Wanna' run your own credit repair site? Be careful.

Do it wrong, and you may well be violating the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA). Like...having affiliates may well be a bad idea:

Anyone who deals with credit repair needs to be careful and make it clear that there are no conflicts of interest and/or hidden affiliations with any entity or person who does credit repair and accepts or can be reasonably assumed to perform such activities for a fee. By having such undisclosed arrangements, it could well lead to trouble under the CROA (Credit Repair Organizations Act). Even if one does not accept fees for their own credit repair works, if one were to affiliate with an entity that does, they may well end up covered by the Act [See §403].

Per Sec. 404, "Prohibited Practices":

(4) engage, directly or indirectly, in any act, practice, or course of business that constitutes or results in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, a fraud or deception on any person in connection with the offer or sale of the services of the credit repair organization.

Seems to be a "stretch"? Maybe, or maybe not: If the "not for fee" (note that I did NOT say "not for profit" since not for profit organizations can and do charge fees) affiliate--if they are shown to be an affiliate--could be considered fraudulent or deceptive if what the affiliate does is, in essence, provide "cover" for the CRO.

3.) This FTC opinion which deals with affiliate advertising and deception for non-disclosure. The FTC Opinion states in pertinent part:

[A]n act or practice is deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act if: 1) there is a representation or omission of information that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and 2) that representation or omission is material to consumers. ... A representation or omission is material if it is "likely to affect [consumers'] choice of, or conduct regarding a product." ...The Commission presumes certain categories of claims to be material, including express claims and claims the seller intends to make. ...

The main question the petition presents is whether it is deceptive in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act to fail to disclose that a marketer is paying' a sponsored consumer to make claims to other consumers about the marketer's product.'
In addressing similar concerns, the Commission's Endorsement Guides state that "[w]hen there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product which might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement . . . , such connection under Section 5, even if the paid relationship is clearly disclosed....

The Endorsement Guides look to whether the connection between the seller and the endorser is likely to have a material effect on the weight or credibility of the endorsement, that is, if the "connection [between them] is not reasonably expected by the audience."

In other words, even though YOU might not charge for services yourself, the mere fact you take money from someone who is associated with your site who does can leave YOU liable for CROA violations. Whether you hide it or are in the open. It's a credibility issue. After all, people do not expect "splogs" (blogs which are really advertising) and discussion boards which are really disguised ads; to give the wrong impression not only impacts such credibility but may well violate the CROA.

And, when it comes to violating the CROA? You don't want to go there.