[{"link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/public-governance-case-studies_575651e4-en/leveraging-digital-technologies-and-data-into-biscay-s-tax-administration_4cdb38ae-en.html","id":3094045,"description":"This case study examines the BATUZ digital system of Biscay, Spain. BATUZ is an integrated digital tax administration system comprising certified e-invoicing (TicketBAI), a real-time ledger of economic operations (LROE), and automatic preparation of draft tax returns. The analysis maps BATUZ throughout the lens the six dimensions of the","title":"Leveraging digital technologies and data into Biscay’s tax administration"},{"description":"This case study examines EtxeTIC, a public service developed by the Provincial Council of Biscay, Spain, to support home-based care for vulnerable people. The service combines relational support from community proximity centres with technology-enabled home monitoring, early risk detection and personalised care plans. The analysis examines","id":3094046,"title":"Enhancing Biscay’s home‑based care with digital technologies","link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/public-governance-case-studies_575651e4-en/enhancing-biscay-s-home-based-care-with-digital-technologies_c6007d1f-en.html"},{"title":"Règlement sur les précurseurs, DORS/2002-359 [Modifiée le 15 juin 2026]","description":"Règlement sur les précurseurs a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3093977,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-2002-359/derniere/dors-2002-359.html"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-98-282/derniere/dors-98-282.html","title":"Règlement sur les instruments médicaux, DORS/98-282 [Modifiée le 17 juin 2026]","id":3093978,"description":"Règlement sur les instruments médicaux a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/crc-c-870/derniere/crc-c-870.html","id":3093979,"description":"Règlement sur les aliments et drogues a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","title":"Règlement sur les aliments et drogues, CRC, c 870 [Modifiée le 17 juin 2026]"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-2001-286/derniere/dors-2001-286.html","title":"Règlement sur le transport des marchandises dangereuses, DORS/2001-286 [Modifiée le 17 juin 2026]","description":"Règlement sur le transport des marchandises dangereuses a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3093980},{"title":"Règlement sur la sûreté du transport ferroviaire des marchandises dangereuses, DORS/2019-113 [Modifiée le 17 juin 2026]","id":3093981,"description":"Règlement sur la sûreté du transport ferroviaire des marchandises dangereuses a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-2019-113/derniere/dors-2019-113.html"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-96-433/derniere/dors-96-433.html","title":"Règlement de l'aviation canadien, DORS/96-433 [Modifiée le 17 juin 2026]","description":"Règlement de l'aviation canadien a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3093982},{"description":"Arrêté sur l'élection du conseil de bandes indiennes a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3093983,"title":"Arrêté sur l'élection du conseil de bandes indiennes, DORS/97-138 [Modifiée le 17 juin 2026]","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-97-138/derniere/dors-97-138.html"},{"title":"Arrêté sur l'élection du conseil de bandes indiennes, DORS/97-138 [Modifiée le 28 mai 2026]","id":3093975,"description":"Arrêté sur l'élection du conseil de bandes indiennes a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-97-138/236833/dors-97-138.html"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-2021-217/derniere/dors-2021-217.html","id":3093976,"description":"redevances à payer pour la promotion et la recherche pour le porc au Canada, Ordonnance sur les a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","title":"redevances à payer pour la promotion et la recherche pour le porc au Canada, Ordonnance sur les, DORS/2021-217 [Modifiée le 17 juin 2026]"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/crc-c-870/236797/crc-c-870.html","title":"Règlement sur les aliments et drogues, CRC, c 870 [Modifiée le 5 juin 2026]","description":"Règlement sur les aliments et drogues a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3093974},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-2002-359/236803/dors-2002-359.html","title":"Règlement sur les précurseurs, DORS/2002-359 [Modifiée le 5 juin 2026]","description":"Règlement sur les précurseurs a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3093973},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/lois/lrc-1985-c-j-2/derniere/lrc-1985-c-j-2.html","title":"Loi sur le ministère de la Justice, LRC 1985, c J-2 [Modifiée le 15 juin 2026]","description":"Loi sur le ministère de la Justice a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3093968},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/lois/lc-2026-c-9-art-11/derniere/lc-2026-c-9-art-11.html","description":"Loi sur la protection des cybersystèmes essentiels a été modifié ou est entrée en","id":3093969,"title":"Loi sur la protection des cybersystèmes essentiels, LC 2026, c 9, art 11 [Modifiée]"},{"id":3093970,"description":"Loi sur des mesures de réforme concernant la mise en liberté sous caution et la détermination de la peine a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","title":"Loi sur des mesures de réforme concernant la mise en liberté sous caution et la détermination de la peine, LC 2026, c 11 [Modifiée le 15 juin 2026]","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/lois/lc-2026-c-11/derniere/lc-2026-c-11.html"},{"id":3093971,"description":"Loi concernant la cybersécurité, modifiant la Loi sur les télécommunications et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois a été modifié ou est entrée en","title":"Loi concernant la cybersécurité, modifiant la Loi sur les télécommunications et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d'autres lois, LC 2026, c 9 [Modifiée]","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/lois/lc-2026-c-9/derniere/lc-2026-c-9.html"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/lois/lrc-1985-c-c-46/derniere/lrc-1985-c-c-46.html","title":"Code criminel, LRC 1985, c C-46 [Modifiée le 15 juin 2026]","id":3093972,"description":"Code criminel a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le"},{"description":"Loi sur les télécommunications a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3093966,"title":"Loi sur les télécommunications, LC 1993, c 38 [Modifiée le 15 juin 2026]","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/lois/lc-1993-c-38/derniere/lc-1993-c-38.html"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/lois/lc-2002-c-28/derniere/lc-2002-c-28.html","title":"Loi sur les produits antiparasitaires, LC 2002, c 28 [Modifiée le 17 juin 2026]","id":3093967,"description":"Loi sur les produits antiparasitaires a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le"},{"id":3093514,"description":"FTC staff sends warranty warnings lfair April 10, 2018 | 11:03AM FTC staff sends warranty warnings By Lesley Fair When the screen goes blue And the car breaks down And the smartphone keeps rebooting eternally Consumers won ’ t be afraid No, they won ’ t be afraid Just as long as you stand by your warranty. With apologies to R&B legend Ben E. King, when consumers buy a product with a warranty, it’s with the expectation that businesses will stand by what they sell. But standing by your warranty won’t do customers much good if you disregard the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The FTC staff just sent warning letters to six companies , raising questions about statements the companies are making that appear to tie warranty coverage to consumers’ use of authorized parts or service, a practice that may violate both the Warranty Act and the FTC Act. According to the Mag-Moss Warranty Act : No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer’s using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name. In other words, companies can’t void a consumer’s warranty or deny warranty coverage solely because the consumer uses a part made by someone else or gets someone not authorized by the company to perform service on the product. There are only two exceptions: 1) if the company provides the article or service to consumers for free; or 2) if the company gets a waiver from the FTC. Under 15 U.S.C. § 2302(c), the FTC may grant a waiver only if the company proves that “the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and the waiver is in the public interest.” Companies may, however, disclaim warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by the use of unauthorized parts or service. FTC staff recently took a closer look at companies’ warranties and promotional materials and saw language that raised concerns that some businesses were telling consumers that their warranty would be void if they used unauthorized parts or service. The companies used different language, but here are examples of questionable provisions. The use of [the company’s parts] is required to keep your . . . manufacturer’s warranties and any extended warranties intact. This warranty shall not apply if this product . . . is used with products not sold or licensed by [company name]. This warranty does not apply if this product . . . had had the warranty seal on the [product] altered, defaced, or removed. FTC staff suggested that the companies review the Mag-Moss Warranty Act and, if necessary, revise their practices accordingly. The letters also put the companies on notice that we’ll be taking another look at their written warranties and promotional materials after 30 days. What can other business glean from the warning letters? Untie the NOT. Take a fresh look at your own warranties. Unless you meet one of Mag-Moss’ narrow exceptions, do not condition warranty coverage on consumers’ use of parts or service from you or someone you authorize. Read your warranty through consumers’ eyes. Consider the literal wording of your warranties, of course. But like any other advertising representation, companies can communicate claims to consumers expressly and by implication. Subject to those two Mag-Moss exceptions, if the language you choose conveys to reasonable consumers that their warranty coverage requires them to use an article or service identified by brand, trade, or corporate name, revise your practices to avoid a warranty whoops. Section 5’s prohibition on deception applies to misleading warranty claims. A violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. But separate and apart from Mag-Moss, a claim that creates a false impression that","title":"FTC staff sends warranty warnings","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/04/ftc-staff-sends-warranty-warnings"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2024/12/holiday-shopping-begins-ftc-irs-agree-scams-identity-theft-are-always-bad-business","description":"As holiday shopping begins, the FTC and IRS agree: scams and identity theft are always bad for business jensor December 5, 2024 | 7:58AM As holiday shopping begins, the FTC and IRS agree: scams and identity theft are always bad for business By Julia Solomon Ensor The turkey is gone, and the relatives have departed. We’ve now officially entered holiday shopping season, also known as make-or-break busy season for small business owners relying on Q4 profits to carry them through the year. If you’re in that category, remember it’s not just busy season for your business; it’s also busy season for scammers who know that when you’re pulling long hours and rushing to fulfill orders, it’s the perfect time to try to trick you into handing over your financial or personal information. It’s also the perfect time for the  IRS’s National Tax Security Awareness Week , a week dedicated to making sure you have all the information you and your business need to avoid scams and tax-related identity theft. So, take a moment to check out the information and events the IRS has to keep your business protected. And while you’re at it, start with this advice from the FTC: Protect your data. The first step in protecting your business from scammers trying to steal financial or personal information is to put strong data security in place. And when we say strong data security, we mean both physical security (lock up those paper files) and cybersecurity. When it comes to cybersecurity, start by making sure software is up-to-date and files are backed up. Also require multifactor authentication, strong passwords, and device encryption. And make sure to train your employees — get started with  training modules and additional information . Know about common scams. Even the best cybersecurity can’t protect your data if someone tricks you or your employee into handing over the passwords. Educate yourself and your team. Check out  Scams and Your Small Business , a guide to spotting, stopping, and reporting common scams that target small business owners, also available in  Spanish ,  Simplified Chinese ,  Korean , and  Vietnamese . Report suspicious conduct. Reports from small business owners like you can help stop scammers in their tracks. If you see suspicious conduct targeting consumers or businesses, tell the FTC at  ReportFraud.ftc.gov — or in Spanish at  ReporteFraude.ftc.gov . To report in other languages, call (877) 382-4357 and press 3 to speak to an interpreter in your preferred language. Report identity theft. If someone does get ahold of your or your business’s information, report it at  IdentityTheft.gov , a one-stop resource to help people report and recover from identity theft. There you can find step-by-step advice on what to do next, and resources like checklists and sample","id":3093515,"title":"As holiday shopping begins, the FTC and IRS agree: scams and identity theft are always bad for business"},{"description":"Criminal Code was modified or came into force on","id":3093438,"title":"Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Modified on Jun 15, 2026]","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2026-c-11/latest/sc-2026-c-11.html","id":3093439,"description":"Bail and Sentencing Reform Act was modified or came into force on","title":"Bail and Sentencing Reform Act, SC 2026, c 11 [Modified on Jun 15, 2026]"},{"description":"An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts was modified or came into","id":3093440,"title":"An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, SC 2026, c 9 [Modified]","link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2026-c-9/latest/sc-2026-c-9.html"},{"title":"Telecommunications Act, SC 1993, c 38 [Modified on Jun 15, 2026]","description":"Telecommunications Act was modified or came into force on","id":3093434,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1993-c-38/latest/sc-1993-c-38.html"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2002-c-28/latest/sc-2002-c-28.html","description":"Pest Control Products Act was modified or came into force on","id":3093435,"title":"Pest Control Products Act, SC 2002, c 28 [Modified on Jun 17, 2026]"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-j-2/latest/rsc-1985-c-j-2.html","description":"Department of Justice Act was modified or came into force on","id":3093436,"title":"Department of Justice Act, RSC 1985, c J-2 [Modified on Jun 15, 2026]"},{"title":"Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, SC 2026, c 9, s 11 [Modified]","description":"Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act was modified or came into","id":3093437,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2026-c-9-s-11/latest/sc-2026-c-9-s-11.html"},{"link":"https://www.hcch.net/fr/news-archive/details/?varevent=1085","description":"Le premier juillet 2025, la Convention du 2 juillet 2019 sur la reconnaissance et l'exécution des jugements étrangers en matière civile ou commerciale (Convention Jugements de 2019) est entrée en vigueur pour le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, à la suite du dépôt de son instrument de ratification le 27 juin 2024. À l'heure actuelle, 33 Membres de la HCCH sont liés par la Convention Jugements de 2019 ou sont des Parties contractantes pour lesquelles la Convention","id":3093389,"title":"La Convention Jugements de 2019 entre en vigueur pour le Royaume-Uni"},{"id":3092651,"description":"FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements” lfair March 19, 2020 | 4:38PM FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements” By Lesley Fair It’s a disturbing trend. Companies are targeting older consumers, claiming to have easy answers for serious diseases for which there may not be a proven cure. That’s one allegation in the FTC’s action against Nevada-based telemarketer Health Center, Inc.   Another count challenges what we call “own-dorsements.” According to Health Center’s telemarketing scripts, websites, social media, and testimonials from supposedly satisfied customers, the company’s Rejuvi-Cell oral spray and Rejuvi-Sea and Rejuvi-Stem pills could treat a broad range of medical conditions: everything from cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease to hepatitis, heart attacks, and high cholesterol. In promoting the products, which sold in packages priced between $350 and $800, the company checked the buzzword boxes with science-y sounding terms like homeopathic , adult stem cell enhancement , and marine phytoplankton . The company claimed that diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and dementia “could be greatly reduced if not eliminated” through the use of its products. According to the complaint , Health Center’s telemarketers – who were instructed to follow the scripts word-for-word – told consumers the main ingredient of Rejuvi-Sea “alkalizes your body . . . so you can’t grow cancer cells.” Then there were heartfelt testimonials from purported customers who described themselves as “walking on air” and “amazed and redeemed,” thanks to the products. But the FTC says the company hasn’t conducted any studies demonstrating the products cure or treat any diseases or health conditions and there are no human clinical studies in the scientific literature to that effect. What’s more, the lawsuit alleges that some of those glowing endorsements that appeared to come from satisfied customers across the country were actually “own-dorsements” – testimonials from Health Center’s own employees. To settle the case , the defendants have agreed to injunctive provisions, including a requirement that a broad range of health claims must have the support of randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled human clinical testing. Almost all of the $8.6 million judgment will be suspended, based on their financial condition. Aside from the obvious points that the FTC continues to take a close look at cures targeting older consumers and that companies shouldn’t palm off endorsements from employees as independent opinions, the case illustrates two other important principles. First, the defendants’ unlawful practices were the subject of an earlier enforcement action by the Iowa Attorney General. Companies shouldn’t have to be told once of the need to substantiate their health claims – and they certainly shouldn’t have to be told twice. Second, the complaint includes a count for violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule , which prohibits misrepresentations about “any material aspect of the performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of goods or services that are the subject of a sales offer.” That’s yet another reason to keep your telemarketing efforts above board .","title":"FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements”","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/03/ftc-takes-unproven-health-claims-own-dorsements"},{"title":"Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception","id":3092652,"description":"Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception lfair December 9, 2019 | 2:09PM Sign of the times? Protecting your company from B2B deception By Lesley Fair They may look like invoices sent to business owners for posters they may need to display in the workplace. But we think of them as un voices – deceptively worded solicitations that tried to sell companies posters that are readily available for free. A law enforcement action just settled by the FTC and Florida Attorney General offers tips on protecting your business from this form of B2B deception. According to the FTC and AG, four defendants with ties to Texas and Florida – Starwood Consulting, Starwood Capital, Corporate Poster Supply, and Thomas Henry Fred, Jr. – sent letters to businesses across the country with the goal of tricking them into paying $84 for posters about labor practices. To perfect their pitch, the letters had the look of invoices from government agencies or other authorities and warned recipients that they had two choices: 1) buy the $84 posters; or 2) face hefty fines. In fact, posters similar to the ones in question were available for free from relevant government agencies. But according to the lawsuit, many businesses forked over $84 under the misimpression that they had to buy them from the defendants. The proposed settlement in the case includes provisions to prevent the defendants from using similar tactics to injure consumers in the future, including a ban on unsolicited direct mail. Based on the defendants’ financial condition, the $6 million judgment will be partially suspended upon the payment of $1.2 million. What can other businesses do to protect themselves from B2B deception? What’s your sign? Investigate first. If you think you may need to post signs, check with the relevant government agency. But don’t use a phone number or URL listed in a solicitation you get in the mail. Do your research and go to the legitimate .gov website for more information. Consider free options. It’s true that certain agencies may require businesses to display signs on the premises about subjects like labor practices. But if a poster is required, most likely it’s available for free from the agency’s website. One helpful resource is the Department of Labor’s FirstStep Poster Advisor , which walks businesses through industry-specific posters required by that agency and provides the signs at no charge to employers. You can order them online, call the agency toll-free for copies, or even download them directly and print them out. Why pay for something your business can get for free? Alert colleagues in the business community . Are you active in a trade association or local business group? Enlist them to educate members about similar solicitations and other forms of B2B deception, including bogus office supply invoices and imposter phone calls that claim your company will be shut down if you don’t pay an immediate fee. Read the FTC brochure Scams and Your Small Business (also available in Spanish ) for tips on spotting B2B","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/12/sign-times-protecting-your-company-b2b-deception"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/09/watch-ftc-made-usa-webcast","id":3092653,"description":"Watch the FTC Made in the USA webcast lfair September 26, 2019 | 7:39AM Watch the FTC Made in the USA webcast By Lesley Fair How do consumers interpret “Made in the USA” and other U.S.-origin claims? What can the FTC do to improve its enforcement program? Those are just two of the topics on the table at today’s Made in the USA workshop. FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Andrew Smith will start the discussion at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time. It promises to be a fast-paced, content-packed half-day event. Minutes before the start time, you can watch the webcast live from the workshop webpage","title":"Watch the FTC Made in the USA webcast"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/06/privacycon-watch-webcast","title":"PrivacyCon: Watch the webcast","id":3092654,"description":"PrivacyCon: Watch the webcast lfair June 27, 2019 | 8:31AM PrivacyCon: Watch the webcast By Lesley Fair The stars are aligning – the privacy and security stars, that is. The FTC’s fourth PrivacyCon convenes today, June 27, 2019. Experts from around the globe will discuss their latest research into privacy and data security, and the consumer protection implications of their findings. Minutes before FTC Chairman Simons convenes PrivacyCon at 9:15 ET this morning, visit the event page to watch the webcast live. Join the discussion on Twitter, using the hashtag #PrivacyCon19."},{"title":"FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy: Watch the webcast live","description":"FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy: Watch the webcast live lfair April 9, 2019 | 8:44AM FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy: Watch the webcast live By Lesley Fair We do our best to keep the puffery in check. So when we say an event features a star-studded line-up of panelists, we think we can substantiate that claim. The FTC’s ongoing Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century have brought luminaries together to discuss the impact on the FTC’s mission of broad-based changes in the economy, evolving business practices, and tech developments. The April 9th and 10th hearing s on The FTC’s Approach to Consumer Privacy are no exception – and you can watch the webcast live. After opening remarks on Tuesday at 9:0 0 ET from FTC Chairman Simons, the morning panels will discuss Goals of Privacy Protection and The Data Risk Spectrum . Commissioner Phillips will lead off the afternoon session, which features panels on Consumer Demand and Expectations for Privacy and Current Approaches to Privacy . Wednesday’s agenda is just as jam-packed, with speakers in the morning talking over the Role of Notice and Choice and the Role of Access, Deletion, and Correction . After remarks from Commissioner Slaughter, the afternoon sessions will shift the focus to Accountability and The FTC’s Current Toolkit: Is It Adequate? You’ve probably read or heard the perspectives of the stand-out panelists, but have you seen them engage the issues with one another? That’s why you’ll want to follow what’s happening. The event is free and open to the public at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., located at the L’Enfant Plaza Metro. Want to watch from your device? A few minutes before the proceedings start on Tuesday and Wednesday, follow LIVE WEBCAST link . The public record will remain open until May 31, 2019. File your comments online .  ","id":3092655,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/04/ftcs-approach-consumer-privacy-watch-webcast-live"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/06/fair-credit-reporting-act-social-media-what-businesses-should-know","description":"The Fair Credit Reporting Act & social media: What businesses should know wfg-adm109 June 23, 2011 | 10:23AM The Fair Credit Reporting Act & social media: What businesses should know By Lesley Fair You have some job openings at your company or maybe you’re thinking of promoting people to new positions. You’ve winnowed that stack of resumes down to some promising candidates. Now it’s nitty gritty time: background checks. Employment background checks can include information from a variety of sources: credit reports, employment and salary history, criminal records — and these days, even social media.  But regardless of the type of information in a report you use when making hiring decisions, the rules are the same. Companies providing reports to employers and employers using reports must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FTC staff recently looked at a company selling background reports that include information from social media to see if they were complying with FCRA.  Staff’s letter to the company emphasized that when reports include information derived from social media, the same rules apply.  For example, companies selling background reports must take reasonable steps to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of what’s reported from social networks and that it relates to the correct person.  They have to comply with other FCRA sections, too — like providing copies of reports to people and having a process in place if people dispute what’s said about them in a report.  In addition, companies must give employers who use their reports information about employers’ responsibilities under FCRA — like their obligation to provide employees or applicants with advance notice of any adverse action taken on the basis of the reports. Another key requirement:  Companies selling background reports for employment must require that employers certify the report won’t be used in a way that would violate federal or state equal employment opportunity laws or regulations. Of course, given the sensitive nature of the information in reports, everyone — companies selling the reports and employers using them — has a legal obligation to keep them secure and dispose of them properly. Read Employment Background Checks and Credit Reports to find out more about what the law says about using credit reports in the workplace.","id":3092646,"title":"The Fair Credit Reporting Act & social media: What businesses should know"},{"title":"Where HireRight Solutions went wrong","id":3092647,"description":"Where HireRight Solutions went wrong wfg-adm109 August 8, 2012 | 11:02AM Where HireRight Solutions went wrong By Lesley Fair Most job seekers are familiar with the basics:  Wear a clean shirt, extend a firm handshake, and don’t ask about vacations in the first 10 minutes of the interview.  But these days more businesses are digging deeper.  Tulsa-based HireRight Solutions is a background screening company that thousands of employers use to check out current employees and people applying for jobs.  When it comes to Fair Credit Reporting Act compliance, the FTC says HireRight Solutions got it wrong by not using reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of the information it was selling. The upshot: a $2.6 million civil penalty , the second-largest ever in an FTC FCRA case. The background screening reports that HireRight Solutions sells are “consumer reports” under the FCRA .  How so?  We’re leaving out some of the legalese, but the short answer is that they include information \"bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility” for credit, insurance, employment, or other purposes authorized under the FCRA. (Yes, that’s the short answer.) Companies that sell or provide those reports are “consumer reporting agencies” under the statute.  (Just as an aside, the law uses the word “agency,” but these are private companies we’re talking about — not agencies like government agencies.)  Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies have a legal obligation to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information the reports contain.  That's where the FTC says HireRight Solutions didn’t get it right. According to the complaint , the company didn’t take reasonable steps to make sure the info in the reports was current and reflected updates, like the expungement of criminal records.  The FTC says that sometimes the reports included multiple entries for the same offense.  What's more, some reports listed convictions for people other than the applicant or employee — even though the person with the criminal record had a different middle name or date of birth.  If a tomato soup stain on a tie can torpedo a job applicant’s chances, imagine the effect of a wrongly reported rap sheet. But the violations didn’t end there.  The FCRA gives people the right to know about information reported to potential employers and sets up mandatory procedures people can use to challenge information they believe is inaccurate.  According to the complaint, the company failed to live up to the FCRA’s requirements that it turn over files to people who ask for them, didn’t conduct a reasonable investigation when people disputed the accuracy of information, and didn’t give people written notice of the results of investigations.  For example, the FTC alleges that HireRight Solutions had a big backlog because it didn’t hire enough staff to respond to people’s concerns about inaccuracies.  The complaint also charges that the company set up unreasonable hoops people had to jump through to exercise their rights under the FCRA. In addition, the FCRA has special requirements for consumer reporting agencies when their reports contain public record information that’s used for employment purposes.  If that info is likely to have an adverse effect on a person’s ability to get a job, the law gives companies like HireRight Solutions two choices: 1) notify the person anytime public record information is being reported; or 2) maintain “strict procedures” designed to ensure that reported public record data is complete and up to","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/08/where-hireright-solutions-went-wrong"},{"title":"Reporting fraud helps everyone – including small businesses – and now it’s easier to do","description":"Reporting fraud helps everyone – including small businesses – and now it’s easier to do lfair October 22, 2020 | 11:01AM Reporting fraud helps everyone – including small businesses – and now it’s easier to do By Monica Vaca, Associate Director, FTC Division of Consumer Response and Operations Whether it’s a bogus message claiming your trademarks are about to expire unless you transfer money immediately or threats to ruin your credit if you don’t pay for unordered office supplies, scammers have small businesses in their sights. You can help the FTC and its partners fight fraud and you don’t even need to wear a superhero cape (unless you want to). Your story is your superpower. When you tell the FTC about frauds, scams, and other kinds of bad B2B practices, you’re helping the FTC and our law enforcement partners spot and stop scams. To make it easier, the FTC just launched ReportFraud.ftc.gov – a new version of the FTC’s consumer reporting website. But don’t let that description fool you. It’s for small businesses, too. By following a few short steps on ReportFraud.ftc.gov, your report is instantly available to more than 3,000 federal, state, and local law enforcers across the country. After you tell us what happened, you’ll get advice from ReportFraud.ftc.gov on what you can do next to recover and protect yourself and your small business against fraud. Want to see how it works? Watch this “How To” video. Why report fraud? Because your report can make a difference. We use reports like yours to investigate, bring law enforcement cases, and alert companies and consumers about what frauds to be on the lookout for so they can protect themselves, their businesses, their friends, and family. The FTC also uses reports to share data about what is happening in your community. You can check out what is going on in your state or metro area by visiting ftc.gov/exploredata . In addition, when customers approach you about suspected fraud – including when a scammer has falsely used your company’s name – suggest they visit ReportFraud.ftc.gov  (or ReporteFraude.ftc.gov for Spanish speakers).  Help us spread the word. By encouraging people to tell the FTC about their experience at ReportFraud.ftc.gov , you’re helping fight fraud in your community. Thank you — and keep up the good work,","id":3092648,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/10/reporting-fraud-helps-everyone-including-small-businesses-now-its-easier-do"},{"title":"PrivacyCon 2020: This time it’s virtual","id":3092649,"description":"PrivacyCon 2020: This time it’s virtual lfair July 20, 2020 | 3:33PM PrivacyCon 2020: This time it’s virtual By Lesley Fair “Curtain up. Light the lights.” The FTC’s fifth PrivacyCon begins tomorrow, July 21, 2020, at 9:00 AM Eastern Time. Set a reminder now to join in from wherever you are. The virtual event will bring together global experts to share their latest research on consumer privacy and security, including topics like health apps, bias in AI algorithms, the Internet of Things, international privacy, and so much more. Minutes before the kick-off, visit the PrivacyCon 2020 page  and click the LIVE WEBCAST link to watch. FTC staff will be tweeting from @FTC using the hashtag","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/07/privacycon-2020-time-its-virtual"},{"description":"The risk that “no risk” offers pose to your business lfair May 13, 2020 | 12:08PM The risk that “no risk” offers pose to your business By Lesley Fair Small businesses and nonprofits should never be on the receiving end of another company’s deceptive practices. An FTC action challenges the methods of companies that allegedly pitch offers for “no risk” business publications and then follow up with hefty bills for unauthorized orders. But it doesn’t stop there. The FTC says if a business refuses to knuckle under to payment demands, the defendants turn the account over to a debt collector, whom the FTC also has sued. Notably, the defendants have received warnings about their practices for years. The pitch begins with a call to a business or nonprofit group – including schools, fire departments, and even police stations – placed by telemarketers calling on behalf of American Future Systems, which uses names like Progressive Business Publications or the Center for Education & Employment Law. The caller claims to have a question or wants to share information with the office go-to person on a certain topic – say HR, employment law, or environmental compliance. Even if the receptionist asks “Are you selling something?” they’re scripted to answer no. Once they get the employee on the line, the telemarketer offers to send samples of a newsletter or book at “no risk” so “you can see if it is a good fit with what you’re already doing there.” The telemarketer may mention the cost of a subscription, but says they’ll follow up to see if the employee likes the sample. The telemarketer also asks the employee for their birthdate “just to verify that I spoke to you.” According to the FTC , the employee is left with the impression they’re getting a free, no-obligation sample to review. So it’s a shock when an invoice shows up claiming a balance due of hundreds of dollars. The complaint alleges the invoice doesn’t include information about how to cancel and doesn’t give a telephone number or email address. What’s more, the FTC says the defendants send those invoices without asking if the employee is authorized to incur financial obligations on their employer’s behalf. And even if businesses find a way to tell the defendants to stop, the complaint alleges those requests are often ignored. So more newsletters arrive followed by more invoices, some of which give the employee’s birthdate as purported proof of the order. If the business refuses to pay, they’re eventually threatened that the account will be referred to a collection agency. According to the FTC, that’s one promise the defendants often keep – and that’s when defendant International Credit Recovery, also known as ICR, enters the picture. The FTC alleges ICR makes misrepresentations to get people to pay, including that the purported debts are valid, that they have a legal obligation to pay, and that failing to pay will result in legal action or have a negative impact on their credit rating. You’ll want to read the complaint for allegations about other illegal practices, but the FTC says the Progressive Business Publications defendants misrepresented trial offers, failed to clearly disclose negative option terms, and violated the Unordered Merchandise Statute. The lawsuit charges that the ICR defendants used misrepresentations to induce payment from consumers. There’s another reason to read the complaint in this case. It alleges a long history of consumer complaints against Progressive Business Publications, including a settlement with the U.S. Postal Service, two alerts placed by the Better Business Bureau on the company’s public BBB profile, and a defamation action the company filed against the BBB that resulted in a jury verdict in the BBB’s favor. The FTC says ICR, too, has been the subject of substantial consumer discontent, including the unenviable","id":3092650,"title":"The risk that “no risk” offers pose to your business","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/05/risk-no-risk-offers-pose-your-business"},{"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/nisr/2026/153http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/153/contents/made","description":"This Order brings into operation section 140 of the Crime and Policing Act for the purpose of removing the supervision exemption from regulated","id":3092608,"title":"The Crime and Policing (2026 Act) (Commencement No. 1) Order (Northern Ireland) 2026"},{"id":3092579,"description":"Hier, 30 juin 2025, S.E. M. Ulf Melgaard, Ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire du Royaume du Danemark auprès du Royaume des Pays-Bas, a signé, au nom du Danemark, la Convention du 23 novembre 2007 sur le recouvrement international des aliments destinés aux enfants et à d'autres membres de la famille (Convention Recouvrement des aliments de 2007). Le Danemark a également déposé son instrument de ratification de la Convention. Lors de la cérémonie, qui s'est tenue au","title":"Le Danemark signe et approuve la Convention Recouvrement des aliments de 2007","link":"https://www.hcch.net/fr/news-archive/details/?varevent=1084"},{"link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/regl/dors-2002-222/derniere/dors-2002-222.html","title":"Règlement sur les effluents des mines de métaux et des mines de diamants, DORS/2002-222 [Modifiée le 4 juin 2026]","description":"Règlement sur les effluents des mines de métaux et des mines de diamants a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3092235},{"description":"Loi sur l'évaluation d'impact a été modifié ou est entrée en vigueur le","id":3092234,"title":"Loi sur l'évaluation d'impact, LC 2019, c 28, art 1 [Modifiée le 29 mai 2026]","link":"https://www.canlii.org/fr/ca/legis/lois/lc-2019-c-28-art-1/derniere/lc-2019-c-28-art-1.html"},{"id":3091790,"description":"Why the FTC's Myspace case matters to your business: Part 3 wfg-adm109 May 11, 2012 | 12:03PM Why the FTC's Myspace case matters to your business: Part 3 By Lesley Fair The terms of FTC law enforcement actions apply just to the company in question and the proposed settlement with social network Myspace for alleged privacy-related glitches is no exception. But how should other businesses respond? Some will scan the headline to make sure their company isn’t named and then do that fingers-in-the-ears la-la-la thing. But savvy executives know that understanding where another company might have gone wrong is a good way to keep their company in the right. What tips can your business take from the FTC’s settlement with Myspace and other recent privacy cases? Assurance policy. You may be tired of hearing it, but it bears repeating: Review your privacy policy and double-check that what you promise — expressly or by implication — comports with your day-to-day practices. Like any other claim, what you say about how you handle information has to be truthful and backed up with solid proof. The FTC’s lawsuit alleges that Myspace’s policy made assurances the company didn’t honor. Sure, have your legal eagles review it, but include your operations people in the conversation. They’re more likely to know what's really happening behind the scenes. Simply put, promise only what you know for a fact you deliver. Default lines. Myspace’s default settings allowed users’ full names to be publicly accessible. Of course, each site is different, but give your default settings serious consideration. Don’t make those decisions by, uh, default. If people have choices about what information will be shared, make it easy for them to understand how and where they can exercise their options. Everything but the kitchen sync? According to the FTC’s complaint, Myspace made it possible for ad networks to match up — or sync — a user’s Friend ID with other data in a way that gave them access to a user's personal information, including in many cases his or her full name. The FTC says that flew in the face of promises Myspace made in its privacy policy. Smart companies think about how easy it might be for others to sync information in a way that would render their privacy promises misleading. (FTC Chief Technologist Ed Felten talks more about that in his Tech@FTC blog .) May I take your order? Once a company is under FTC order, compliance is legally enforceable. But many provisions in recent orders just make good business sense and cost next to nothing to put in place. For example, the Myspace order, requires the company to designate someone to be responsible for implementing and carrying out the mandated privacy program. Of course, data security and privacy are every employee’s responsibility. But now that you’re building them into your daily operations, doesn’t it make sense for businesses of all sizes to name an in-house point person to coordinate those efforts?  ","title":"Why the FTC's Myspace case matters to your business: Part 3","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/05/why-ftcs-myspace-case-matters-your-business-part-3"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/11/coppa-all-skidding-aside","title":"COPPA: All skidding aside","description":"COPPA: All skidding aside wfg-adm109 November 9, 2011 | 10:49AM COPPA: All skidding aside By Lesley Fair It billed itself as “Facebook and Myspace for kids,” but according to a settlement with the FTC, the Skid-e-Kids website failed to meet critical compliance obligations under COPPA , the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.  As a result, the FTC says the site collected personal information from about 5,600 kids without their parents’ consent. Under COPPA and the FTC’s COPPA Rule, website operators like Skid-e-Kids have to notify parents and get their OK before the site collects, uses, or discloses personal information from children under 13.  The Rule also requires that operators post a plain-language privacy policy that’s clear, understandable, and complete. The Skid-e-kids site — skidekids.com — courted “tweenagers” and their parents by promoting the site as “the social networking alternative for kids ages 7 to 14\" where “parents are in charge.”  The website promised, “We ensure that our privacy policy and information practices adhere to the United States Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, other applicable data privacy laws and all other applicable legislation.” Skid-e-Kids may have talked the talk — the site promised to send parents an email they’d have to use to activate their kid’s account — but the FTC alleged it didn’t walk the walk.  According to the lawsuit, parental notice wasn’t provided and consent wasn’t received.  As a result, kids were able to create profiles, post personal information, upload pictures, and send messages to other users, resulting in the unauthorized collection of their names, birth dates, email addresses, and cities of residence.  Thus, the FTC charged, the site violated COPPA and the deceptive claims in the privacy policy ran afoul of Section 5. The order against Skid-e-Kids and the site operator bars future COPPA violations, requires them to tell the truth in the privacy policy, and calls for the destruction of all information collected from kids in violation of COPPA .  In addition, if the operator of Skid-e-Kids runs a COPPA-covered site, he has to retain an online privacy professional to provide periodic assessments or join an FTC-approved safe harbor program.  That provision applies for five years.  Skid-e-Kids also will post links to OnGuardOnline.gov so visitors have access to tips on protecting kids’ privacy online.  All but $1,000 or the $100,000 civil penalty will be waived if the operator complies with the settlement’s oversight requirements and supplies accurate financial information to the FTC. Looking for the latest on COPPA ?  As part of its ongoing review of rules and guides, the FTC has asked for feedback on proposed revisions to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule.  The deadline for comments is November 28th .  Save a step by filing online.","id":3091791},{"id":3091792,"description":"Debt collection company pays record-setting civil penalty wfg-adm109 March 22, 2011 | 3:40PM Debt collection company pays record-setting civil penalty By Lesley Fair Incessant phone calls to consumers, often about accounts that weren't theirs. Repeated autocalls to wrong numbers. Illegal disclosures to other people that a consumer owes money. Those are just some of the allegations in the FTC's recent settlement with West Asset Management , a debt collection company that employs more than 1,500 collectors in 13 states and one offshore location.  According to the FTC's lawsuit filed in federal court in Atlanta, the company violated the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) through those illegal tactics — and more.  The FTC also charged that West Asset Management ignored consumers' written demands that the company stop calling them and in certain cases, withdrew funds from consumers' bank accounts or charged their credit cards without their consent. No lightweight in the business, West Asset Management has collected on more than 24 million accounts on behalf of clients in the healthcare, telecommunications, consumer credit, and government service industries.  The company's tactics led to thousands of complaints from consumers. In addition to a $2.8 million civil penalty — the largest ever in an FTC debt collection case — the settlement with West Asset Management bans a host of prohibited acts, including calling consumers before 8 in the morning, after 9 at night, or at their workplace; harassing them with repeated phone calls; and illegally communicating to third parties that a consumer owes a debt. If you're in the debt collection industry or have clients who are, you know that this settlement is the latest in a series of FTC enforcement actions to protect the rights of consumers in financial distress.  The hefty civil penalty and far-reaching injunction serve as a reminder that now’s the time for a FDCPA compliance","title":"Debt collection company pays record-setting civil penalty","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/03/debt-collection-company-pays-record-setting-civil-penalty"},{"description":"FTC challenges influencer campaign for Warner Bros.’ Shadow of Mordor game lfair July 11, 2016 | 11:17AM FTC challenges influencer campaign for Warner Bros.’ Shadow of Mordor game By Lesley Fair In the popular video game Shadow of Mordor , players don’t just randomly slash, hack, and pillage. They battle specific opponents through a feature known as the Nemesis System. In the FTC’s lawsuit against Warner Bros. Home Entertainment , truth in advertising had a nemesis: paid pitches for Shadow of Mordor that Warner Bros. deceptively claimed were independent reviews. And read on for a startlingly candid statement by one of those influencers. To help launch Shadow of Mordor , Warner Bros. brought a social media company on board to coordinate a YouTube influencer campaign. One strategy was to hire influential gamers to post videos promoting Shadow of Mordor – videos that ultimately yielded more than 5.5 million YouTube views. In addition to free game access, Warner Bros. paid the influencers cash – ranging from hundreds of dollars to five figures. Influencers’ videos were subject to pre-approval and, according to the terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. “will be deemed the author and exclusive owner.” Warner Bros. was quite exacting in what else it required of influencers: “Video will feature gameplay” of the Shadow of Mordor game. “Video will have a strong verbal call-to-action to click the link in the description box for the viewer to go to the [game’s] website to learn more about the [game], to learn how they can register, and to learn how to play the game.” “Video will promote positive sentiment” about the game. “Video will not show bugs or glitches that may exist.” “Video will not communicate negative sentiment” about Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, its affiliates or the game. Warner Bros. also required “One Facebook post or one Tweet by Influencer in support of Video.” “Positive sentiment” posted for cash? That sounds like the kind of material connection between an advertiser and endorser the FTC says should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. And for FTC watchers, that’s where the story gets almost as interesting as Shadow of Mordor . According to the complaint , influencers were directed to place sponsorship information in the text of the description box – that’s the collapsed box just below a YouTube video – not in the video itself. Furthermore, they were told to put “information about [the game] above the fold” in the description box and that the “description box will include FTC disclaimer disclosing that the post is sponsored.” But as the first example shows, only the top few lines of the description box are immediately visible. Without clicking the “Show More” button and possibly scrolling down, consumers wouldn’t see the sponsorship disclosure – especially since Warner Bros. mandated that game information had to come first. The second screenshot shows an example of the sponsorship information at the end of the expanded “Show More” box and illustrates – inadvertently perhaps – the FTC’s concern with the placement of the disclosure. In this example, the gamer wrote “This video sponsored by Warner Bros.” and followed with this telling statement: “No one reads this far into the description ... what are you doing snooping around.” Our sentiments exactly, Dude. In other instances, influencers’ videos included a half-hearted sponsorship disclosure – for example, “This has been one of my favorite sponsored games, so thanks that I could play it for free!!” – that failed to mention that in addition to free play, Warner Bros. was paying them thousands of dollars. The complaint charges that Warner Bros. falsely represented that the Shadow of Mordor gameplay videos reflected the independent opinions or experiences of impartial","id":3091793,"title":"FTC challenges influencer campaign for Warner Bros.’ Shadow of Mordor game","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/07/ftc-challenges-influencer-campaign-warner-bros-shadow-mordor-game"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/08/ad-agency-liability-ftc-looks-conduct-not-grey-flannel-suit","title":"Ad agency liability: FTC looks to conduct, not the grey flannel suit","id":3091794,"description":"Ad agency liability: FTC looks to conduct, not the grey flannel suit lfair August 23, 2017 | 11:40AM Ad agency liability: FTC looks to conduct, not the grey flannel suit By Lesley Fair According to the “Mad Men” stereotype, you could spot an old-school advertising agency executive by the tailored wardrobe and expense account lunch. A lot has changed in the ad game, but two truths remain: 1) More than 50 years of FTC cases establish that ad agencies may be liable for their role in deceptive campaigns; and 2) Companies that may not describe themselves as “ad agencies” may still be held responsible for illegal acts or practices. In other words, the FTC looks to the facts, not the grey flannel suit. That’s one of the messages of proposed settlements announced by the FTC and the Maine Attorney General against Synergixx, LLC, Charlie R. Fusco, and Ronald Jahner, all of whom played prominent roles in the promotion of the cognition supplement CogniPrin and a pain relief product called FlexiPrin. Earlier this year, the FTC and the Maine AG announced settlements with two corporations and four individuals for making misleading claims for CogniPrin and FlexiPrin and for committing other violations of federal and state consumer protection law. The just-announced settlements with Synergixx, Fusco, and Jahner put an end to the litigation, but it ’s worth a few minutes of your time to focus on the roles those defendants played in the promotions. According to the complaint, Synergixx and its owner Charlie Fusco produced 30-minute radio ads for CogniPrin and FlexiPrin that were deceptively formatted to sound like educational talk shows. (Ms. Fusco also hosted the “programs.”) In addition to challenging the deceptive claims, the lawsuit alleged – among other things – that the defendants featured “experts” in the ads who didn’t have the expertise they claimed to have. Synergixx and Fusco also created inbound call scripts that deceptively claimed that consumers could try the supplements “risk-free” with a money-back guarantee, but failed to clearly disclose the substantial hoops consumers had to jump through to get those refunds. The complaint further alleged that they didn’t clearly tell consumers they would have to enroll in an auto-ship continuity plan to qualify for that “risk-free” offer. The FTC and AG also announced a settlement with Ronald Jahner, whom they allege was falsely presented in the ads as an objective medical expert. According to the complaint, Jahner provided an endorsement without appropriately examining the products or exercising his purported expertise. The three defendants also didn’t mention that Jahner was paid a percentage of FlexiPrin and CogniPrin sales, a material connection that should have been disclosed. The big-picture point for modern-day Mad Men and Women is, depending on the facts, the breadth of potential liability under the FTC Act. Conscientious marketers don’t create questionable claims or engage in deceptive business practices – and they don’t look the other way when others involved in the promotion engage in iffy conduct. Whether you think of yourself as an ad agency executive or something else, the FTC will evaluate the facts, not the title. Furthermore, when it comes to crafting ad copy, it’s fine for creatives to be creative. But you’re still under an obligation to be scrupulously accurate about the claims the ads convey to consumers and the science that supports those representations. F inally , both Fusco and Jahner were held individually liable for their roles in the promotions. That should give any business person pause before assuming that truth in advertising is someone else’s responsibility."},{"title":"Hey, Alexa! What are you doing with my data?","id":3091785,"description":"Hey, Alexa! What are you doing with my data? lfair June 13, 2023 | 12:49PM Hey, Alexa! What are you doing with my data? By Elisa Jillson What you say in your home, what you do in your home. It doesn’t get more private than that. But, according to two recent FTC complaints, Amazon and Ring used this highly private data – voice recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa voice assistant and videos collected by Ring’s internet-connected home security cameras – to train their algorithms while giving short shrift to customers’ privacy. These matters, the first announced since the FTC’s new Biometric Policy Statement , contain important lessons for companies using AI, biometric data, and other sensitive information.   AI and privacy should work hand-in-hand.  In this age of AI, developers want more and more data – oftentimes, no matter its source. But be careful when collecting or keeping consumer data. Under Section 5’s unfairness standard, the FTC doesn’t look just at AI’s potential benefits, but also at the costs to consumers. According to the complaints, Amazon and Ring failed that test. The FTC alleged Ring’s data access practices enabled spying and harassment, while Amazon’s permanent retention of voice data and shoddy deletion practices exposed consumers’ voice recordings to the risk of unnecessary employee access. The message for businesses: The FTC will hold companies accountable for how they obtain, retain, and use the consumer data that powers their algorithms. As the Commissioners put it in their joint statement in the Alexa matter , machine learning is not a license to break the law.   Image Consumers – not companies – control their data.  Some companies think they’re free to use personal data in their possession for any purpose they choose. Not so fast. The FTC complaints against Amazon and Ring make clear that companies that ignore consumers’ rights to control their data do so at their peril. In its complaint, the FTC says Ring gave all employees and contractors access to customers’ videos to train algorithms (among other things) with only check-the-box “consent.” But that’s not enough to ensure that users are really in control of what happens to their information. And in the Amazon complaint, the FTC says Amazon undermined parents’ rights under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule to delete their children’s voice recordings. Parents have the right under the COPPA Rule to decide what data about their children is stored by a company, and what data is deleted. The upshot is clear: Any company that undermines consumer control of their data can face FTC enforcement action.  Place special safeguards on human review and employee access to sensitive data.  AI developers often rely on human reviewers to tag and annotate the data that trains machine learning algorithms. But do consumers know when their data is under review? In its complaint, the FTC says Ring hid this review from its customers and let reviewers abuse their access to consumers’ videos. As a result, Ring’s customers – who bought Ring’s products for more security – ended up being the target of Ring employees’ spying and surveillance. The Amazon complaint also says that Amazon didn’t use appropriate controls to limit which employees could access Alexa users’ voice recordings, so thousands of employees had access to sensitive voice recordings that they didn’t need. Companies relying on human review are on notice that safeguards for sensitive data, including strict access controls, can’t be an afterthought. They should be the first step. The FTC protects biometric data.   Last month, the FTC issued a policy statement on the protection of biometric data . That statement explains that biometric data – whether fingerprints and iris scans or videos and voice recordings – deserves the utmost","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/06/hey-alexa-what-are-you-doing-my-data"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/11/otc-homeopathic-drugs-established-ftc-proof-standards-apply","id":3091786,"description":"OTC homeopathic drugs: Established FTC proof standards apply jonmorgan November 15, 2016 | 10:10AM OTC homeopathic drugs: Established FTC proof standards apply By Lesley Fair The FTC applies a consistent approach to evaluating ad claims. Companies must have a reasonable basis for objective representations, including claims that a product can treat specific health conditions. Whether it’s an over-the-counter drug, dietary supplement, or food, the same established standards apply. And as an FTC Enforcement Policy Statement explains , that also holds true for OTC homeopathic drugs. Consumers can find a host of homeopathic remedies on store shelves. Homeopathy is a view dating back to the 1700s that disease symptoms can be treated by tiny doses of substances that produce similar symptoms if given in larger doses to healthy people. Many homeopathic products are diluted so much that they no longer have detectable levels of the initial substance. Generally speaking, health claims for homeopathic products aren’t based on modern scientific methods and there’s controversy about their effectiveness. Those were some of the topics talked about at a 2015 workshop the FTC convened to explore the issues. We’re following up on that workshop with a Staff Report and an Enforcement Policy Statement that offers guidance to businesses on how the FTC Act applies to marketing claims for OTC homeopathic drugs. Two key caveats from the outset: The Policy Statement applies only to OTC products intended for self-limiting disease conditions amenable to self-diagnosis of symptoms and treatment. And it doesn’t apply to the practice of medicine – what doctors tell their patients. You’ll want to read the Enforcement Policy Statement for the full story – it’s short, but packed with detail – but it boils down to this: “Efficacy and safety claims for homeopathic drugs are held to the same standards as similar claims for non-homeopathic drugs” and there’s no basis for treating them differently under the FTC Act. What are those standards? We’re thumbnailing it here, but according to the FTC’s Advertising Substantiation Policy Statement , if a company conveys that it has a certain level of proof, it must have “at least the advertised level of substantiation.” If there’s no express or implied reference to a particular level of support, the FTC considers “the type of claim, the product, the consequences of a false claim, the benefits of a truthful claim, the cost of developing substantiation for the claim, and the amount of substantiation experts believe is reasonable.” For health, safety, or efficacy claims, companies need “competent and reliable scientific evidence,” a phrase defined in many recent cases. For claims that a product can treat a disease or its symptoms, that generally means well-designed human clinical testing. For most OTC homeopathic drugs, the case for efficacy is based solely on traditional homeopathic theories, and not on studies applying current scientific methods. So claims that they have a therapeutic effect lack the reasonable basis required by FTC law, and therefore are likely misleading.   Image However, the FTC has long recognized that marketing materials may include additional information that may prevent claims from being misleading. According to the Enforcement Policy Statement, the promotion of an OTC homeopathic product for an indication that isn’t substantiated by competent and reliable scientific evidence may not be deceptive if it states and effectively communicates that: “(1) there is no scientific evidence that the product works, and (2) the product’s claims are based only on theories of homeopathy from the 1700s that are not accepted by most modern medical experts.” (Of course, established standards for effective disclosures apply.) In addition, as the Enforcement Policy Statement observes, there’s an inherent contradiction in telling consumers that a","title":"OTC homeopathic drugs: Established FTC proof standards apply"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/01/8-advertising-potholes-auto-dealers-should-avoid","title":"8 advertising potholes auto dealers should avoid","description":"8 advertising potholes auto dealers should avoid wfg-adm109 January 9, 2014 | 12:08PM 8 advertising potholes auto dealers should avoid By Lesley Fair In a drive to encourage truth in auto advertising, the FTC has announced Operation Steer Clear – a coast-to-coast law enforcement sweep focusing on deceptive TV, newspaper, and online claims about sales, financing, and leasing.  If you have clients in the auto industry, the lessons of Operation Steer Clear can help keep them on the right track. The companies named in the 10 lawsuits include four California dealers:  Casino Auto Sales in La Puente, Rainbow Auto Sales in South Gate, Honda of Hollywood in Los Angeles, and Norm Reeves Honda in Cerritos.  Also the subject of law enforcement action are Fowlerville Ford in Fowlerville, Michigan; Nissan of South Atlanta in Morrow, Georgia; Infiniti of Clarendon Hills in Clarendon Hills, Illinois; and Paramount Kia in Hickory, North Carolina.  In addition, the FTC took action against Texas-based Southwest Kia companies, including New World Auto Imports in Dallas, New World Auto Imports in Rockwall, and Hampton Two Auto Corporations in Mesquite.  A lawsuit against Courtesy Auto Group in Attleboro, Massachusetts is heading to trial before an Administrative Law Judge. You’ll want to review the complaints to see the allegations in each particular case, but busy dealers can supplement their TO DO lists with these TO DON’TS, ad-related practices the FTC challenged as illegal in one of more of the cases: Deceptive pricing.  Some dealers lured prospective buyers onto the lot by advertising vehicles at a specific low price.  But the real price was $5,000 more.  (The complaint mentions that some of these ads involved a mix of English and Spanish.) Deceptive teaser payments.   In some cases, dealers advertised attention-grabbing low monthly payments.  What they didn’t explain up front was that those were temporary teaser payments that would get jacked up after a short period.  The FTC says dealers didn’t state the number of payments and how much they would be after those first few low monthly payments.   Undisclosed balloon payments.   Another dealer advertised low monthly payments without clearly disclosing that buyers would owe a final balloon payment.  What’s more, the FTC says the dealer didn’t disclose the amount of that balloon – in this case, over $10,000. False $0 up-front leasing claims.  Some companies advertised that consumers wouldn’t have to pay anything up front to lease a car.  Not true, says the FTC.  In fact, lurking behind those goose eggs were hefty fees and other amounts due up front. Undisclosed lease terms.   The FTC says some companies touted low up-front amounts and low monthly payments in their ads without clearly explaining that the transaction was actually a lease and involved substantial hidden fees. Hidden rates.   In one case, the FTC charged that the dealer claimed to offer 0% for 60 months.  But as it turned out, the rate applied only if people bought a new car for up to a certain dollar amount – in one instance $12,000.  If the car of a consumer’s dreams was, say, $18,000, the buyer would have to pay a higher rate, and that rate wasn’t clearly stated. Bogus prize promotions.   One dealership used a mailer to get folks in the door, falsely claiming the consumer had won a sweepstakes prize. Credit and leasing violations.   In many of the cases, the FTC charged that companies violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Reg Z, the Consumer Leasing Act, and Reg M – long-standing laws that any dealer should be familiar with.  One common thread:  the failure to disclose key credit- or lease-related terms in ads. To settle the FTC lawsuits, the companies have signed proposed orders that will change how they do business in the future.  Notable terms in these legally binding settlements:  a ban on ads that","id":3091787},{"description":"Last resort wfg-adm109 June 6, 2013 | 10:03AM Last resort By Lesley Fair Three FTC cases, 83 civil actions brought by 28 states, more than 184 defendants facing criminal charges in cases filed by federal and local prosecutors, and 25 actions brought by agencies in 10 other countries.  If you’re unclear on whether law enforcers are presenting a united front against travel-related fraud, then we have some oceanfront property to sell you. One of the scams targeted by the latest law enforcement sweep involves bogus offers to resell people’s timeshares.  Here’s how the operators work:  They call timeshare owners and claim to have people lined up ready to pay top dollar for timeshares.  For an upfront charge — often falsely characterized as “filing fees” or “closing costs” — they promise to put them together with champing-at-the-bit buyers.  Move fast, the high-pressure pitchmen urge.  They need your place now. But once the check has been cashed, those “eager buyers” disappear only to be replaced with endless umms and uhhs from the marketers.  According to the FTC, one defendant avoided consumers’ complaint calls simply by putting them on hold indefinitely. Also in law enforcers’ sights:  deceptive travel prize promotions.  Marketers lure people in with a “Congratulations.  You just won!” pitch for discounted or “free” vacation packages.  Most people got nothing.  Others had to sit through high-pressure “Glengarry Glen Ross”-style sales presentations. We hope your clients don’t use tactics like that, but there are other points businesses should take from this announcement. United we stand.   OK, maybe it’s not quite like Quincy Jones bringing everyone together to sing “We are the World,” but when the head of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, the Florida Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and the Deputy Commissioner of Florida’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services make a joint announcement like this, we consider it the consumer protection equivalent.  Local, state, federal, and international agencies working together to make efficient use of law enforcement resources:  That’s good news for consumers — and bad news for the scamming set. The Dos and Don’ts of Do Not Call.  The FTC cases allege violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, including cold calls to people on the Do Not Call Registry.  Consumers have voted with their finger and the FTC has more than 200 million good reasons to keep the heat on telemarketers who flout the law.  It’s a good time to remind clients of their responsibilities under the TSR . Crime in the suites.   Injunctions, financial remedies, and other consequences of civil lawsuits should make any sensible business person think twice before resorting to deceptive practices in travel-related promotions.  But make sure your clients are aware that certain conduct can result in criminal prosecution.  That’s a stay-cation no one wants to take. The “coast” of “dune” business?   It’s not just timeshare resale scams that have attracted attention.  Other misleading practices are on the state and federal enforcement itinerary, too.  If you have clients who market timeshare or travel promotions, let them know about the reservations law enforcers have expressed about misleading claims.","id":3091788,"title":"Last resort","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/06/last-resort"},{"description":"Good night. Sleep tight. Be sure to get your ad claims right. wfg-adm109 September 13, 2012 | 11:24AM Good night. Sleep tight. Be sure to get your ad claims right. By Lesley Fair No one is going to amend the nursery rhyme, but if you market products aimed at fighting bed bugs or head lice and are itching to keep your promotions in line with the law, two FTC lawsuits merit your attention.  Even if bugs aren’t your bag, the cases are a reminder of the need to back up your claims with solid science. The first case, which resulted in a settlement , challenged claims for Rest Easy, a liquid containing cinnamon oil, peppermint, clove oil, and the like.  Available from national retailers, Rest Easy was advertised to “Kill & Repel Bed Bugs.”  As the ads said, “Rest Easy is HIGHLY effective, killing 90% of bedbugs within 2 seconds of contact, and the rest within 30 minutes . . . ”  In addition to eradicating pesky vermin, the marketers pitched the gallon size as an effective litigation repellant:  “For commercial use in apartments, hotels, and more.  Never have to deal with another tenant complaint and clear away the looming threat of lawsuits.  Don't let your business be a victim of a growing and serious concern!\" But according to the FTC, Florida-based RMB Group and corporate officers Howard Brenner and Bruce Brenner didn’t have sound science to back up their promises that Rest Easy kills or repels bed bugs or that by spraying Rest Easy around a bed, users can create a barrier against the pests.  Under the settlement — which includes a $264,976 judgment suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay — RMB Group and the Brenners will need competent and reliable scientific evidence to support performance or efficacy claims they make about Rest Easy or any pesticide they market in the future. The second case , which is awaiting trial, challenges claims for BEST YET!, a line of cedar oil products sold by Texas-based Cedarcide Industries, Dave Glassel, and related companies.  Ads for BEST YET! \"Get Rid Bed Bugs\" sprays, kits, and foggers represented that the products are effective in stopping and preventing bed bug infestations and are more effective than synthetic pesticides.  The complaint challenges similar claims for BEST YET! Louse Eradication Fluid and the BEST YET! Head Lice Treatment Kit.  According to the FTC, the company’s prevention and treatment promises are unsubstantiated and its claims that the products’ effectiveness and superiority have  been scientifically proven are false. In their ads, the defendants also claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency had advised consumers to avoid other products:  “Perhaps that’s why the EPA recently warned victims fighting bed bugs to ‘avoid chemical solutions altogether.’”  Not so, says the FTC.  As the complaint alleges, “In fact, the EPA recommends a combination of techniques known as integrated pest management (IPM) — an approach that includes prevention, monitoring, and limited use of chemical pesticides.” The FTC’s lawsuit also challenges as false the defendant’s claims that BEST Yet! was invented for the United States Army at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture and that the USDA has acknowledged BEST YET! as the number one choice of bio-based pesticides. The complaint is pending in federal court in California.","id":3091789,"title":"Good night. Sleep tight. Be sure to get your ad claims right.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/09/good-night-sleep-tight-be-sure-get-your-ad-claims-right"},{"title":"The Victims and Courts Act 2026 (Commencement No. 1) Regulations 2026","description":"These are the first commencement regulations made under the Victims and Courts Act 2026 (c. 19) (“the 2026","id":3091706,"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/918http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/918/contents/made"},{"title":"Impact Assessment Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 1 [Modified on May 29, 2026]","description":"Impact Assessment Act was modified or came into force on","id":3091577,"link":"https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2019-c-28-s-1/latest/sc-2019-c-28-s-1.html"},{"link":"https://www.hcch.net/fr/news-archive/details/?varevent=1149","id":3091524,"description":"Le 23 avril 2026, la cinquième réunion du Groupe de travail (GT) sur les aspects financiers de l'adoption internationale s'est tenue en ligne, organisée par le Bureau Permanent (BP). La réunion a rassemblé plus de 30 délégués inscrits et autres experts, représentant 16 Membres de la HCCH, trois Parties contractantes non Membres observatrices et trois organisations observatrices, en plus des membres du BP. Conformément à son mandat, le GT a finalisé ses travaux sur le projet de Note","title":"Cinquième réunion du Groupe de travail sur les aspects financiers de l’adoption internationale"},{"id":3090782,"description":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't wfg-adm109 October 21, 2013 | 11:17AM Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't By Lesley Fair There are lots of nifty phone accessories, bottle holders, tow straps, pet items, and lanyards out there.  So a label that says the product is Made in the USA may help make the decision for some consumers.  When it bears the American flag and says “TRULY MADE IN THE USA,” that just might seal the deal.  But according to an FTC lawsuit , a lot of the “Made in the USA” merchandise touted by Logan, Utah-based E.K. Ekcessories wasn’t really made in the USA – turning the company’s claims from a Yankee Doodle Do to a Yankee Doodle Don't. E.K. Ekcessories sells a variety of outdoor equipment through popular retailers and on its own site.  In addition to the labels, the company touted its products’ U.S. pedigree with statements like “For 28 years E.K. Ekcessories has been producing superior quality made accessories in our 60,000 sq. ft. facility in Logan, Utah,” and “Our source of pride and satisfaction abounds from a true ‘Made in USA’ product.” To say an item is made in the USA, all or virtually all of it has to be U.S.-made.  In other words, all significant parts and processing must be of U.S. origin, and the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content. That’s the standard explained in the FTC’s 1997 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims.  But according to the complaint, in many cases, E.K. Ekcessories made “Made in USA” representations that were flat-out false.  In other instances, the FTC says the company slapped a label on a product without a reasonable basis for making the claim.  Both courses of conduct violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed order, the company can’t say a product is made in the USA unless all or virtually all of it really is made in the United States.  The order also bans other misleading claims about products’ country of origin. Given that other companies are selling the deceptively labeled merchandise, E.K. Ekcessories has to contact all distributors who bought or received products between January 1, 2010 and May 1, 2013, explaining the FTC’s lawsuit.  The retailers will be asked to pull marketing materials that say all E.K. Ekcessories stuff is U.S.-made or that describe a specific list of products as made in the United States, of U.S.-origin, or “Truly Made in the USA.”  For certain lines of products, they’ll get stickers to cover the inaccurate claims. You can file an online comment about the proposed settlement by November 21, 2013. The message for marketers?  First , it’s a good time to brush up on how to comply with Made in USA standards.  The Business Center has a dedicated Made in USA page to make that easier for you.  Second , given just how important many consumers take a Made in USA claim, companies that make that statement falsely or without a reasonable basis are risking law enforcement action.  Truly.","title":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/10/made-usa-avoiding-yankee-doodle-dont"},{"title":"FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity","id":3090783,"description":"FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity wfg-adm109 November 6, 2014 | 11:07AM FTC settlement challenges deceptive claims by patent assertion entity By Lesley Fair Patent assertion entities have been the subject of much debate in antitrust and intellectual property circles. But there’s one proposition we hope that parties on all sides of the issue can agree on: It’s illegal to falsely threaten patent suits against small businesses or make unfounded claims that other companies have paid for patent licenses. That’s the misconduct alleged in a settlement the FTC just announced with patent assertion entity MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, MPHJ corporate officer Jay Mac Rust, and Texas-based law firm Farney Daniels, P.C. Generally speaking, patent assertion entities are companies that acquire patent rights and then seek licensing fees from businesses they claim are infringing their patents. The FTC’s action centers on representations that MPHJ made while asserting patents that relate to network computer scanning technology MPHJ says is used in offices of all sizes across the country. According to the FTC, the respondents sent out a series of letters to thousands of small businesses. The first letter – sent to more than 16,000 businesses on the letterhead of one of MPHJ’s dozens of six-letter subsidiaries – told the recipient they “likely have an infringing system” and directed them to contact the sender within two weeks “so that we may agree with you upon an appropriate license arrangement if one is needed.” The letter offered to settle without court action if the business agreed to a license of $1,200 per employee. (Other versions said $1,000.) Things heated up in later correspondence, sent on the letterhead of Farney Daniels. That letter included a draft lawsuit “which our client will be forced to file” against the small business if it didn’t respond within two weeks. According to the FTC, the respondents sent that letter to approximately 4,870 businesses, including 1,718 letters sent on just one day – appropriately enough, April 1, 2013. The FTC complaint challenges a series of misrepresentations that respondents made in those letters. For example, the first letter stated that “most businesses, upon being informed that they are infringing someone’s patent rights, are interested in operating lawfully and taking a license promptly” and that “many companies have responded to this licensing program in such a manner.” What was the exact tally of the “many companies” that had paid for a license at the time that statement was made? According to the FTC, when the first 7,300 letters were sent, the respondents hadn’t sold a single license through their letter campaign. What about the later letters on law firm letterhead that threatened imminent legal action against small businesses that didn’t reply? The FTC says the respondents didn’t file a single lawsuit against any of the businesses that didn’t respond, nor did they intend or prepare to file lawsuits against them. So those claims were challenged as false, too. The proposed settlement would bar MPHJ, Jay Mac Rust, and Farney Daniels from making misrepresentations when asserting patent rights, including deceptive claims about the number of licenses sold, that a lawsuit will be filed, and the imminence of any lawsuit. Future deceptive conduct could trigger penalties of up to $16,000 per letter. You can file a comment about the proposed settlement by December 8, 2014.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/ftc-settlement-challenges-deceptive-claims-patent-assertion-entity"},{"link":"https://www.hcch.net/fr/news-archive/details/?varevent=1083","title":"Semaine Asie Pacifique 2025 de la HCCH","id":3090696,"description":"La Semaine Asie-Pacifique 2025 de la HCCH s'est tenue à Séoul du 25 au 27 juin 2025. Elle a été organisée conjointement par la République de Corée et la HCCH. L'évènement a réuni plus de 400 participants, représentant des Membres de la HCCH, des États non membres, des organisations intergouvernementales, des organisations non gouvernementales internationales, ainsi que des experts indépendants. Depuis son édition inaugurale en 2014, la Semaine Asie Pacifique de la"},{"link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/valuing-a-reduction-in-the-risk-of-skin-sensitisation_fc305de9-en.html","description":"Exposure to chemicals has been shown to cause skin sensitisation, leading to chronic conditions such as allergic contact dermatitis. Beyond physical symptoms, skin sensitisation can also reduce one’s quality of life, impair productivity and cause psychological distress. Despite its prevalence, information on the value that the public places","id":3090416,"title":"Valuing a reduction in the risk of skin sensitisation: A large-scale multi-country stated preference approach"},{"link":"https://news.un.org/feed/view/fr/story/2026/08/1159291","description":"Juillet figure parmi les deux mois de juillet les plus chauds jamais enregistrés, à égalité avec un précédent record, avec une température moyenne mondiale supérieure de 1,47 °C au niveau préindustriel, a annoncé mardi l’Organisation météorologique mondiale (OMM). De l’Europe à l’Asie, du Moyen-Orient à l’Amérique latine, les records de chaleur se multiplient, tandis que les océans ont eux aussi atteint un nouveau sommet de","id":3090216,"title":"Climat : juillet parmi les plus chauds jamais enregistrés, des records sur plusieurs continents"},{"description":"Taking notice: Class action workshop starts soon lfair October 29, 2019 | 7:51AM Taking notice: Class action workshop starts soon By Lesley Fair They’re called “notices,” but do consumers really notice them? Convening at 9:00 Eastern Time this morning, October 29th, Consumers and Class Action Notices: An FTC Workshop will take a closer look at what the research – including a recent FTC staff report – tells us about class action notices, refund methods, claims rates, and related issues. Panelists represent a wide range of perspectives, including consumer groups, class action administrators, and attorneys on both the plaintiff and defense side. You can watch the webcast from a link that will go live minutes before the start time. We’ll also keep the public record open until November 22, 2019, so you can file comments on today’s discussion","id":3090188,"title":"Taking notice: Class action workshop starts soon","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/10/taking-notice-class-action-workshop-starts-soon"},{"title":"FTC says Kohl’s didn’t honor rights of identity theft victims","id":3090185,"description":"FTC says Kohl’s didn’t honor rights of identity theft victims lfair June 10, 2020 | 3:34PM FTC says Kohl’s didn’t honor rights of identity theft victims By Lesley Fair An FTC complaint against Kohl’s Department Stores alleges the retailer violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by refusing to provide victims of identity theft with complete records of questionable transactions – a right the FCRA guarantees to victimized consumers. The $220,000 settlement is a reminder to other companies to rethink their approach to that provision of the law. The FTC’s allegations start with the plain language of Section 609(e) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act , but it boils down to this. Let’s say a consumer spots unauthorized charges or lines of credit that suggest they’re victims of identity theft. To put the puzzle pieces together, they’ll need copies of documents from the businesses where those transactions occurred. Once a consumer asks for those documents, Section 609(e) gives businesses 30 days to provide the records. The law allows businesses to require proof of identity (like a driver’s license) and proof of the identity theft (like a police report and affidavit), but the whole idea behind the provision is to avoid re-victimizing consumers by tying them up in red tape. Kohl’s original practice was to provide records to victims within 30 days, subject to proper verification. But according to the FTC, in February 2017, Kohl’s changed its policy and would share information identifying the identify thief only with law enforcement or with a victim’s attorney – not with the victimized consumer. In August 2018, Kohl’s changed its policy again and gave customers with a Kohl’s charge account a more expansive list of business and transaction records – for example, statements, receipts, and applications. But Kohl’s still refused to give them information identifying the alleged thief (including the address and phone number listed on a fraudulent application or the shipping address used for fraudulent orders). Kohl’s also stopped providing that information to victims’ attorneys. That left victims with only one recourse: a direct request from a law enforcement agency. According to the complaint , the company’s revised policies left consumers with no practical way to get the documentation they needed to establish the charges weren’t theirs. What’s more, people whose lives had already been turned upside down by identity thieves now found themselves at odds with Kohl’s. Even when consumers complained to Kohl’s and sent the company copies of Section 609(e) of the FCRA and accompanying FTC guidance documents, the complaint alleges that Kohl’s stonewalled them. It wasn’t until April 2019 that Kohl’s finally re-re-revised its policy to provide victims with the credit application and transaction records they asked for. The complaint charges that Kohl’s violated the FCRA by failing to provide consumers with the records they had a right to under the law. The FTC also says the company violated Section 609(e)’s 30-day requirement. In addition to the $220,000 civil penalty, the settlement requires Kohl’s to provide identity theft victims with business transaction records related to the theft within 30 days. The company also must post a notice on its website letting victims know how to get those records and must certify that it’s reached out to victims who were unlawfully denied access to those records in the past. In reconsidering your own company’s compliance, take a close look at the FCRA, of course. But also view your procedures through the eyes of the millions of Americans who have been victims of identity theft – including your friends, family members, and employees. How would you want them to be treated as they undertake the all-too-arduous task of reclaiming their good name in the aftermath of identity theft? In the long run, implementing a","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/ftc-says-kohls-didnt-honor-rights-identity-theft-victims"}]