Editing Reader's Digest (section)

==Sweepstakes agreement==
In 2001, 32 states' attorneys general reached agreements with the company and other sweepstakes operators to settle allegations that they tricked the elderly into buying products because they were a "guaranteed winner" of a lottery. The settlement required the companies to expand the type size of notices in the packaging that no purchase is necessary to play the sweepstakes, and to:
# Establish a "Do Not Contact List" and refrain from soliciting any future "high-activity" customers unless and until ''Reader's Digest'' actually makes contact with that customer and determines that the customer is not buying because they believe that the purchase will improve their chances of winning.
# Send letters to individuals who spend more than $1,000 in a six-month period telling them that they are not required to make purchases to win the sweepstakes, that making a purchase will not improve their chances of winning, and that all entries have the same chance to win whether or not the entry is accompanied by a purchase.<ref>{{cite press release |first= Genene |last= Morris |date= March 8, 2001 |url= http://www.nj.gov/oag/ca/press/digest.htm |title= Reader's Digest Enters Into Multi-State Sweepstakes Agreement Agrees to Pay $6 Million in Consumer Restitution |publisher= New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Consumer Affairs |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090821001354/http://www.nj.gov/oag/ca/press/digest.htm |archive-date= August 21, 2009 |access-date= June 22, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |author= Attorney General's Press Office |url= http://www.ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1074&year=2001&month=3 |title= Attorney General Lockyer Announces Settlement With the Reader's Digest Association to Provide Improved Sweepstakes Disclosures |publisher= State of California Department of Justice Office of the Attorney General|date=March 8, 2001|access-date=June 22, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first= Ray |last= Schultz |url= http://directmag.com/news/marketing_readers_digest_agrees/ |title=Reader's Digest Agrees to Sweeps Restrictions |work= Direct Mag |date= March 8, 2001|access-date= June 22, 2009}}</ref>

The UK edition of ''Reader's Digest'' has also been criticized by the [[Trading Standards Institute]] for preying on the elderly and vulnerable with misleading bulk mailings that claim the recipient is guaranteed a large cash prize and advising them not to discuss this with anyone else. Following their complaint, the [[Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom)|Advertising Standards Authority]] said they would be launching an investigation.<ref name="Trading Standards Complaint">{{cite news |url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7441437.stm |title= Reader's Digest Mailshot Probed |date= June 7, 2008 |access-date= September 14, 2010 |work= BBC News}}</ref> The ASA investigation upheld the complaint in 2008, ruling that the ''Reader's Digest'' mailing was irresponsible and misleading (particularly for the elderly) and had breached three clauses of the [[Committee of Advertising Practice]] code.<ref name="ASA">{{cite web |url= http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/9/The-Readers-Digest-Association-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44924.aspx |title= ASA Adjudication on The Reader's<!-- "Readers" in original --> Digest Association Ltd |publisher= Advertising Standards Authority |date= June 7, 2008 |access-date= September 14, 2010 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://archive.today/20121224093823/http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/9/The-Readers-Digest-Association-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44924.aspx |archive-date= December 24, 2012 |df= mdy-all}}</ref> ''Reader's Digest'' was told not to use this mailing again.