Gwyneth Paltrow Is Above The FTC Law But You Sure As Hell Aren't

Oh hey, do you remember the December post that we should have called "HA HA HA GWYNETH FAIL!" but because we are 'mature' and 'restrained' Catherine just called it "GOOPtastic: One More Reason To Be Irritated By Gwyneth Paltrow"?

Fuck maturity and restraint, Gwyneth just gave me MORE reason to loathe her goopy existence.

Apparently the FTC's new blogger disclosure guidelines that apply to bloggers like me, and you, and you, and yes, even you over there sitting in your ripe yoga pants surrounded by dirty coffee cups and a couple of cats - EVEN YOU -- well, those guidelines don't apply to dear Gwyneth.

Well fuuuuuuuuuck me. Why is Gwyneth so special?

Because she's famous, y'all, and all those pesky regulations and guidelines don't apply to the cult of celebrity. Apparently it is already common knowledge that celebrities get free stuff and say nice things about free stuff to keep the free stuff coming and you know, influence the plebs who might buy that stuff with the paycheques that are infinitesimal compared to those of the celebs like Gwyneth who get that shit for free. Capitalism is AWESOME.

So when Gwyneth recently gushed about the spa trip that she didn't disclose as being the freebie that it almost certainly was, the FTC didn't freak because it assumes that the average GOOP reader would assume that Gwyneth probably got it for free. That's a whole lot of assuming, which, as we all know, just makes an ASS out of U and ME and also the FTC and Gwyneth Paltrow.

To recap, then: because we JUST KNOW, because she is FAMOUS, that Gwyneth gets free stuff for the purposes of pimping it out to us, she doesn't need to disclose that she gets that stuff for free and that she is, indeed, pimping. However, you and I need to disclose if we ever get free laundry detergent and mention it online because, you know, we are expected to be honest because we are not famous and do not get sent to Morocco to have our bodies rubbed with horseshit FOR FREE.

In other words:

Celebrities = Assumed Liars
Regular Folk = Honest But Need A Disclaimer Proving That We Are Honest, Because.

That's mtherf'ing GOOPtastic, no?

It's hard to believe I actually used to like her as an actor <--- SEE?: That's me being HONEST and TRANSPARENT and DISCLOSING SHIT. I used to like her as an actor -- and I haven't always loathed her as a personality -- but now: UGH.

And I got that lesson for free.

source

Comments

[Momo Fali]

That? Is messed the hell up.

[motherbumper]

@MomoFali I know, it makes my damn head hurt its that messed up.
Blackberry: Proving Ive got thumbs and I know how to use them
Envoyé par Blackberry et pouces opposables

[Issa]

I've NEVER liked her. I can't even watch a movie if she's in it, because I really like my TV too much to be throwing shoes at it.

It's so lovely to think that I'd have to disclose if I got a free post-it note, but she gets trips to spas that I couldn't even dream about going too and doesn't have to say a thing.

Then again? My kids aren't named Moses and Apple, so at least the world doesn't laugh at me all the dang time.

[The World's Greatest Redneck Mommy]

I have some choice words for the FTC but I'm guessing you all won't allow me to say them on this web site.

I'll settle for the FTC and it's celebrity loving ways can just kiss my hairy left boob.

[motherbumper]

@RedneckMommy But I thought it was the right one that was hairy.

[K-Line]

This post is genius.

[motherbumper]

@KLine -- Thank you! Or should I say thank you Gwyneth for making me mad. Gotta give the girl credit where its due.

[Corinne]

I love to hate Gwyneth so much. Now I love to hate her even more.

[motherbumper]

@Corinne -- She just makes it sooooo easy.

[Erin]

I was an extra in a movie with Gwyneth. My role had me sitting next to her. After 9 long hours of shooting the same scene, we were all standing up to stretch and she had her assistant tell us to stop looking at her. We were stretching....not staring!
Moral of the story: she is not as nice as she looks! (or maybe she was just having a bad day)

[motherbumper]

@Erin - That story just made any guilt I felt for pickin on Gwyneth go right out the window. Thank you!

[mamatulip]

You know how I feel about Gwyneth.

[Morgan @ The818]

OMG. I just fell in love with you.

[kgirl]

What. A. Tool.

[mom101]

Another perspective (don't hurt me!):

I guess it comes down to intent. Did they send her on a free trip with the quid pro quo request that she write about it in exchange? Because that's the way the FTC looks at it, even for us mere mortals. If I went on a Canyon Ranch trip that say, I scored through a relative with a connection (I wish) and spa'd it up for three days (no French manicures though, ew) then wrote about it, the FTC wouldn't expect me to disclose it. It's not about free, it's about a material relationship. Most likely they sent her there so they could put in their press kit "Gwyneth is a fan!"

Remember when she was in Se7en? Ah, good old days.

[Michelle]

I used to really like her. Now I can't stand her or her stupid blog.

[motherbumper]

@Mom101 Id never hate you for defending Gwyneth but the FTCs consumer expectation about celebrity compensation is waaaay too goopy for me. And you make a good point in her defense. GOOP still sucks, though ;)

[Her Bad Mother]

@Mom-101 You make a good point, but it's worth noting that the *FTC* didn't raise it - they said that the mitigating factor was her celebrity, and the fact (!) that the general public likely expects her to get free stuff.

[Amy]

The thing that is BS about this, is I would NOT have assumed that Gwyneth got to go to that spa for free. I don't think I am naive, but I guess maybe I am? To think a RICH woman would pay her own way...what was I thinking?!

[Aurelia]

The thing is, that the US has a pesky constitutional thing about equal treatment under the law, and so no, there cannot be one law for celebrities and another for regular folks.

And since no one can define celebrity precisely, then it's not possible to apply the idea that we expect certain celebrities to get things for free. Is Dooce a celebrity? She is likely more well known than some TV stars....what about the mommybloggers who have lower click rates, but are still "known". What about former celebrities? Brady Bunch extras? See, it doesn't work....

(Although FYI, no one outside the US is ever affected by US laws, including you Motherbumper hon. Pls ref. to the entire body of international law ever written.)

So my question is, when is some nice US blogger going to file an equal protection lawsuit against the FTC and force them to either make everyone disclose, from big media orgs to small to celebrities to lone bloggers, or strike down the law?

Because damn that would be a nice chunk of change for lawsuits....wonder what the ACLU is up to....hmmmm....

[mystic_eye_cda]

This comment sponsored by the Canadian Tourism Bureau ....

Hehe, kidding.

I guess I should tell my friend that she has to disclose on her blog that her blog is free because my husband is just adding it to all the other ones his work pays for an hoping no one notices. I, of course, don't have to because I'm Canadian and I can lie all I want.

[motherbumper]

@mystic_eye_cda - HA! Yes, and after we Canadians lie, we apologise for it.

[mystic_eye_cda]

Aurelia:

There is already a separation in the law for "public figures" and "everyone else". If I were to use your real name (which clearly I don't know) and say you are a whore and you slept with Will Smith. You could sue me, because you are protected by libel laws. Will Smith on the other hand could not sue because he is a public figure and therefore not protected by libel laws.

For you to sue you would just have to prove that what I said is not true. For a public figure to sue they would have to prove that I knew the statement to be false when I published it. For example if I said you slept with Will Smith on a specific date at a specific place but he could prove that I knew he was in a different country at the time then he could sue. Which is why gossip rags don't go out of business they can basically say anything as long as they don't have actual proof that its untrue.