Facebook, Google, Microsoft Tell FEC to Follow Industry on Digital Ad Reforms
Facebook, Google and Microsoft support the Federal Election Commission rulemaking to increase online political advertising transparency (see 1805250032 and 1805290037), but the commission should look to recent industry response for guidance, they commented. The commission is considering two proposals that would update online ad disclosure requirements for the first time since 2006.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
Alternative A would subject online ads to the same disclosure rules as radio, TV and print. Disclaimers under Alternative B would need to be "clear and conspicuous and to meet the same general content requirement as other disclaimers" but without specific requirements applied to radio, TV and print. Congress is considering the Honest Ads Act, S-1989, from Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Mark Warner, D-Va., and John McCain, R-Ariz. (see 1805240052).
Tech companies, including Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft and its LinkedIn, responded with their own self-regulation. Starting July 10, Google will require ad verification for content involving federal candidates and lawmakers. Verification will include confirmation of the advertiser’s FEC ID and/or IRS employer identification number and legal ability to advertise in support of the candidate or officeholder. Google said the FEC should use this as an example of “technologically feasible actions that provide clarity to voters” about digital ads. The company supported the FEC’s goal of ensuring Americans “know who is paying for the ads they see related to candidates or issues of national importance.”
Facebook Associate General Counsel Karen Berenthal cited the social network’s recently adopted requirements for political ad disclosures (see 1805080054), saying the platform “strongly” supports the FEC’s aim for increased transparency. Facebook and Google noted the two proposals have a lot of overlap. Facebook asked the agency to consider an alternative disclaimer option for video ads, since users might not watch an entire video and therefore might miss political disclosures.
Microsoft Corporate Vice President-Customer Security and Trust Tom Burt cited recent data transparency measures from his company and LinkedIn, which doesn’t let advertisers target users based on political preferences. Personal data of Microsoft product users isn't used to deliver targeted ads, Burt said. Both FEC alternatives would better inform voters, Burt said, but Alternative B is more practical because it provides the most flexibility. Microsoft suggested the FEC “be responsive to industry capabilities and consistent with the rapid innovation cycles of today’s information and communications technology providers.” Internet Association CEO Michael Beckerman also sought a flexible approach (see 1805290037).
Common Cause Chief-Strategy and External Affairs Stephen Spaulding, whose organization supports the “stronger” Alternative A, told us the second option would allow loopholes for certain internet communications that would not fully “vindicate the public’s right to know.” The 2016 election “just goes to show what happens when you ignore a segment of the campaign finance complex,” Spaulding said, noting $1.4 billion was spent on online political ads in that election cycle. “We need the FEC to do its job and provide clarity around these disclaimers.”
Center for Democracy & Technology Policy Counsel-Privacy and Data Joseph Jerome, whose organization didn't offer a firm stance on either proposal, “cautioned against imposing complicated and burdensome disclosure requirements on ordinary internet users.” Jerome told us there's concern there has been a lack of voice from tech groups on the technical aspects.
The Computer & Communications Industry Association cited recent transparency efforts, including from Facebook, Google and Twitter. CCIA Policy Counsel John Howes called alternatives A and B “considerably different." He said the FEC “should balance the need for new disclaimer regulations with the temporal, spatial, and aesthetic constraints inherent in some forms of internet-enabled advertising, as well as possible chilling effects on legitimate, open political discourse.”
Interactive Advertising Bureau Executive Vice President-Public Policy Dave Grimaldi and Vice President-Public Policy Brad Weltman cited “stark differences” between the two proposals. IAB asked the FEC to issue a single set of rules and allow parties to comment again, making it “easier for the commission to adopt a final rule that will withstand judicial review.” Electronic Privacy Information Center President Marc Rotenberg and Administrative Law and Policy Fellow Christine Bannan said the new rules should be technology-neutral and should require at least as much transparency for online ads as they do for traditional print and broadcast promotions: “The FEC’s job is not to promote innovation in the advertising industry. The FEC’s job is to promote fair and transparent elections.”
Also Monday, Facebook’s new policy for registering and labeling political ads (see 1805180058) would “jeopardize the news media’s ability to play its critical role in society as the fourth estate by improperly characterizing such news coverage as political advertising,” News Media Alliance CEO David Chavern wrote eight senators on the Commerce and Judiciary committees. Chavern asked lawmakers to hold hearings on the role of journalism and “help us course correct what could be an irreparable moment in the history of news.” The company didn’t comment.