http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/12/12157310/pewdiepie-youtubers-sponsored-videos-ftc-warner-bros
So, is this why DCucks were screaming "paid shills" whenever a Marvel movie got a good review?
Because DC (owned by Warner Bros.) was paying reviewers to say nice things about their dog shit movies, they assumed Marvel must be bribing reviewers too?
GAMERSGATE: Part 2
>>71945205
cuz flawless logic
>>71945232
BABBYMAN GOOBERYGATERS OMG ITS 2016 GO HATE FEMALE MOVIES MORE BASEMENT NECK VIRGIN
>>71945205
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if every movie studio did this to come capicity. Warner just got caught. Stupid cucks
People who watch that shit deserve to get scammed tbqh.
>>71945232
reddigate*
DCucks on suicide watch.
If BvS is 27% after bribes then imagine what it would be at without bribes.
>>>/v/
Sage.
>>71945232
Ugh! Groobergabbers!
Literally shaking right now!
>>71945232
>GAMERSGATE: Part 2
except that totalbiscuit already exposed this when the game came out 2 years ago, its only now trickled down into normie news because The Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Warner Bros.
>>71945267
Sony is currently doing this with Ghostbusters.
>>71945205
But he doesn't even do game reviews.
Also I just checked his video, He wrote that the video was sponsored in the description
>>71945275
> children deserve to be scammed
Do you listen to yourself?
>>71945267
>Warner just got caught. Stupid cucks
This.
Warner middle management is 80% some high-ranking exec's nephew.
The nepotism at Warner is to rampant, they actually don't have anyone who actually knows how to do anything.
This is why Warner is failing on every front from identifying good projects, supporting product of the films, marketing the finished film, etc., etc.
>>71945333
He only added that afterwards. They got sued because it wasn't originally included.
>>71945205
It's legal as long as they disclose the relationship, the issue is that they failed to.
>>71945335
The weak should fear the strong
If its for videogames then why are you posting it here, reject?
>>71945205
is this supposed to be news?
fucking retards
>>71945333
By law, you have to disclose it in the video itself though, meaning you have to say the fucking words at the start of the video "this is sponsored content" / "this is a paid promotion"
>jewdiepie
>took money from WB
kek
>>71945390
this
>>71945425
this
>>71945399
Does that sort of shit apply to YouTube et al? Is that a recent development?
>>71945205
I do just want to point out real quick that this lawsuit is referring to games, not films faggot
>>71945399
FTC allows you to have it in the description as long as it's not hidden down the bottom
Article is only using Pewdiepie for views prolly
>>71945335
>children deserve to be scammed
That is the only way they will learn.
>>71945392
https://boards.fireden.net/v/search/text/PewDiePie%20/type/op/
>/v/eddit doesn't care
is /v/ finally becoming a better board?
does that mean they're sending all their garbage here?
>>71945282
>DCucks on suicide watch.
>If BvS is 27% after bribes then imagine what it would be at without bribes.
0
>"Consumers have the right to know if reviewers are providing their own opinions or paid sales pitches," director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection Jessica Rich said in a statement.
Of course you have the right to know anything you want. But you don't have the right to force someone to tell you. You're not entitled to information from a private party.
>>71945719
He's not a private party if he profits from it. Come on.
>>71945719
The law disagrees in this case.
They have to declare.
>>71945205
/tv/ - Television and Films, what's so hard to understand you brain dead faggot, nobody cares about your e-celebs and your "vidya"' fuck right off back to >>>/v/
>>71945205
Who will play him in the inevitable biopic? Dan Stevens.
>>71945205
Is this supposed to be shocking? Just watch some of his videos, he's saying stuff like "omg, this game is amazing" every five minutes. Not forced at all.
why is this on /tv/
>>71945205
pewdiepie literally either says it in the video itself or puts it in the description if the video is a paid promotion. Other lesser known youtubers were part of the same deal and didn't disclose it but did not get mentioned. This article just uses his name to gain attention and clicks you fucking retards. Get this trash off here.
>>71945487
came into law in ~2015 partially because of this
WB wastes their time and money paying off reviewer for a game everyone liked anyways.
fuck you OP pewdiepie would never do something like this
>>71945425
Just looked up his name for the first time.
>Kjellberg
Oy vey, I wonder how he got so popular!
>>71945357
It explains that horrid Jared Leto's Joker marketing. Gosh, it just keeps putting me off SS more and more.
>>71945321
Naw. Sony didn't have to pay them. They just created a false narrative that anyone who hates their film is sexist and PC reviewers did it for free.
>>71945390
thread
>>71946789
Does it apply to the latest Honest Trailer of Ghostbusters 2?
