Not really, according to their page, disclosure is a best practice, but doing otherwise isn't inherently illegal. Their own guide [0] begins by talking about adhering to their guidelines as "voluntary compliance", and that a failure to do so would require their investigation into the specifics to determine if it was a violation of law: It is not automatically a violation.

[0] https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-re...

Those guidelines are voluntary, sure. But there are actual laws included (section 5 of of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45)) that make some things actually illegal.

Specifically: "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."[1]

This voluntary guide helps people understand how the FTC inteprates that law. Deciding not to comply because the guide is voluntary doesn't preclude prosecution.

You are right insofar as there is no law that specifically says "on the website reddit.com you must disclose if you are paid".

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/45

> Specifically: "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful."[1]

This is one of the least appropriate uses of the word "specifically" I've ever seen.

That law just says "Don't do bad things. You know who you are."

It's often written like this, and regulations define more specific things (or it's left to judges).

Yep, there's lots of gray area. But not disclosing a financial arrangement isn't illegal in itself. It's only in the last few years that Youtube even had an option to flag videos as "contains paid promotions", though now they do require that to be flagged if you're getting paid.

> But not disclosing a financial arrangement isn't illegal in itself.

What is making you think this is true? It's not.

For example 3/4 of the example cases here are around undisclosed financial arrangements in influencer marketing, and in all cases the company admitted fault: https://mediakix.com/blog/ftc-influencer-marketing-violation...

I'm not sure what your definition of illegal is, but there is a law that the FTC is using to win legal cases on the issue.

I'm referring to their guiding principal that disclosure is necessary when that disclosure might change how a consumer evaluates the review. If it is reasonable to think the disclosure would make no difference, then no disclosure is required. Though I'll admit that can be interpreted broadly enough to say that disclosure is always necessary.

Likely to also be wire/mail fraud if my understanding is correct.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud