The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) - Are You Going To Jail?

[DioBach]

I don't think I've seen any mention of The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) on this forum yet? The new laws came into effect on the 26th May and directly effect both merchants and affiliates. I first spotted info on this last week when Lee Mccoy posted about it on his blog. Basically, if you're not disclosing that editorial content on your site is supplied by a merchant, you could find yourself facing a hefty fine or even going to jail.

SEOmoz has an interesting piece on it here as well, and I've added a post to my blog about how some site who use reviews supplied by merchants are now breaking the law.

I don't think it's quite dawned on affiliates how big a change to the law this potentially could be to them. Many of us are now criminals thanks to our websites, and I'm guessing many don't even realise it. If you have a blog that promotes certain merchants, if you have fake social networking profiles, if you use merchant supplied content then it affects you directly. It's worth taking a look at the new laws if you haven't already. Making your sites and content legal again might be as simple as adding a disclaimer stating you accept compensation for featuring merchants and products, I don't know - it's not yet clear to me how concerned we should be.

What are your thoughts on this, and will you be doing anything to protect yourself?

Discuss...

[csn]

I use content from my noggin based on product text or in the case of Sat Nav reviews, from actual product testing. I don't have the luxury of free content from merchants

Having said that, if merchants did send over stuff I would probably rewrite it. How can you be sure that the content they give you is unique?

[ceetee]

I hope people approve of this law, because for sure there's no one to hold to account if you don't. *Suppresses anti EU rant*.

Sounds like a stupid law that won't make a jot of difference to the consumer. If you can't be bothered to rewrite the merchant blurb or do something more original, put in a disclaimer in the footer. How many visitors are going to notice it.

[lauriebred]

If you put in original content provided by a merchant you'll probably get slapped with a duplicate content penalty by goog anyhow. Now dynamically served content, that could be an interesting issue.

[fizzbird]

Originally Posted by DioBach Discuss...

Yes, as with many such laws and directives many of us affiliates could be in breach.

That said, who polices these things. There is a law against driving through traffic lights on amber (never mind red!); laws against using a mobile while driving, etc. i could continue for eternity...

If google penalises for this then action will be taken - otherwise it's just more red tape that gets disregarded!

[confuscius]

There was some previous discussion here a few days ago: Affiliate Marketing & The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading 2008 Regulation

[tbp]

I don't think it's quite dawned on affiliates how big a change to the law this potentially could be to them. Many of us are now criminals thanks to our websites, and I'm guessing many don't even realise it.

It has been discussed on here the other week.

As I pointed out then though, yes it might make people criminals, but in the end nothing is going to be done about it.

Like anything in the UK now, there is going to be a massive lack of resources to deal with offenders, so its only going to be the biggest high profile ones who will get dealt with, and even then its unlikely to have much success.

I really don't think its going to cause problems for most affiliates, even those blatantly flouting the rules, as they won't be able to deal with everyone.

[DioBach]

Originally Posted by confuscius There was some previous discussion here a few days ago: Affiliate Marketing & The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading 2008 Regulation

Originally Posted by tbp It has been discussed on here the other week.

Ok, thanks for pointing that out - I'd completely missed that one.

But it surprises me that there's not something stickied about this, it seems no one around here is taking it too seriously. Maybe I should just chill out about it a bit.

[Stellar]

I thinking that the only way they are going to make a significant impact is if the Trading Standards start policing the affiliate networks and holding them to account, rather then the affiliates themselves. That will have a knock on effect of the networks policing the affiliates.

There are real grey areas in this. for example:
A site that publishing independent and impartial information (reviews, technical info, and other info) about products and services. It may as part of that include affiiliate links to relevant merchants and/or small price comparisons. Should that site have a disclaimer stating that there is a commerical arrangement in place? It is not an editorial avdertising a merchant. It is an independent publication about a product that also carries affiliate links to merchants.

My thoughts are that the law makers themselves have no idea who these type of situations will be effected. So it will be up to a judge to interpret the law.

[John Jupp]

I posted a reply to the blog listing concerning a disclaimer needed for displaying datafeeds. Otherwise thou art breaking the law.