Book bloggers who write about books are now required to disclose payment on those books — even if “payment” amounted only to a review copy of that book — at risk of an $11,000 fine, according to a new ruling by the Federal Trade Commission. As per this Washington Post report, the FTC has revised its Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials, because, reasonably enough, “Consumer interest groups have complained that the links between some bloggers and corporations were fuzzy at best.” They may have been thinking of “bloggers writing on parenting, fitness, dieting, and financial service sites,” but book bloggers immediately got very, very nervous about finding themselves in possession of $11,000 advanced reader copies.

At Ed Rants, Ed Champion called up the Bureau of Consumer Protection (part of the FTC) and, as he describes in this post, had a “civil but heated conversation” with spokesman Richard Cleland:

But what’s the difference between an individual employed at a newspaper assigned to cover a beat and an individual blogger covering a beat of her own volition?

“We are distinguishing between who receives the compensation and who does the review,” said Cleland. “In the case where the newspaper receives the book and it allows the reviewer to review it, it’s still the property of the newspaper. Most of the newspapers have very strict rules about that and on what happens to those products.”

In the case of books, Cleland saw no problem with a blogger receiving a book, provided there wasn’t a linked advertisement to buy the book and that the blogger did not keep the book after he had finished reviewing it. Keeping the book would, from Cleland’s standpoint, count as “compensation” and require a disclosure.

But couldn’t the same thing be said of a newspaper critic?

Cleland insisted that when a publisher sends a book to a blogger, there is the expectation of a good review. I informed him that this was not always the case and observed that some bloggers often receive 20 to 50 books a week. In such cases, the publisher hopes for a review, good or bad. Cleland didn’t see it that way.

“If a blogger received enough books,” said Cleland, “he could open up a used bookstore.”

In a post at Galley Cat, meanwhile, Ron Hogan suggest that it’s “in traditional media’s best interests” to help bloggers get the FTC to “cease applying a double standard” like the one outlined by Ed Champion, “because once the FTC establishes that the receipt of consumer goods by a small media outlet, which is what a blog is, constitutes ‘compensation,’ a precedent has been established that may one day lead to a similar conclusion about the receipt of consumer goods by larger media outlets. And just how is that conclusion going to be raised? Does anybody want to see Sam Tanenhaus subpoenaed to testify before a congressional subcommittee about the dispersement of each and every free book the New York Times Book Review receives?”

Clearly, the FTC still hasn’t worked all the kinks out. As a Wall St Journal report notes, “Although bloggers and companies will be liable if they fail to disclose financial connections, compliance could pose technological challenges. Case in point: the 140-character limitation on Twitter … could preclude provide meaningful disclosure of financial compensation arrangements.”