for very valuable conversations and comments. Thanks are also due to Mitchell Retelny and Anne Meyers for able research assistance at the last minute. All remaining errors are, regretfully, my own. ARIZONA LAW REVIEW for a powerful, independent, and fearless press. Still, because native advertising is here to stay, admittedly imperfect responses must be explored. In that spirit, this Article proposes three solutions: (1) "voice priming": designing sponsorship disclosure at the per-ad level in close alignment with results of rigorous empirical research regarding consumers' cognitive and perceptual responses to labeling; (2) "surveillance-enabling": adopting additional, corporate-level disclosure designed to highlight advertiser identity and spending in order to aid public oversight over the editorial independence of news organizations; and (3) "collective standardsetting": addressing structural impediments to collective action by news organizations to promote collective strategies for effective self-regulation in the deployment of native advertising. These solutions seek to promote a diverse Fourth Estate that sees itself as charged with engaging in accountability journalism. Although it is a closer question with respect to some kinds of native advertising, sponsorship disclosure requirements are unlikely to run afoul of the First Amendment. If they are deemed to do so, however, what might be seen as a free speech "victory" would be Pyrrhic indeed-ironically serving as the nail in the coffin of the press's distinct status. Recognizing this reality should create significant self-regulatory incentives.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

for many useful suggestions, and to Pam Lucken for last-minute research help. I am also indebted to Derek Bambauer and Anupam Chander for their incisive questions at the Bits Without Borders Conference at the Michigan State University College of Law in October 2010 where I presented early thoughts on the subject. All errors are my own.