[{"description":"This report explores how countries are working towards the harmonisation of micro-credentials, which are short, flexible learning opportunities designed to help people gain new skills quickly. While these programmes are expanding rapidly, their growth has often been uneven and hard to navigate, making it difficult for learners to understand","title":"International Review of Micro‑Credential Systems: From Fragmentation to Alignment","id":3183527,"link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/international-review-of-micro-credential-systems_bd913f1c-en.html"},{"description":"La Norvège figure toujours parmi les économies les plus prospères et les plus égalitaires au monde, gr'ce à une gestion macroéconomique rigoureuse et à une main-d’œuvre hautement qualifiée. Pourtant, la croissance demeure modérée, l’inflation reste systématiquement supérieure à l’objectif de 2 % et le fonds souverain finance une part","title":"Études économiques de l’OCDE : Norvège 2026 (version abrégée)","id":3183525,"link":"https://www.oecd.org/fr/publications/etudes-economiques-de-l-ocde-norvege-2026-version-abregee_432a2f4e-fr.html"},{"link":"https://www.oecd.org/fr/publications/support/corrigenda.html","description":"Corrigenda de publications de","title":"Corrigenda de publications de l'OCDE","id":3183526},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/08/game-ftc-loot-box-workshop-set-start","title":"Game on: FTC loot box workshop set to start","id":3183288,"description":"Game on: FTC loot box workshop set to start lfair August 7, 2019 | 9:21AM Game on: FTC loot box workshop set to start By Lesley Fair The time has come to take a closer look at loot boxes. The FTC’s workshop, Inside the Game: Unlocking the Consumer Issues Surrounding Loot Boxes , begins at 10:00 ET today. Moments before the start time we’ll post a link to the live webcast . FTC staff will be tweeting from @FTC using the hashtag #LootboxFTC. Interested in putting your perspectives on the public record? File a comment online by October 11, 2019."},{"description":"July 21st FTC PrivacyCon goes virtual lfair June 16, 2020 | 1:02PM July 21st FTC PrivacyCon goes virtual By Lesley Fair The experts who have headlined the FTC’s first four PrivacyCon events are among the innovators whose research has allowed many of us to work remotely in recent months. So there’s a certain symmetry to the FTC’s announcement that the fifth annual PrivacyCon will convene virtually on July 21, 2020 . Aside from shifting to an online-only platform, everything else about PrivacyCon will remain the same. The event will feature the latest research conducted by globally recognized experts. And you’ll be able to participate by watching the webcast live from a link we’ll post moments before the start of the July 21st confab. Follow the Business Blog for an upcoming announcement about the agenda and panelists.","id":3183284,"title":"July 21st FTC PrivacyCon goes virtual","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/july-21st-ftc-privacycon-goes-virtual"},{"title":"Deceptive pain claims remain a bane","id":3183285,"description":"Deceptive pain claims remain a bane lfair April 20, 2020 | 1:13PM Deceptive pain claims remain a bane By Lesley Fair For decades the FTC has been warning people about online ports, portals, and pop-ups that can be conduits for questionable claims. But companies shouldn’t think we’ve taken our eye off another potential doorway for deception: direct mail. According to an FTC lawsuit , a group of seven U.S. and Canadian defendants used glossy magazine-style mailers to advertise that Neurocet, Regenify, and Resetigen-D could treat a list of diseases, maladies, and conditions long enough to fill Gray’s Anatomy – the book and the show. The defendants pitched Neurocet as an answer to the kinds of chronic pain that often besets older consumers, including arthritis, back pain, and headaches. What’s more, they promised that Neurocet provides relief that lasts 26 times longer than popular pain medications and is even stronger than morphine, leading to reduced inflammation and greater mobility and flexibility. And just to gild the pain relief lily, they said their claims were supported by scientific or clinical proof. They advertised Regenify and Resetigen-D to repair cell damage everywhere in the body, turning back the clock on damage to skin, tissue, bones, and organs while also improving memory and brain function by as much as 97.4%. That’s just for starters. The ads also pitched the products as a treatment for arthritis, tinnitus, asthma, high cholesterol, psoriasis, and eczema. Oh, and users would lose weight and gain muscle. Skeptical? Don’t be, implied the defendants. Ads for Regenify and Resetigen-D featured glowing testimonials from people who had supposedly tried the products. They also trotted out purported endorsements from gastroenterologists, neurologists, nephrologists, pulmonologists, cardiologists, rheumatologists, and pretty much every other kind of –ologist who’s ever donned a white coat. The complaint charges the defendants with making “false or unsubstantiated claims.” Others might use stronger language to describe the practice of targeting older consumers in this fashion, especially considering the defendants didn’t have scientific support for their representations and used purported endorsements from medical professionals and consumers that were flat-out fictitious. The proposed stipulated order puts provisions in place to protect consumers in the future and requires the defendants to turn over $1.3 million, which may be used for consumer refunds. If you think you’ve seen a lot of cases from the FTC recently challenging misleading pain relief claims and deceptive treatments for maladies afflicting older Americans, you’re right – and there are good reasons why that’s the case. First, as the opioid crisis demonstrates, millions of people are desperate for relief from chronic pain. Second, with the Boomer Consumer demographic bump, more people are struggling with age-related medical conditions for which there are no easy cures. And third, the Venn diagram of those two groups overlaps substantially. That’s why the FTC continues the fight against bogus treatments and cures, and why we wage the war regardless of whether marketers convey their questionable claims online, in direct mail, via telemarketing, or in soci al media.  ","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/04/deceptive-pain-claims-remain-bane"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/02/ftc-alleges-deception-unbiased-review-sites-ratings-rankings","description":"FTC alleges deception in “unbiased” review site’s ratings and rankings lfair February 3, 2020 | 11:10AM FTC alleges deception in “unbiased” review site’s ratings and rankings By Lesley Fair Top picks, star ratings, in-depth reviews. Many consumers don’t buy anything without consulting third-party review sites or checking out the opinions of other customers. But how often are those ratings the product of buying and selling between the “independent” site and companies willing to pay for better play? And are those reviews really from satisfied customers or are they from employees acting on instructions to stuff the ballot box with five-star ratings? Those are the allegations in a lawsuit against LendEDU , a site the FTC says falsely claimed to offer “objective” evaluations of financial products. Does the proposed settlement in this case suggest it’s time to review your own review practices? Many consumers comparison-shopping for student loans, personal loans, and credit cards visited LendEDU based on its promise of “honest,” “accurate,” and “unbiased” ratings and reviews. For example, LendEDU’s student loan refinancing page offered a rate table, rankings, star ratings, and reviews of what it claimed were the best or top companies. LendEDU and its corporate officers hammered home the message that due to their “strict editorial integrity,” those ratings “are completely objective and not influenced by compensation in any way.” False, says the FTC. According to the complaint , LendEDU boosted companies’ numerical ranking and position on rate tables based on payments to LendEDU. For example, in an email to a student loan refinancing company whose rating had fallen from #1 to #3, LendEDU’s CEO said it could retake the top spot by paying LendEDU $9.50 per click. LendEDU’s Vice President of Product later contacted the same company, suggesting it increase the payment to $16.50 per click: “We want to keep [your company] positioned as the #1 lender on our site, but we need to justify the move from a business perspective.” The company ultimately agreed to pay $15 per click, and LendEDU kept the company in the top spot. The complaint alleges that LendEDU offered another student loan refinancing company the #3 position for a payment of $16 per click. The contract expressly provided for a ranking “[n]o lower than position 3.” The complaint recounts other examples of how the FTC says LendEDU finagled the ratings for pay. What were consumers told about these arrangements? Up until mid-2016, nothing. Then LendEDU added a fine-print sentence at the bottom of its website that the “site may be compensated through third party advertisers.” Around March 2019 – after LendEDU learned of the FTC’s investigation – it listed elsewhere on its site the companies that “may provide compensation to LendEDU.” But the FTC says those “disclosures” were placed where consumers were unlikely to see them. That’s not the only way LendEDU allegedly deceived consumers. On its own site and on third-party review platforms, supposedly satisfied customers raved about their experience with LendEDU. For example, on Trustpilot, 123 of 126 reviews gave LendEDU the highest five-star rating. Here’s what three purported consumers had to say: Kenny: “LendEDU showed me the light at the end of the tunnel. I was drowning in student loan debt then they showed up with a lifeboat and a warm blanket. The website was easy to navigate and with the help of their customer service team, I saved a lot of money refinancing. I can’t thank them enough and would recommend to anyone! Scott: “Extremely user friendly and easy to use. . . . It was a pleasant surprise to be able to find personal finance education. As a student, high schools don’t really provide any basic financial course and credit cards are so easy to obtain. It was","id":3183286,"title":"FTC alleges deception in “unbiased” review site’s ratings and rankings"},{"description":"You Don’t Say: FTC workshop listens in on voice cloning lfair November 4, 2019 | 1:17PM You Don’t Say: FTC workshop listens in on voice cloning By Lesley Fair Imagine people who have lost the ability to speak communicating in a digital version of their own voice. With just a brief recorded snippet, researchers can use artificial intelligence and text-to-speech synthesis to create a near-perfect voice clone. But it takes even less time to imagine how fraudsters could use that technology to further their scams. On January 28, 2020, FTC staff will examine the consumer protection implications at You Don’t Say: An FTC Workshop on Voice Cloning . Think of the typical family emergency scam where a con artist calls someone, pretending to be a relative in distress. Or consider its shady corporate cousin: the CEO scam. That’s when a crook, impersonating a company higher-up, calls an employee to transfer money for a purported business purpose. Those scams already steal millions from consumers each year. But what if the fraudster could use technology to clone the voice of a real person? You Don’t Say will explore the many ways the technology can be positively used – healthcare, entertainment, and other consumer-oriented applications – and potentially abused. Panelists will consider ethical concerns related to the use of cloned voices and the impact on the trustworthiness of oral communications. You Don’t Say will take place at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. The event is free and open to the public. We’ll also webcast it live on January 28th beginning at 12:30 Eeastern Time. Follow the Business Blog and the You Don’t Say event page for agenda","id":3183287,"title":"You Don’t Say: FTC workshop listens in on voice cloning","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/11/you-dont-say-ftc-workshop-listens-voice-cloning"},{"title":"The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Cardiff) (No. 2) Regulations 2026","id":3183211,"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/1049http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1049/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1049/pdfs/uksi_20261049_en.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1049/contents/made"},{"id":3183212,"title":"The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Whelford, Gloucestershire) (Emergency) Regulations 2026","link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/1054http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1054/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1054/pdfs/uksi_20261054_en.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1054/contents/made"},{"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/1053http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1053/contents/made","id":3183209,"title":"The Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026","description":"These Regulations make provision for the implementation in Northern Ireland of Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 concerning batteries and waste batteries, amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC (OJ L 191, pp. 1 - 117) (“Regulation (EU)"},{"description":"The Recovery of Health Services Charges (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 provides for a scheme for the recovery of charges in cases where an injured person who receives a compensation payment in respect of his injury has received hospital treatment or ambulance services. The charges are specified in certificates issued by the Department for Communities and are payable by persons who pay compensation to the injured person. The charges in each case are calculated by reference to a tariff of charges provided for by the Recovery of Health Services Charges (Amounts) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 (“the principal","title":"The Recovery of Health Services Charges (Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026","id":3183210,"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/nisr/2026/163http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2026/163/contents/made"},{"id":3182205,"title":"VTech settlement cautions companies to keep COPPA-covered data secure","description":"VTech settlement cautions companies to keep COPPA-covered data secure lfair January 8, 2018 | 12:15PM VTech settlement cautions companies to keep COPPA-covered data secure By Lesley Fair We can’t guarantee its effectiveness in getting kids to eat their vegetables or finish their homework. But there’s one circumstance in which a Mom or Dad’s “Because I said so . . . .” is the law of the land. When it comes to the online collection of personal information from kids under 13, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) puts parents in charge. An FTC lawsuit against VTech , a big name in electronic learning products for the Swingset Set, alleges that the company violated COPPA and the FTC Act by, among other things, failing to take reasonable steps to protect sensitive data collected from children. A particular concern in this case – the FTC ’ s first dealing with connected toys – is the allegation that VTech’s violations came to light only after a hacker stole personal information about kids and parents who used the company’s products. First, some background. VTech operates Learning Lodge, an online platform that lets customers download child-directed apps, games, e-books, etc., onto their VTech connected devices. More than 2 million parents have created Learning Lodge accounts for close to 3 million kids. One popular app is Kid Connect, which allows children to send text messages, audio files, photos, etc., to contacts approved by Mom or Dad. Once registered, kids also can post messages on an electronic bulletin board accessible to people on the parent-OKed contact list. From at least July 2013 to November 2015, if a child wanted to use Kid Connect, a parent had to sign up on Learning Lodge. Registration required lots of personal information: the parent’s full name, physical address, email, password, and a secret Q&A for password retrieval, as well as the child’s name, date and year of birth, and gender. Parents could then set up a Kid Connect account by submitting an email address, a parent’s username and password, a child’s username, and a profile photo of both the parent and the child. (In addition, VTech offered a web-based platform called Planet VTech. It required parents to submit a substantial amount of personal information, too, including the child’s first name, login name, password, and full date of birth.) Where does the FTC allege VTech went wrong? First, VTech’s Privacy Policy said that when parents input personal information as part of the registration process for Learning Lodge, Kid Connect, or Planet VTech, “in most cases” that information “will be transmitted encrypted to protect your privacy using HTTPS encryption technology.” But according to the FTC, the data wasn’t encrypted, rendering VTech’s claim false under the FTC Act. The complaint also charges VTech with violating specific COPPA provisions. According to the FTC, VTech failed to provide sufficient notice on its website about the information it collects from children, how it uses that information, and its disclosure practices. In addition, VTech failed to provide direct notice of its policies to parents. The lawsuit also alleges that when people set up a Kid Connect account, VTech didn’t have a COPPA-compliant mechanism in place to verify that the person registering the account was a parent and not a child. Finally, Section 312.8 of the Rule requires COPPA-covered companies like VTech to “establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children.” However, in this case, a hacker was able to remotely access VTech’s test environment and from there gained entry into the live site. That’s where the hacker grabbed parents’ full names, addresses, email addresses, secret questions, and children’s usernames – all of which was stored in clear, readable text. Although VTech","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/01/vtech-settlement-cautions-companies-keep-coppa-covered-data-secure"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/10/data-spotlight-reveals-whats-behind-some-those-social-media-ads","description":"Data Spotlight reveals what’s behind some of those social media ads lfair October 5, 2023 | 9:34AM Data Spotlight reveals what’s behind some of those social media ads By Lesley Fair Sometimes being the “Home of . . .” is an honorific to be proud of. Kudos, Cleveland, for rock ‘n’ roll, and thank you, Buffalo, for your contribution to chicken wings. But the Birthplace of Frauds and Scams isn’t a nickname to be envied. According to an FTC Data Spotlight , reports from consumers suggest that in many instances, that’s becoming a moniker for social media. The Data Spotlight reveals that the most frequently reported losses to fraud in social media in the first half of 2023 were from people who tried to buy something. Many of those scams started with an ad on Facebook or Instagram. Consumers recounted stories of undelivered merchandise and lost money – no-show clothes and electronics topped the list – but that’s not the only way that scammers are using social media to sting people.   Image In the first half of 2023, more than 50% of the money consumers reported losing to fraud in social media went to investment scammers. A typical modus operandi may involve money-making promotions for purported investment opportunities, often using cryptocurrency as the hook. Scammers lure people to websites or apps with their own supposed “success stories,” but consumers ultimately end up empty-handed and with empty wallets. According to the Data Spotlight , romance scams are another source of major financial losses facilitated through social media. In the first six months of 2023, half of the people who reported losing money to an online romance scam said it began through Facebook, Instagram, or Snapchat. The FTC has advice your can share with colleagues, friends, and family. Limit who can see your posts and information on social media. All platforms collect information about you from your social media activities, but visit your privacy settings to set some restrictions. Did you get a message from a friend claiming they need money ASAP or they have a can’t-miss investment opportunity to share? There’s a good chance their account has been hacked. If they ask you to pay with cryptocurrency, a gift card, or a wire transfer, it’s a solid bet a scammer is behind the message, not someone you know. Of course, every now and then you hear about a great love story that began online. But we need to talk more about the tales that don’t end so happily. The FTC has advice on how to spot a romance scam . Why should businesses care about scammers’ use of social media advertising? Because no reputable retailer wants its marketing messages tarnished by the proximity to fraud. If you spot a scam or a questionable business practice, report it to the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov .","title":"Data Spotlight reveals what’s behind some of those social media ads","id":3182206},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/01/less-meets-eye","title":"Less than meets the eye?","id":3182207,"description":"Less than meets the eye? wfg-adm109 January 23, 2014 | 12:32PM Less than meets the eye? By Lesley Fair When an ad purports to show a “right before your eyes” demonstration of a product in action, the visual must be a truthful representation of what it can do.  If that’s not the case, both the advertiser and the ad agency can find themselves in law enforcement quicksand.  That may have been news to Don Draper and his colleagues at Sterling Cooper in the early 60s, but it’s been a well-established legal tenet since then.  The FTC’s complaint against Nissan North America and its ad agency, TBWA Worldwide , challenges an allegedly deceptive depiction of a Nissan Frontier’s ability to push a dune buggy up a steep incline.  When it comes to demonstrations that misrepresent how a product will perform, the law draws a line in the sand that savvy advertisers would be wary of crossing. The ad in question was an eye-popper.  A dune buggy struggled to conquer a sand dune worthy of Lawrence of Arabia.  A male onlooker – with apologies to “Big Lebowski” fans, let’s call him The Dude – stood in the foreground.  As the dune buggy spun its wheels, The Dude yelled to the driver, “Gun it, bro.”  Gun it bro did, but to no avail.  Then out of nowhere, a Nissan Frontier appeared.  Not only did the pickup scale the steep hill with ease, but it pushed the stuck buggy up the dune, too. The ad ended with a narrator saying “The mid-size Nissan Frontier with full-size horsepower and torque.  Innovation for doers, innovation for all.” According to the FTC, the ad had the look of a YouTube-type video captured by a smartphone.  The audio picked up background chatter from amazed off-camera observers:  “What’s this guy doing?”  “Whoa, man.  No way.” “Go! Go! Go!” “Are you kidding?” “Did you guys see that?”  “Maniac!” Notwithstanding the astonishment of The Dude and his bros, here’s what the FTC says really happened.  First, both the truck and the buggy were dragged up the dune with cables.  In addition, the dune was made to appear much steeper than it was through the use of camera tricks.  According to the FTC’s complaint , it was a false representation because – we hate to break The Dude’s heart – the Nissan Frontier pickup can’t perform the feat shown in the ad. FTC law banning the use of deceptive demonstrations dates back to a 1961 decision upheld by the Supreme Court.  In that case, the commercial appeared to show a razor easily shaving sandpaper that had been softened with the advertiser’s shaving cream – except that the shaving cream wasn’t capable of softening sandpaper as shown.  (The “sandpaper” actually turned out to be a sheet of plexiglass sprinkled with sand.)  This meant that the company’s purported “demonstration” of how the shaving cream would soften a rough beard was deceptive because it misleadingly depicted how the product would perform.  The FTC's settlement with Nissan reflects that same legal principle. Here’s another point for advertisers to ponder.  In the first three seconds of the Nissan ad, the phrase “Fictionalization.  Do not attempt.” appeared on the screen.  Clearly, the FTC didn’t think that was effective to undo the misimpression that people were watching a real Nissan pickup in action.  Of course, the effectiveness of disclosures is a fact-specific analysis, but it shouldn’t surprise experienced marketers that a fleeting superscript in white letters against a sand dune didn’t meet the FTC’s “clear and conspicuous” standard.  While we’re on the subject, leading off with the six-syllable word \"fictionalization\" – the meaning of which wasn’t entirely"},{"description":"FTC and Colorado AG: Infomercial pitchman's promissory promises not premised on truth wfg-adm109 July 31, 2013 | 12:08PM FTC and Colorado AG: Infomercial pitchman's promissory promises not premised on truth By Lesley Fair According to the ubiquitous infomercials, to rake in the big bucks with Russell Dalbey’s “wealth-building” programs, all you had to do was “Find ‘Em,” “List ‘Em,” and “Make Money\" — the “‘Em” being seller-financed promissory notes.  The pitch was convincing to the close to one million people who bought the programs.  But according to the FTC and Colorado AG, the defendants’ claims of quick and easy money were deceptive. The case just settled with a stipulated order that imposes far-reaching bans that will end Dalbey’s infomercial, telemarketing, and business opportunity days forever. People who watched a lot (or even a little) late night TV couldn’t miss Dalbey’s overhyped claims.  On one infomercial — which ran tens of thousands of times — Dalbey said, “The truth is anyone can make a ton of money or even become a millionaire and you don’t need money or college or even talent to do it.”  Purported users of his “system” supposedly earned “$1.2 million in 30 days,” “$79,000 in a few hours,” and “$262,216 part time.”  But according to the FTC and AG, claims conveyed through testimonials were at best atypical and often were flat-out false. The deception didn’t end there.  Even after people shelled out between $40 and $160 on the initial program, telemarketers pursued them to pay hundreds or even thousands more for additional stuff, like seminars, coaching sessions, and lead lists.  But no matter how large the investment, the FTC says very few people made any money, let alone the kind of money Dalbey promised.  The infomercials may have been called “Winning in the Cash Flow Business,” but the vast majority of Dalbey’s customers lost out. Among other things, the settlement bans Russell Dalbey and Catherine Dalbey, who also was active in the companies, for life from telemarketing, from marketing or selling business opportunities, and from producing or distributing infomercials. The Dalbeys also must disclose their assets in sworn financial statements, repatriate all foreign assets, and cooperate fully as the FTC and Colorado AG’s office determine how much of the $330 million judgment the Dalbeys can pay.  Under a separate stipulated order with Russell Dalbey’s three companies — DEI, LLLP; Dalbey Education Institute, LLC; and IPME, LLLP — the companies will be liable along with the Dalbeys for the $330 million.  The three companies, which ceased operations shortly after the FTC and Colorado AG's complaint, filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions in 2011. What’s the best advice for people thinking about buying a business opportunity or money-making “system”? 1.  Follow the example of the best-run businesses and convene your own personal “board of directors.”  Successful entrepreneurs don’t make a move without consulting trusted advisors.  Before investing in a business opportunity or paying for a system or seminar, run the proposal past people in your inner circle with a track record of business know-how. 2.  Consider tips from the FTC about how to spot a questionable money-making offer.  Steer clear of any pitch that sounds even vaguely like one already challenged by law enforcers as deceptive .","id":3182208,"title":"FTC and Colorado AG: Infomercial pitchman's promissory promises not premised on truth","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/07/ftc-colorado-ag-infomercial-pitchmans-promissory-promises-not-premised-truth"},{"description":"Cybersecurity for small business: Email authentication lfair February 8, 2019 | 2:34PM Cybersecurity for small business: Email authentication By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection As a business person, you know about phishing, of course. At first glance, the email looks like it comes from a recognized company, complete with a familiar logo, slogan, and URL. But it’s really from a cyber crook trying to con consumers out of account numbers, passwords, or cash. In addition to the serious injury these scams inflict on consumers, there’s another victim of phishing: the reputable business whose good name was stolen by the scammer. Fraudsters don’t just masquerade as global financial institutions or industry giants. They impersonate small businesses, too. But there is good news on the fraud-fighting front. There are steps you can take to make it harder for scammers to send phishing emails that look like they’re coming from your company. Tech types use the phrase “email authentication” to refer to tools that work behind the scenes to help a server verify that a message that says it’s from yourbusiness.com really is from you. Those tools also will block messages or send them to a quarantine folder if they bear the telltale signs of a phishing attempt. When we sat down with small businesses to see how we can help your cybersecurity efforts, you asked for more information about email authentication. The FTC’s Cybersecurity for Small Business campaign features new resources designed to fill that need. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT EMAIL AUTHENTICATION Some web host providers let you set up your company’s business email using your domain name. In other words, if your domain name is yourbusiness.com , your email will be name[at]yourbusiness.com . Without email authentication, scammers can use your domain name to send emails that look like they’re from your business. To foil their efforts, make sure your email provider uses these three email authentication tools. SPF (Sender Policy Framework).  SPF lets you choose specific IP addresses that are authorized to send emails using your domain. When a receiving server gets an email from name[at]yourbusiness.com , it will check to see if the sending server is on that approved list. If it is, the receiving server lets the message through. If it isn’t, the email can be flagged as suspicious. DKIM (Domain Keys Identified Mail).   DKIM puts a digital signature on your outgoing mail. Receiving servers can use it to verify that a message from your domain was actually sent from your company’s server and didn’t make any questionable detours in transit. DMARC (Domain-based Message Authentication Reporting & Conformance).   DMARC is the essential third tool for email authentication. SPF and DKIM verify the address the server uses behind the scenes. DMARC verifies that it matches the “from” address the recipient will see. DMARC plays another key role. It lets you tell servers what to do if they get an email that looks like it came from your domain, but based on SFP and DKIM, they have reason to be suspicious. You can have other servers reject the email, flag it as spam, or take no action. You also can set up DMARC to notify you when this happens. It can take some know-how to get SPF, DKIM, and DMARC up and running so they work as intended and don’t block legitimate emails. If you’re not sure you have the expertise, have your email hosting provider set them up. If they balk – or if they don’t include those fundamental protection tools in their service agreement – consider taking your business elsewhere. WHAT TO DO IF YOUR EMAIL IS SPOOFED If your email authentication tools are operating on all cylinders, you’ll get a notice if someone spoofs your email. Here’s how to respond: Report the scam.  Contact local law enforcement, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center at IC3.gov , and the FTC at FTC.gov/Complaint . Forward","id":3182200,"title":"Cybersecurity for small business: Email authentication","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/cybersecurity-small-business-email-authentication"},{"description":"So proudly we hail: Maryland federal prosecutors honored with FTC award lfair October 5, 2018 | 1:43PM So proudly we hail: Maryland federal prosecutors honored with FTC award By Lesley Fair Laidlaw v. Organ was an 1817 Supreme Court case concerning an allegedly deceptive trade practice affecting a small business. You may be surprised to learn who argued that case and why it’s relevant 201 years later. Counsel for one of the businesses was a young Maryland attorney named Francis Scott Key. Yes, that Francis Scott Key. After the defense of Fort McHenry inspired him to pen The Star-Spangled Banner , he returned to his law practice and later became a United States Attorney. Today the FTC presented its Criminal Liaison Unit Prosecuting Attorney Award to Sean R. Delaney and Harry M. Gruber, Assistant United States Attorneys with the Office of the United States Attorney in Maryland. And if you can manage another coincidence, AUSAs Delaney and Gruber received the award for their efforts to bring to justice nine individuals charged with fraudulent practices that targeted small businesses. In this case, the defendants bilked offices, nonprofits, churches, and schools out of more than $50 million by sending them unordered supplies and then using arm-twisting tactics to demand payment. That scammy strategy should sound familiar. The FTC had previously taken action against several of the defendants and their companies in FTC v. Midway Industries . That case resulted in permanent injunctions, a $44 million judgment against one defendant, and a $58 million judgment against the rest of the lot. The FTC intends to return funds it collects to the defendants’ victims. (We also have a brochure with tips on protecting your small business from B2B scams.) With Mr. Delaney and Mr. Gruber serving as counsel, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland obtained guilty pleas to multiple fraud-related crimes from nine criminal defendants involved in the scam the FTC had challenged civilly. The defendants received varying sentences, with Eric A. Epstein sentenced more than 11 years in prison. Every two years the FTC presents the Criminal Liaison Unit (CLU) Prosecuting Attorney Award to recognize prosecutors who demonstrate an exceptional commitment to consumer protection in partnership with the FTC. Since its inception in 2003, CLU has contributed to the successful criminal prosecution of hundreds of fraudulent telemarketers, phantom debt collectors, mortgage relief scammers, and others con artists who prey on American consumers. One footnote: Despite Francis Scott Key’s efforts, the Laidlaw case ultimately resulted in a remand. But thanks to Mr. Delaney and Mr. Gruber, justice prevailed in this 21st century challenge to deceptive practices targeting small business. And for that, so proudly we hail our 2018 CLU Prosecuting Attorney Award honorees.","id":3182201,"title":"So proudly we hail: Maryland federal prosecutors honored with FTC award","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/10/so-proudly-we-hail-maryland-federal-prosecutors-honored-ftc-award"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2026/04/how-best-engage-bcp-be-economic-analysis-bcp-investigations","description":"How to best engage with BCP and BE on economic analysis in BCP investigations kkrown April 7, 2026 | 3:25PM How to best engage with BCP and BE on economic analysis in BCP investigations By Christopher G. Mufarrige I.  The Bureau of Consumer Protection prioritizes economic analysis. The FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) is committed to providing legal clarity to legitimate businesses that wish to deal honestly with their customers and comply with the law. Last year, I shared how to work most effectively with BCP staff if your business receives a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) , and the consequences that can result if businesses fail to cooperate. Now I’d like to address another integral part of responding to a BCP CID and engaging with BCP during an investigation: early and substantive engagement with BCP staff and, in cases in which the FTC is seeking monetary relief, the FTC’s Bureau of Economics (BE). Under Chairman Ferguson’s leadership, BCP continues to prioritize rigorous economic analysis in its consumer protection investigations. Economic analysis, including empirical analysis of potentially large quantities of data, has long played an important role in antitrust analysis and, under my leadership, will continue to play an important role in the Commission’s consumer protection enforcement decision-making. And that is for good reason: the Commission’s authorities are best administered when rigorous economic analysis is incorporated into its investigations. For example, BCP works closely with BE to develop theories and evidence of concrete injury. While some harms may be more difficult to quantify, it is still important to rely on the economic way of thinking to structure the analysis, clarify the framework of harm, and ensure that injury—even non-quantifiable injury—remains grounded in sound economic principles, as discussed during our recent workshop on consumer injuries and benefits in a data-driven economy. In coordination with BCP, BE recently expanded its guidance to businesses about the best practices for economic analysis and data submission during an FTC investigation to address consumer protection, and not just antitrust, investigations. II.  What you can expect from BCP and BE. If your business receives a CID and is under investigation in a case in which the FTC is seeking monetary relief, staff will endeavor to be as transparent as possible about their theories of economic harm. Given the preliminary stage of the investigation, however, in the typical matter BCP and BE staff will not be able to provide an estimate of economic harm in connection with issuance of a CID. That is because it is often the case that a CID is issued to determine whether law violations have occurred and in part to obtain facts or data from which BE can more fully evaluate potential economic harm.   In cases in which the FTC is seeking monetary relief, if you then receive a draft complaint and order as part of consent negotiations, BCP staff will endeavor to provide a clear, high-level summary of how we are evaluating economic harm, an estimate of the approximate harm, and a breakdown between redress and civil penalties, where applicable. In most instances, your business can expect staff to describe, at least in general form, the results of BE’s empirical analyses of BCP’s theories of liability. BCP staff will also seek to explain, at least in general form, why any proposed amount of civil penalties is legally appropriate under the relevant factors. In some cases, BCP or BE staff may propose additional empirical analyses that would be useful for your business to conduct, which could inform BCP’s decision-making. III.  What we expect from businesses. With increased transparency from BCP and BE, we expect transparent and forthright engagement from your business and, to the extent you hire them, your economic consultants. To start, a corollary to the transparency discussed above is your business’s fulsome production of data and","title":"How to best engage with BCP and BE on economic analysis in BCP investigations","id":3182202},{"id":3182203,"title":"FTC says consumers struck out by deceptive business “coaching” pitches","description":"FTC says consumers struck out by deceptive business “coaching” pitches lfair May 25, 2018 | 12:40PM FTC says consumers struck out by deceptive business “coaching” pitches By Lesley Fair Vision Solution Marketing and related defendants pitch services to prospective entrepreneurs and people looking to supplement their income. Among the defendants’ products is business “coaching” that sets people back as much as $13,995. But given the host of alleged misrepresentations cited in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Utah, the FTC says the defendants definitely aren’t playing on consumers’ team. The defendants’ telemarketing operations rely on leads supplied by other businesses in exchange for cash or a percentage of their sales. According to the FTC, the typical customer targeted by the defendants has already bought a questionable work-at-home program advertised online that also encourages buyers to contact an “expert consultant” or “specialist” to see if they qualify for an “advanced” program. Consumers are thrown another curve when the defendants then approach them about buying a business coaching program and later pitch them an additional suite of business services, like marketing plans and tax guidance. Many consumers were lured in with promises of big money. According to one of the defendants’ sales reps, the “expected range” of revenue for a new business was between $3,000 and $5,000 a month. What’s more, it’s a sure thing: “We don’t have any students we’ve built the business for that have ever failed. . . . [T]here’s literally no way to fail. As long as you have the right help, you’re going to be fine.” But the FTC says consumers who fork over their savings are left in circumstances that are anything but fine. In many cases, the pricey training the defendants offer consists primarily of basic information available for free online – like how to sell stuff on eBay. According to the lawsuit, most people who buy the defendants’ services earn next to nothing, with many ending up deep in debt. You’ll want to read the complaint for a behind-the-scenes look at the complex interrelationships that fuel operations like this. The lawsuit specifically charges that the defendants made misleading earnings claims, misrepresented the nature of their products and services, and committed multiple violations of the Telemarketing Sales Rule . In addition, the FTC alleges that the defendants tell prospective buyers they need detailed financial information to determine if the consumer qualifies for the coaching program. But according to the complaint, the defendants use those facts to figure out just how much they can charge the person for the purported coaching services. A federal judge entered stipulated Temporary Restraining Orders that freeze the defendants’ assets and prohibit them from selling business coaching services. But even at this preliminary stage, the case offers object lessons for prospective entrepreneurs or people interested in supplementing their income with a home-based business. Before shelling out for purported coaching services, consider close-to-home options that won’t cost you a penny. Approach successful business people in your community – for example, in your extended family, in local business associations, in alumni groups, or at your place of worship. Many people who have achieved success in the business world remember what it was like to be starting out and are willing to share their experience. In addition, consider free business mentoring and consulting programs offered by state offices, Small Business Development Centers affiliated with colleges in your area , and the federal Small Business Administration. (The SBA’s Local Assistance page lists programs in your community.) The FTC also has resources to help you ask the right questions before committing your cash to business opportunities or services.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/05/ftc-says-consumers-struck-out-deceptive-business-coaching-pitches"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/04/celebrating-impersonation-rule-helps-ftc-fight-scams","id":3182204,"title":"Celebrating the Impersonation Rule that helps the FTC fight scams","description":"Celebrating the Impersonation Rule that helps the FTC fight scams jensor April 7, 2025 | 7:54AM Celebrating the Impersonation Rule that helps the FTC fight scams By BCP Staff They say April showers bring May flowers. April also marks the one-year anniversary of the FTC’s Impersonation Rule, which gives the FTC more tools to fight impersonation scams that cost nearly $3 billion in reported losses during 2024. Impersonation scams hurt people and legitimate businesses. Here’s what the FTC is doing to fight these scams. Impersonators pretend to be someone they’re not to try to steal your money or personal information. Scammers might pose as a government entity or official and say you owe a fine or a toll. Or they may claim they’re from a well-known utility company, bank, or delivery services and say there’s something wrong with your account or package. Sometimes, they pretend to be from a known company offering tech support and ask you to call quickly to fix a problem or virus on your computer. These scams hurt the reputation of legitimate businesses and cause enormous financial harm to individuals.    Year after year, impersonation scams are one of the top frauds reported to the FTC. In 2024, the FTC received nearly 850,000 reports of imposter scams .  The Impersonation Rule gives the FTC more tools to fight these scams. Since the Rule went into effect, the FTC has filed multiple lawsuits against alleged impersonators , including phantom debt collectors and a scheme pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. The FTC has halted scammers that impersonated the FTC online — successfully asking domain registrars to shut down more than a dozen scam sites. These scam sites, for example, trick people who thought they were reporting fraud to the FTC into sending money or personal information to scammers. FTC staff has also sent letters to several operators of websites that sell IRS Employer Identification Number (“EIN”) filing services discussing conduct that may violate the FTC Act and the Impersonation Rule, such as making their websites look similar to the IRS’s tool for obtaining EINs for free. Here's advice to help your employees and customers steer clear of impersonation scams: Don’t give money or personal information to someone who contacts you unexpectedly.  If you’re not sure if a call or message is real, reach out to the business, organization, or person using contact information you looked up yourself and know to be true. Don’t trust your caller ID.  Your caller ID might show the name of a government agency or business, but caller ID can be faked. It could be anyone calling from anywhere in the world. Don’t click on links in unexpected emails, texts, or social media messages.  Scammers send emails and messages that look like they’re from a government agency or business, but they’re really designed to steal your money and personal information. Learn more about impersonation scams at ftc.gov/impersonators . And if you spot an impersonator, tell the FTC at ReportFraud.ftc.gov"},{"description":"DELIBERATION n° 412/6e L portant création d’un poste budgétaire et ouverture de crédits supplémentaire au budget du Service local, exercice","title":"DELIBERATION n° 412/6e L portant création d’un poste budgétaire et ouverture de crédits supplémentaire au budget du Service local, exercice 1967.","id":3181206,"link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/texte-juridique/deliberation-n-412-6e-l-portant-creation-dun-poste-budgetaire-et-ouverture-de-credits-supplementaire-au-budget-du-service-local-exercice-1967/"},{"title":"Arrêté n° 74-889/SG/IAM dit « Arrêté de péril». Prescrivant la démolition totale d’un immeuble présentant un danger pour la sécurité publique","id":3181207,"description":"Arrêté n° 74-889/SG/IAM dit « Arrêté de péril». Prescrivant la démolition totale d’un immeuble présentant un danger pour la sécurité","link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/texte-juridique/arrete-n-74-889-sg-iam-dit-arrete-de-peril-prescrivant-la-demolition-totale-dun-immeuble-presentant-un-danger-pour-la-securite-publique/"},{"description":"Décision n° 35-390-1929","title":"Décision n° 35-390-1929 Indemnités.","id":3181208,"link":"https://www.journalofficiel.dj/texte-juridique/decision-n-35-390-1929-indemnites/"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/06/bee-lieving-power-partnership","title":"Bee-lieving in the power of partnership","id":3181187,"description":"Bee-lieving in the power of partnership lfair June 14, 2019 | 4:57PM Bee-lieving in the power of partnership By Lesley Fair The state seal of Utah famously depicts a beehive, a symbol of industry and cooperation. Industry and cooperation also have been the hallmarks of the long-standing relationship between the FTC and the Utah Department of Commerce’s Division of Consumer Protection. That’s why we’re proud to announce that the Division is th e latest recipient of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Partner Award. Under the leadership of Francine Giani, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Commerce, and Daniel O’Bannon, Director of the Department’s Division of Consumer Protection, the Division has been a devoted champion for Utah’s consumers, advancing effective enforcement and outreach in their state. And they’ve been an invaluable partner with the FTC in furthering our shared enforcement and outreach initiatives. The list of their contributions is impressive: In 2015, the Division co-hosted a highly successful Common Ground conference, the Utah Consumer Protection Summit , in Salt Lake City that brought together more than 300 people to consider strategies for fighting fraud and scams. They co-sponsored a second Common Ground conference, a Consumer Fraud and Business Symposium , in 2018 that built on the success of the earlier event. As is appropriate for the Beehive State, both Common Ground conferences generated considerable public buzz. The Division shared its substantial expertise in helping the FTC bring cases to shut down promoters of “coaching” outfits, including Coaching Department , Vision Solution Marketing , Internet Teaching and Training , and Lift International . The Division made a major contribution to the FTC’s action challenging deceptive big-money claims made by Seller s Playbook . Like the beehive on their state seal, the Utah Department of Commerce’s Division of Consumer Protection is a hub of cooperative productivity. But like the residents of that hive, injure Utah consumers and these folks can sting. For what we’ve learned from our Utah colleagues and for what we’ve been able to achieve together, we’re honored to present them with the BCP Partner Award.  "},{"description":"3 tips from 3 FTC Consumer Review Fairness Act cases lfair May 8, 2019 | 10:21AM 3 tips from 3 FTC Consumer Review Fairness Act cases By Lesley Fair Their lines of work are as different as can be: an HVAC and electrical contractor, a flooring seller, and a company that takes people on horseback rides. But according to the FTC , they have one thing in common. They all violated the Consumer Review Fairness Act. Read on for details about the FTC’s first cases solely enforcing the CRFA, the form contract provisions the FTC says contravened the law, and tips for keeping your contracts CRFA-compliant. Passed unanimously in 2016, the Consumer Review Fairness Act makes it illegal for companies: 1) to use provisions in form contracts that restrict a consumer’s ability to communicate reviews or performance assessments about a seller’s goods, services, or conduct; or 2) to impose a penalty or fee against a consumer who engages in communications of that nature. You’ll want to read the three complaints for the specific contract provisions the FTC alleges violated the statute, but here are examples of what landed the proposed respondents on the CRFA radar screen. Pittsburgh-based A Waldron HVAC used a “confidentiality clause” in its form contracts that – among other things – imposed “the actual amount of damages suffered or two times the contract price” if a consumer told anyone about the terms of the contract. In addition, the clause provided that “Customer also agrees not to file any complaints with the Better Business Bureau.” National Floors Direct , a Massachusetts company, included a “non-disparagement” clause in its form contracts that imposed financial penalties “not to exceed three times the monetary value of this order, plus attorney’s fees” if consumers “publicly disparage or defame National Floors Direct in any way or through any medium.” Then there’s LVTR LLC , which consumers may know as Las Vegas Trail Riding. Among other things, their form contract included this provision: “I agree not to call Animal Control or any governmental agency or individuals if there is a discrepancy to how the horses/ animals or property are taken care of.” If consumers “report anything” or make contact with “any persons or agency,” the form contract said the company would assess “a minimum of $5,000 in damages” and hold them “responsible for all fines” and the cost of “our legal representation.” The three proposed administrative settlements include provisions to ensure CRFA compliance in the future. The agreements with A Waldron HVAC and National Floors Direct require them to notify customers by email or letter that the contract provisions challenged in the complaint are void. LVTR must post a web notice for one year announcing that its non-disparagement provision is void. Once the proposed settlements appear in the Federal Register, the FTC will accept public comments for 30 days. What can other companies do to stay within the CRFA? Review your form contracts. Has it been a minute since you’ve read your form contracts? What do they say about consumer reviews or other communications covered by the CRFA? And where did the language come from in the first place? If you haven’t given your contracts the once-over since the CRFA took effect on March 14, 2017, it’s time to take a closer look. Read Consumer Review Fairness Act: What Businesses Need to Know to review the basics. The FTC and states can enforce the CRFA whether or not a company follows through on its threats. You’ve probably seen press reports about companies that have tried to enforce illegal provisions against consumers. It’s not the kind of publicity any business wants. But it’s a mistake to think you’re in the clear if you include those provisions in form contracts, but haven’t followed through against consumers. The CRFA establishes that the","title":"3 tips from 3 FTC Consumer Review Fairness Act cases","id":3181188,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/05/3-tips-3-ftc-consumer-review-fairness-act-cases"},{"id":3181189,"title":"Largest FTC COPPA settlement requires Musical.ly to change its tune","description":"Largest FTC COPPA settlement requires Musical.ly to change its tune lfair February 27, 2019 | 12:57PM Largest FTC COPPA settlement requires Musical.ly to change its tune By Lesley Fair We’ll confess to singing along to a Stevie Nicks song or doing an air guitar solo when no one’s looking. But some people take their lip syncing to the next level. More than 200 million people – 65 million of them in the U.S. – downloaded the Musical.ly app. It gave users a platform to create videos and synchronize them with popular songs. It also allowed users to interact directly with each other. That may sound like fun for aficionados, but it raises concerns for parents, especially given public reports that adults have used the Musical.ly app to contact children. The FTC alleges Musical.ly violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule by collecting personal information from kids without parental consent. The $5.7 million civil penalty is the FTC’s largest ever under COPPA. To register for the Musical.ly app, users provided their email address, phone number, full name, username, a profile picture, and a short bio. For the first three years, Musical.ly didn’t ask for the user’s age. Since July 2017, the company has asked about age and prevents people who say the y’re under 13 from creating accounts. But Musical.ly didn’t go back and request age information for people who already had accounts. The online library for Musical.ly – now known as TikTok – features lots of tracks popular with tweens and younger children. Once users create videos, they can share them publicly. Other users can comment and “follow” them to see more of their videos. By default, users’ accounts were set to “public,” meaning others could see their bio (which may include their age or grade in school), their profile picture, and username. Users had the option to set their accounts so that only approved followers could see their videos, but even then their bios, pictures, and usernames remained public and searchable. By default, the app also let users send direct messages to any other user. Until October 2016, the app included a “my city” tab that gave people a list of other users within a 50-mile radius. That’s how Musical.ly worked, so let’s turn to the operation of COPPA. The Rule applies to operators of websites and online services that: 1) are directed to children and collect personal information from them, or 2) are directed to a general audience, but have actual knowledge they’re collecting personal information from kids. If the site or service meets either definition, COPPA requires them – among other things – to get parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13. The FTC’s complaint alleges Musical.ly was covered under both standards. First, the FTC says Musical.ly met COPPA’s definition of a site “directed to children.” How does the agency make that determination? According to Section 312.2 of the Rule, data about audience composition is an important factor and in this case, the evidence suggested that a significant percentage of Musical.ly users were under 13. In fact, multiple press articles between 2016 and 2018 highlighted the popularity of the app among tweens and younger kids. The Rule lists additional factors like subject matter, visual content, music, and the presence of child celebrities or celebrities who appeal to kids . You’ll want to read the complaint for the details, but the FTC also cited Musical.ly song folders with titles like “Disney” (featuring music from movies like Toy Story and The Lion King ) and “school” (featuring songs about school-related subjects or school-themed TV shows and movies). In addition, the complaint mentions the colorful emojis users could send to each other – cute animals, smiley faces, and the like . Second, the complaint alleges that Musical.ly had actual knowledge the company","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/largest-ftc-coppa-settlement-requires-musically-change-its-tune"},{"title":"Share cybersecurity resources with non-profits in your community","id":3181190,"description":"Share cybersecurity resources with non-profits in your community lfair October 25, 2018 | 10:08AM Share cybersecurity resources with non-profits in your community By Rosario Méndez Do you work for a non-profit? Or maybe you’re on the board of a charity or active in a professional or service organization in your community. If so, you know the group collects all sorts of private information, including details about members or people you serve and financial information related to donors. Your own personal information, too, is probably in the group’s records of employees and volunteers. Cyber criminals would love to get their hands on that data. You can help protect the organization by implementing the same common-sense principles that security-centric executives are using at businesses across the country. And a good source for to-the-point advice is at FTC.gov/Cybersecurity . At FTC.gov/Cybersecurity you’ll find resources on 12 different topics, including cyber scams like ransomware and phishing , key considerations like physical security and vendor security , and technical guidance on things like email authentication . The new materials reflect the FTC’s experience in the area of data security, privacy protection, and scam prevention, and also reflect the know-how of the SBA, NIST, and Department of Homeland Security. The resources are designed for small businesses, but the same tips and information apply to charities and other non-profits. The bedrock principle is that if any group – including non-profits – collects information about people, they should protect it. Imagine if donors’ credit cards are exposed because of a phishing scheme, or if the network gets blocked by a ransomware attack. That can be devastating not just for the organization and leaders like you, but also for the communities that rely on the group’s services. To help protect the organization’s network and data, make cybersecurity part of the everyday routine. You can start with these basic cybersecurity tips: Use security software and set it to update automatically. Back up important files offline, on an external drive or in the cloud. Encourage the organization to have policies covering basic cybersecurity and to train employees and volunteers on those policies. Visit www.FTC.gov/Cybersecurity and share the fact sheet, quizzes and videos with your","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/10/share-cybersecurity-resources-non-profits-your-community"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/07/military-consumer-month-armed-knowledge","description":"Military Consumer Month: Armed with knowledge lfair July 3, 2018 | 10:38AM Military Consumer Month: Armed with knowledge By Carol Kando-Pineda About 1.3 million Americans are active duty servicemembers. Another 800,000 are in the Reserves and nearly 20 million are military veterans. That means most companies are very likely to employ or do business with the military community. During Military Consumer Month, you can help the FTC and our partners empower military personnel and their families to avoid crooks. This year’s focus is on fighting imposter scams. That’s when con artists disguise their true identity and pretend to be someone you trust, to convince you to send money or personal information. The scam can take many forms. Imposters may say they’re calling from the government or from a business with technical support expertise. Other scammers lure unsuspecting victims by posing as legitimate users of online dating sites, or say that there’s an emergency with a friend or family member. According to the FTC’s most recent data , military consumers reported losing more than $25 million to imposter scams last year, with a median loss of $699 – higher than the $500 median loss reported by the general population. Every week, MilitaryConsumer.gov will post tips about how to spot different kinds of imposter scams. Share them with your networks. Encourage your friends and colleagues to follow Military Consumer on Facebook and Twitter . Watch for dates and times of upcoming social media chats with the Department of Defense and other military partners – and help us spread the word about","title":"Military Consumer Month: Armed with knowledge","id":3181191},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/08/auto-dealer-interested-safeguards-rule-ftc-has-some-faqs-you","description":"Auto Dealer? Interested in the Safeguards Rule? The FTC has some FAQs for you kkrown August 13, 2025 | 10:03AM Auto Dealer? Interested in the Safeguards Rule? The FTC has some FAQs for you If you’re a regular reader of this blog, or you’re someone tuned in to how financial institutions are required to maintain safeguards to protect their customers’ information, you might already know about the FTC’s Safeguards Rule and what businesses need to know . Those in the know know that the Safeguards Rule generally applies to any financial institutions under the FTC’s jurisdiction. But auto dealers are the only financial institutions who also fall under the FTC’s Privacy Rule . The FTC recently released a set of Frequently Asked Questions to help auto dealers comply with the FTC’s amended Safeguards Rule. This FAQ walks you through big-picture questions about the Safeguards Rule, including: What does the Safeguards Rule require auto dealers to do? What auto dealers does the Safeguards Rule apply to? What kind of customer information does the Safeguards Rule cover? You’ll also find some hypotheticals specific to auto dealer-related situations. For example: How the Safeguards Rule applies to auto dealers’ relationships with the OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers). How the Safeguards Rule requirements differ from those of the Privacy Rule. What to keep in mind if auto dealers use one combined database to store all the information about people who come into their dealership. There’s much more in the new FAQs, as well as the earlier, general publication, FTC Safeguards Rule: What Your Business Needs to Know . These publications can help auto dealers understand both the amended Safeguards Rule and how it applies to your business – so please check them","id":3181192,"title":"Auto Dealer? Interested in the Safeguards Rule? The FTC has some FAQs for you"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/ftc-says-kohls-didnt-honor-rights-identity-theft-victims","title":"FTC says Kohl’s didn’t honor rights of identity theft victims","id":3181183,"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/2020/04/first-ftc-coronavirus-lawsuit-alleges-company-lured-consumers-false-sba-connection","description":"First FTC coronavirus lawsuit alleges company lured consumers with false SBA connection lfair April 17, 2020 | 3:21PM First FTC coronavirus lawsuit alleges company lured consumers with false SBA connection By Lesley Fair The COVID-19 crisis has many small businesses on the ropes, so it’s unfortunate we have to warn them about another threat. According to a lawsuit just filed by the FTC , a Rhode Island company that goes by the name “SBA Loan Program” has been soliciting applications from small businesses, but has no affiliation with the U.S. Small Business Administration and the loan programs that agency is currently running. Under the CARES Act, eligible small businesses can apply for loans under a temporary SBA program called PPP – the Paycheck Protection Program. The loans can be made only by lenders authorized by the SBA. Let’s repeat the most important fact: Defendants Ponte Investments, LLC, and John C. Ponte are not authorized by the SBA to make loans under the CARES Act. And yet despite that, the FTC says the defendants have contacted people, claiming to be calling from SBA or saying things like “We are the SBALoanProgram.com and as mandated by the SBA, getting approved is easier than ever!” The complaint alleges the defendants also are luring consumers in through the URL SBALoanProgram.com. Visitors to that site immediately get a pop-up that says “CARES Act Paycheck Protection Program.” This pop-up has also told some visitors “WE ARE A DIRECT LENDER FOR THE PPP LOAN PROGRAM!” The site continues, “Can’t get your bank to answer the phone? Get the personal attention you need. Our staff are here to help.” Clicking on “Apply Here” takes consumers to an online application that says in big letters “CARES Act Paycheck Protection Program” and has also told some consumers “We are a Direct Lender for the Payment Protection Program.” At the very bottom of the page, after the “Submit” button in faint grey print on a white background, it says this: “We are not the US Government. If you wish to apply for a Disaster Relief Loan follow this link to the SBA website www[dot]sba.gov/disaster. The Paycheck Protection Program is not provided by the SBA.” But even if a consumer sees that language – a big if, given how the defendants have designed the page – the FTC alleges it’s too little, too late. What’s more, the text still doesn’t disclose that SBA Loan Program isn’t authorized to make PPP loans, meaning that the fine print doesn’t correct the deceptive net impression the FTC says the defendants conveyed to consumers. According to the complaint , the SBA – the real SBA – has sent a cease and desist letter to SBA Loan Program. But SBA Loan Program has continued to claim it will make PPP loans and has encouraged consumers to submit applications. The  complaint charges the defendants with falsely claiming they’re affiliated with the Small Business Administration. But the injury to consumers extends far beyond that challenged claim. To date, more than 1.6 million small businesses that have applied through authorized lenders have received $349 billion in relief, meaning that the CARES Act funds available for PPP loans are now spoken for. The upshot: The hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of people who were led to apply on the defendants’ site could be out of luck, putting their businesses and employees in an even more precarious position. The case is pending in federal court in Rhode Island. What’s the word for small businesses? As you hang tough in the current economy, keep your guard up against outfits trying to make a bad situation even worse. Your go-to first source for SBA information now and for future developments should be the SBA’s Coronavirus Relief Options page . If someone calls or emails you out of the blue claiming to be from the SBA, suspect fraud. We want to hear about questionable coronavirus","title":"First FTC coronavirus lawsuit alleges company lured consumers with false SBA connection","id":3181184},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/01/null-voip-ftc-reminds-service-providers-letter-law","title":"Null and VoIP: FTC reminds service providers of the letter of the law","id":3181185,"description":"Null and VoIP: FTC reminds service providers of the letter of the law lfair January 30, 2020 | 11:23AM Null and VoIP: FTC reminds service providers of the letter of the law By Lesley Fair We usually wouldn ’ t suggest you read someone else ’ s mail, but FTC staff just sent letters to 19 providers of VoIP telephone services and the underlying message about the breadth of liability for consumer protection violations is relevant to other businesses. In many contexts, VoIP offers substantial benefits to consumers. But when it comes to robocalls and deceptive telemarketing pitches, VoIP can be a fraudster’s best friend. That’s because the technology allows scammers to blast out millions of illegal calls for very little money. Last month the FTC and Ohio Attorney General amended a pending lawsuit to name as a defendant VoIP service provider Globex , alleging it provided a company called Educare with the means to unleash an onslaught of illegal calls pitching bogus credit card interest rate reduction services. The FTC and AG say that Globex assisted and facilitated Educare’s underlying scheme, in violation of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and Ohio law. Although it’s the first time the FTC has brought claims like this against a VoIP service provider, it’s not a novel theory. The FTC has a long history of taking action against companies that grease the wheels for law breakers. For example, in 2018 the agency brought assisting and facilitating charges against technology companies that knowingly provided software and servers used by illegal robocallers, even though the companies didn’t contract directly with them. The case against Globex is ongoing, but a federal district court has already ruled against the defendants’ argument that the FTC lacks jurisdiction over VoIP. In addition to informing VoIP providers about the Globex action, FTC staff wants them to be aware of two other important points: the FTC Act’s broad prohibition on unfair and deceptive practices; and Section 310.3(b) of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which specifically prohibits “provid[ing] substantial assistance or support to a seller or telemarketer when that person or entity knows or consciously avoids knowing that the seller or telemarketer is engaged in any act or practice” that violates key provisions of the TSR. Examples include transmitting false Caller ID information, calling numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, or robocalling consumers without their express written permission. The letters to VoIP providers (and the FTC’s Complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule ) are long on specifics, citing key TSR provisions chapter and verse. But there is also an unmistakable big-picture point that extends far beyond VoIP: Assisting others’ law violations can have substantial legal and financial consequences.  "},{"id":3181186,"title":"Taking notice: Class action workshop starts soon","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","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/10/taking-notice-class-action-workshop-starts-soon"},{"description":"New date for FTC workshop on ticket sales lfair February 12, 2019 | 10:52AM New date for FTC workshop on ticket sales By Lesley Fair You won’t need a ticket, but you will need to mark your calendar for June 11, 2019 . That’s the new date for That’s the Ticket , an FTC workshop about online ticket sales. The workshop – originally scheduled for March – will explore the ticket sales marketplace, consider industry-wide advertising and pricing issues, and discuss ways to address deception beyond traditional law enforcement. Topics include ticket bots, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act ( BOTS Act ), the resale ticket market, disclosures of pricing and fees, and possible consumer confusion about search engine ads and websites of resellers. (The GAO has issued a report summarizing these issues.) Commissioner Slaughter will offer opening remarks. We’ll announce the rest of the agenda as the event draws nearer. The June 11th workshop – it’s free and open to the public – will be held at the FTC’s Constitution Center, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. Can’t make it to DC? We’ll webcast the event live.","id":3180456,"title":"New date for FTC workshop on ticket sales","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/new-date-ftc-workshop-ticket-sales"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/10/ftc-sues-american-immigration-center-claiming-false-government-affiliation","title":"FTC sues American Immigration Center for claiming false government affiliation","id":3180457,"description":"FTC sues American Immigration Center for claiming false government affiliation lfair October 16, 2018 | 12:16PM FTC sues American Immigration Center for claiming false government affiliation By Lesley Fair When the FTC warns consumers about government imposter scams, we’re usually referring to bogus calls that falsely claim to come from the IRS or some other official office. But as a case just announced by the FTC demonstrates, that’s not the only kind of false government affiliation that can deceive consumers. A $2.2 million settlement with American Immigration Center reminds other businesses of the dangers of conveying a misleading connection to a government agency. When consumers wanted to renew their green cards or apply for naturalization, where did they go? Online, of course, where they input terms like “USCIS,” “INS,” or “US Immigration” to search for the proper government site. According to the FTC, that’s how they ran across results with tag lines like “USCIS Forms – Easy Online Forms for Green Card & Citizenship.” A click took them to sites with the outward appearance of official government webpages. First, there were the URLs – usimmigration.us, uscitizenship.info, etc. Then there was the red, white, and blue color scheme, the Statue of Liberty, passports, and pictures of then-President Obama. What’s more, people looking for, say, Green Card Renewal Form I-90, saw links with the exact name of the relevant document. According to the FTC, people paid between $120 to $300 and input a substantial amount of personal information, all under the impression they were filing documents directly with a government agency. Except that they weren’t. Despite the appearance of those pages, consumers were actually on one of many commercial sites the defendants used to sell their “software wizard” to fill out government immigration forms. And the money consumers paid didn’t go toward government filing fees. It went straight into the defendants’ pockets. In addition to the $2.2 million judgment, the defendants have agreed to clearly disclose that: 1) their sites aren’t affiliated with the government; 2) people must separately file immigration applications with the appropriate government agency; and 3) people must separately pay applicable filing fees to the government. The proposed order also bars the defendants – principal Cesare Alessandrini and Forms Direct, Inc., doing business as American Immigration Center – from stating or implying any affiliation with the government. What’s the message for other companies? Avoid an affiliation conflation. Look at your ads and websites from the point of view of your target audience. Could prospective customers be left with the misimpression that your company has an affiliation with a government agency? Steer clear of any purported connection to a local, state, or federal government office. Consider the big picture. The complaint in this case cited the words the defendants used to convey claims to consumers, as well as what their websites looked like. That’s because, according to the FTC Deception Policy Statement , “The Commission will evaluate the entire advertisement, transaction, or course of dealing in determining how reasonable consumers are likely to respond.” That specifically includes visual imagery and the omission of material information. Wise companies bear in mind the FTC’s long-established “net impression” standard and exercise caution in drafting their copy, selecting graphics, and choosing what they say – and what they don’t say – to consumers."},{"id":3180458,"title":"Protect your business from scams and online threats this National Small Business Week","description":"Protect your business from scams and online threats this National Small Business Week arayo May 1, 2026 | 2:58PM Protect your business from scams and online threats this National Small Business Week By BCP Staff Powered by vimeo embed video generator Share this video using the links in the player above or use the YouTube version . All week long, learn how the FTC can help you protect your small business from scams and online threats. Run a small business or want to support the small businesses in your community? Here’s how you can get involved. View and share the FTC’s videos for small businesses . Join in the #SmallBusinessWeek conversation on social media. Follow the FTC on  Facebook ,  Instagram , and  X at @FTC  to share graphics this week. Join one (or more) of these virtual events (and invite other small business owners to come too): National Small Business Week Virtual Summit | Tuesday, May 5 and Wednesday, May 6, 11am – 6pm ET Visit the FTC booth at the Small Business Administration’s Virtual Summit for free resources. Building Your Small Business Cybersecurity Team: From In-House to Outsourcing | Tuesday, May 5, 2pm ET Join the FTC and the National Institute for Standards and Technology for a webinar to learn how to help your small business manage and reduce cybersecurity risks. Small Business, Big Target: How to Avoid Small Business Scams | Wednesday, May 6, 2pm ET Learn about common scams affecting your small business at this webinar with the FTC, National Cybersecurity Alliance, and the Michigan Small Business Development Center. Librarians: Helping Small Business Patrons Avoid Scams | Thursday, May 7, 1pm ET Join the FTC and the Association of Bookmobile and Outreach Services for a webinar on how to protect small business owners from scams and online threats. Be sure to subscribe to the FTC’s Business Blog to keep up with the latest advice for businesses, and learn more at ftc.gov/SmallBusiness","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2026/05/protect-your-business-scams-online-threats-national-small-business-week"},{"description":"Protecting small businesses seeking financing during the pandemic lfair August 3, 2020 | 11:33AM Protecting small businesses seeking financing during the pandemic By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Small businesses are a critical part of the U.S. economy, providing opportunity and employment to consumers across the country. Unfortunately, the current health crisis has brought financial strain to small businesses and their ability to secure the financing they need to survive. So now more than ever, struggling businesses and their owners need protection from deceptive and unfair practices. And the FTC is working swiftly to provide it. Since the onset of the pandemic, we have taken enforcement actions and used other tools to stop financing providers and their marketers from targeting businesses with unlawful conduct. For example, today we announced a lawsuit against Yellowstone Capital , a merchant cash advance provider that we allege took unauthorized withdrawals from consumers’ bank accounts and made false claims about collateral, personal guarantees, and the cash amounts it provides. In recent months, we also have filed actions against two other operations targeting small businesses with alleged FTC Act violations: RCG Advances and Ponte Investments LLC (doing business as “SBA Loan Program”). Additionally, the FTC and Small Business Administration sent joint warning letters to advertisers for potentially misleading claims about their purported affiliation with the federal government or emergency loan programs created to protect businesses during the pandemic. The FTC’s enforcement efforts, as well as our 2019 Strictly Business forum on small business financing, offer some key takeaways for financing providers and the companies that work with them: Like other consumers, small businesses are protected under the FTC Act .  The FTC Act gives the agency broad authority to stop deceptive and unfair practices by companies involved in every step of the financing process, including lenders and finance providers, as well as marketers, independent sales organizations (ISOs), brokers, lead generators, servicers, and debt collectors. Don’t deceive consumers about the features or obligations of your financing products.   Our recent actions against Yellowstone and RCG allege that these merchant cash advance providers misrepresented key aspect of their products, including the funding amounts consumers would receive and requirements that small businesses provide collateral and personal guarantees. Similarly, you can’t make misleading claims about other important terms – like cost and payment amounts. Don’t mislead consumers about who you are or your association with government relief programs.   As is often the case when new government programs are rolled out, during the current crisis some marketers have deceptively touted their connection to these programs. Our pending action against the company doing business as SBA Loan Program alleges the defendants deceived small business consumers about their affiliation with the Small Business Administration and their authority to make Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Recent FTC-SBA warning letters raise similar concerns. Police your marketers and other agents.   Simply relying on intermediaries like ISOs, lead generators, brokers, servicers or debt collectors to market or service your products won’t shield you from liability. Instead, take steps to ensure your agents don’t engage in deception or other unlawful conduct. Vet them carefully, build compliance standards into your contracts, monitor their actions for warning signs of trouble (for example, consumer complaints), audit them, and enforce those contractual standards. The FTC’s action against CEC is a case in point. In an action against the operator of postsecondary schools, we pursued not only the schools for their direct role in marketing, but also for their alleged violations of the FTC Act resulting from the","title":"Protecting small businesses seeking financing during the pandemic","id":3180449,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/08/protecting-small-businesses-seeking-financing-during-pandemic"},{"title":"FTC says Bronx Honda discriminated against African-American and Hispanic consumers","id":3180450,"description":"FTC says Bronx Honda discriminated against African-American and Hispanic consumers lfair May 27, 2020 | 12:55PM FTC says Bronx Honda discriminated against African-American and Hispanic consumers By Lesley Fair The FTC’s complaint against Bronx Honda alleges the company jacked up what consumers had to pay by fabricating fees, inflating charges, and sneaking in stealth add-ons. The lawsuit also alleges the defendants discriminated against African-American and Hispanic consumers by charging them higher financing markups and fees, in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Reg B. The $1.5 million proposed settlement, which requires the company to implement a fair lending program that safeguards against discrimination, should serve as a reminder to other businesses that may be overdue for an ECOA compliance check. The FTC says the company’s deceptive advertising claims were just the start. According to the complaint, Bronx Honda advertised some vehicles with a “Was” price and a lower “Now” price. But in many instances, sales reps told consumers the “Now” price was in error and they’d have to pay more. In addition, the FTC says in numerous instances, the defendants falsely told consumers they had to pay bogus extra fees to buy or finance “Certified Pre-Owned Hondas.” In fact, Certified Pre-Owned Hondas are covered by the manufacturer’s seven-year, 100,000-mile warranty and American Honda Motor Corporation doesn’t allow dealerships to charge a separate fee for the warranty. The FTC says Bronx Honda also charged some consumers thousands more for “dealer prep,” “shop,” or “reconditioning” fees for Certified Pre-Owned Hondas, even though according to American Honda, that designation means the dealership has already “recondition[ed] any component that does not meet [the manufacturer’s] standards.” According to the complaint, Bronx Honda also overcharged consumers by dinging them for as much as $695 in documentation fees, an amount limited by New York law to no more than $75. In addition, the lawsuit alleges the defendants often gave consumers one figure for the agreed-upon total, but then inflated the price without the buyer’s knowledge in other documents – a practice Bronx Honda employees called “air money.” To cite just one example from the complaint , the FTC said Bronx Honda advertised a 2014 Certified Pre-Owned Honda CR-V Touring AWD for $28,354, but then piled on – among other things – a $1,995 “certification fee,” a $350 document processing fee, a $493 prep fee, and a $795 shop fee, purportedly for “brakes” and “repairs,” even though repairs to brakes and other components are performed as part of the manufacturer’s certification. You’ll also want to read the complaint to see how the FTC alleges the defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act and Reg Z by failing to clearly disclose required credit information and the annual percentage rate. Moving to the ECOA allegations, the FTC says Bronx Honda singled out African-American and Hispanic consumers for particularly pernicious practices by directing its employees to charge them higher interest rates and inflated fees. For example, the defendants arranged financing through third-party financing companies that provided Bronx Honda with a specific “buy rate,” a risk-based finance charge that reflected the interest rate at which the entity would finance a retail installment contract from the dealer. But according to the FTC, Bronx Honda had a discretionary pricing policy that allowed sales people to mark up interest rates and fees for consumers who financed their vehicles. Unlike the buy rate, that markup wasn’t based on the underwriting risk or credit characteristics of the applicant. Combine that practice with Bronx Honda’s alleged instructions to sales personnel to charge African-American and Hispanic consumers higher markups","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/05/ftc-says-bronx-honda-discriminated-against-african-american-hispanic-consumers"},{"title":"Joint letters take new steps to stop illegal Coronavirus robocalls","id":3180451,"description":"Joint letters take new steps to stop illegal Coronavirus robocalls lfair April 3, 2020 | 1:57PM Joint letters take new steps to stop illegal Coronavirus robocalls By Lesley Fair Consumers hate illegal robocalls. And as the thousands of reports pouring into the FTC indicate, they also hate robocalls that exploit concerns about Coronavirus. In recent months, the FTC has taken innovative steps to take on not only illegal robocallers, but also companies that “assist and facilitate” their conduct. Just last week, FTC staff sent warning letters to nine businesses that provide Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services or other assistance to some of the entities that may be behind the onslaught of bogus COVID-19 calls. Additional letters just went out that reflect unprecedented actions in the fight against fraud. Warning letters were sent to three VoIP providers: SIPJoin, Connexum, and VoIP Terminator d/b/a BLMarketing. According to the letters, investigations have revealed that these companies transmitted calls offering fraudulent COVID-19 home testing kits or claiming that HVAC cleaning services will help fight the virus. But two things are different from last week’s warning letters. First, these letters were signed by the FTC and the FCC. The other interesting development comes in the form of a new strategy aimed at muting the dissonant ring of illegal robocalls. As the letters make clear, the three companies that received the warnings have 48 hours to stop routing or transmitting harmful robocall traffic from their clients making those claims or they will face an unprecedented “or else.” If the three companies don’t comply, the FCC will authorize all other U.S. voice providers to block all calls from them and take all steps that may be needed to prevent further transmission of unlawful calls from those companies. The agencies added that they will evaluate whether further action is warranted against the recipients of the letters. An interesting aspect of that “or else” message relates to another letter sent by the two agencies – this one to telecommunications trade association USTelecom. The letter opens with a note of thanks to USTelecom’s Industry Traceback Group for promptly identifying fraudulent COVID-19 robocalls and lists companies and providers that appear to be responsible for illegal calls – businesses the Industry Traceback Group helped to name. The letter also lets USTelecom know that if the three companies don’t comply, the FCC will authorize U.S. providers to block all calls from those companies and to take steps to prevent further transmission of unlawful calls from them. The letter added, “[W]e encourage and expect providers to take an active role in managing their networks and client relationships to protect consumers from harmful, illegal robocalls and spoofed calls,” and again acknowledged the work of Industry Traceback Group, describing it as “essential to combating the deluge of unlawful robocalls and protecting consumers.” Joint action by the FTC and FCC demonstrates just how seriously the agencies take the scourge of Coronavirus robocalls, but the letters also show that other companies have a critical role to play in the ongoing fight. No self-respecting member of the voice service industry – or any other business – should want anything to do with scammers out to exploit Americans during a time of national crisis.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/04/joint-letters-take-new-steps-stop-illegal-coronavirus-robocalls"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/01/ftc-consumer-protection-year-review-offers-2020-vision-your-business","id":3180452,"title":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business","description":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business lfair January 8, 2020 | 9:26AM FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business By Lesley Fair They say hindsight is 20/20, but what about foresight? We’re not ones to prognosticate, but a look at notable FTC cases and initiatives from the past year suggests some topics likely to be top of mind in months to come. Here is a non-exhaustive list of issues in our 2019 rearview mirror and likely visible through the 2020 windshield. Consumer privacy. The FTC’s $5 billion enforcement action against Facebook made history and headlines, but the other notable part of the case is the monumental change the order mandates to Facebook’s privacy ecosystem. The Commission opinion in Cambridge Analytica reaffirms the proposition that like any other claim, a company’s privacy promises are viewed through the lens of established FTC consumer perception principles. A series of cases demonstrates the agency’s continued commitment to challenging false or misleading representations about businesses’ compliance with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework. Another important development is the FTC’s proposed settlement with Retina-X . It’s our first action against a marketer of stalking apps – software that allowed purchasers to monitor the mobile devices on which they’re installed, without users’ knowledge. COPPA. Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to ensure that when it comes to the collection of kids’ personal information online, parents are in the driver’s seat. The FTC settlement with YouTube – brought in conjunction with the New York Attorney General – alleges that the company collected kids’ personal data without parental consent, in violation of the COPPA Rule . The $170 million civil penalty broke the record for the largest remedy in an FTC COPPA case, set months before in our $5.7 million settlement with Musical.ly , now known as TikTok. If you’re a YouTube channel owner, read a special Business Blog post for tips on determining if your content is directed to children. Data security. Is your company honoring its data security promises and taking reasonable steps to safeguard the sensitive information in its possession? The FTC, CFPB, and State AG actions against Equifax illustrate how consumers are injured when companies ignore reasonably foreseeable threats. The settlement, which totals between $575 million and $700 million – also reminds businesses that heeding warnings about known risks is more prudent (and cost-effective) than the alternative. Three threads tie together the FTC’s unrelated actions against LightYear Dealer Technologies and InfoTrax Systems . They both sell management software to specific industries. They both allegedly failed to take reasonable steps to secure their networks, resulting in damaging data breaches. And they’re both covered by similar new orders the FTC has introduced in recent data security cases. If you or your clients are players in the Internet of Things, the settlement of the FTC’s litigation against connected device company D-Link sends an unmistakable message: The future of the IoT marketplace depends on secure software development. Endorsements, certifications, and influencers. Why is the FTC concerned about the accuracy of endorsements and certifications? Because they’re material to consumers. The FTC says Truly Organics’ claim that its personal care products were “certified organic” lathered up a double bubble of deception. First, its merchandise contained ingredients that weren’t organic. Second, the company falsely claimed that its products were certified by USDA’s National Organic Program. Other FTC developments focused on the use of endorsements in social media. The FTC’s action against Devumi alleges the company sold fake followers, phony subscribers, and bogus"},{"title":"Showcase your research at PrivacyCon 2020","id":3180453,"description":"Showcase your research at PrivacyCon 2020 lfair October 11, 2019 | 1:36PM Showcase your research at PrivacyCon 2020 By Lesley Fair How would we describe PrivacyCon 2020 ? Is it Burning Man without the flames? The New Orleans Jazz Festival – minus the jazz and the festival? The best way to know what PrivacyCon is all about is to mark your calendar for July 21, 2020, and attend the FTC’s fifth annual gathering of leading privacy researchers. And check out our Call for Presentations to see if PrivacyCon would be a good forum for your recent research. Like its four predecessors, PrivacyCon 2020 will consider the broad range of privacy and data security issues. But this time we’re also taking a deeper dive into the privacy of health information that is collected, stored, and transmitted by apps. We’re looking for experts who can summarize their current research in a 10-minute presentation, followed by a panel discussion applying those findings to questions of consumer protection law and policy. The Call for Presentations outlines the eligibility requirements and details the type of topics we hope to cover at PrivacyCon 2020. For consideration as a PrivacyCon presenter, apply by April 10, 2020. PrivacyCon 2020 will take place at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. It’s free and open to the public and we’ll webcast the event live. In the meantime, make plans to join leading privacy researchers in Washington on July 21st and consider submitting your research for discussion at PrivacyCon 2020.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/10/showcase-your-research-privacycon-2020"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/02/top-frauds-2018","id":3180454,"title":"Top frauds of 2018","description":"Top frauds of 2018 lfair February 28, 2019 | 12:21PM Top frauds of 2018 By Paul Witt, Supervising Data Analyst, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Every year, millions of consumers tell us – and our partners – about the frauds they spotted. In 2018, we heard from 3 million people and learned a lot from the reports entered into our Consumer Sentinel database . Here are some notable facts from the Consumer Sentinel Network’s 2018 Data Book – including that a new category of scams has earned the unenviable right to chant \"We’re #1.\" We collected more than 1.4 million fraud reports, and people said they lost money to the fraud in 25% of those reports. People reported losing $1.48 billion (with a “b” ) to fraud last year – an increase of 38% over 2017. The top reports in 2018 were: imposter scams, debt collection, and identity theft. Younger people reported losing money to fraud more often than older people. Let that sink in. It’s what the data have been telling us for a while, but it’s hard for people to grasp. Last year, of those people who reported fraud and their age, 43% of people in their 20s reported a loss to that fraud, while only 15% of people in their 70s did. When people in their 70s did lose money, the amount tended to be higher: their median loss was $751, compared to $400 for people in their 20s. Scammers like to get money by wire transfer – for a total of $423 million last year. That was the most of any payment method reported, but we also saw a surge of payments with gift and reload cards – a 95% increase in dollars paid to scammers last year. Tax-related identity theft was down last year (by 38%), but credit card fraud on new accounts was up 24%. In fact, misusing someone’s information to open a new credit card account was reported more often than other forms of identity theft in 2018. The top 3 states for fraud and other reports (per 100K population) are Florida, Georgia and Nevada. The top 3 states for identity theft reports (also per 100K) are Georgia, Nevada and California. The Consumer Sentinel Network ’s online database is available to more than 2,500 users in civil and criminal law enforcement agencies across the country and around the world. Agencies use the reports to research cases, identify victims, and track possible targets. Although non-governmental organizations may contribute data, only law enforcers can access the database. Check out what happened in your state. In fact, you can slice and dice the numbers yourself. And comment below if you find something interesting. Meanwhile, consumers should keep reporting to the FTC at ftc.gov/complaint . We use those reports to investigate and bring cases – and so do our thousands of law enforcement"},{"description":"i-Dressup and a data security mess-up lfair April 24, 2019 | 3:08PM i-Dressup and a data security mess-up By Lesley Fair Kids love to play dress-up, but parents wouldn’t want them rummaging through the attic or climbing to the top shelf of the wardrobe without permission and proper supervision. The i-Dressup.com website offered users – including children – a virtual way to play dress-up and design clothes without those potential dangers. But according to an FTC complaint, Unixiz, Inc. , the company behind i-Dressup, violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act in ways that created different kinds of risks. COPPA puts two separate sets of protections in place to help keep parents in control of personal information collected from their kids online. First, COPPA-covered companies must clearly disclose their information policies and get parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13. Second, companies must provide reasonable and appropriate security for the data they collect. According to an FTC settlement, i-Dressup fell short on both COPPA requirements. The complaint alleges i-Dressup failed to provide sufficient notice on its site of the information it collected online from kids, how it used it, its disclosure practices, and other specifics required by the COPPA Rule. The company’s direct notices to parents were deficient, too. Among other things, they didn’t include the COPPA-required statement that if parents don’t provide consent within a reasonable time, i-Dressup will delete their online contact information from its records. Stick with the story because that failure turned out to be particularly troubling. In addition to letting users play online games, i-Dressup featured a community where they could “explore their creativity and fashion sense with unique personal profiles” and interact with others. To register, i-Dressup required people to submit a user name, password, birthdate, and email address. If the birthdate indicated the person was under 13, the email field changed to “Parent’s Email.” Once the under-13 user filled in the required fields and clicked “Join Now,” i-Dressup collected the personal information and sent a message to the address entered into the Parent’s Email field. The person receiving the email could consent by clicking the “Activate Now!” button. However, if the parent didn’t give consent, i-Dressup retained the personal information it had collected from the child online. The FTC says the company’s failure to delete that information violated Section 312.5(c)(1) of the COPPA Rule. In addition to violating COPPA’s parental consent provisions, i-Dressup allegedly violated the Rule’s data security requirements . According to the FTC, i-Dressup stored and transmitted users’ personal information (including passwords) in plain text. In addition, the company failed to perform network vulnerability testing of its network, even for well-known threats like SQL attacks; it didn’t implement an intrusion detection and prevention system; and it didn’t monitor for potential security incidents. The upshot? The company learned that a hacker had gained entry to its network and accessed information about 2.1 million users, including approximately 245,000 users who indicated they were under 13. To settle the case , i-Dressup and its owners will pay a $35,000 civil penalty. They’re also prohibited from violating COPPA in the future, and can’t sell, share, or collect any personal information until they implement a comprehensive data security program and get independent biennial assessments. In addition, they’ll have to provide the FTC with an annual certification of compliance. The message for sites and operators covered by COPPA is that an effective system of parental consent is only the first step toward compliance. Section 312.8 of the COPPA Rule also requires you to “establish and maintain reasonable","title":"i-Dressup and a data security mess-up","id":3180455,"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/04/i-dressup-data-security-mess"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/12/oracle-java-se-case-serves-cuppa-caution","title":"Oracle Java SE case serves up a cuppa caution","id":3179734,"description":"Oracle Java SE case serves up a cuppa caution lfair December 21, 2015 | 11:37AM Oracle Java SE case serves up a cuppa caution By Lesley Fair When consumers updated Java SE, which has been installed on more than 850 million computers, Oracle Corporation promised “safe and secure access to the world of amazing Java content” and stated that the updates had “the latest . . . security improvements.” But according to a settlement just announced by the FTC , when it came to those security updates, Java SE was pouring decaf. Consumers use Java to do everything from playing online games to viewing 3D images. But one of the challenges facing Java SE users was that attackers closely monitored Oracle’s periodic security updates to figure out the weaknesses in earlier versions. The bad guys would then design malware – exploit kits – directed at soft spots in previous Java SE iterations. The results could be catastrophic for consumers. Attackers were known to install keystroke loggers to capture usernames and passwords. Next stop: a smash-and-grab with people’s credit card, bank, and PayPal accounts. But wouldn’t those Java SE security updates take care of the problem? You’d like to think so, but for some consumers, that’s not what happened. People weren’t told that Java SE updates automatically removed only the most recent version installed on the computer. They also didn’t know that updates wouldn’t remove any version released before a certain date. But according to the FTC, who did know, but wasn’t explaining the problem clearly? Oracle, that’s who. On an FAQ page, Oracle revealed that “old and unsupported versions of Java on your system present[] a serious security risk” and that “[u]ninstalling older versions of Java from your system ensures that Java applications will run with the most up-to-date security.” But there were two problems with that. First, in this context, “FAQ” may have been an inaccurate description because how frequently do typical consumers pour over pages like that? Second, even if consumers found that page – an iffy if – it still didn’t explain that the Java SE update process didn’t remove all older, insecure iterations of the software. What’s more, according to the FTC’s complaint , by 2011 Oracle knew its update process wasn’t sufficient to ensure that consumers could always remove all older, insecure versions. As one Oracle insider candidly observed, the “Java update mechanism is not aggressive enough or simply not working.” Yet, as the FTC alleges, Oracle continued to release security updates until as recently as August 2014 without disclosing that the updates may have left vulnerable Java SE versions untouched – and therefore open to attack. In light of the representations Oracle made, the FTC says the company’s failure to disclose was deceptive. The proposed order prohibits misrepresentations about the privacy or security of certain Oracle software. It also requires Oracle to ensure that Java SE’s update and installation screens tell consumers if certain older versions are on their computers and give them the option to delete them. Oracle also will have to notify affected consumers and walk them through how to fix the problem.   What should your company take from the case? First things first. Make sure you’ve corrected the problem on your own computers. The settlement requires Oracle to notify Java users about the vulnerability and provide tools to fix it. In the meantime, you have several options for removing old versions of Java SE. Follow the instructions on Oracle’s java.com/uninstall page or take one of these steps: Update to Java 8.   (For security reasons, install it directly through the Java.com website.); Use the uninstall tool on Java’s website; or Visit Oracle’s Help Resources for more options and information. There’s another lesson for businesses. For"},{"title":"FTC to glue company: Stick to established Made in USA principles","id":3179735,"description":"FTC to glue company: Stick to established Made in USA principles lfair October 19, 2016 | 10:07AM FTC to glue company: Stick to established Made in USA principles By Lesley Fair The phrase is only nine letters long, but for many consumers, it makes the difference between a product in the shopping basket and one left on the shelf. It’s “Made in USA” and the FTC just announced a settlement of its lawsuit against Chemence, Inc. , for misleading Made in USA claims. If your company makes similar representations, is it time for a compliance check? Georgia-based Chemence manufactures Kwik Fix, Hammer Tite, and Krylex Glues – fast-acting glues made with cyanoacrylate. The FTC sued Chemence in February 2016, alleging that the company’s “Made in USA” or “proudly made in the U.S.A.” claims for its cyanoacrylate glues suggested that the products were all, or virtually all, made in the United States. According to the FTC, when you look at the chemicals, including those essential to the glues’ function, 55% of the cost of the substances came from imports – rendering the company’s Made in USA claims misleading. The FTC also alleged that Chemence assisted others in deceiving consumers by distributing marketing materials to private-label sellers and third-party sites and storefronts that included misleading Made in USA claims. The settlement , which includes a $220,000 financial remedy, requires changes in how Chemence advertises its products. The order prohibits the company from making unqualified Made in USA claims for any product unless it can show that final assembly or processing – and all significant processing – take place in the United States, and that all or virtually all ingredients or components are made and sourced in the U.S. The order also prohibits Chemence from providing others with the means to make deceptive Made in USA claims about its products. What about qualified claims? Under the order, which was filed in federal court in Cleveland, Chemence may make qualified Made in USA claims only if those representations include clear and conspicuous disclosures about the extent to which the products contain foreign parts, ingredients, or processing. Does your company make Made in USA claims on products or packaging, in ads, on your website, or in marketing materials? Read the FTC’s Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims for compliance guidance.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/10/ftc-glue-company-stick-established-made-usa-principles"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/09/lessons-ftcs-lenovo-case-pay-attention-man-middle","description":"Lessons from FTC’s Lenovo case: Pay attention to the man in the middle lfair September 5, 2017 | 10:16AM Lessons from FTC’s Lenovo case: Pay attention to the man in the middle By Lesley Fair The Wizard of Oz was right: “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” That’s because according to an FTC settlement , computer company Lenovo should have been paying attention to the “man in the middle.” In this case, the “man in the middle” was preloaded ad-injecting software that put consumers’ personal information at risk from harmful man-in-the-middle attacks. When people first browsed a shopping site with their new Lenovo computers, they got a one-time pop-up notice that said, “Explore shopping with VisualDiscovery: Your browser is enabled with VisualDiscovery which lets you discover visually similar products and best prices while you shop.” What was VisualDiscovery? It was adware customized to Lenovo’s specifications by Palo Alto developer Superfish. And what did VisualDiscovery do? Anytime a consumer hovered over a product image on a shopping site, VisualDiscovery would deliver pop-up ads of similar looking products sold by Superfish’s retail partners. But that’s not all. At Lenovo’s direction, Superfish modified VisualDiscovery so it would work on all browsers, including browsers that consumers installed after purchase. To do that, the software incorporated a tool that compromised security precautions used by sites with encrypted connections. (Consumers recognize an encrypted connection by the “s” in the http s :// URL.) You’ll want to read the complaint for details, but here’s the shorthand version of why that proved to be a fateful decision. Https:// websites use digital certificates as a form of electronic credentials that are presented to consumers’ browsers to help verify that the site is authentic and not an imposter. VisualDiscovery, however, replaced the digital certificates for https:// websites with its own certificates. The software’s certificates tricked both the site and the browser into believing there was a direct, encrypted connection when, in fact, the software was setting itself up as a man-in-the-middle. That gave the software access to all the sensitive information a consumer transmitted over the internet, including on encrypted sites. What’s more, the software sent to Superfish the URLs of sites consumers visited, IP addresses, and a unique identifier assigned to each laptop. And all that happened without consumers’ knowledge or consent. The complaint alleges that the software’s man-in-the-middle status created two serious security vulnerabilities. First, when a consumer visits a site with an untrusted connection – for example, one where hackers can intercept sensitive data – the consumer should get a warning. But all that finagling with the certificates meant that consumers didn’t get the usual alert, thereby putting their data at risk and rendering useless a fundamental form of protection offered by browsers. The software created an additional risk that put consumers’ personal data in harm’s way. To facilitate the desired functionality, Superfish licensed a tool from a third party. Rather than using a unique password for each laptop, the tool used the same private encryption key with the same easy-to-guess password on every laptop installed with VisualDiscovery. Once the bad guys cracked the password, they could target all Lenovo owners with VisualDiscovery installed on their laptops with man-in-the-middle attacks to intercept highly sensitive information like Social Security and account numbers, medical data, login credentials, and email. The vulnerability also made it easier for attackers to trick consumers into downloading malware onto any affected Lenovo laptop. Just how easy was the password to crack? It was the name of the company that sold the tool, a choice so obvious that security researchers were able to","title":"Lessons from FTC’s Lenovo case: Pay attention to the man in the middle","id":3179736},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/03/zero-sum-game","description":"Zero sum game? jonmorgan March 21, 2014 | 10:36AM Zero sum game? By Lesley Fair For people in the market for a car, an ad on YouTube for Massachusetts-based Courtesy Auto Group featured some eye-catching numbers:  “Get behind the wheel of the new 2013 Kia Sorento, now lease priced for $239 a month with zero down, or sale priced at $20,980.”  To emphasize the point, the visual on the screen highlighted in bold letters: $239/mo with $0 down But it’s what came later that led to an FTC lawsuit – and the tenth settlement with a dealership to emerge from the agency’s Operation Steer Clear . Consumers looking at Courtesy's video had to take out their magnifying glasses and brush up on their speed-reading skills because the end of the ad featured 33 lines of small, blurry text that scrolled down the screen with the pedal to the metal.  We won’t make you parse through all 380 words, but here’s just a sample: . . . Sorento:  Priced with all applicable Manufacturer rebates and incentives.  Does not include tax, title, acquisition, registration or doc fees. Soul: APR financing available, subject to credit approval by Kia Motors Finance (KMF) [Hyundai Motor Finance (HMF) in Massachusetts and D.C.], through KMF/HMK, to very well qualified buyers and not available on balloon financing. Only a limited number of buyers will qualify for advertised APR. Downpayment will vary depending on APR. . . . Image How’s that for crystal clear?   To give an example of where the FTC said the ad ran off the road:  The phrase “acquisition” fee hid an additional charge, which the dealership later represented to be $595 – meaning that to drive off the lot at lease inception, people would have to pay a lot more than the advertised “$0 down.”  And that’s not all.  The lawsuit cited other instances where Courtesy prominently touted “zero down” leases with fixed monthly payments, but then dinged people with hidden fees. The FTC’s complaint alleged that Courtesy’s ads misrepresented the amount due at lease inception, in violation of the FTC Act.  The complaint also charged that the company failed to include information required by the Consumer Leasing Act (CLA) and Reg M.  (Dealers will want to consult the complaint for specifics.) Although the case initially went into litigation, the company has agreed to a settlement that will change its practices from here on in.  The proposed order bans ads that misrepresent the cost of leasing, financing, or buying a vehicle, or make any other material misrepresentations about price, sale, financing, or leasing.  Among other things, Courtesy Auto is prohibited from stating the amount of a payment – or that any or no payment is required at lease inception – without clearly disclosing the terms required by the CLA.  The FTC is accepting comments about the settlement until April 21, 2014. What can dealers learn from Operation Steer Clear?  OK, we’re quoting ourselves here, but what the headline giveth, the footnote – or superscript or dense block of text or any other hard-to-find or hard-to-read statement – can’t taketh away.  That’s a bedrock FTC legal principle that applies across the board, including to car ads.  In addition, it may be time to take your ads in for a CLA tune-up.  Are you disclosing lease information required by the law?  Read Advertising Consumer Leases for compliance","title":"Zero sum game?","id":3179728},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/12/risky-business","description":"Risky business wfg-adm109 December 19, 2013 | 3:07PM Risky business By Lesley Fair No one is sliding across the living room floor in shades lip synching to Bob Seger, but violating the FTC’s Risk-Based Pricing Rule is risky business nonetheless. That’s the message of the FTC’s $1.9 million settlement with telecom company Time Warner Cable, Inc., the first case brought under the Risk-Based Pricing Rule. Part of the Fair Credit Reporting Act , the Risk-Based Pricing Rule has been in place for almost three years.  If a company extends less favorable credit terms to some consumers based on information in their credit report, that’s risk-based pricing.  Under the Rule, the company has to give those people a Risk-Based Pricing Notice.  You’ll want to read the Rule for specifics, but the Notice needs to tell people that the less favorable terms are based on information in their credit report, that they can get a copy of their report for free, and that they have a right to dispute mistakes in it. Why is the information in the Notice so important to consumers?  As an FTC study suggests, there are a troubling number of inaccuracies in people’s credit reports.  It’s one thing to offer less-than-stellar terms to people with less-than-stellar credit.  But it’s not right when consumers get hit in the pocketbook based on inaccurate information – and that happens too often when credit decisions are made behind closed doors.  The purpose of the Risk-Based Pricing Rule is to shed light on the practice so people are aware of the company’s basis for offering less favorable terms.  The Notice gives them the tools they need to dispute information in their credit report they believe to be inaccurate. So where does the FTC say Time Warner Cable went wrong?  Because the company lets people defer payment for some services, that amounts to an extension of credit – which triggers the protections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  When people applied for cable TV, internet, or other services in some states, Time Warner Cable pulled their credit report.  If the company liked what it saw, it typically didn’t require the customer to pay a deposit or the first month’s bill.  But other customers had to pay deposits or pay their first month of service upfront if information in their credit report raised an eyebrow. As of January 11, 2011 – the date the Risk-Based Pricing Rule took effect – Time Warner Cable had an obligation to give those people the Risk-Based Pricing Notice.  But according to the FTC's complaint, Time Warner Cable went two years without honoring its obligations under the Rule.  The upshot:  Thousands of people were simply told they had to pay a deposit or prepay the first month to get service.  They weren’t told that the decision was based on what was in their credit report – information that may have been inaccurate.  The FTC's lawsuit alleges that by failing to give people the required Notice, Time Warner Cable violated the Risk-Based Pricing Rule. In addition to the $1.9 million civil penalty, Time Warner Cable has agreed to comply with the law from here on in.  But the FTC isn’t just taking their word for it.  The order puts record-keeping and reporting requirements in place so the FTC can keep tabs on how the company implements the Risk-Based Pricing Rule in the future. Looking for guidance to make sure you’re not risking a violation? The Rule include model forms to streamline compliance.  What's more, the FTC has published a new brochure, Using Consumer Reports for Credit Decisions:  What to Know About Adverse Action and Risk-Based Pricing Notices , with nuts-and-bolts advice on what the Rule requires.  ","title":"Risky business","id":3179729},{"id":3179730,"title":"Faux claims for faux fur","description":"Faux claims for faux fur wfg-adm109 March 19, 2013 | 10:06AM Faux claims for faux fur By Lesley Fair In some ways, think of it as “faux faux fur.”  No, that’s not a typo.  It’s what results when national retailers advertise items of apparel as fake fur, when in fact, they contain, well, fur.  Those are just some of the allegations in recent FTC complaints against The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., DrJays.com, Inc., and Eminent, Inc. (which shoppers may know as Revolve Clothing). Some consumers like fur products.  Others make a conscious choice not to buy them.  That’s why the Fur Act and the FTC’s Fur Rules require that companies give potential purchasers accurate information about what they’re buying whether at retail, in advertising, and online. Where does the FTC say the companies went wrong?  One major concern was that they described items as \"faux fur\" when the fur was actually real.  And by not disclosing the products contained real fur, that means the companies also didn't honor their obligation under the law to truthfully tell people the kind of fur and its country of origin. For example, in describing items on its website, Neiman Marcus misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name and fur country of origin for three products:  a Burberry Outerwear Jacket, a Stuart Weitzman Ballerina Flat shoe, and an Alice + Olivia Kyah Coat.  The company also misrepresented the fur content of the Ballerina Flat at bergdorfgoodman.com.  In addition, the FTC says Neiman’s catalog and mail ads misrepresented that the shoe contained mink fur, when it really contained rabbit, and failed to disclose the fur country of origin all three products. Check your closets if your bought any of these items from DrJays.com:  the Snorkel Jacket by Crown Holder with a fur-lined hood, a Fur/Leather Vest by Knoles & Carter with exterior fur, or a New York Subway Leather Bomber Jacket by United Face with fur lining.  The FTC says the company misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name for those products. The complaint against Eminent, Inc., charged that the company misrepresented the fur content and failed to disclose the animal name for four products:  an Australia Luxe Collective Nordic Angel Short Boot with a fur-trimmed hood, a Mark Jacobs Runway Roebling Coat, a Dakota Xan Fur Poncho, and an Eryn Brinie Belted Faux Fur Vest. The proposed settlements bar future violations of the Fur Act and the Fur Rules.  Consistent with an FTC Enforcement Policy Statement announced in January 2013, the orders provide that the companies won’t be held liable for misrepresentations about fur products for which they cannot legally get guarantees from the manufacturer if: 1) they don’t embellish or misrepresent what the manufacturer said about the product; 2) they don’t sell the product under a private label; and 3) they neither knew nor should have known that the item was marketed in a way that violated the Fur Act. What’s that mean for your clients who sell apparel?  Tell the truth about your products and honor the disclosure requirements of the Fur Rules.  Most importantly — and this shouldn’t come as a surprise — don’t call it “faux fur” if it’s really made out of fur.  Furthermore, if apparel contains fur, online ads for it have to accurately disclose, among other things, the animal that produced the fur and the fur’s country of origin.  To protect themselves, retailers should examine product invoices and labels to see if they suggest that “faux fur” products actually contain real fur. Thinking about commenting on the proposed settlements?  The deadline is April 18, 2013.  To find out more about your obligations under the law, read In-FUR-mation Alert:  How to Comply with the Fur Products Labeling Act and bookmark the FTC's Clothing and Textiles page with","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/03/faux-claims-faux-fur"},{"title":"Phenomenal abdominals? Not so fast, Ab Circle Pro.","id":3179731,"description":"Phenomenal abdominals? Not so fast, Ab Circle Pro. wfg-adm109 August 23, 2012 | 10:01AM Phenomenal abdominals? Not so fast, Ab Circle Pro. By Lesley Fair If you haven’t heard of the Ab Circle Pro, you need to spend more time in your recliner.  Between the infomercial blitz, the online presence, and a retail campaign that promoted the product with a prominent “As Seen on TV” logo, ads were everywhere.  The marketers claimed that using the device for just three minutes a day would lead to a 10-pound weight loss in two weeks and inches off the stomach, hips, and thighs — benefits equal to or better than longer workouts at the gym. But before you rush to your phone, you should know that according to an FTC lawsuit , those claims were misleading.  The settlement offers something for consumers and businesses:  refunds totaling between $15 million and $25 million for people who bought the Ab Circle Pro and important compliance tips for companies. The Ab Circle Pro is a two-foot fiberglass disk with knee rests and handles.  Users hunker down and twist their hips around, purportedly to exercise their abs.  The infomercial told people they could get a 30-day risk-free trial of the product for $14.95 plus shipping and handling.  The actual price ran between $200 and $250, plus $35 or more for delivery. The ads promised impressive results with minimal work: \"In fact, with the Ab Circle Pro System, we guarantee you'll lose ten pounds in just two weeks or your money back.“ \"Best of all, it’s fun and easy and takes just three minutes a day.“ \"Burns Fat Faster than Treadmill!“ \"You can either do 30 minutes of abs and cardio or just three minutes a day. The choice is yours.” In addition to charging that the weight loss, fat loss, and “just three minutes a day” claims were misleading, the FTC says the marketers reinforced those claims via numerous consumer testimonials.  But according to the complaint, the representation that users would get similar fast results was deceptive.  The FTC also alleged that infomercial host Jennifer Nicole Lee’s claim that she lost 80 pounds using the product was false. The FTC’s complaint names 13 different individuals and companies — you’ll want to read the court papers for details — but certain aspects of the lawsuit merit special attention.  For example, the complaint charges Fitness Brands, Inc., and Fitness Brands International, Inc., the companies that first marketed the Ab Circle Pro.  But it also names corporate officers Michael Casey and David Brodess individually.  In addition, the FTC sued infomercial producer Tara Borakos and her companies, Tara Productions and New U, Inc. Also charged were infomercial host Jennifer Nicole Lee and two companies she controls.  According to the complaint, Ms. Lee, who made the allegedly false 80-pound weight loss claim, earned royalties on sales of the product. Usually it’s the commercial that says “But wait!  There’s more!”  But this time we’re talking about the FTC’s complaint, which names The Readers Digest Association, Inc., as a “relief defendant.”  Here’s why:  In 2009, a company called Direct Entertainment Media Group, Inc., got the rights to market and distribute the Ab Circle Pro in the United States.  A related company — Direct Holdings Americas, Inc. — created, reviewed, and approved marketing materials for the product.  Both Direct Entertainment Media Group and Direct Holdings Americas are wholly owned subsidiaries of The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. The FTC’s complaint names the two subsidiaries, but also includes The Reader’s Digest Association.  As the complaint explains, Reader’s Digest “has received funds that were derived from consumers as a consequence of Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices” and “has no","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/08/phenomenal-abdominals-not-so-fast-ab-circle-pro"},{"link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/06/running-risk","id":3179732,"title":"Running the risk","description":"Running the risk lfair June 25, 2015 | 11:37AM Running the risk By Lesley Fair The online ads offer consumers a “risk-free trial” of skincare products from companies that claim to be accredited by the Better Business Bureau with an A- rating. How could that possibly be deceptive or unfair? Let us count the ways. An FTC lawsuit filed in a California federal court alleges that an interconnected operation of 15 companies and 7 individuals uses trickery to get consumers to turn over their credit or debit card numbers and then bills people without their permission for merchandise advertised as a “risk-free trial.” What about the defendants’ claim of an A- rating with the BBB? False, says the FTC. Ads promoting the risk-free trial of AuraVie, Dellure, LéOR Skincare, or Miracle Face Kit appear just about everywhere online, including on banners, pop-ups, and the defendants’ webpages. What’s more, the FTC says the defendants buy ad space that appears on sites like Amazon.com, Huffingtonpost.com, and Lowes.com to push their promotions. Consumers are told all they have to do is give their credit or debit card number to cover the $5 shipping for the “100% satisfaction guaranteed” offer. The defendants don’t like taking no for an answer. If people try to leave the sites, they’re served pop-ups that pitch the risk-free trial at an even lower shipping cost. To seal the deal, a lot of ads feature that supposed A- rating from the BBB. But according to the complaint , once consumers get their credit card or bank statements, they’re in for a shock. People who don’t return the product within 10 days are charged a hefty fee – as much as $97 – under terms buried in fine print on the defendants’ sites. And it doesn’t end there. The FTC says the defendants enroll consumers without their permission in subscription plans that keep boxes piling up on their doorsteps – and charges piling up on their cards – until they cancel their memberships.  No mean feat because according to the lawsuit, it's challenging for consumers to stop future shipments or get a refund. Surprising conduct from a BBB-accredited company with an A- rating? Maybe. But not so surprising from an unaccredited business that earned a bottom-of-the-barrel rating of F.  In other words, the defendants also didn’t tell the truth about their BBB rating. The Court has issued a temporary restraining order , freezing the defendants’ assets and appointing a receiver. But even at this preliminary stage, the law enforcement action yields some notable compliance nuggets. The complaint alleges that the defendants contract with affiliate marketers, who in turn use banners, pop-ups, sponsored search terms and other methods to drive traffic to defendants’ sites. This shouldn’t be news to observant entrepreneurs. In recent years, the FTC has taken action against deceptive practices at every link of the affiliate chain. It’s an unfair practice under the FTC Act to have charges placed on consumers’ credit or debit cards without their express informed consent. In addition, under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Reg E, the kind of recurring charges the defendants impose has to be authorized in writing, with a copy “provided to the consumer when made.” Simply put, monkeying with people’s plastic is a bad idea all around. If you or your clients sell online, ROSCA should be on your compliance roster. The Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act bans online negative options unless the seller clearly and conspicuously discloses all materials terms of the deal before getting a consumer’s billing information, gets the consumer’s express informed consent before making the charge, and provides a simple mechanism for stopping recurring charges. The FTC says the defendants’ unapproved recurring charges violate Section 5 of the FTC Act and ROSCA. For many consumers, accreditation from groups like the"},{"id":3179733,"title":"FTC 86s LOAN MOD TXTS","description":"FTC 86s LOAN MOD TXTS wfg-adm109 October 6, 2011 | 11:38AM FTC 86s LOAN MOD TXTS By Lesley Fair FTC watchers will remember Phillip A. Flora.  In the first case of its kind, the FTC alleged that Mr. Flora was a One-Man Message Machine, churning out a “mind-boggling” number of unsolicited commercial text messages pitching mortgage modification services.  How many did he send?  According to the FTC, millions and millions . Problem #1:  The FTC charged that sending the unsolicited messages (or causing them to be sent) was an unfair practice in violation of Section 5.  To add insult to financial injury, many people had to pay their mobile carriers to receive them. Problem #2:  According to the complaint, Mr. Flora collected information from consumers who responded — even those who responded by saying “Enough already with the text messages!” — and sold it to third parties as “debt settlement leads.” Problem #3:    One of the sites, loanmod-gov.net, displayed an American flag and claimed to offer “Official Home Loan and Audit Assistance Information.”  According to the FTC, that conveyed a false affiliation with the U.S. government. Sufficient grounds for law enforcement, alleged the FTC — but in the time-honored words of persuasive pitchmen, “But wait!  There’s more!”  The FTC also charged Mr. Flora with CAN-SPAM violations for advertising his text message blasting services via illegal spam. Under the terms of a settlement entered in federal court in California, Mr. Flora is banned from sending any unsolicited commercial text messages or helping others send them.  For how long?  For forever. The order also bars him from making false or misleading representations about any goods or services, included unfounded claims of a government affiliation.  In addition, under the settlement, Mr. Flora has turned over $32,000. If people responded to one of Mr. Flora’s messages, the settlement includes important protections for them, too.  It’s illegal for him to sell, rent, or otherwise share names, addresses, email, account numbers, or other identifiable information he received in response to his illegal messages.  He also has to dispose of — as in burn, shred, or pulverize — customer information.","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/10/ftc-86s-loan-mod-txts"},{"title":"Franchise Fundamentals: Taking a deep dive into the Franchise Disclosure Document","id":3179727,"description":"Franchise Fundamentals: Taking a deep dive into the Franchise Disclosure Document lfair May 23, 2023 | 6:41PM Franchise Fundamentals: Taking a deep dive into the Franchise Disclosure Document By Lesley Fair Love at first sight may (or may not) be a real thing, but when it comes to investing your money, it’s unwise to fall for a franchise without first subjecting it to tough-minded scrutiny. The third in the FTC’s Franchise Fundamentals blog series walks through an essential part of that evaluation: an in-depth review of the Financial Disclosure Document (FDD) required by the FTC’s Franchise Rule . You must receive the Franchise Disclosure Document at least 14 days before you’re asked to sign any contract or pay any money to the franchisor or one of its affiliates. In fact, you have the right to the FDD once the franchisor has received your application and agrees to consider it. So speak up if you don’t receive it and ask questions – lots of them – as you review the FDD and any attached documents.   Image Indeed, the franchisor’s conduct regarding the FDD may raise some red flags about how they do business. Providing the FDD doesn’t establish that a franchisor is reputable – it’s required by law, after all – but if a franchisor doesn’t promptly provide this mandatory document, gives you an incomplete FDD, evades your probing questions, or tries to rush you through the process, it doesn’t speak well of their approach to legal compliance.  Assuming you have the FDD in hand, let’s consider some of the 23 required items line by line. Here are things to look for as you review the FDD. Franchisor’s Background (FDD Item 1) Item 1 provides background information about the franchisor and any parent companies, predecessors, and affiliates, including how long the franchise has been in business. It also lets you know if there are any legal requirements unique to the franchised business, like the need to get a special license or permit. This can help you understand the costs and risks you would be taking on. Business Background (FDD Item 2) Remember the old adage “People are known by the company they keep”? Well, companies are known by the people they keep, which is why Item 2 identifies directors, principal officers, and other key executives. Pay attention to their business backgrounds, their experience in managing a franchise system, and how long they’ve been with the franchisor. Litigation History (FDD Item 3) Item 3 lists information about prior litigation, including whether the franchisor or any of its executive officers have been convicted of certain crimes or have been found liable – or settled lawsuits – related to the franchise relationship. Lawsuits against the franchisor could mean it hasn’t honored its agreements or that franchisees are dissatisfied with its performance. Item 3 also says whether the franchisor has sued any of its franchisees in the past year. That information could suggest problems in the franchise system. For example, if a franchisor sued franchisees for failing to pay royalties, was it because franchisees weren’t successful and couldn’t make their royalty payments? Bankruptcy (FDD Item 4) Have the franchisor, its affiliates, or any of its executives filed for bankruptcy? Item 4 discloses that information and could give you insights into the financial condition of the business.  Initial and Other Fees (FDD Items 5-7) Items 5-7 go over some of the costs involved in starting and operating a franchise. That could include things like deposits or franchise fees (some of which may be non-refundable); what you’ll have to pay for initial inventory, signs, equipment, leases, or rentals; and ongoing costs, like royalties and advertising fees. A Consumer’s Guide to Buying a Franchise suggests more than a dozen other areas of financial inquiry, which should give you an indication about the importance of both getting in touch with your inner bean","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/05/franchise-fundamentals-taking-deep-dive-franchise-disclosure-document"},{"description":"Bulgaria has successfully liberalised its economy and integrated into global value chains, creating jobs and raising incomes. However, businesses face long-standing challenges of low productivity. Catching up has been steady but a productivity gap with the more advanced economies remains. This paper calculates labour productivity and","title":"Productivity and markup estimates for Bulgaria based on firm‑level data","id":3179388,"link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/productivity-and-markup-estimates-for-bulgaria-based-on-firm-level-data_e541f202-en.html"},{"title":"The EU automotive industry at a crossroads: The implications of structural transformation for employment and skills","id":3179389,"description":"The European Union’s automotive sector employs more than 6 million workers and continues to provide relatively well-paid and secure jobs. However, electrification, digitalisation, competition from China and demographic change are reshaping employment across the sector. While total automotive employment remained broadly stable between 2008","link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-eu-automotive-industry-at-a-crossroads_ec5c111d-en.html"},{"link":"https://www.oecd.org/fr/publications/manuel-sur-l-exercice-du-devoir-de-diligence-en-matiere-environnementale-dans-les-chaines-d-approvisionnement-en-ressources-minerales_2ee7becb-fr.html","title":"Manuel sur l’exercice du devoir de diligence en matière environnementale dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement en ressources minérales","id":3179390,"description":"Le présent Manuel a été élaboré pour aider les entreprises à intégrer les considérations environnementales dans l’exercice de leur devoir de diligence dans les chaînes d’approvisionnement en ressources minérales. Il s’appuie sur les principales normes internationales soutenues par les pouvoirs publics en matière de conduite responsable"},{"title":"OECD Guidelines for Corporate Bond Issuers","id":3179391,"description":"The OECD Guidelines for Corporate Bond Issuers provide guidance to help policymakers evaluate and improve the legal, regulatory and institutional framework for corporate bond issuers and the role of bondholders in corporate governance. The Guidelines aim to promote efficient capital markets, support financial stability and contribute","link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-guidelines-for-corporate-bond-issuers_8534f240-en.html"},{"title":"OECD Integrity Review of the Dominican Republic: Implementing a Strategic Vision for Public Integrity and Anti-Corruption","id":3179392,"description":"The Dominican Republic has undertaken significant reforms to strengthen its public integrity system. These efforts include establishing the Presidential Transparency and Anti-Corruption Commission, creating Government Integrity and Regulatory Compliance Commissions within public institutions and developing its first National","link":"https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-integrity-review-of-the-dominican-republic_5321070c-en.html"},{"link":"https://www.uemoa.int/actualites/le-president-de-la-commission-de-luemoa-recu-par-le-ministre-de-leconomie-des-finances","title":"Le Président de la Commission de l’UEMOA reçu par le Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et du Plan du Sénégal","id":3178946,"description":"- ven, 09/25/2026 -"},{"description":"How readiness can help protect veteran-owned businesses lfair November 10, 2022 | 9:56AM How readiness can help protect veteran-owned businesses By Lesley Fair Army brats like me grew up around the word “readiness.” We knew it meant weeks or even months of a parent away on deployment, training for “What if . . .” scenarios. One of the reasons so many veterans have made the successful transition to entrepreneurship is that they continue to put readiness first. A recent FTC proposed settlement serves as a reminder to veterans who own businesses – and to all business executives – about the ongoing threats to sensitive customer and employee information posed by phishing. The best defense: readiness. Phishing scammers typically contact employees via email, text, or telephone and induce them to click a link, download a file, or reveal confidential information. Their goal is to install malware or otherwise gain access to your digital assets. In that recent case , the FTC alleged that an educational technology company’s lax security practices resulted in multiple data breaches, leading to the misappropriation of personal information about millions of consumers. One interesting aspect of the case is the allegation that the data thieves went through the digital front door by getting employees – including some senior executives – to take the bait on phishing scams. The complaint further charged that for a long stretch of time, the company “did not require employees to complete any data security training, including identifying and appropriately responding to phishing attacks.” Phishing has been around for years – the FTC’s first phishing-related case was in 2004 – but the disturbing news is that both old-school methods and more sophisticated attacks continue to succeed. The FTC has steps you can take to help protect your company from phishing fraud. Implement company-wide training.   If a person is on your roster in any capacity, add them to your data security training list. In the FTC’s experience, scammers view everyone as potential targets – including interns, seasonal temps, contractors, and even people who don’t routinely use sensitive data. Furthermore, no one is too important for training. As the FTC’s recent case demonstrates, scammers don’t stop at the C Suite door and training shouldn’t either. Schedule regular refreshers.   Training isn’t a one-and-done box to check off your TO DO list. Your business operations probably change with some frequency and so do the threats you must defend against. But we’ve all had to sit through in-house lectures that call to mind the “Whaa Whaa Whaa” sound effect when grown-ups talk on the “Peanuts” specials. The key is to keep the content fresh and engaging with IRL stories, headline news, and other attention grabbers. Look for tell-tale signs of phishing.  There’s no 100% accurate test to tell if a message is a phishing scam, but certain characteristics can be a tip-off – for example, misspellings or grammar mistakes; demands for gift cards, wire transfers, or cryptocurrency; directions to click links or download attachments; or wording that sounds just plain weird. (One email we received recently: “It is utmost essential for all laborers to under take following manditory steps.” ) Commend employees for developing a skeptical eye.   “Is that really a message from the boss telling me to wire money or send a confidential spreadsheet?” “The caller said they were from Tech Support, but is that true?” “The email says it’s a link to our new company communications platform. Should I should click on it?” Encourage your staff to take a moment to think through unexpected emails, texts, or calls. Even if it turns out to be a genuine request, if their gut suggests that phishing could be afoot, applaud employees who take the time to investigate. Keep your defenses","id":3178911,"title":"How readiness can help protect veteran-owned businesses","link":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2022/11/how-readiness-can-help-protect-veteran-owned-businesses"},{"description":"This Order, made on the application of the Montrose Port Authority, modernises and consolidates the statutory harbour powers applying in relation to Montrose","id":3178799,"title":"The Montrose Harbour Revision Order 2026","link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/ssi/2026/273http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2026/273/contents/made"},{"description":"These Regulations are made by the Welsh Ministers in exercise of their power under the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Mae’r Rheoliadau hyn wedi eu gwneud gan Weinidogion Cymru drwy arfer eu pŵer o dan Ddeddf Cyllid Llywodraeth Leol","id":3178800,"title":"The Council Tax (Discounts, Disregards and Exemptions) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 / Rheoliadau’r Dreth Gyngor (Disgowntiau, Diystyriadau ac Esemptiadau) (Cymru) (Diwygio) 2026","link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/wsi/2026/118http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/welsh/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/welsh/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/welsh/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/welsh/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/welsh/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/welsh/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/welsh/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/made/welsh/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/contents/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2026/118/contents/made/welsh"},{"description":"These Regulations, which apply in Great Britain, amend the Green Gas Support Scheme Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021/1335) (“the 2021 Regulations”), which established the Green Gas Support Scheme (“the GGSS”). The GGSS is a renewable heat incentive scheme designed to support the production of biomethane by anaerobic digestion for injection into the gas","title":"The Green Gas Support Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026","id":3178801,"link":"http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/uksi/2026/1051http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/madehttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/made/data.xmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/made/data.rdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/made/data.aknhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/made/data.xhthttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/made/data.htmlhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/made/data.htmhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/made/data.csvhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/made/data.pdfhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2026/1051/contents/made"}]