I was initially thrilled to see the Federal Trade Commission announce its "Operation Full Disclosure" this week, but my excitement was short-lived. I have no indication that it was inspired by this blog, or whether the FTC was aware of (or cared about) my efforts to turn this brand into the next big thing.

Instead, the FTC wants advertisers to obey the laws that require the fine print to be something the consumers can actually read. It sounds like a fool's errand, given the long history of snake oil, dangerous diets and "money-back guarantees" with terms no mortal could meet.

The FTC has sent letters to 60 advertisers complaining about violations of the rules, which prohibit, among other things, disclosures flashed on the TV screen for a nanosecond or delivered in a hyper-speed voice. Then there are these problems, according to this FTC blogger:

Some ads quoted prices, but didn't adequately disclose the strings that were attached. Others showed optional accessories, but didn't adequately disclose that people had to buy extras to get the advertised benefit. Still others featured best-case-scenario consumer testimonials, but didn't adequately disclose the results people could generally expect to achieve. We also spotted ads that included on-camera demonstrations without adequately disclosing material alterations. And that's just for starters.

Despite its name (and I can related to this), the FTC isn't ready for the fullest of full disclosures. So who are the 60 advertisers who got the warning letters from the FTC?

"Staff is not disclosing the recipients of the letters at this time," the FTC said.

UPDATE: FTC spokesman Mitch Katz explained that unlike some federal agencies, warning letters aren't considered enforcement actions, so therefore the agency isn't ready to put these companies' names in front of the world. I have to say, the FTC isn't afraid to name names when it comes to cracking down on bad actors.