The FTC has guidance on when it considers a compensated endorsement to be "deceptive advertising", which is something they can legally enforce. [0]

[0] https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorse...

This seems like a farce. Most advertising in america is deceptive.

Edit: they seem to only enforce disclosure and they don't actually evaluate whether the ad is deceptive or not. Still this does seem to foreclose on the domain user in question's use of ads, if anyone cares

> If the advertiser doesn’t have proof that the endorser’s experience represents what people will generally achieve using the product as described in the ad (for example, by just taking a pill daily for two months), an ad featuring that endorser must make clear to the audience what the generally expected results of following that same regimen are.

Pathetic and spineless. If this were actually enforced 99.99% of ad claims would be illegal.

> This seems like a farce. Most advertising in america is deceptive.

Yes, that's because many of the regulatory and consumer protection agencies are neutered by illegal businesses.

16 CFR Part 255 Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-re...

There is no such legal requirement whatsoever.

It's part of the terms of service of a number of social networks, I can almost see how someone might confuse that for the law. If I squint.