Example
/
Blog
/
Post
· Aug 16, 2026

Affiliate disclosure: what the FTC actually requires

Material connections, the clear and conspicuous standard, why a footer link is not enough, and why the phrase affiliate link may not be understood.

On this page

Monetization design includes whether disclosure is present. This page sets out what the FTC requires of publishers who earn from what they recommend. It is a summary of published guidance, not legal advice, and it describes United States rules only.

What triggers a disclosure

The requirement attaches to a material connection: any relationship between an endorser and a marketer that an audience would not reasonably expect. That includes commission, flat fees, free product, discounts and early or exclusive access. It applies whether or not the endorser genuinely likes the product.

The governing law is Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The Endorsement Guides exist to help businesses conform to it, and were revised in 2023, including a new definition of clearly and conspicuously.

Where the disclosure has to go

The FTC guiding principle is that a disclosure must be clear and conspicuous, and that the closer it sits to the recommendation, the better. Practical consequences for a blog:

  • A link in the site header, footer or sidebar is not sufficient on its own
  • A disclosure at the bottom of an article is unlikely to qualify. The endorsement and the disclosure should ideally be visible at the same time
  • Each post is treated as a separate advertisement. A publisher cannot assume a reader saw the disclosure on a different post

Wording

The FTC has raised a specific concern that consumers may not understand what affiliate link means. Plainer constructions are safer. Saying that a link is paid, and that it supports the publication, communicates the relationship in terms an audience will actually parse.

How this is scored

Disclosure presence and placement are checkable from public evidence, which is why they sit inside Monetization design. A publisher with well-designed inventory and no disclosure is not scored higher for the design.

Nothing here is a safe harbour. The FTC is explicit that whether a particular disclosure is sufficient depends on context, and its own guidance does not create immunity from liability.

Sources

Verified August 2026. Applies to United States rules only. Publishers elsewhere should check their own regime.

How this score was produced

It is the unweighted mean of the six sub-scores, rounded to one decimal place. No dimension counts for more than any other, and the arithmetic is published so the number can be checked.

Public evidence only. No analytics access, no interviews, no privileged data. Every figure can be reproduced from a browser.

Yes. Every subject is contacted before publication with seven days to respond, and any reply is appended in full and unedited.

Any subject that ships the prioritized fixes can request a re-score at no cost. Changes are published as an update on this page rather than a new post.

Same rubric, your site

Get your own score

An audit is this rubric applied privately to your site, with the fixes sequenced against what you can actually ship.

Scroll to Top