[{"id":3140965,"description":"A new report by the WTO Secretariat, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the World Bank examines how digital trade is transforming the way Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) economies connect to international markets and identifies opportunities to unlock further growth, inclusion and development for the","link":"https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news26_e/publ_08sep26_480_e.htm","title":"New report highlights growth potential of digital trade in Latin America, Caribbean"},{"id":3140834,"description":"$586 million Western Union settlement: Be careful about the company your company keeps lfair January 19, 2017 | 12:11AM $586 million Western Union settlement: Be careful about the company your company keeps By Lesley Fair “For many years, Western Union’s money transfer system has been used by fraudsters around the world to obtain money from their victims.” That’s how the FTC’s complaint against Western Union opens – and it tells a compelling story of a corporation the FTC says knew that massive fraud was afoot and had the ability to address it, but chose to look the other way. It didn’t end there because according to the lawsuit, even in the face of obvious evidence that many of its own agents were complicit, Western Union ignored it while pocketing massive cash. The global $586 million settlement, which also resolves separate Justice Department criminal investigations into the company’s failure to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, sounds a cautionary note for other businesses to consider the company they keep.  Many people use Western Union’s money transfer system to send money to family and friends, but Western Union also was a fan favorite of crooks and con artists around the world. According to the lawsuit , the company’s own in-house data documented that.  For example, between 2004 and 2015, Western Union received 146,909 complaints about bogus online purchases , totaling at least $187 million in losses. Fraudulent lotteries accounted for another 75,543 complaints, totaling $86 million in losses. And those “Wire money to get me out of jail!” scams that target unsuspecting family members generated 41,897 complaints and at least $73 million in losses. Of Western Union’s total network of 515,000 agents, the FTC says a small number account for the vast majority of consumer complaints. You’ll want to read the complaint for details, but here’s just one example. In 2012, Mexico had 17,710 Western Union agent locations, but 137 – less than 1% of them – accounted for more than 80% of the reported fraud. And those are stats based on Western Union’s own documents. Sky-high consumer complaint rates were just the start. Thirty-nine Western Union agents have been charged in the U.S. and Canada for crimes like mail fraud, wire fraud, or money laundering, with more than 100 arrested by law enforcement agencies in other countries. Some were prosecuted for being in cahoots with con artists. Others were charged with setting up their own scams. But even in the face of consumer complaints, criminal prosecutions, a 2005 settlement with AGs from 47 states and the District of Columbia, a 2009 FTC action against competitor MoneyGram, and warnings from the U.S. Secret Service and authorities in Canada, Japan, the U.K., Spain, and elsewhere, the FTC says it was business as usual for Western Union. In certain countries where Western Union was at a particularly high risk for use by criminals – Nigeria, for example – Western Union had rarely, if ever, terminated an agent for fraud as of October 2015. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that despite what Western Union knew, it failed to take prompt action against agents with high levels of consumer fraud, didn’t conduct adequate background checks of prospective new agents or those up for contract renewal, didn’t adequately train and monitor its agents, and failed to adequately record consumer fraud complaints. In addition to violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the FTC alleges that Western Union’s failure to take timely, appropriate, and effective action in the face of fraud-induced money transfers was an unfair trade practice. The settlement imposes the $586 million payment and requires Western Union to put a comprehensive A-to-Z anti-fraud program in place, complete with meaningful training and monitoring to protect consumers in the future. The order also prohibits the company from","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/01/586-million-western-union-settlement-be-careful-about-company-your-company-keeps","title":"$586 million Western Union settlement: Be careful about the company your company keeps"},{"id":3140835,"description":"Green lights, red flags, blue lobster: FTC Rules of the Road for Business heads to Cleveland sgressin October 19, 2020 | 9:24AM Green lights, red flags, blue lobster: FTC Rules of the Road for Business heads to Cleveland By Seena Gressin Ohioans know how to handle the virtually impossible. Take Clawde, a rare blue lobster that was destined for a dinner plate this July when a sharp-eyed worker in a Cuyahoga Falls Red Lobster restaurant spotted him, fished him from a holding tank, and started events that landed Clawde in posh new digs at the Akron Zoo — where a veterinarian’s exam led Clawde to be redubbed Clawdia. According to the zoo, blue lobsters occur one in every 2 million. And the chances of one being caught, shipped, saved, and not savored? We’ll go with virtually impossible. Why are we telling you? Well, who among us doesn’t need a good lobster tale these days? But it also brings us to another rare event soon to happen in Ohio — Green Lights & Red Flags: FTC Rules of the Road for Business . It’s a free business seminar focused on hot topics in truth-in-advertising law, social media marketing, data security, business-to-business fraud, and more . It will take place on Thursday, October 29, from 1 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time , online from Cleveland. Since it’s virtually possible for you to attend from wherever you are, you’re invited. Green Lights & Red Flags continues a popular business workshop series that the FTC has held over the years with regional partners in cities across the county. The Cleveland event will bring together national and state legal experts and Ohio business and marketing professionals to offer practical insights into how established consumer protection principles apply in today’s marketplace. Business owners, marketing and advertising professionals, and lawyers who advise them will want to attend. The workshop is co-hosted by the FTC, the Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Better Business Bureau Serving Greater Cleveland, and the Cuyahoga County Department of Consumer Affairs. Visit the event page for details and to register . We hope you’ll join us, virtually. No lobster bibs are","title":"Green lights, red flags, blue lobster: FTC Rules of the Road for Business heads to Cleveland","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/10/green-lights-red-flags-blue-lobster-ftc-rules-road-business-heads-cleveland"},{"id":3140836,"description":"Company claimed “Ships Tomorrow,” but where were the masks and respirators? lfair July 8, 2020 | 4:29PM Company claimed “Ships Tomorrow,” but where were the masks and respirators? By Lesley Fair An online company advertising consumer goods, including personal protective equipment like masks and respirators, does business under the name SuperGoodDeals.com. But based on the illegal conduct alleged in a lawsuit just filed by the FTC , maybe it’s because the URL SuperDeceptivePractices.com was already taken. New York-based SuperGoodDeals.com, Inc., and Kevin J. Lipsitz sell charger cables, clothing, health and beauty products, and other consumer goods through their website. In March 2020, they began to market masks, respirators, and other products that help protect against COVID-19. The company advertised “Pay Today, Ships Tomorrow” on multiple places on its site, including in a prominent banner. Many pages on its site advertising protective equipment included the claim “In Stock – Pay Today, Ships Tomorrow! Going Fast!” The company underscored that representation on its “Shipping & Deliveries” page, stating “We pride ourselves on fast order processing. Pay Today, Ships Tomorrow!” At a time when consumers needed essential protective products to combat COVID-19 but found most other retailers out of stock, the FTC alleges the defendants’ claims about product availability and fast shipping were highly material. Indeed the FTC says that demonstrates why, at least in part, consumers relied on those next-day shipping representations. But according to the complaint , the defendants’ promises were false. In numerous instances, the defendants generated a United States Postal Services shipping label within one day, but waited weeks to get the ordered products to the post office for shipping. The complaint cites examples of how the defendants’ claims affected consumers. On March 23, 2020, one consumer spent $135 on four 50-packs of disposable masks for child welfare workers making in-home visits. Despite paying extra for overnight shipping, a week passed and the person hadn’t received the items. Another customer ordered masks on March 21st for a family member who is a nurse and paid for two-day shipping, but hadn’t received the masks as of April 4th. A third customer ordered masks on March 31st for her immunocompromised mother and grandmother. Two weeks passed and no masks. Compounding consumers’ frustration was the defendants’ claim on their website that they responded to consumer inquires “within 1 business day or less.” According to the lawsuit, dozens of consumers complained to the FTC and to the Better Business Bureau when the defendants didn’t respond to emails, phone calls, or chat messages. COVID-19 issues aside, SuperGoodDeals advertised many of the items on its site as “authentic” or “certified.” For example, the defendants claimed to sell Yeti branded vacuum insulated tumblers and featured the word “AUTHENTIC” next to a picture of the product. But the FTC says in many instances, consumers received counterfeit merchandise. Count 1 of the complaint alleges the defendants violated the FTC Act by deceptively claiming to ship items within one business day and by falsely representing the items they sold were authentic, certified, or specifically branded. Count 2 specifies the multiple ways in which the FTC says the defendants’ business practices violated the Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule . While the case is pending in federal court in New York, here are two points for other businesses to consider. Your shipping promises are highly material to consumers.   The COVID-19 crisis has underscored just how important shipment representations are to people for whom home delivery has become a literal lifeline. Have you given your website a recent once-over to make sure you can back up what you claim? If the unexpected","title":"Company claimed “Ships Tomorrow,” but where were the masks and respirators?","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/07/company-claimed-ships-tomorrow-where-were-masks-respirators"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/03/ftc-fda-warn-companies-making-coronavirus-claims","title":"FTC, FDA warn companies making Coronavirus claims","id":3140837,"description":"FTC, FDA warn companies making Coronavirus claims lfair March 9, 2020 | 9:56AM FTC, FDA warn companies making Coronavirus claims By Lesley Fair When public health concerns hit the headlines, some companies rush to the market with products advertised to prevent or treat the problem. We’re seeing the same thing with the Coronavirus. But do those businesses have proof for their advertising claims, as the FTC requires? And have their products been approved, cleared, or authorized by the FDA? The FTC and FDA just sent warning letters to seven companies raising concerns about their Coronavirus-related products. If your business is making Coronavirus claims, stop. Pay special attention to what the letters say. The FTC also has advice for consumers about protecting themselves from Coronavirus scams. Here are the companies that received the FTC-FDA warning letters and some of the products they’re pitching. Jim Bakker and The Jim Bakker Show. (Yes, that Jim Bakker you may remember from TV in the the 80s.) The FTC-FDA warning letter cites antiviral claims for Silver Sol Liquid, Silver Sol Gel, and Silver Lozenges made in a video titled A Close Look at What’s Not Being Said About the Coronavirus , on social media, and on websites. Herbal Amy, Inc. The warning letter calls into question claims the Idaho firm is making for multiple products, including a “Coronavirus Protocol.” According to ads, “The formulations are preventative as well as specific for acute infections.” N-Ergetics. The FTC-FDA letter quotes claims the Oklahoma-based business makes for colloidal silver products. According to its website, “Colloidal Silver is still the only known anti-viral supplement to kill all seven of these Human Coronaviruses,” and “This Chinese Wuhan Flu Pneumonia has a non-traditional remedy that has successfully killed coronaviruses from the flu virus to pandemic diseases, in vitro, for over 100 years. . . .” Vital Silver. The Florida-based company makes numerous claims on Facebook and on its website that the FTC and FDA cite in the warning letter  – for example, “So it’s actually widely acknowledged in both science and the medical industry that ionic silver kills coronaviruses” and “[R]esearch efforts have demonstrated that silver was found to effectively deactivate the human coronavirus strain 229E, a virus linked to SARS . . .” Quinessence Aromatherapy Ltd. On Twitter and on its site, the UK company advertises “Essential Oils To Protect Against Coronavirus” and lists products it sells that are “The most powerful anti-virus essential oils to provide defence against coronavirus.” Those are among the claims cited in the FTC-FDA warning letter . GuruNanda, LLC. California-based GuruNanda asks on its website, “Just what is this new Coronavirus, and how can you prevent and/or treat it?” According to the company, its frankincense product is a way to “decrease your chances of becoming infected.” The warning letter cites those claims and others the company makes on Twitter and Facebook. Vivify Holistic Clinic. According to the FTC-FDA warning letter , the Canadian company makes a variety of claims on its site and on Facebook – for example, “Regarding the Wuhan Coronavirus: Stephen Buhner . . . has done extensive research on coronaviruses . . . and has treated them very successfully using his protocols.” The company also makes recommendations about the use of its product “for a preventative dose” and “for an infection dosage.” What is the FDA telling these companies? “You should take immediate action to ensure that your firm is not marketing, and does not market in the future, products intended to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat or cure COVID-19 that have not been approved, cleared, or authorized by the FDA.” The FTC reminds those businesses it’s illegal “to advertise that a product can prevent, treat, or cure human disease"},{"title":"CROA case shows why piggybacking isn’t the answer for consumers shouldering bad credit","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/03/croa-case-shows-why-piggybacking-isnt-answer-consumers-shouldering-bad-credit","id":3140838,"description":"CROA case shows why piggybacking isn’t the answer for consumers shouldering bad credit lfair March 9, 2020 | 11:07AM CROA case shows why piggybacking isn’t the answer for consumers shouldering bad credit By Lesley Fair The practice is called piggybacking, but it’s not child’s play. It’s where a person with iffy credit pays a credit repair company to be listed as an authorized user on the account of someone with good credit – even though they don’t actually have access. The idea is that the person with bad credit can inflate their own credit score and get the money-saving benefits of better credit by “piggybacking” on the credit of a stranger. That’s how a Denver-based business pitched its services to cash-strapped consumers. But the FTC says the defendants couldn’t back up their score improvement claims and engaged in a host of illegal practices that violated the FTC Act, the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) , and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. BoostMyScore and CEO William O. Airy claimed to offer consumers “the amazing benefit” of having another person’s credit “‘copied and pasted’ on to your credit report,” giving the buyer “the biggest possible FICO® score boost in less than 60 days; and it’s guaranteed!” Here’s how the defendants described their services, for which they charged consumer between $325 to $4,000 – or even more: HOW TO HACK YOUR CREDIT SCORE. What is a tradeline? Steroids straight into the heart of your credit score... Adding a high quality “tradeline” is the most effective way to quickly boost your credit score. Through a process called “tradeline renting” or “credit piggybacking,” you can overcome your credit woes. Online and in radio ads, the defendants promised consumers concrete benefits – for example, qualifying for a mortgage. According to one promotional piece, “ . . . many of our customers realize a jump of about 120 points in as little as two weeks. What would a credit score increase of that size mean for you? If you are like most people, that could be the difference between having your mortgage application approved or not.” The complaint alleges the defendants also advised those strangers with good credit on how to conceal what was going on: While speaking with call center employees. . . [i]f someone is being . . . overly inquisitive, and you feel they may be trying to uncover your motive of earning an income by renting out the AU [Authorized User] spots on your cards, you can simply tell them you have to run and will call them back later to complete your tasks. Then immediately hang up, without waiting for a response, because doing so usually closes out your account on their computer screen, reducing any chance they had of transferring you to another department or manager tasked with closing credit card accounts they assume are being utilized in this way. You’ll want to read the complaint for details of the allegations, but the FTC says the defendants violated the FTC Act by deceptively claiming that their services would significantly improve consumers’ credit scores and help them get mortgages. The lawsuit also alleges the defendants violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act by the misleading use of tradelines and by engaging in a course of business that results in fraud or deception. The FTC says they also violated CROA and the Telemarketing Sales Rule by making misrepresentations about credit repair service and by charging illegal advance fees. The settlement prohibits the defendants from marketing credit repair services that attempt to add an authorized user to anyone’s credit unless that person has actual access. In addition to other provisions to protect consumers in the future, the proposed order prohibits misrepresentations about the legality of credit piggybacking. Most of the proposed $6.6 million judgment would be suspended due to the defendants’ financial"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/12/lessons-facebook-settlement-even-if-youre-not-facebook","title":"Lessons from the Facebook settlement (even if you’re not Facebook)","id":3140829,"description":"Lessons from the Facebook settlement (even if you’re not Facebook) wfg-adm109 December 2, 2011 | 1:16PM Lessons from the Facebook settlement (even if you’re not Facebook) By Lesley Fair The terms of the FTC’s proposed settlement apply only to Facebook. But to paraphrase noted legal scholar Bob Dylan, companies that want to stay off the law enforcement radar don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. What practical pointers can your business take from the Facebook case and other recent FTC actions dealing with consumer privacy ? 1) Promises, promises. Not making any privacy promises? Think again. Reread your privacy policy to see just what you’re telling customers and visitors you do with their information. And take a look at the privacy settings and other controls you offer. Like any other advertising claim, what you say about how you handle people’s info has to be truthful, not deceptive, and backed up with objective proof. 2) Legal-ease. Now that you have your privacy policy in front of you, show it to a real person — your receptionist, the guy in the warehouse, a member of your family. If they’re not clear on what it says, chances are your customers aren’t sure either. Yes, run it past Legal, but like the rest of your site, your privacy policy should be clear, direct, and easy to understand. Keep geek-speak and legal mumbo jumbo to a minimum. 3) Attitudes, not platitudes. “We at Acme Industries use every means to protect your privacy and never share your information without your permission.” Some retailers lace their privacy policies with lofty language, but don’t back their words up with actions. Remember: Statements like that aren’t just yadda yadda. They’re promises you have to keep. For example, the FTC settled a case with a company that claimed “We are committed to maintaining our customers’ privacy,” and yet failed to protect personal information from a well-known and easily preventable form of hack attack. 4) Color my world. Let’s face it: A lot of privacy policies mumble “Don’t read me.” The type is tiny and the text is dense. They’re often formatted in snooze-inducing shades of grey, in contrast to the eye-catching graphics on parts of the website designed to sell something. So here’s a crazy idea: How about giving your creative team a crack at rebooting the look of your privacy policy? A little color here, a bigger font there. Why not give it a shot? 5) Ch-ch-ch-changes. For security-minded customers, your information practices may be a key factor in their decision to do business with you. But what if you collected info from them under one set of rules and now want to change what you do? Wise marketers call customers’ attention to the proposed change and get their express OK first. Just editing what you say in your privacy policy won’t alert them to what you plan to do. 6) Time for a tech tune-up. If it’s been a while since you wrote your privacy policy, reconsider it in light of new technology you’ve put in place. What was true back in the day may not be the case if you’ve introduced a mobile app, switched service providers, or made other changes to your business. 7) Natural resources. You’ve got a business to run, so save time and money by using free resources from the FTC. Bookmark the Business Center’s Privacy & Security portal for the latest on law enforcement and plain-language compliance suggestions. Visit OnGuardOnline.gov for tips from the federal government and the technology industry."},{"title":"FTC says buyers strung along by deceptive endorsements for guitar DVDs","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/03/ftc-says-buyers-strung-along-deceptive-endorsements-guitar-dvds","description":"FTC says buyers strung along by deceptive endorsements for guitar DVDs wfg-adm109 March 16, 2011 | 10:55AM FTC says buyers strung along by deceptive endorsements for guitar DVDs By Lesley Fair If you’ve been following recent developments about endorsements and affiliate marketing, the FTC’s settlement with Nashville-based Legacy Learning Systems and Lester Gabriel Smith — marketers of a “learn to play the guitar” DVD series – should strike a chord. One way Legacy promoted its products was through an affiliate program — a set-up in which hyperlinks on one site will direct potential buyers to another site.  Affiliates typically get paid for referring people to the site or for sales generated from their links.  Under Legacy’s program, when a customer was directed to Legacy’s website by an affiliate and then bought the product, the affiliate pocketed a commission of between 20% and 45% of the purchase price. According to the FTC's complaint , many of Legacy’s affiliates promoted the courses through positive endorsements in articles, blog posts, reviews, or other online editorial copy that contained hyperlinks to Legacy’s website close to the glowing testimonials.  One five-star review described the DVD series as “The undisputed No. 1 training product for someone wanting to learn how to play the guitar.”  Another said it was “Simply the best beginner course available, Learn and Master Guitar is well structured, well paced, and contains an appropriate level of music theory and techniques to develop your musicianship.”  One page described as “The Independent Reviews Site” offered this recommendation:  “Putting it simply: Learn and Master Guitar emerged from our test as the King of ‘learn guitar at home’ courses.” According to the FTC, endorsements like that gave readers the impression that they’d been submitted by ordinary consumers or independent reviewers — and generated more than $5 million in sales for Legacy. Were buyers aware of the financial relationship between the endorser and Legacy?  No, says the FTC.  Since at least December 1, 2009, Legacy’s contracts stated that affiliates should “comply with the FTC guidelines on disclosures.” But saying it isn’t the same as doing it.  Many of the affiliates endorsed the courses without disclosing their relationship to Legacy or with disclosures accessible only through inconspicuous hyperlinks at the bottom of their homepages.  The FTC noted that Legacy failed to implement a reasonable monitoring program to ensure that affiliates clearly and prominently disclosed their relationship. Next:  The proposed order against Legacy, including a $250,000","id":3140830},{"title":"One truth to take from the Trudeau story","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/07/one-truth-take-trudeau-story","id":3140831,"description":"One truth to take from the Trudeau story lfair July 5, 2016 | 10:47AM One truth to take from the Trudeau story By Lesley Fair Recently, the FTC sent hundreds of thousands of refund checks to people who bought the book The Weight Loss Cure “They” Don’t Want You to Know About by pitchman Kevin Trudeau. Court decisions have established there wasn’t much truth in Mr. Trudeau’s advertising claims, but the story behind the law enforcement actions underscores one fundamental truth: the FTC’s commitment to effective order enforcement. Kevin Trudeau is no stranger to the FTC. He settled a case in 1998 for his role in promoting products via infomercial, including an addiction treatment method advertised to “work virtually 100 percent of the time” and a “hair farming system.” Then came his involvement in the marketing of Coral Calcium Supreme, deceptively advertised to cure cancer and other serious diseases. That led to a 2004 order that, among other things, banned him for life from the infomercial industry. But he parlayed a narrow exception into his next misleading promotion, the Weight Loss Cure book. Trudeau touted it as an easy eat-what-you-want plan, but once people bought the book, they learned the truth. It required near-starvation dieting and daily injections of prescription drugs. In 2009, a federal judge ordered Trudeau to repay consumers millions of dollars for violating the 2004 order. Trudeau continued to spend lavishly on living-the-high-life luxuries, and yet claimed to be too broke to pay the required refunds. The FTC wasn’t buying it and went back to court to untangle the web Trudeau had created to hide his assets. The trial judge didn’t buy it either and at one point jailed Trudeau for refusing to disclose the whereabouts of money that rightfully belonged to defrauded consumers. Ultimately, a court-appointed receiver unearthed millions of dollars Trudeau had hidden – and the search continues for more money he squirreled away. The checks we sent reflect partial refunds, but it’s important to cash or deposit them within 60 days. People who cash or deposit that check may get a second check if more money become available. Visit our Trudeau refund page for information. (Looking for details about other FTC cases that led to money back for consumers? Bookmark the FTC’s general refunds page for information consumers need to confirm that a check from an FTC case is legit.) So what’s Mr. Trudeau doing now? 10 years in a federal prison. A federal appellate court upheld a jury verdict finding him in criminal contempt. “Based on the size of Trudeau’s fraud and the flagrant and repetitive nature of his contumacious conduct,” the court also rejected Trudeau’s challenge to the prison sentence. What’s the one truth advertisers should take from the Trudeau story? That the heart and soul of the FTC’s mission is effective order enforcement. In most cases, people and companies under order implement in-house changes to prevent a repeat performance. But for those who don’t, the FTC will take the steps necessary to protect consumers from recidivists. And as the Trudeau case suggests, we’re in it for the long haul."},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/08/ftc-says-uber-took-wrong-turn-misleading-privacy-security-promises","title":"FTC says Uber took a wrong turn with misleading privacy, security promises","id":3140832,"description":"FTC says Uber took a wrong turn with misleading privacy, security promises lfair August 15, 2017 | 10:07AM FTC says Uber took a wrong turn with misleading privacy, security promises By Lesley Fair How much information does Uber have about its riders and drivers? A lot. The FTC just announced a settlement addressing charges that the company falsely claimed to closely monitor internal access to consumers’ personal information on an ongoing basis. The FTC also alleges that Uber failed to live up to its promise to provide reasonable security for consumer data. Uber collects and maintains sensitive information about its riders – for example, names, addresses, profile pictures, and detailed trip records, including geolocation. When people sign up to be Uber drivers, the company collects a lot of data, too – Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, bank account numbers, car registrations, and the like. The story behind the FTC’s complaint goes back to at least 2014. That’s when the company was the subject of news reports alleging that Uber employees had improperly accessed riders’ personal information. How did consumers react? Not well. To respond to the controversy, Uber posted this statement on its site: Uber has a strict policy prohibiting all employees at every level from accessing a rider or driver’s data. The only exception to this policy is for a limited set of legitimate business purposes. Our policy has been communicated to all employees and contractors . . . . The policy is also clear that access to rider and driver accounts is being closely monitored and audited by data security specialists on an ongoing basis, and any violations of the policy will result in disciplinary action, including the possibility of termination and legal action. How did Uber store some of the sensitive information in its possession? Uber used a well-known third-party cloud storage service to maintain large amounts of it, including back-ups of its massive rider and driver databases. Uber claimed it “securely stored” personal information, using “standard, industry-wide, commercially reasonable security practices such as encryption, firewalls and SSL (Secure Socket Layers) . . . .” If consumers expressed reluctance to provide personal data, customer service reps assuaged their concerns by promising that Uber was “extra vigilant” and that their information “will be stored safely and used only for purposes you’ve authorized. We use the most up to date technology and services to ensure that none of these are compromised.” That’s what Uber said , but what was going on behind the scenes? According to the complaint , despite the promise of “ongoing” monitoring by data security specialists, the system Uber implemented in December 2014 wasn’t designed or staffed to effectively monitor the data that Uber workers were accessing, so the company abandoned it. From August 2015 until May 2016, Uber didn’t follow up in a timely fashion on alerts concerning the possible misuse of consumers’ personal information. For a particular six-month period, Uber only monitored access to the account information of a select group. Who? Certain high-profile users, including Uber executives. The FTC also alleges that Uber engaged in practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable security for personal information in the cloud storage service. You’ll want to read the complaint for details, but according to the FTC, Uber let all programs and engineers that accessed the cloud storage service use a single access key that provided full admin privileges over everything Uber stored there, failed to restrict access based on employees’ job functions, failed to require multi-factor authentication for access, and stored sensitive information in clear, readable – in other words, unencrypted – text. What’s more, until September 2014, Uber failed to implement reasonable security training and guidance"},{"title":"FTC blows the whistle on business coaching program","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/06/ftc-blows-whistle-business-coaching-program","description":"FTC blows the whistle on business coaching program lfair June 26, 2017 | 11:28AM FTC blows the whistle on business coaching program By Lesley Fair Rockne, Lombardi, Landry, Shula. Behind every sports dynasty, there’s a legendary coach. But according to the FTC , marketers of “business coaching” services took consumers for millions by using offside sales tactics that will likely disqualify them from the Truth-in-Advertising Hall of Fame. One notable feature of the cases is that it took two pages just to list the interconnected companies and individuals involved in the operation, but it boils down to this. The complaint alleges that a Utah-based company called Guidance hired telemarketing outfits – “sales floors” – to pitch its supposedly personalized business coaching services. According to the FTC, based on misleading promotional materials and testimonials supplied by Guidance, telemarketers used a host of deceptive practices to get people to pay thousands of dollars on the false promise that the services would enable them to start their own successful internet businesses. Here’s an example from a videotaped testimonial of the kind of claims the defendants used to get consumers on their team: “I’ve grossed over $12,000 last month alone. Everything gets better all the time. I’ve got a whole stack of orders over here to prove it. Right behind me, this laptop, I bought this to start my online business. Before that I never owned a computer, I never touched a computer.” The pleadings includes details of other tactics the defendants used to recruit customers. According to the FTC, telemarketers pitched the coaching services as an exclusive one-on-one program of business know-how and specialized market research available only to a limited number of qualified people. Under the guise of screening to see if consumers “qualified,” telemarketers probed for their story – their financial status, personal hardships, or other circumstances the defendants referred to behind closed doors as the person’s “pains.” The defendants then used that information to tailor the sales pitch and to set the price where a prospect was likely to bite. If consumers appeared interested, they were transferred to a “closer” who encouraged them to use their credit card to pay for the program as part of the OPM (“Other People’s Money”) strategy. In other words, put it on plastic, pay it back with the big bucks you’ll rake in from the program, and then pocket the profits. Once people signed up – the initial cost sometimes topped $10,000 – the FTC says the defendants blitzed them with pricey upsells. The FTC alleges in two separate complaints that Guidance, its predecessor Thrive Learning, and two of the sales floors – Discover and PLI – violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. According to the lawsuits, most people didn’t get the advertised services or the promised earnings. If anything, the only “coaching” they got was basic info about online auctions and PayPal accounts – pointers available for free on eBay. In fact, the FTC says that the overwhelming majority of people who bought the defendants’ business coaching services were never able to establish a business. In addition, the lawsuits charge the defendants with collecting consumers’ financial information under false pretenses. The complaint against the Thrive defendants also includes a credit card factoring charge. To settle the case, the defendants have agreed to broad injunctive provisions and lifetime bans from business coaching or work-at-home opportunities, with narrow exemptions for certain lawful business activities. (Thrive will be banned from credit card factoring, too.) The orders include financial judgments which, based on the defendants’ financial condition, will be partially suspended after they turn over a total of $2.1 million in cash and assets worth as much as","id":3140833},{"id":3140760,"description":"A Bill to make provision about the assessment of environmental impact of developments involving the extraction of fossil fuels; to provide that downstream greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion or other end use of extracted hydrocarbons are not required to be assessed as part of the environmental impact assessment of such developments; to make provision relating to decisions in respect of the grant of consent and planning permission for certain such developments; and for connected","title":"Environmental Impact Assessment (Downstream Emissions) Bill","link":"https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4190"},{"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/981http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/contents/made","title":"The Travellers’ Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026","description":"This Order amends the Travellers’ Allowances Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/955), which provides for tax and duty free allowances for goods a traveller brings into the United Kingdom in personal luggage. This instrument is only effective in respect of goods brought into Great Britain from outside the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland the Travellers’ Allowances Order 1994 has effect as it did immediately before IP completion day, with modifications made by the Travellers’ Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I.","id":3140755},{"id":3140756,"title":"The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Middlesborough) (No. 3) Regulations 2026","link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/972http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/972/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/972/pdfs/uksi_20260972_en.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/972/contents/made"},{"id":3140757,"description":"Article 2 of this Order amends the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Relevant Official Records) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/2279) (“the 2012","title":"The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Relevant Official Records) (Amendment) Order 2026","link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/977http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/977/contents/made"},{"id":3140758,"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/988http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/988/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/988/pdfs/uksi_20260988_en.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/988/contents/made","title":"The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Sutton Scotney, Hampshire) (Emergency) Regulations 2026"},{"id":3140759,"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/984http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/984/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/984/pdfs/uksi_20260984_en.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/984/contents/made","title":"The Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 6) Regulations 2026"},{"id":3140460,"description":"Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou, Tokyo-Yokohama, San Jose-San Francisco, Seoul and Beijing are the world’s five biggest “GII Innovation Clusters,” or concentrations of innovative activity identified by WIPO through the analysis of international patent filings, scientific publications and venture capital","title":"WIPO GII: Shenzhen-Hong Kong-Guangzhou, Tokyo-Yokohama, San Jose-San Francisco, Seoul and Beijing Are World’s Biggest “Innovation Clusters”","link":"https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2026/article_0013.html"},{"id":3140349,"description":"These country notes summarise key findings of the PISA 2025 Results (Volume 1) for each participating country and economy. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assesses the knowledge, skills and attitudes of 15-year-old students. These notes focus on the results of each country and economy, providing context and","title":"PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): Hong Kong, China","link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volume-i-country-notes_2d4ff9ea-en/hong-kong-china_453f39ca-en.html"},{"title":"PISA 2025 Results (Volume I): United Arab Emirates","link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volume-i-country-notes_2d4ff9ea-en/united-arab-emirates_171b3f50-en.html","description":"These country notes summarise key findings of the PISA 2025 Results (Volume 1) for each participating country and economy. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) assesses the knowledge, skills and attitudes of 15-year-old students. These notes focus on the results of each country and economy, providing context and","id":3140350},{"id":3140348,"description":"La baisse du niveau des élèves se confirme dans les pays de l’OCDE, où les résultats moyens sont les plus faibles jamais observés dans le cadre du Programme international de l’OCDE pour le suivi des acquis des élèves (PISA) en mathématiques et en lecture. Dans la zone OCDE, un élève de 15 ans sur cinq désormais a un niveau insuffisant en","title":"PISA 2025 : Forte baisse de niveau en lecture et en mathématiques dans la zone OCDE","link":"https://www.oecd.org/fr/about/news/press-releases/2026/09/pisa-2025-students-reading-and-mathematics-performance-declined-sharply-across-the-oecd.html"},{"title":"WTO concludes advanced workshop on agriculture notifications","link":"https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news26_e/agri_01sep26_479_e.htm","description":"Twenty-nine government officials from developing and least-developed WTO members participated in the 2026 edition of the Advanced Workshop on Agriculture Notifications, held at the WTO from 1 to 4 September. The workshop seeks to enhance members' understanding of transparency requirements under the Agreement on Agriculture and supports their efforts to meet notification","id":3140281},{"description":"Arrêté n° 77-164/PR/CAB portant augmentation du prix de vente du Journal officiel de la République de","id":3140139,"title":"Arrêté n° 77-164/PR/CAB portant augmentation du prix de vente du Journal officiel de la République de Djibouti.","link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/texte-juridique/arrete-n77-164-pr-cab-portant-augmentation-du-prix-de-vente-du-journal-officiel-de-la-republique-de-djibouti/"},{"title":"Arrêté n° n° 323 du 31 mars 1939 promulguant à la Côte Française des Somalis et dépendances","link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/texte-juridique/arrete-n-n-323-du-31-mars-1939-promulguant-a-la-cote-francaise-des-somalis-et-dependances-3/","description":"Arrêté n° n° 323 du 31 mars 1939 promulguant à la Côte Française des Somalis et","id":3140140},{"id":3140141,"title":"JORD n° 15 du 13/08/2026","link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/journal-officiel/n-15-du-13-08-2026/"},{"title":"JORD n° 14 du 30/07/2026","link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/journal-officiel/n-14-du-30-07-2026/","id":3140142},{"link":"https://www.uemoa.int/actualites/le-commissaire-jonas-gbian-recu-par-les-ministres-en-charge-du-cadre-de-vie-et-de","title":"Le Commissaire Jonas GBIAN reçu par les Ministres en charge du Cadre de vie et de l’Economie du Bénin","id":3140130,"description":"- lun, 09/07/2026 -"},{"id":3140129,"description":"Agir de concert contre la pollution de l’air et le changement climatique pourrait sauver des millions de vies, freiner le réchauffement et produire environ 15 dollars de retombées économiques pour chaque dollar investi, selon un nouveau rapport soutenu par","title":"Agir pour l’air et le climat : chaque dollar investi en générerait 15","link":"https://news.un.org/feed/view/fr/story/2026/09/1159418"},{"id":3140077,"description":"Contact lens prescription renewals: Prescribers still need to release that Rx lfair July 27, 2020 | 9:44AM Contact lens prescription renewals: Prescribers still need to release that Rx By Alysa Bernstein Your patient calls you panicked because she’s on her last pair of contact lenses. Perhaps due to COVID-19, she isn’t able to (or doesn’t want to) come into the office. You may determine, in your medical judgment, that it’s appropriate to renew or extend that prescription. How do the Contact Lens Consumer Act and the Contact Lens Rule apply to that interaction? While prescribers are likely looking out for the best interests of their patients by renewing or extending prescriptions under those circumstances, they still have to comply with the law. A renewal or extension – including one where you determine that no change in the existing prescription is required – counts as a “contact lens fitting” under the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act and the Contact Lens Rule . That means if you renew or extend a patient’s prescription in that context, you still must provide the patient a copy of the contact lens prescription, whether or not they ask for it. If prescribers are willing to sell lenses to their patients, the fitting is complete and prescribers must automatically give their patients a copy of the prescription. Under the Act and the Rule, you can’t require payment from a patient as a condition of providing or verifying their contact lens prescription. Yes, you may require a patient to pay for the exam, fitting, or evaluation before giving them a copy of their prescription, but only if you also require immediate payment from a patient whose eye exam shows no need for glasses or contacts. Prescribers also can’t require patients to buy contact lenses, or sign a waiver or release, as a condition of releasing or verifying a prescription. These prohibitions apply to prescription renewals and extensions. So renew those prescriptions, if medically appropriate, but provide prescriptions to your patients – and compete for the sale of lenses on price and convenience.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/07/contact-lens-prescription-renewals-prescribers-still-need-release-rx","title":"Contact lens prescription renewals: Prescribers still need to release that Rx"},{"title":"Big concerns about small business loan pitches","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/05/big-concerns-about-small-business-loan-pitches","description":"Big concerns about small business loan pitches lfair May 18, 2020 | 2:06PM Big concerns about small business loan pitches By Lesley Fair Many small businesses are looking for a financial life preserver to help them stay afloat until the COVID-19 wave subsides. But joint warning letters just sent by FTC staff and the Small Business Administration raise concerns that some companies – including lead generators – are making questionable claims about their affiliation with SBA-administered programs designed to offer emergency relief to struggling businesses. And the URL some of them are using is just part of the problem. Funded by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, the Paycheck Protection Program is designed to help small businesses keep people employed. Small businesses may apply for PPP loans through Small Business Administration-authorized lenders or other lenders SBA has determined to be eligible. The warning letters from FTC staff raise concerns about websites that “may be unlawfully misleading small business consumers about federal loans or other temporary small business relief,” in violation of the FTC Act. One letter went to IT Media Solutions, LLC , of Santa Monica, California. The company’s website has prominently claimed “Your Paycheck Protection Program Loan starts here.” Inviting people to “Get Started” with their PPP loan applications, the site has further promised to “connect you to our large nationwide network/marketplace of approved PPP (Paycheck Protection Program) lenders.” Oh, and what URL has IT Media Solutions used to convey those claims? You guessed it: sba.com . A second warning letter to Utah-based Lendio, Inc. , raises concerns with advertising and marketing by, or on behalf of, Lendio, including by IT Media Solutions on sba.com and by Merchants Advance Network, Inc., on manfunding.com. In addition to the same claims cited in the letter to IT Media Solutions, the letter to Lendio mentions representations that Merchants Advance Network has made – specifically that the company is an authorized SBA loan packager that “only charge[s] a nominal fee of $495 per business” and “will work with you hand-in-hand to apply you for ALL eligible relief products that the SBA has to offer.” The letters outline FTC staff’s concerns that these claims suggest – among other things – an affiliation or relationship with the SBA and approved PPP lenders and that consumers (in this case, small businesses) can get PPP loans by applying through these sites. “To the extent that any of these claims are not truthful, omit material information needed to prevent the claims from misleading consumers, or are not substantiated,” they would violate the FTC’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices. In addition, the letter to Lendio cites Merchants Advance Network’s statement that it “only charge[s] a nominal fee of $495 per business.” The letter notes that “agents, including lead generators and others providing PPP application assistance, are prohibited from charging fees to PPP loan applicants, either directly or by taking a fee out of the loan proceeds.” According to the letters, the companies should take immediate action by reviewing and monitoring all advertising and marketing to ensure deceptive claims are removed. That includes claims conveyed expressly or by implication through websites, social media, email, telemarketing, and texts. FTC staff expects to hear back from them within 48 hours about the actions they have taken to address these concerns. In just two months, the FTC has sent dozens of warning letters and filed two law enforcement actions regarding coronavirus claims. Our message to businesses struggling with economic upheaval is that we’re working hard to challenge deceptive claims that may target them. To companies that may be tempted to use questionable tactics to exploit the COVID crisis, our message is","id":3140078},{"id":3140079,"description":"Putting the brakes on unproven superiority claims lfair March 25, 2020 | 11:27AM Putting the brakes on unproven superiority claims By Lesley Fair If you say you’re better, you’d better be better – and you’d better have appropriate proof to back up that claim. That’s a takeaway tip for businesses from the FTC’s proposed settlement with Federal-Mogul Motorparts, LLC . Michigan-based Federal-Mogul sells a wide variety of auto parts, including Wagner OE x  brake pads – an after-market product bought and usually installed at auto repair shops. Compared to “entry-level” and “mid-range” products also sold by the company, Federal-Mogul pitched the OE x  brake pads as a “premium” choice for crossovers, SUVs, and pickup trucks. Why should consumers buy Wagner OE x  brake pads and why should auto parts retailers and repair shops sell and install them? According to Federal-Mogul’s TV, print, and online ads, it boiled down to performance superior to its competitors. For example, one TV ad showed two women driving SUVs. When a truck cuts them both off, one SUV crashes. In the other SUV, a mom with kids in the car does that right-arm-blocking-the-passenger-seat parental move, but avoids the accident. With a look of relief on the woman’s face, a narrator says, “Wagner OE x  brake pads can stop you up to 50 feet sooner. Do you know what’s on your vehicle?” A print ad showed a mom with kids standing in front of two SUVs – one with a crushed front end and the other unscathed. The ad read: “Wagner OE x  brake pads can stop your truck, SUV, or crossover up to 50 feet sooner than other leading pads.* It can mean 50 feet saved when you need it most. And when you family’s safety is on the line, isn’t that what really matters?’ Through those ads and others, the FTC says Federal-Mogul conveyed to consumers that in an emergency, when a driver is trying to stop in the shortest distance possible, Wagner OE x  brake pads will stop a crossover, SUV, or pickup truck up to 50 feet sooner than competing brake pads. What’s more, when compared to competing products, Federal-Mogul represented that the OE x  brake pads will significantly reduce the risk of collisions. But according to the complaint , those were unsubstantiated claims. Although Federal-Mogul hired an independent third party to test Wagner  OE x brake pads against competing aftermarket products, the FTC says the protocol didn’t accurately reflect consumers’ real-world use. For example, the industry standard test – known as the “best-effort” stop – directs the driver to press down hard on the brake pedal to simulate how people are likely to respond to the kind of emergency shown in Federal-Mogul’s ads. However, Federal-Mogul’s test had drivers apply constant and relatively light pressure. In addition, the protocol tested brakes at hotter than normal temperatures – a condition that produces longer stopping distances. Among other things, the proposed settlement prohibits Federal-Mogul from making unsubstantiated efficacy and performance claims about covered brake pads. That includes any Federal-Mogul branded or marketed aftermarket brake pads and any third-party branded aftermarket pads for which Federal-Mogul provides marketing materials. The FTC is accepting public comments about the proposed settlement. What’s the message for other marketers? Comparative safety claims can be highly material to consumers, especially for products people can’t evaluate for themselves. When making express or implied representations – especially if you’re saying your product is objectively superior to competitors – don’t put the pedal to the metal unless you have sound proof. Furthermore, the case should remind advertisers that the FTC will take a close look at testing protocols. Companies should make sure their tests reflect real-world","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/03/putting-brakes-unproven-superiority-claims","title":"Putting the brakes on unproven superiority claims"},{"id":3140080,"description":"COPPA comment deadline extended to December 11th lfair December 10, 2019 | 9:56AM COPPA comment deadline extended to December 11th By Lesley Fair The FTC has extended the deadline for filing comments as part of its review of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. You now have until 11:59 PM Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 11, 2019. Comments were supposed to be due on December 9th, but the Regulations.gov portal was temporarily down. That’s why the FTC is giving people more time to file. If you’re unable to post an online comment on Regulations.gov , send it via email to secretary@ftc.gov , using the subject line COPPA comment . All comments – whether emailed or filed online – are due by the December 11th deadline.","title":"COPPA comment deadline extended to December 11th","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/12/coppa-comment-deadline-extended-december-11th"},{"description":"Cybersecurity for small business: Cybersecurity basics lfair October 26, 2018 | 11:50AM Cybersecurity for small business: Cybersecurity basics By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection As a small business owner, you know that cyber criminals will steal data any place they can find it, whether it’s from a global giant or a Main Street store. So where can you find just-the-facts security advice tailored to your needs? At ftc.gov/cybersecurity . The FTC has boiled it down to a dozen need-to-know topics for small businesses and we’ll address one each week in the Business Blog. First up: Cybersecurity Basics , which sets the stage for steps your company should take. Cybersecurity Basics offers practical tips on protecting your files and devices, securing your wireless network, and making smart security “business as usual” at your business. Here are just a few things you’ll learn by downloading the factsheet and watching the video: Why you should set your apps, web browsers, and operating systems to update automatically Three key steps to help secure your router Multi-factor authentication: What it is and why it should matter to your business How planning for the “what ifs” may help keep your business running even if you experience a data breach Another key component of Cybersecurity Basics is the importance of training your staff. The FTC’s new materials – which the Small Business Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Department of Homeland Security are also promoting – are purpose-built for in-house training or a series of staff meetings. Show this video to introduce your employees to the importance of cybersecurity. Next week: Understanding the NIST Cybersecurity Framework","id":3140081,"title":"Cybersecurity for small business: Cybersecurity basics","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/10/cybersecurity-small-business-cybersecurity-basics"},{"title":"Claims for DanActive False and Deceptive, says FTC","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2010/12/claims-danactive-false-deceptive-says-ftc","description":"Claims for DanActive False and Deceptive, says FTC wfg-adm109 December 20, 2010 | 11:01AM Claims for DanActive False and Deceptive, says FTC By Lesley Fair In addition to allegations about Activia Yogurt , the FTC’s recent settlement with Dannon Corporation challenged health claims for DanActive, a probiotic dairy drink advertised to reduce the likelihood of getting colds or flu. In one ad cited in the complaint, a boy is show taking a test in school, playing baseball in the rain, and – poor kid – getting decked repeatedly in martial arts class.  He arrives home looking tired and drops his backpack by the front door.  As his mother greets him, the color drains from his face and body.  Mom then reaches into the fridge and takes out a DanActive as the narrator says “Your kids have a hectic life and don’t always eat right, and you don’t want their defenses to be weak.  Delicious DanActive can strengthen them.” As the boy drinks the beverage, that’s when the science lesson starts.  A graphic depicts the DanActive he’s drinking as little yellow circles labeled L. casei immunitas .  They form an animated barricade that repels fuzzy green germ-like blobs.  As the narrator says, “Only DanActive has L. casei Immunitas cultures and is clinically proven to help strengthen your body’s defenses.  And a little strengthening can really help,” the boy downs the DanActive and returns to full color.  Surrounded by a newly-acquired yellow shield, he runs out of the house as the shield morphs into a yellow bottle of DanActive.  The narrator concludes, “Help strengthen your family’s bodies’ defenses.” Another ad cited in the complaint shows the same kid, but features a different gastroenterological cartoon.  In that ad, the narrator says “Unwanted substances enter your body every day reaching your intestines, where about 70% of your immune system is located.”  The visual shows an animation of the inside of an intestine pockmarked with holes.  The narrator says “When your defenses are weak, gaps may occur in your intestine wall allowing unwanted substances to pass.”  The fuzzy germ-like blobs -- they're maroon this time -- are shown settling into the holes in the intestine. Cut to the kid drinking DanActive.  As the narrator says “DanActive, with L. casei Immunitas works right there, which may help your body close the gaps and help strengthen his body’s defenses, which makes you feel good, too,” the animation shows little spheres of DanActive filling the intestinal holes, thereby repelling the attack of the fuzzy maroon germ-like blobs.  Shield restored, our smiling hero bolts out of the house and the phrase “clinically proven” flies across the screen. According to the FTC’s complaint, ads like these conveyed that DanActive reduces the likelihood of getting a cold or the flu – and that those claims were clinically proven.  The FTC alleged that Dannon didn’t have the science to back up those promises, making the company’s cold or flu claim unsubstantiated and the “clinically proven” claim false. Next:  The order entered in the FTC case and the settlement reached by Dannon and 39 state Attorneys","id":3140072},{"id":3140073,"description":"We can’t go for that (no can do) lfair July 17, 2017 | 11:38AM We can’t go for that (no can do) By Lesley Fair Of course, phantom debt collection – the practice of pressuring people to pay “debts” they don’t owe – harms consumers. But as an FTC complaint demonstrates, when phantom debt collectors strike, they could affect your company, too. According to the FTC , a Florida-based outfit engaged in a scheme to defraud consumers through the collection of debts people didn’t actually owe or the company didn’t have the authority to collect. The complaint charges that the defendants – Hardco Holding Group, S & H Financial Group, Dequan M. Sicard, and Daryl M. Hall (no, not that Daryl Hall) – violated the FTC Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. When contacting consumers, in many instances the defendants allegedly impersonated attorneys and threatened to have people thrown in jail if they didn’t pay up on delinquent payday loans – loans, remember, that many consumers didn’t take out in the first place and defendants didn’t have the right to collect. One tactic involved contacting people with a “case number” and directing them to dial a callback number. On the second call, the defendants allegedly said they were affiliated with named law firms and that the consumer had committed a felony, could go to prison, or faced arrest. According to the complaint , to boost the credibility of their threat of pending or imminent legal action, the defendants claimed to have the consumer’s Social Security number, bank account number, or contact information for family members. Afraid of legal repercussions, many consumers knuckled under to the demand for payment. The FTC says the defendants also told third parties that consumers owed money, a violation of the FDCPA. In addition, the complaint charges that the defendants didn’t disclose their identity to consumers, failed to provide proper validation notices, and used other false, misleading, and abusive tactics. Phantom debt collectors unquestionably injure consumers, but how could conduct like that affect your company? According to the lawsuit, when pressed to identify themselves, the defendants often gave the names or addresses of legitimate small businesses that had nothing to do with the purported debt or the debt collectors. When concerned consumers contacted those companies to complain, their employees got an understandably angry earful. From the FTC’s perspective, unrelated small businesses shouldn’t have their reputations sullied by others’ allegedly illegal tactics. A federal court in Orlando has temporarily halted the operation and frozen its assets. The FTC wants to stop the illegal practices once and for all. What can consumers do if they’re getting calls for debts they don’t owe ? File a complaint with the FTC. How can small businesses help protect their good names? Every now and then, do a selfie search with your company name and a word like “debt.” If you see consumer posts that suggest that a debt collector is illegally using your name – or if your employees are getting complaints about debt collection calls supposedly coming from your company – let the FTC know about it , too. In the meantime, businesses looking for FDCPA compliance resources can visit the FTC’s debt collection page for some – in the words of the other Daryl Hall (and let’s not forget John Oates) – “Adult Education.”","title":"We can’t go for that (no can do)","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/07/we-cant-go-no-can-do"},{"title":"FTC calls Sprint on $2.9 million risk-based pricing violation","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/10/ftc-calls-sprint-29-million-risk-based-pricing-violation","id":3140074,"description":"FTC calls Sprint on $2.9 million risk-based pricing violation lfair October 21, 2015 | 3:09PM FTC calls Sprint on $2.9 million risk-based pricing violation By Lesley Fair Two people walk into a deli and both order a pastrami on rye. When the check arrives, one is charged $8. The other is surprised to get a bill for $15.99. That’s not the start of an old Henny Youngman joke. It’s an analogy that raises some of the issues in the FTC’s proposed $2.95 million settlement with Sprint for allegedly charging customers with lower credit scores a monthly fee without giving them the proper up-front notice required by law. The FTC’s lawsuit centers on mobile service provider Sprint’s Account Spending Limit Program. Under the program, consumers with lower credit scores were charged a monthly fee of $7.99 on top of what they already had to pay for cell phone and data service. But here’s the thing: Many consumers didn’t know they had been “enrolled” in the program and weren’t given mandatory information that would have made it possible for them to do meaningful comparison-shopping before they were locked in. The FTC says that by tacking that extra $7.99 fee onto consumers' monthly bills without making required disclosures, Sprint violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its Risk-Based Pricing Rule . Because Sprint bills consumers for services after the fact, the company is covered by the Risk-Based Pricing Rule . Under the Rule, if consumers are offered service on less favorable terms based on their credit report or credit score, the company has to inform them of that fact by giving them what the Rule calls a risk-based pricing notice. But according to the complaint , in many cases Sprint failed to provide customers it placed in its Account Spending Limit Program with all of the required disclosures. The FTC says Sprint’s notices omitted key information necessary for consumers to determine if their lower credit scores were based on errors in their consumer reports. That’s a particularly important consideration, given FTC studies showing that credit reports often contain mistakes that can have a major impact on what people have to pay for things like cell phone service. Sprint's timing raised concerns, too. The complaint alleges that Sprint often gave consumers the required notices too late for them to shop around for a better deal without having to cough up a hefty early termination fee. In addition to a $2.95 million civil penalty, the proposed settlement requires Sprint to comply with the Risk-Based Pricing Rule. But that’s not all. From here on in, Sprint will have to give customers the required notice – this time, with complete information – within five days of signing up for Sprint service or by a date that gives them the ability to avoid recurring charges like those in the Account Spending Limit program. Sprint also has to send corrected risk-based pricing notices to consumers who received incomplete notices from the company. Do your company’s practices put you at risk for a Risk-Based Pricing Rule violation? One important compliance tip: Make sure your notices give consumers all the information required by law. Read Using Consumer Reports for Credit Decisions: What to Know About Adverse Action and Risk-Based Pricing Notices for guidance."},{"title":"It’s no longer business as usual at Herbalife: An inside look at the $200 million FTC settlement","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/07/its-no-longer-business-usual-herbalife-inside-look-200-million-ftc-settlement","description":"It’s no longer business as usual at Herbalife: An inside look at the $200 million FTC settlement lfair July 15, 2016 | 8:26AM It’s no longer business as usual at Herbalife: An inside look at the $200 million FTC settlement By Lesley Fair Multi-level marketer Herbalife will pay $200 million back to people who were taken in by what the FTC alleges were misleading moneymaking claims. But when it comes to protecting consumers, that may not be the most important part of the just-announced settlement. What could matter more than $200 million? An order that requires Herbalife to restructure its business from top to bottom – and to start complying with the law. Advertising in English and Spanish, Herbalife pitched its business opportunity as a way for people to quit their jobs and make the big bucks. Other ads promoted Herbalife as a means for already hard-working people to provide a little more for their families: “When we worked in factories our earnings could only pay for basic needs, but now we can take our 12 grandkids on vacations.” But don’t start packing the kids’ bags because according to the FTC, it’s virtually impossible to make money selling Herbalife products. As explained in the complaint , our analysis shows that half of Herbalife “Sales Leaders” earned on average less than $5 a month from product sales. For folks who invested the most to build an actual retail business – a brick-and-mortar store that Herbalife called a Nutrition Club – the majority made nothing or even lost money.  Which brings us to the inconvenient little secret about Herbalife that the FTC’s complaint alleges: The small number of distributors who actually made money made it not by selling products to people who wanted the company’s powders, pills, and potions, but rather by recruiting others to serve as distributors – and encouraging them to buy Herbalife products. The lawsuit alleges that Herbalife deceived consumers into believing they could earn substantial income from the business opportunity or big money from the retail sale of the company’s products. In addition, the complaint charges that one of the fundamental principles of Herbalife’s business model – incentivizing distributors to buy products and to recruit others to join and buy products so they could advance in the company’s marketing program, rather than in response to actual consumer demand – is an unfair practice in violation of the FTC Act. Under the settlement , that all has to change. The order requires Herbalife to drop its current system of rewarding distributors primarily for recruiting a “downline” of people who will buy the product at wholesale, without regard to whether there are customers out there who really want the merchandise. Under the new compensation structure, success in the Herbalife marketing program must depend on whether participants sell products, not on whether they can recruit additional distributors to buy products. You’ll want to read the order for the detailed dos and don’ts, but they’re all closely tied to the law violations alleged in the complaint. Here’s just one example: The order requires a clear differentiation between people who join just to buy discounted products for their own use and those who join the business opportunity. For people in the bizopp, 2/3 of rewards must be based on verifiable retail sales, with no more than 1/3 coming from product designated as “personal consumption.” And it’s not a “we’ll take your word for it” thing. The order includes teeth that will put a financial bite on non-compliance. To make sure everyone at Herbalife is on board with the new set-up, 80% of the company’s net sales will have to be real sales to real buyers. If that doesn’t happen, the rewards that high-level distributors pocket will be cut. What’s more, for the next seven years, Herbalife has to hire an Independent Compliance Auditor to","id":3140075},{"description":"Reviewing the Franchise Rule: What’s on the agenda? lfair November 3, 2020 | 2:36PM Reviewing the Franchise Rule: What’s on the agenda? By Lesley Fair Buying a franchise is a major financial commitment for consumers. The Franchise Rule was put in place to ensure consumers have key information to weigh the risks and benefits of their potential investment. As part of its ongoing regulatory review process, the FTC is hosting an online workshop, Reviewing the Franchise Rule , on Tuesday, November 10, 2020. Check out the just-released agenda. FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith will convene the virtual workshop at 1:00 ET. The next speaker will be Congressman Kevin Hern of Oklahoma. Reviewing the Franchise Rule features three panels, each offering insights from franchisors, franchisees, and law enforcers. The first panel will focus on Financial Performance Representations: What Should be Disclosed? And Why? Next on the agenda will be a discussion of Disclaimers, Waivers, & Questionnaires . The final panel of the day will consider The Pros and Cons of the Current FDD (Franchise Disclosure Document) Format . Lois Greisman, Associate Director of the FTC’s Division of Marketing Practices will offer closing remarks at 4:30 ET. Reviewing the Franchise Rule is free and open to the public. Watch the webcast from a link on the event page that will go live a few minutes before the 1:00 ET start time on November 10th. We’re leaving the public record open, so you’ll have until December 17, 2020, to file public comments at regulations.gov about the issues discussed at the","id":3140076,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/11/reviewing-franchise-rule-whats-agenda","title":"Reviewing the Franchise Rule: What’s on the agenda?"},{"id":3139974,"description":"A Bill to require social media companies operating in the United Kingdom to obtain a licence from Ofcom; to empower Ofcom to set and enforce binding conditions on licensed operators; and for connected","link":"https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4285","title":"Social Media Platforms (Ofcom Licensing) Bill [HL]"},{"title":"Correction Slip","link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/693/pdfs/uksics_20260693_en_001.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/693/pdfs/uksics_20260693_en_001.pdf","id":3139970,"description":"The Armed Forces (Review of Court Martial Sentence) (Amendment and Supplementary Provision) Regulations 2026 (“the Regulations”) amend statutory instruments made under the Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) which provide for the review of unduly lenient sentences passed by the Court"},{"description":"These Regulations amend the Housing Benefit (Earned Income Disregards) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (S.I. 2026/753) (“the Earned Income Disregards Regulations”) to clarify and extend the application of the earnings disregards introduced by those regulations to claimants of housing","id":3139971,"title":"The Housing Benefit (Earned Income Disregards) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026","link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/978http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/978/contents/made"},{"description":"These Regulations revoke the 60 miles per hour speed limit on the M5 motorway between junctions 1 and 3 and on slip roads at junctions 1 and 2. In consequence, the national motorway speed limit will apply upon the coming into force of these","id":3139972,"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/980http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/980/contents/made","title":"The M5 Motorway (Junctions 1 to 3) (60 Miles Per Hour Speed Limit) Regulations 2022 (Revocation) Regulations 2026"},{"id":3139973,"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/981http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/pdfs/uksi_20260981_en.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/981/contents/made","title":"The Travellers’ Allowances (Amendment) Order 2026"},{"title":"Sixième réunion du Groupe d’experts sur les monnaies numériques de banque centrale","link":"https://www.hcch.net/fr/news-archive/details/?varevent=1166","description":"Du premier au 4 septembre 2026, le Groupe d'experts sur les monnaies numériques de banque centrale (MNBC) a tenu sa sixième réunion de travail. Organisée sous forme hybride, la réunion a rassemblé plus de 35 délégués inscrits et autres experts, représentant 13 Membres de la HCCH et sept Observateurs, ainsi que des membres du Bureau Permanent (BP) de la HCCH. Conformément à son mandat (C&D No 10 du CAGP de 2026), le Groupe d'experts a continué de progresser dans son étude","id":3139785},{"title":"Résultats du PISA 2025 (Volume I – version abrégée) : Des élèves prêts pour l'avenir","link":"https://www.oecd.org/fr/publications/resultats-du-pisa-2025-volume-i-version-abregee_72cbf7bd-fr.html","id":3139264,"description":"Le Programme international pour le suivi des acquis des élèves (PISA) 2025 de l’OCDE évalue les connaissances et les compétences des élèves en sciences, en compréhension de l'écrit, en mathématiques et en résolution de problèmes informatiques, en mesurant leur capacité à appliquer efficacement leurs connaissances à des défis réels."},{"description":"Arrêté n° 5-429-1932 promulguant à la Côte française des Somalis le décret du 2b juillet 4932. autorisant la Côte française des Somalis à contracter un","id":3139141,"link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/texte-juridique/arrete-n-5-429-1932-promulguant-a-la-cote-francaise-des-somalis-le-decret-du-2b-juillet-4932-autorisant-la-cote-francaise-des-somalis-a-contracter-un-emprunt/","title":"Arrêté n° 5-429-1932 promulguant à la Côte française des Somalis le décret du 2b juillet 4932. autorisant la Côte française des Somalis à contracter un emprunt."},{"title":"Loi n° 195/AN/23/8ème L portant ratification de l'accord de prêt entre la République de Djibouti et la Banque Islamique de Développement.","link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/texte-juridique/loi-n195-an-23-8eme-l-portant-ratification-de-laccord-de-pret-entre-la-republique-de-djibouti-et-la-banque-islamique-de-developpement/","description":"Loi n° 195/AN/23/8ème L portant ratification de l'accord de prêt entre la République de Djibouti et la Banque Islamique de","id":3139142},{"description":"Arrêté n° 1198 promulguant à la Cole française des Somalis et","id":3139143,"link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/texte-juridique/arrete-n-1198-promulguant-a-la-cole-francaise-des-somalis-et-dependances/","title":"Arrêté n° 1198 promulguant à la Cole française des Somalis et dépendances;"},{"description":"Does your business offer subscription services? Learn about the FTC’s settlement with Chegg kkrown September 15, 2025 | 11:00AM Does your business offer subscription services? Learn about the FTC’s settlement with Chegg Nowadays people can use subscription services for almost all areas of life: entertainment, food, gifts, fitness, education. These (often monthly) charges can add up, so if someone decides they want to cancel a subscription they should, well, be able to cancel it. Too often, consumers must navigate confusing and difficult cancellation processes to stop their subscriptions — which wastes time and costs them money. The FTC is committed to stopping unlawful subscription billing and cancellation practices. For a recent example, check out today’s settlement with the education technology company, Chegg. According to the settlement, Chegg markets and sells educational products and services geared toward high school and college students. Among other things, the company offers a variety of online subscription services including study tools, homework help, and writing assistance. The FTC alleges that Chegg failed to provide a simple mechanism to cancel recurring charges to parents and students. To locate the cancellation option online, parents and students needed to navigate through a number of (unintuitive) clicks and pages. Those that eventually found and began the cancellation process were then forced through another series of complicated and confusing page flows. But the hoops and hurdles didn’t stop there. The FTC alleges that even after parents and students managed to complete Chegg’s lengthy cancellation process to stop their subscriptions, Chegg often continued to charge them. As a result, parents and students were stuck — sometimes for months on end — paying for subscriptions they didn’t want. The FTC’s complaint alleges Chegg’s practices violated the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA). To settle the case, the company will pay $7.5 million to affected consumers and must offer consumers a simple cancellation mechanism to stop subscription charges. The company also is prohibited from making misrepresentations regarding its cancellation process. Does your business sell products or services through subscriptions? Know that the FTC is working to reinvigorate its fraud program and takes ROSCA violations seriously: do not deceive consumers signing up through negative option features. And make sure consumers know where to locate your cancellation method, and that the cancellation process is not confusing or difficult to use. Learn more about the requirements of  ROSCA","id":3139085,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/09/does-your-business-offer-subscription-services-learn-about-ftcs-settlement-chegg","title":"Does your business offer subscription services? Learn about the FTC’s settlement with Chegg"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/02/ftc-alleges-deception-unbiased-review-sites-ratings-rankings","title":"FTC alleges deception in “unbiased” review site’s ratings and rankings","description":"FTC alleges deception in “unbiased” review site’s ratings and rankings lfair February 3, 2020 | 11:10AM FTC alleges deception in “unbiased” review site’s ratings and rankings By Lesley Fair Top picks, star ratings, in-depth reviews. Many consumers don’t buy anything without consulting third-party review sites or checking out the opinions of other customers. But how often are those ratings the product of buying and selling between the “independent” site and companies willing to pay for better play? And are those reviews really from satisfied customers or are they from employees acting on instructions to stuff the ballot box with five-star ratings? Those are the allegations in a lawsuit against LendEDU , a site the FTC says falsely claimed to offer “objective” evaluations of financial products. Does the proposed settlement in this case suggest it’s time to review your own review practices? Many consumers comparison-shopping for student loans, personal loans, and credit cards visited LendEDU based on its promise of “honest,” “accurate,” and “unbiased” ratings and reviews. For example, LendEDU’s student loan refinancing page offered a rate table, rankings, star ratings, and reviews of what it claimed were the best or top companies. LendEDU and its corporate officers hammered home the message that due to their “strict editorial integrity,” those ratings “are completely objective and not influenced by compensation in any way.” False, says the FTC. According to the complaint , LendEDU boosted companies’ numerical ranking and position on rate tables based on payments to LendEDU. For example, in an email to a student loan refinancing company whose rating had fallen from #1 to #3, LendEDU’s CEO said it could retake the top spot by paying LendEDU $9.50 per click. LendEDU’s Vice President of Product later contacted the same company, suggesting it increase the payment to $16.50 per click: “We want to keep [your company] positioned as the #1 lender on our site, but we need to justify the move from a business perspective.” The company ultimately agreed to pay $15 per click, and LendEDU kept the company in the top spot. The complaint alleges that LendEDU offered another student loan refinancing company the #3 position for a payment of $16 per click. The contract expressly provided for a ranking “[n]o lower than position 3.” The complaint recounts other examples of how the FTC says LendEDU finagled the ratings for pay. What were consumers told about these arrangements? Up until mid-2016, nothing. Then LendEDU added a fine-print sentence at the bottom of its website that the “site may be compensated through third party advertisers.” Around March 2019 – after LendEDU learned of the FTC’s investigation – it listed elsewhere on its site the companies that “may provide compensation to LendEDU.” But the FTC says those “disclosures” were placed where consumers were unlikely to see them. That’s not the only way LendEDU allegedly deceived consumers. On its own site and on third-party review platforms, supposedly satisfied customers raved about their experience with LendEDU. For example, on Trustpilot, 123 of 126 reviews gave LendEDU the highest five-star rating. Here’s what three purported consumers had to say: Kenny: “LendEDU showed me the light at the end of the tunnel. I was drowning in student loan debt then they showed up with a lifeboat and a warm blanket. The website was easy to navigate and with the help of their customer service team, I saved a lot of money refinancing. I can’t thank them enough and would recommend to anyone! Scott: “Extremely user friendly and easy to use. . . . It was a pleasant surprise to be able to find personal finance education. As a student, high schools don’t really provide any basic financial course and credit cards are so easy to obtain. It was","id":3139078},{"id":3139079,"description":"You Don’t Say: FTC workshop listens in on voice cloning lfair November 4, 2019 | 1:17PM You Don’t Say: FTC workshop listens in on voice cloning By Lesley Fair Imagine people who have lost the ability to speak communicating in a digital version of their own voice. With just a brief recorded snippet, researchers can use artificial intelligence and text-to-speech synthesis to create a near-perfect voice clone. But it takes even less time to imagine how fraudsters could use that technology to further their scams. On January 28, 2020, FTC staff will examine the consumer protection implications at You Don’t Say: An FTC Workshop on Voice Cloning . Think of the typical family emergency scam where a con artist calls someone, pretending to be a relative in distress. Or consider its shady corporate cousin: the CEO scam. That’s when a crook, impersonating a company higher-up, calls an employee to transfer money for a purported business purpose. Those scams already steal millions from consumers each year. But what if the fraudster could use technology to clone the voice of a real person? You Don’t Say will explore the many ways the technology can be positively used – healthcare, entertainment, and other consumer-oriented applications – and potentially abused. Panelists will consider ethical concerns related to the use of cloned voices and the impact on the trustworthiness of oral communications. You Don’t Say will take place at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. The event is free and open to the public. We’ll also webcast it live on January 28th beginning at 12:30 Eeastern Time. Follow the Business Blog and the You Don’t Say event page for agenda","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/11/you-dont-say-ftc-workshop-listens-voice-cloning","title":"You Don’t Say: FTC workshop listens in on voice cloning"},{"title":"Game on: FTC loot box workshop set to start","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/game-ftc-loot-box-workshop-set-start","id":3139080,"description":"Game on: FTC loot box workshop set to start lfair August 7, 2019 | 9:21AM Game on: FTC loot box workshop set to start By Lesley Fair The time has come to take a closer look at loot boxes. The FTC’s workshop, Inside the Game: Unlocking the Consumer Issues Surrounding Loot Boxes , begins at 10:00 ET today. Moments before the start time we’ll post a link to the live webcast . FTC staff will be tweeting from @FTC using the hashtag #LootboxFTC. Interested in putting your perspectives on the public record? File a comment online by October 11, 2019."},{"description":"Extension mention: New deadline for Safeguards Rule comments lfair May 21, 2019 | 12:27PM Extension mention: New deadline for Safeguards Rule comments By Lesley Fair Racing to finish your comment about proposed changes to the Safeguards Rule by the impending deadline? You can take a breather because the FTC has extended the deadline by 60 days. The Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program. As part of its ongoing review of rules and guides, the FTC proposed changes to the Rule in March 2019 and asked for your feedback. At the request of commenters, you now have until August 2, 2019, to file your comment, which will be placed on the public record. If you’re interested in the Safeguards Rule, you’re probably also following changes the FTC has proposed to the Privacy Rule , which requires financial institutions to tell customers about their information-sharing practices and to let customers opt out of having their information shared with certain third parties. Those comments are still due on June 3, 2019. Save yourself a step and file online.","id":3139081,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/05/extension-mention-new-deadline-safeguards-rule-comments","title":"Extension mention: New deadline for Safeguards Rule comments"},{"id":3139082,"description":"Forum on new forms of financing is strictly business lfair March 5, 2019 | 10:49AM Forum on new forms of financing is strictly business By Lesley Fair When it comes to getting the working capital your company needs, you’re strictly business. Yes, you confer with traditional financial institutions, but like many small businesses, you also may look into online loans and other newer options. Financing for smaller enterprises is the topic of an upcoming FTC workshop. Mark May 8, 2019 , on your calendar for Strictly Business: An FTC Forum on Small Business Financing . Small businesses are the heart of the American economy and like larger companies, they often need financing to operate and expand. One recent innovation: the online marketplace for small business financing, including term loans, lines of credit, and cash advances. Some options may provide benefits to small business – for example, quicker access to capital – but some products raise consumer protection concerns, like high costs and potentially unclear terms. The FTC is convening this event to hear from stakeholders and get a 360° picture of the developing marketplace. Right now, we’re putting together potential panels. If you’d like to be considered as a panelist, email smallbizfinance@ftc.gov with a brief statement about your perspective on the issues. Strictly Business is free and open to the public – and there’s no need to pre-register. The May 8th forum is scheduled for the FTC Constitution Center auditorium, located at 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, D.C. (We’re at the L’Enfant Plaza Metro stop.) Can’t make it to Washington? Watch the webcast live. Follow the Business Blog for upcoming details about the","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/03/forum-new-forms-financing-strictly-business","title":"Forum on new forms of financing is strictly business"},{"title":"FTC and New York AG miffed by overbiffing","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/11/ftc-new-york-ag-miffed-overbiffing","description":"FTC and New York AG miffed by overbiffing lfair November 1, 2018 | 2:32PM FTC and New York AG miffed by overbiffing By Lesley Fair If you aren’t familiar with the word “overbiffing,” there’s no need to add it to your vocabulary. But if you know what overbiffing is and engage in it, a case just filed by the FTC and the New York Attorney General suggests now would be an excellent time to cut it out. Overbiffing is the practice of debt collectors tricking consumers into paying more than their “Balance In Full,” sometimes abbreviated as BIF. The FTC and the New York AG charge that a related group of Buffalo companies controlled by defendant Robert Heidenreich encourages their collectors to engage in overbiffing. As the complaint alleges, the payment forms the defendants’ collectors use reflect that. For example, one particular form includes fill-in-the-blanks for “Client Balance” (what the consumer actually owes) and “Balance Given” (what the debt collector told the consumer they owe). In many instances, forms completed by the collectors show that the Balance Given to consumers is hundreds of dollars higher than the Client Balance. (Some even show thousands higher.) That, in a nutshell, is overbiffing. Overbiffing is just one example of conduct challenged in the complaint. The FTC and the AG say that when the defendants’ reps call consumers, they often don’t reveal they’re debt collectors and instead claim to be affiliated with the County Sheriff’s Office or a process server. They threaten that consumers are about to be arrested, sued, or served with legal papers unless they cough up money immediately. To keep the pressure on, the callers suggest that people can avoid arrest by speaking with someone they’re told is an attorney. Who is it really? Another one of the defendants’ debt collectors. How persuasive is the pitch? Very, according to the FTC and the AG. For example, one consumer got a call from someone who said they work for the sheriff’s office in her Florida county. The caller claimed to be coming to her house to pick her up on a warrant for “ACH fraud, defaulting on a loan, and grand larceny.” When the frightened consumer asked how she could prevent the arrest, the person from the “sheriff’s office” referred her to one of those “attorneys,” who got her to authorize a debit card payment over the phone. Despite express prohibitions in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , the lawsuit alleges the defendants often call consumers’ employers and family members about purported debts. Then there’s the abusive language. According to the complaint, one of the defendants’ debt collectors told the father-in-law of a consumer from Pennsylvania that he was a “dumb-a** coal miner.” Another collector referred to a women as “the dumbest son of a bitch that I know.” And according to the lawsuit, watch out for flying f-bombs when the defendants’ collectors unleash their fury. The lawsuit names Heidenreich (who also goes by “Bobby Rich”), Campbell Capital LLC; Kahl, Heidenreich, and Nemmer LLC; Urban, Heidenreich, Melendez, and Associates, LLC; J & V Receivables LLC; Rich Financial LLC; and BCH & Associates Ltd. The complaint charges multiple violations of the FDCPA, the FTC Act, and New York state law – including a specific count alleging that overbiffing is an illegal practice. At the request of the FTC and the AG, a federal judge in Buffalo has entered a temporary restraining order and frozen the defendants’ assets.","id":3139083},{"title":"District court rules on redress, ROSCA, and disclosures","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/07/district-court-rules-redress-rosca-disclosures","description":"District court rules on redress, ROSCA, and disclosures lfair July 5, 2018 | 1:39PM District court rules on redress, ROSCA, and disclosures By Lesley Fair The scheme started with a Craigslist ad for a rental property and ended with a $5.2 million judgment for violations of the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Free Annual File Disclosures Rule. For a deep dive into FTC fundamentals, read the opinion granting the FTC’s Motion for Summary Judgment against Credit Bureau Center. For consumers browsing Craigslist, ads for a rental apartment in a prestigious building were sure to catch their eye. When consumers emailed for details, the deal got even sweeter. The “landlord” (in the example cited by the Court, her name was “Joyce”) responded with a chatty message about garage parking, new appliances, custom flooring, and other amenities that had consumers reaching for the corrugated boxes and strapping tape. However, Joyce was hesitant to give the prospective renter a tour “until you’re qualified” – meaning the person first had to get their credit report. Helpful gal that Joyce was, she included a link in her email to a “trusted, quick” source: “All you need to do is fill out the form and you get your report.” Joyce assured the consumer that the report was “more of a formality for us” because “we are not concerned with any negatives.” “Simply get your report by CLICKING HERE.” But once people got their credit report from the site, Joyce ghosted. That’s because there was no rental property. There was no landlord. And there was no Joyce. In fact, the “rental” was simply a charade to drive traffic to sites owned by defendants Credit Bureau Center (formerly Myscore LLC) and owner Michael Brown, who used the would-be renters’ one-time request for a credit report to enroll them without their permission in credit monitoring services and make unauthorized monthly charges of $29.94 to their credit cards. The rental scheme was the work of affiliate marketers, who were paid per click by – and with the knowledge of – defendants Credit Bureau Center and Brown. (Last year the FTC reached a $762,000 settlement with affiliates Danny Pierce and Andrew Lloyd.) Here are just a few quotable quotes from the opinion . The defendants’ liability for affiliates’ Craigslist campaign The Court held that the Craigslist scheme “was rife with material misrepresentations that were likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.” Although Credit Bureau Center and Brown initially argued they couldn’t be held liable for their affiliates’ actions, they ultimately conceded that they “ratified” their affiliates’ conduct “by accepting the benefits of their efforts.” But even if they hadn’t made that concession, the Court concluded that the defendants were “aware of the Craigslist scheme but continued to accept the traffic (and revenues) generated by that conduct.” Purported “disclosures” on the defendants’ website If you’re looking for insights into how a judge evaluates online disclosures – wording, placement, size, color, etc. – this is a great opinion to read. Despite the defendants’ reliance on fine-print statements, “courts routinely hold that explanatory text is insufficient to cure a misleading description unless the text changes the overall impression.” After conducting a detailed analysis, the Court ruled, “Here, the net impression is that consumers are signing up to obtain a free credit score, not enrolling into a costly monthly service.” The “friendly fraud” defense In an attempt to counter the FTC’s argument that the company’s high chargeback rate was indicative of deception, the defendants unsuccessfully tried to turn that around on consumers. As the Court described it,","id":3139084},{"link":"https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/4186","title":"Multi-Storey Car Parks (Safety) Bill","description":"A Bill to increase the minimum required height of guarding in multi-storey car parks; to make provision about the height of guarding in existing multi-storey car parks; to require 24-hour staffing of multi-storey car parks; and for connected","id":3139007},{"description":"These Regulations make provision in connection with a new tax called the carbon border adjustment mechanism (“CBAM”), which is provided for in Part 5 of the Finance Act 2026 (“FA","id":3139006,"title":"Correction Slip","link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/802/pdfs/uksics_20260802_en_001.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/802/pdfs/uksics_20260802_en_001.pdf"},{"id":3138629,"description":"Veneto has long been one of Italy’s most productive and internationally competitive regions. However, productivity growth has slowed markedly in recent years, causing the region to lose ground relative to many of its European peers. Without a renewed productivity agenda, future gains in competitiveness, wages and living standards may","title":"Can productivity secure Veneto's competitive future?","link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/can-productivity-secure-veneto-s-competitive-future_3065d6c0-en.html"},{"title":"International Student Mobility: Factors for Attraction and Retention","link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/international-student-mobility_2f807049-en.html","description":"International student mobility has become an increasingly important feature of higher education systems and labour markets. Decisions about where to study, and whether to stay after graduation, are shaped by a combination of factors, including costs, financial support, study opportunities and pathways into employment. This report examines","id":3138630},{"title":"OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Slovenia 2026","link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-slovenia-2026_c6e1f2ed-en.html","id":3138631,"description":"Slovenia is a leader in nature conservation and has successfully decoupled many environmental pressures from economic growth. The country benefits from abundant, good-quality water resources, performs strongly in waste management and has improved air quality. Nevertheless, biodiversity continues to face pressures and the country lags behind"},{"id":3138215,"description":"À Manhattan, le changement climatique ne se lit plus seulement dans les rapports scientifiques : il se voit aussi à Central Park. Ce poumon vert emblématique de New York doit faire face à des pluies plus violentes, aux inondations et à l’érosion des sols, tandis que des vagues de chaleur toujours plus longues mettent à l’épreuve ses écosystèmes comme ses","link":"https://news.un.org/feed/view/fr/story/2026/09/1159417","title":"Central Park s’adapte au changement climatique tout en aidant New York à rester au frais"},{"id":3138196,"description":"FTC in action lfair April 23, 2020 | 12:05PM FTC in action By Carol Kando-Pineda In these unprecedented times, the Commission is working on all fronts to stop pandemic-related scams or deception – and to warn consumers and businesses about them. But our work in other areas continues, too. Today, we’re taking a minute to take stock of some of the highlights from 2019 . Law and order. Fraudulent telemarketers, disreputable debt collectors, imposters, and other schemers follow the headlines and are good at what they do. That’s why the FTC’s investigations and lawsuits are so important – they uncover scammers’ lies and close down their operations. On the consumer protection front, the Commission: obtained 19 administrative orders, 97 orders requiring redress, disgorgement, and permanent injunctions, and 10 civil penalty orders; and filed 27 administrative actions, 41 matters in federal court, and eight civil penalty matters. Money for consumers. When we can, we get money back for people who lost it – and in 2019, the Commission got back more than $232 million in refunds for consumers. Breaking new ground. The Commission achieved some notable “firsts” in 2019, such as its first case to challenge fake paid reviews on an independent retail site and its first case against a VOIP service provider for a key role in promoting a deceptive scheme. Staying in the loop. In 2019, this blog – with nearly 83,000 subscribers – featured  119 blog posts for businesspeople and attorneys. During the same period, the public ordered more than 1.6 million copies of 17 business publications (in English and Spanish) and watched the FTC’s business videos for more than 165,800 views. Talking to influencers. Last year, the Commission launched its new publication, Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers , which offers guidance to influencers and advertisers about how to communicate the “clear and conspicuous” standard in a legally accurate way. The brochure was designed to convey the information in a manner that resonates with a social media-savvy audience. The accompanying how-to video registered more than 17,000 views in its first two months. On the road. Last summer, the FTC held Green Lights-Red Flags: FTC Rules of the Road , a workshop in Atlanta that covered truth-in-advertising, data security, antitrust law basics, and other compliance topics. More than 200 business executives, in-house counsel, law firm practitioners, and ad agency personnel attended.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/04/ftc-action","title":"FTC in action"},{"description":"Folder-in-due-course doctrine? lfair February 11, 2020 | 11:23AM Folder-in-due-course doctrine? By Lesley Fair You’ve heard of the holder-in-due-course doctrine. An FTC settlement with two Oregon-based businesses introduces the folder -in-due-course doctrine: the principle that it’s illegal to make misleading claims to induce small businesses to buy advertising space in promotional folders. It’s the latest FTC action challenging deceptive practices that target smaller companies. Telemarketers for Production Media Group Corporation, The Ferraro Group, and Jennifer Ferraro cold-called small businesses to get them to buy advertising space in promotional folders. Some telemarketers told the businesses they had agreements with local real estate offices to use the folders to distribute documents related to the purchase of a home. Part of the sales pitch was that folders featuring the business’ ads would be the only folders those offices would use for that purpose. In other instances, telemarketers said local schools would use those folders – and only those folders – to send papers and homework home to parents. In either case, they represented that the folders were going to print soon and that by buying advertising space, small businesses could promote their services to hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of prospective customers for one year. The millions of dollars the defendants took in suggest the spiel was successful. If businesses were concerned that folders might include ads for competitors – for example, another home inspection service or dentist in the area – the defendants’ telemarketers were ready with a rejoinder. Sales people were instructed to ask, “Would your decision be based on whether or not you are exclusive?” If the business said yes, the scripted response was “Great, let’s get you signed up, that’s definitely something I can do for you.” The FTC says operators also created a sense of urgency by telling businesses there were only a few spaces left in the folder and that a particular folder was about to be printed in time for the next school year or once the last advertisement was sold. A quick turnaround was important to many businesses eager to get their ads out there ASAP. You’ll want to read the complaint for how the FTC says the defendants used a purported “reservation form” to impose new material conditions and disclaim their own salespeople’s oral representations, but it boiled down to this. Only after giving the defendants their credit card numbers did buyers learn that printing might not happen for months, ad exclusivity wasn’t guaranteed, and they couldn’t cancel or get a refund. The lawsuit alleges that in numerous instances, the promised ads never appeared or were printed only after businesses complained to the BBB, consumer protection agencies, or their credit card issuers. What’s more, the company solicited under different names over the years and later incorporated a new company in a different state under another different name. Given the number of unfavorable reviews the defendants had received on Yelp and other sites, that action made it easier for them to distance themselves from negative customer feedback and harder for consumers to research the offer before signing up. The  stipulated order includes broad injunctive provisions to protect consumers in the future. It also includes a $22 million judgment, which for the most part will be suspended due to the defendants’ financial condition.   The message for small businesses is to recognize that your phone can be a conduit for customers – and questionable promotions. Whether the offer involves office supplies, ad space, or anything else your business buys, educate your staff to exercise caution and investigate thoroughly before responding to cold calls. The FTC brochure Scams and Your Small Business explains some common forms of B2B deception. Share the link with colleagues and order","id":3138197,"title":"Folder-in-due-course doctrine?","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/02/folder-due-course-doctrine"}]