Glenn Throws in With Chip and Joanna Gaines in the Fight Against Clickbait Ads

After mentioning a salacious ad he saw on TheBlaze claiming Joanna Gaines was leaving HGTV to start her own line of facial cream, Glenn actually got a call from their attorney.

"Well, when I told the story on the air the first day, Chip and Joanna Gaines' attorney called and said we want to talk to you about that ad. And we immediately said we had nothing to do with it. We didn't even know that's what the ad was until it popped up, and we canceled it. They said, 'yeah, we really would like this ad to stop. Can you help us at all?' So I hope that we are assisting them in every possible way because I love these two, and I think what's happening to people --- because it's not just happening to Chip and Joanna Gaines," Glenn said on radio Friday.

Glenn brought in his media attorney Mike Grygiel to talk about what recourse there is and if banding all these celebrities together to fight this type of ad would make a difference.

"I think there's always strength in numbers. I think there is a threshold obligation here too,

Glenn, on the part of the advertising agency," Grygiel said. "That it's authentic and real. Because otherwise, once the genie's out of the bottle so to speak, it's just very, very difficult to prevent this type of thing from spiraling out of control on the Internet. And then once it's out there on all of these websites, it's difficult to get it back in."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America, and welcome to Friday. We are so glad that you have tuned in today. There was a commercial or an ad that was running on TheBlaze, and I saw it, and it wasn't a direct advertiser. It's one of these things, it's complicated to say. But basically, an ad agency represents, you know, all of these different people, so you sign on with the ad agency, and then the ad agency just runs whatever ad. Well, there was this ad that was running, and it was about the new face cream and the headline on the ad was Joanna Gaines leaves the show and Chip didn't even know why. And I'm, like, what the hell is -- Chip and Joanna Gaines? What is this? The lies in this are so amazing, I immediately called our sales manager and said cancel this. What is this? How could they possibly get away with a lie? And actually, I said I don't mind if they sell face cream. But not with lies.

Well, when they said wait a minute, you're telling us -- you're telling us that we have to change our ad copy? Yes, it can't be a lie. They canceled. That's a quarter of a million dollar account.

PAT: A month; right?

GLENN: Yeah, a month. And you see this ad everywhere because people don't care.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: I happen to care. But it's really hard, especially for conservatives who have been blocked out of almost everything to walk away from $250,000 a month. That's a lot of money, obviously. So we've been talking. How does this company get away with this? Well, when I told the story on the air the first day, Chip and Joanna Gaines attorney called and said we want to talk to you about that ad. And we immediately said we had nothing to do with it. We didn't even know that's what the ad was until it popped up, and we canceled it.

They said, yeah, we really would like this ad to stop.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Can you help us at all? So I hope that we are assisting them in every possible way because I love these two, and I think what's happening to people -- because it's not just happening to Chip and Joanna Gaines. It's happening to a ton of celebrities. I want to know what the legal recourse is. How can that ad run? We have one of the best attorneys on the phone with us to answer this question. And we begin right now.

Okay. Let's just read the first paragraph of this ad. Here it is.

PAT: And like you said, this is everywhere. It's all over the Internet. But it starts out by saying it all started last November when Joanna Gaines, host of the popular HGTV show struck a deal with Lori Greiner. Didn't happen.

GLENN: Lie number two.

PAT: The deal states that Joanna's new cosmetic line will be picked up by QVC.

GLENN: Not true.

PAT: Joanna is very proud of her lying.

GLENN: Lie number four.

PAT: There are attributing quotes here. This is more than just a beauty line. This is what every woman has been dreaming of for most of her adult life.

GLENN: Lie number five.

PAT: The rub is HGTV and QVC are rival competitors.

STU: That is currently a lie.

PAT: QVC just bought HSN.

STU: For $2 billion.

PAT: There's a contract that says she's prohibited or promoting any channel or media company. That's probably true. It was later discovered not even her husband Chip knew that she was -- what she was constructing in the background.

GLENN: Okay. Now you're --

PAT: You're starting to get into the relationship.

GLENN: And when I read that, I was, like, no way. No way.

PAT: It goes so far as to say when her secret surfaced it, it caused a rift in her marriage. Jeez.

GLENN: Okay. That does damage. That does damage to their image.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: I mean, I like them because they're such a great family and such a great couple.

PAT: You're talking liable now.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. This is horrible so now we're up to lie seven.

PAT: Because of this, HGTV has decided to carry on the show by himself. In one paragraph.

GLENN: Okay. That's one paragraph. There are more lies to follow.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We cannot figure out. Because this is not just happening to them. This is happening to -- I saw Stephen Hawking and Anderson Cooper are taking a new brain drug that makes them super smart.

PAT: Really?

JEFFY: Yeah, that's been around.

PAT: There's another one involving Michael Jordan and LeBron James, and they're having some kind of feud, and they're selling a product with it.

JEFFY: My free bottles haven't arrived yet.

GLENN: Mike is truly -- he has a national practice on media law, emphasis on defending news organizations from news gathering to publicly-related claims including defamation, invasion of privacy matters. He is one of the best attorneys in America. When companies see him coming and his firm coming, they realize holy crap. We have the big dogs coming after us. He is my attorney, and I can't speak highly enough about him. So we called him up and asked him how do they get away with this? Mike, welcome to the program.

MIKE: yeah, good morning, Glenn, and thank you very much for the kind words. They're much appreciated. Well, the answer to the examples you've raised on the air is that they really are unlawful and the law has recognized what's known as the right of publicity. And really, what that boils down to is each individual person has a legally protectable interest in their name, their image, their likeness, and their voice. So, for example, if I'm selling cars or a product or a service in Dallas Fort Worth metro area, I could not take a picture of Glenn Beck and put it up on a billboard for motorists to see where you're touting the product or service, unless I had your express written authorization to do that. And the reason is obvious. That you have a recognizable brand value and identity that has commercial value in the marketplace, and you and you alone should be able to control the dissemination of your image for commercial marketing purposes, and you should be able to collect and monetize that. You know, typically, of course, this occurs with celebrities and people whose identities have recognized market value, although in most jurisdictions, no one can do that to say me either, although I obviously don't -- do not have a recognized marketability factor or quotient in my own persona.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on, Mike. So here's the thing. I have seen these everywhere and, you know, when I first saw the one about the brain drug, I wrote to Anderson, and I'm, like, oh, so that's what it is, huh? And he was, like, these are so obnoxious. Joanna and Chip, they called our office and said we're going to track these people down because they keep just shuttering their business, and I guess they'll shutter it and then open it up. And somehow or another, they're getting away with it, and I don't know why. And on top of it, institutions like me, like or the Blaze, we took this ad unbeknownst to us because it was just in a service that you buy the service, and then they from the ads with what they're selling. When I saw it, we took it down. It cost us a fortune to lose that, and everyone else is taking it. So there's money being made by the people that are doing the face cream. There's money being made by all the media outlets that are taking this. There's money being made by the agencies that are representing this, and they know that there's somehow or another a game being played and all the celebrities that are involved don't want to spend the money trying to track those guys down because there's obviously not deep pockets or the pockets are so well protected in shell companies that there's nothing to go and get. How do you stop it?

MIKE: Well, that's really a difficult question. And I think you're putting your finger on the real problem, Glenn, today for most celebrities who do have recognized commercial value and appeal in their persona. With the proliferation of these examples on the Internet, it's very difficult to monitor for first thing. And then if you are able to discover these types of things, it's an expensive proposition sometimes because they're all over the place. So most of the time if you're able to identify a truly unauthorized ad where somebody is using your image and your likeness for a commercial purpose, you have not consented to or authorized, you can go to court and get an injunction whereby the court would order the person who is displaying this. A website or something to cease and desist to continue to publish the ad. As you correctly point out, however, that can be a not expensive ask sometimes inconvenient proposition that doesn't fully answer the Whack-a-Mole problem. Once you get one of them down, it pops up again some place else.

GLENN: So that's what I want to -- I want to concentrate on that for a second. What they do, I'm sure, and I don't know the case of this company. But what it appears to be is, you know, they'll just make a quick 501(c)(3) or whatever -- is that the right thing? Yeah, a corporation, an S Corp, a quick S Corp, a shell corporation of some sort, they'll put limited resources in it, they'll buy it, but they won't keep any money in it. And then if you sue that company, there's nothing really to win. And the people just leave to go do it again under some other company name in some other way. How do you get to the people when you know their intent is bad, you know? You want that. You want that protection from a corporation in some cases. But when you have really bad guys using the system, is there anything to get to the actual perpetrators?

MIKE: It can be really difficult, and I had a case a few years ago for a very prominent professional athlete, a tennis player. And his name and image was being used to promote a rather unsavory product. And he in no way authorized this. He did not want the association with his identity in the market embezzle that it devalued his own sponsorship abilities, and we ended up tracking this down, and it was some company offshore, you know, down in the Cayman Islands, and, thankfully, we were able to get the ad shut down on the website because we got a court order and went to Internet service providers like Google and said you can't display this anymore. But being able to recover actual financial damages from the perpetrators is extraordinarily impractical and very unlikely.

GLENN: So, Mike, let me just ask you an off the wall question. And you know me. I don't need another project, and I don't need -- I just don't need more hassles in my life. But this is -- this is something that really bothers me because when I saw it on TheBlaze, if we don't have a way to say to agencies "You cannot lie. These things are just going to keep coming through and slipping through the cracks, and it hurts my credibility as a news organization.

MIKE: Sure.

GLENN: Most people don't care. It also bothers me that people like Chip and Joanna. If people don't say anything and try to help these guys, the Tom Brady's and Michael Jordan and Anderson Cooper and even Stephen Hawking, the next people will be us. And is there a way -- would you be interested to see if we reach out to all of these people? I would like to as a media company just be a part of something that is trying to enforce truth in advertising. Is it possible? Would it help if everybody got together and tried to stop it?

MIKE: I think there's always strength in numbers. I think there is a threshold obligation here too,

Glenn, on the part of the advertising agency. They should have some up front ability --

GLENN: Oh, they didn't care.

MIKE: Before placing an ad.

GLENN: They didn't care.

MIKE: That it's authentic and real. Because otherwise, once the genie's out of the bottle so to speak, it's just very, very difficult to prevent this type of thing from spiraling out of control on the Internet. And then once it's out there on all of these websites, it's difficult to get it back in.

GLENN: Mike, if you could do me a favor, independently like to reach out to these people and see if they're interested in working together. And I don't want to lead it or anything else. But if you are so good. And if it's not you, maybe you know who is that somebody can make a dent. Because if it is the advertiser, we have to go after the ad agencies. Somebody needs to protect truth.

MIKE: Yeah, there should be accountability here and substantial measures often happens with technology. Sometimes things outstrip or outpace the ability of the legal system to provide an effective remedy. And here I think it's probably a situation that merits consideration from those that are involved because for a -- someone who has really worked hard, achieved success to be associated with an unauthorized product or service that may actually be disreputable can obviously cause damage to that person's market value and reputation. And the legal system should be able to find a way to stop that sort of thing from happening.

GLENN: Mike, thank you so much. I appreciate it, Mike.

MIKE: Yep. Appreciate it, Glenn. Take care.

GLENN: My attorney on first amendment and speech and investigative issues Mike is just fantastic. Now this. By the way, chip and Joanna, we love you, and we want to help you any way we possibly can.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

June 15-17


Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.