Did the new FTC rules on deceptive endorsements make paid backlinks and reciprocal link trades illegal? The 163-page document released on August 14, 2024, focuses on hidden endorsements and misleading material connections. The document’s language about the misuse of fake indicators raises red flags for those engaging in link schemes.
The rule prohibits the manipulation of undisclosed material connections and the use of deceptive testimonials. If the links you acquire are framed so that they’re seen as misleading (e.g., falsely implying endorsements or sentiments that aren’t genuine), then they could potentially be scrutinized under the FTC’s broader interpretation of deceptive practices.
The New Gray-er Area of Link Trading and Link Buying
While mother-Google has somewhat famously always frowned upon paid link acquisition, their caution against excessive or manipulative link exchanges solely for SEO purposes isn’t as well-known. Google mentions excessive link trading as part of their definition of “link schemes,” which are viewed as attempts to manipulate rankings and can result in penalties.
But those penalties were always in the Google realm, whether for links brokered in exchange for cash or for an allegedly reciprocal trade. Is it possible that paid and traded links might be considered undisclosed endorsements which would now make them illegal? A keen litigator need look no further than Google’s original PageRank patent for ammo on that front.
Your Honor, I submit PageRank as proof that links are endorsements.
The core principle behind PageRank is that each link to a page is treated as a vote of confidence, indicating its importance or relevance. This concept has roots in citation analysis, where the value of a document (or website, in this case) is determined based on how many other reputable documents cite it. That sounds like an endorsement to me.
Is this just SEO doom and gloom? Are you spreading SEO FUD?!
Businesses purchasing links or engaging in a pattern of reciprocal link trading should review compliance with new FTC rules. I am neither an attorney nor an FTC rule expert, so I can’t answer these questions. But it seems like purchasing links might now be “black hat” in the eyes of both Google and Uncle Sam. Link trades are perhaps still a gray area.
I’m more familiar with the new FTC rules than many because it caused Reddaddo to lose a few clients who were ostensibly using the Reddaddo data to astroturf or shill. Conveniently there are many still-legal use cases for Reddaddo data, so we’re not shuttering that just yet. Furthermore, as an armchair consumer advocate, I see the new FTC rules as a win for almost everybody who uses the internet.
Does it even matter?
With the Supreme Court gutting the Chevron doctrine mere weeks before these rules were published, the FTC’s ability to enforce them is significantly weakened. Federal agencies now lose the deference courts traditionally gave to their interpretations of ambiguous laws. And clearly, there’s some ambiguity in these new rules.
So any company caught in the crosshairs can challenge the FTC’s reading of its own rules. And if the issue reaches the Supreme Court, the current conservative majority, which overruled Chevron, would likely rule against broad agency interpretations, further limiting the FTC’s ability to enforce such rules without explicit congressional authorization.
It might be time to contact your elected officials – about codifying Chevron, overturning Citizens United v. FEC, and/or any other anti-consumer, anti-democracy BS the courts are slipping into your USA sandwich. Please vote.
Dan Dreifort consults on SEO, UX, and other stuff. He makes noise in Synthband.com and Indelible Beancurd. His garden features: pineapple guavas, bananas, tomatoes, kale, asparagus, curry, basil, sweet potatoes, chives, lemongrass, herbs, and other edible stuff. #Spekboom!
Dan Dreifort 