. It sounds like all they really did was issue a complaint, which WB agreed to listen to.
A "complaint" in this sense is a formal charge ("complaint" is used in the same sense in court cases, a charging document is a "complaint"). An administrative complaint, if not settled, is heard before one of the FTC's administrative law judges, from which appeal can be taken to the commission, from which appeal can be taken to the federal courts.
It seems like this happens in the newspapers all the time. I'm actually unfamiliar with the FTCA. I reread pg's essay[1] and I guess the main difference with sponsored content in the newspapers is that the reporters don't directly benefit from the sponsored content. I don't know - there's an awful lot of sponsored content on news sites nowadays, and I always imagined the reporters did it for the money.
Is it actually illegal to take money to publish sponsored content in a newspaper without providing a notice of this?
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html