A group of internet giants expressed concerns about two proposals at the U.S. Federal Election Commission that aim to increase the transparency of online election advertising.
The Internet Association — a trade group whose members include Alphabet Inc., Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc., among others — said May 29 it filed comments with the Federal Election Commission, or FEC, expressing its belief that while technology should be used to increase transparency in political communications, any rules adopted need to be flexible so as not to constrain future advancements.
The FEC is moving forward on a notice of proposed rulemaking that weighs the pros and cons of two rival proposals. The first proposal, known as "Alternative A," would apply the same disclaimer requirements that already exist for television and radio ads to both audio and video ads on the internet. Under those requirements, an ad must clearly state if it has been paid for by a candidate or some other entity, and if it has been authorized by a candidate. Alternative A would also impose traditional printed disclaimer requirements on internet ads that do not contain audio or video.
The second proposal, known as "Alternative B," recognizes the internet as a "unique medium" of communication that carries "unique challenges with respect to advertising disclosures." In particular, the proposal notes that some online ads are optimized for desktop viewing while others are optimized for smaller mobile screens. Additionally, online ads often run for 15 seconds or less. With this is mind, the proposal would require "clear and conspicuous" notice of the identity of the sponsor of an ad, but it would not impose the additional requirements that exist for print, radio and television communications.
The Internet Association, which filed the comments with the FEC on May 25, said both proposals have room for improvement, but ultimately the group expressed its preference for Alternative B, calling it a "far more suitable approach" that would allow the commission's regulations "to remain relevant as technologies and innovations in content delivery evolve on the internet."
The association still would like to see more flexibility around disclaimers in both proposals, noting that the online marketing industry is still developing its own standards for political ads. Under these industry-led standards, an adaptive disclaimer — typically a symbol or word — would allow users to obtain full disclaimer information either through a commonly understood symbol or link.
"Rather than trying to fit a 'paid for by' notice on an ad that may change in size when delivered on different platforms or devices, the adaptive disclaimer would be inserted into the ad and be visible and accessible in all formats," the group said.
Other commentators on the dueling proposals have argued Alternative B is too lax. The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, a public interest research group, said that the FEC should impose the same requirements on online ads as are imposed on print, TV and radio ads. "Some companies have pointed to the character limitations of their ads as a reason to be exempt from disclaimer requirements, but this is an invalid argument," the group said, noting, for instance, that URL shortening tools can reduce lengthy hyperlinks to just a few characters. "This would allow an ad with character limitations to provide a URL that linked to a full disclaimer," the group said.
Moreover, EPIC said because of the targeted nature of online advertisements, there is an argument to be made that online ads should have even more disclosure requirements than traditional media ads.
"The Commission's disclosure requirements for internet communications should include full disclosure of all of the information related to the ad — to which demographic groups it was targeted, the period it appears, the number of views it received, the purchaser of the ad and the amount that was paid," the group said.
The final day for comments in the FEC's notice of proposed rulemaking was May 25. The FEC is set to hold a public hearing on the issue June 27.
