[{"description":"By: Susannah Tredwell , Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP and James Bachmann , Instructional Librarian, Law Library, University of British Columbia Since 1988, when CALL/ACBD’s Copyright Committee was first set up, CALL/ACBD has advocated for its members' interests in the area of copyright. While the primary focus of CALL/ACBD’s copyright advocacy over the last few years has been on Crown copyright and primary law, CALL/ACBD has also made submissions about such areas as fair dealing and licencing. CALL/ACBD sees this work as not only supporting the needs of its members but also as serving the interests of access to justice as a whole. Continuing this work, on January 18, 2022 CALL/ACBD, along with Library Futures Institute, will act as an intervener in the Supreme Court of Canada case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, et al. v. Entertainment Software Association, et al.   Kim Nayyer, CALL/ACBD’s President, and Robert Janes of JFK Law   will be representing CALL/ACBD and Library Futures. This case addresses the question of how the concepts of “communication to the public by telecommunication” and “making available on demand” as used in the Copyright Act should be understood. The outcome of this case has the potential to significantly impact various library activities, including controlled digital lending and possibly even the simple use of hyperlinks, particularly in light of the limited scope of current library and education exceptions in the Copyright Act . CALL/ACBD's submitted that the court refrain from broadly construing the terms “making available” and “Communication to the Public by Telecommunication” and that s. 2.4(1.1) of the act (\"Communication to the public by telecommunication\")   does not need to be understood as creating a new right.   You can find CALL/ACBD’s intervener's factum at https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39418/FM050_Intervener_Canadian-Association-Law-Libraries-et-al.pdf . The other factums in this case are available at https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39418 .  CALL/ACBD has acted as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada on two other occasions. In Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. , which looked at Crown copyright, CALL/ACBD submitted   that “s. 12 Crown copyright does not extend to primary sources of law”. In York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency  (\"Access Copyright\"), CALL/ACBD submitted   that the SCC “should resist the temptation to modify or clarify the existing fair dealing test” stating that the existing test “is a flexible multifactorial test that allows libraries (and other institutions) to tailor access and appropriate copying policies that consider all relevant circumstances.” CALL/ACBD also made submissions to the 2018 review of the Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42: one general submission   and <a","titre":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries Intervention in Upcoming Supreme Court of Canada Copyright Case","id":3241460,"pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:47 +0100","source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12242053"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/01/ftc-consumer-protection-year-review-offers-2020-vision-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","titre":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business","id":3203247,"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/10/clothes-look-rn-database-qa-ftc-staff","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff lfair October 5, 2017 | 11:18AM A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff By Lesley Fair It’s not much bigger than a postage stamp, but the label on many textile, wool, and fur products provides important information, including fiber content, country of origin, and a company name or Registered Identification Number (RN). The FTC administers the RN system and industry members will want to check out recent upgrades to the RN website . With RNs and labels on our mind, we asked some common RN-related questions to attorney Josh Millard, whom we’d label as one of the FTC’s go-to people on the subject. First things first. What’s an RN? JOSH:   A Registered Identification Number (RN) is a numerical designation – the prefix RN followed by a set of digits – that identifies the company responsible for marketing, distributing or otherwise handling a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts.  Because some labels are small and some company names are long, the law allows U.S.-based businesses to use an RN as a “shorthand” identification. We think the upgrades to the RN website will make it even easier for businesses to use. How do I get an RN for my company? JOSH:   Apply online. FTC staff will review your application and email you typically within 1-3 business days. As soon as your application has been approved, you’ll receive your RN.  How much does it cost to get an RN? JOSH:   There’s no charge. Is it mandatory that companies use an RN on labels? JOSH:   No, you don’t have to use an RN. It’s perfectly acceptable to include your company name instead, but many companies prefer to use an RN because it takes up less space. The RN system has other benefits, too. For example, it lets people identify your business easily through the RN Search screen . Consumers or other industry members can type in the number and readily find your business. Our company doesn’t reside in the United States.  Can we get an RN? JOSH:   Only U.S.-based businesses can get an RN. If your foreign company manufactures or is involved in the advertising, distribution, or sale of a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts, put the company name on the label instead of an RN. Alternatively, you can label the product with the RN or business name of a U.S. company directly involved with importing, distributing, or selling the product when that’s the case. Going through our records we found we have multiple RNs.  Is that a problem? JOSH:   It’s not prohibited, but we no longer issue multiple RNs to a single company and encourage companies to cancel any extra RNs to simplify recordkeeping. Our headquarters has moved since we applied for an RN.  Do we need to update our application? JOSH:   Yes. If there has been a change to your business name, address, or legal status, please update the information in your RN registration.  An RN can be cancelled if a business doesn’t keep its information up to date, so it’s wise to check. The good news is that the upgraded RN website makes that easier to do. What if we choose to use a company name on the label, rather than an RN? JOSH:   You must include the full name your company uses to do business – in other words, the name that appears on documents like purchase orders or invoices. It can’t be a trademark, trade name, brand, or designer name unless that’s also the name under which your company does business. What kind of guidance does the FTC have for industry members? JOSH:  Threading Your Way Through the Labeling Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts is a great place to start, and the FTC’s Clothing and Textiles page includes links to brochures, cases, workshops and other compliance resources.","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","id":3201873,"titre":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff"},{"description":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices lfair July 30, 2018 | 11:05AM FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices By Lesley Fair If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. But the same can’t be said for a mailer that looks like an official invoice. It could be an “o- fishy -al” offer that deceptively mimics the appearance of a government document. A case filed by the FTC and the Florida Attorney General challenges the practice of sending mailers that allegedly create the false impression that small businesses are required to buy labor regulation posters from the sender. Consider what defendants Starwood Consulting, also doing business as Corporate Compliance Services, and company president Thomas Henry Fred, Jr., sent to small businesses. The mailers – which include a Washington, D.C., 202 area code – are titled “LABOR LAW COMPLIANCE REQUEST FORM” and include the warning “Failure to comply with posting regulations can lead to fines up to $17,000.” The mailers include a “Business ID” and instruct recipients to respond by a certain date. Small businesses can’t miss the purported consequences of ignoring the letter: Your business is required by federal law to post a current compliant labor law poster in the workplace. Federal law requires that this poster be placed on the property of the business. Whether you have 1 employee or 1,000 you must post current employment posters in the workplace. The poster must also include information about workers compensation benefits. Pursuant to federal law 29 USC Sec. 999(i) & 29 USC Sec. 2005 penalties and risks of non-compliance with posting regulations can lead to potential fines of $17,000 per instance, for failing to post federally required information. Further, lawsuits can be tolled based on failing to display mandatory posters. . . . To obtain your Federal employment labor law poster, please detach the above coupon and return it in the enclosed envelope with your document processing fee of $84.00. The mailer continues: “IMPORTANT! FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY WHEN COMPLETING THIS FORM.” Those instructions include directions to detach the “payment coupon,” return it with the “document fee” of $84, and keep the bottom portion as the “official receipt.” The enclosed return envelope is addressed to “Corporate Compliance Services, Compliance Processing Center.” That’s a description of the mailer, but here are the facts, according to the FTC and the AG. First, the mailer isn’t from a government entity or affiliate. Starwood Consulting and its d/b/a Corporate Compliance Services are private companies in the business of selling those posters. In addition, despite the 202 area code, the defendants have no operations in Washington and posters similar to the ones the defendants peddle are available for free from the U.S. Department of Labor. What about those statutory provisions referring to “potential fines of $17,000 per instance”? In fact, neither of those citations has anything to do with labor posters. 29 U.S.C. § 999(i) refers to repealed provisions of the Young Adult Conservation Corps and 29 U.S.C. § 2005 addresses the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. According to the complaint , recipients of the mailer are often small businesses that have recently incorporated or established limited liability companies. What’s more, some businesses say they never received the posters they paid for. Others report they got second notices that they had to pay another $84 fee to get an updated poster. Despite a small “disclaimer” at the bottom of the reverse side of the mailer that “[t]his offer serves as a solicitation and not to be intended as a bill due,” the FTC and the AG say that business owners were misled and filed more than 250 complaints about the company. (According to the Better Business","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","id":3198177,"titre":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/07/ftc-florida-ag-small-business-scrutinize-o-fishy-al-invoices","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"titre":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","id":3198178,"description":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu kkrown September 5, 2025 | 10:00AM First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu Online marketplaces and third party sellers looking for a refresher on the INFORM Consumers Act should look no further than the recent settlement with Whaleco, Inc., which operates the online marketplace Temu. The complaint alleges the company failed to provide online shoppers with required information and tools. This is the first case brought to enforce the INFORM Act. The INFORM Act, which went into effect in 2023, seeks to make online transactions more transparent. Among other things, the law requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain information about high-volume third party sellers. ( Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act  has more on how the law defines terms, what’s required of online marketplaces, and the substantial penalties the FTC and state law enforcers may seek if online marketplaces violate the law.) In 2022, Temu launched its online marketplace in the United States, where consumers can view product listings on Temu’s homepage, through search results, and in gamified shopping experiences on the platform. According to the complaint, Temu violated the INFORM Act by failing to offer a mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity — electronically and by phone — on the gamified product listings of many high-volume third party sellers and by failing to offer a telephonic mechanism on non-gamified product listings. The complaint also alleges that Temu did not post required identifying information about sellers on its gamified product listings or mobile site, and that Temu’s disclosures, when made, were difficult to find. According to the settlement, Temu will pay a $2 million civil penalty, provide a telephonic mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity on listings, and make other required disclosures. Is your business covered by the INFORM Act? Make sure you:  Review the provisions of the INFORM Act thoroughly . Make sure you fully understand — and have measures in place to comply with — each of its requirements. Make required disclosures easy for consumers to notice . Required disclosures should stand out from any surrounding material and use plain language. Minimize or eliminate steps consumers need to take to reach required disclosures. Ensure required disclosures are available across all iterations of your platform . The INFORM Act mandates disclosures on all interfaces with product listings. And as your platforms evolve, regularly assess and update your compliance efforts. If your business sells through online platforms, check out  What Third Party Sellers Need to Know About the INFORM Consumers Act . This covers what sellers are impacted by the INFORM Act, what you can expect online platforms to require of you, and what information platforms must disclose about you to consumers. It also answers some questions you may have about the law. And if you spot a violation of the INFORM Act, r­eport it to the FTC using this  dedicated link","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/09/first-inform-consumers-act-enforcement-case-filed-against-online-marketplace-temu"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","id":3194910,"titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers","description":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers lfair June 8, 2016 | 9:01AM Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers By Lesley Fair Combine two of the most talked-about consumer protection topics – health privacy and consumer-generated online content – and what do you get? A proposed FTC settlement with Practice Fusion, the largest cloud-based electronic health records company in the country, and six compliance tips for others in the industry. One of San Francisco-based Practice Fusion’s primary products is an electronic records system for outpatient providers. In 2009, the company launched “Patient Fusion,” an online portal where patients whose providers were already using Practice Fusion could view or download their health information or transmit it to another provider. Patient Fusion also let patients send and receive secure messages from their providers. Fast forward several years and the company decided to expand Patient Fusion to include a public directory where current and prospective enrollees could search for doctors geographically or by specialty, read patient reviews of providers, and request appointments. But Practice Fusion had to ask itself a question familiar to many online companies: How do we get the content – in this case, patient reviews? That’s the focus of the FTC’s lawsuit. According to the complaint , Practice Fusion solicited data in a misleading way that led some patients to believe they were sending follow-up messages directly to their doctors about their diagnosis, medical treatment, prescriptions, etc. – and not contributing content to a public website. Practice Fusion, however, populated its new site with the information those people provided, some of which was highly sensitive. Here’s what happened. After appointments with their doctors, patients received emails titled “How was your visit?” The message continued, “To help improve your service in the future, please let us know how your visit went” and included a link with rating stars. The message ended this way: Thank you, Dr. [Name] In a footer, the message said “This email was sent to you by Patient Fusion®, a tool Doctor [Name] uses to deliver the highest quality of care to patients.” Below that in smaller print it said “Sent on behalf of Doctor [Name]’s office by: Practice Fusion.” If patients clicked the link, they were taken to a page that asked for feedback about things like how long they had to wait for their appointment, the doctor’s bedside manner, and whether their medical concern was addressed. There also was a text box where patients were invited to “leave a review for your provider.” Below that was a pre-checked box with the phrase “Keep this review anonymous.” What did some people put in that box? Highly sensitive information directly addressed to their doctors, not evaluations meant to be shared publicly. Here are just a few examples: “Dr [name], My Xanax prescription that I received on Monday was for 1 tablet a day but usually it’s for 2 tablets a day. I have not taken it to the pharmacy yet. Can I pick up a new one, or can I get a prescription called into a pharmacy? Thanks, [patient’s full name] “I called today and left a message regarding my daughter and no one has returned my call. I think she is depressed and has stated several times this week that she wishes she was dead. Could someone please call me [phone number]?” “The cefuroxime axetil does not seem to be doing anything for me. I did a little research and I think I have a yeast infection called candida. Not sure what to do about it yet. I guess I will first try to change my diet. Medication? [patient’s full name] “I would like to make an appointment for my back pain and possible shingles. Can you please call me @ [phone number]? Thank you! [patient's full name]” “I HAVE NO INFECTION [healthcare provider name].  EVERYTHING WENT"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/05/fighting-coronavirus-scams-taking-stock","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 08:11:56 +0200","id":3189429,"titre":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock","description":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock chundycz May 8, 2020 | 9:01AM Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the FTC has released dozens of warning letters against people trying to make an illegal buck off the Coronavirus. More than a month in, it seems like a good time to look back at what’s happened. If you follow this blog, you’ll know these have been busy weeks – with advice about spotting the many scams we’re all facing, news of the warning letters sent on a wide range of scams, and some enforcement actions filed. You might wonder: Why send letters? Why not just sue the !*$@&#? Fair question. But the letters are working. And, given the scope of the scams out there right now, we want to get the best and fastest results we can with the most efficient tool we have. Right now, for these Coronavirus-related issues, that’s warning letters. In general, here’s how it goes: We spot someone advertising something with no proof that it works – and, in many cases, telling outright lies about its wonders. We send a letter pointing out the illegal things they’re doing. They then have 48 hours to tell us what they’ve done to resolve the problems we’ve raised. In nearly all cases so far, those who get the letters have stopped making the false claims or selling the scammy thing – whether cures from a product or earnings from a work-at-home scheme. Within 48 hours: no more lying to people, no more stealing people’s money. During a crisis like this, we’ve prioritized stopping as many bad actors as we can, as quickly as we can. And when a warning letter will do that, we’ll take that win. Most of the letters sent so far relate to the first scams out of the box: the treatments and cures – many of which we heard about from you. These treatments and cures were, of course, not at all what they claimed to be. The sellers peddled everything from teas and essential oils to IV or ozone “therapies,” stem cell treatments, and high doses of Vitamin C. All of these products have had one thing in common: There was no evidence – none – that they work against the Coronavirus. The warning letters are working in other areas, too. We’ve sent 13 letters to VoIP service providers and other companies, telling them we see how they’re helping illegal telemarketers or robocallers make calls related to COVID-19, and telling them to cut it out. And, just two weeks ago, we sent 10 letters to multi-level marketing (MLM) companies for making exaggerated earnings claims for their business opportunity selling fake Coronavirus treatments or cures from home. These companies hit the daily double: false income claims for their work-at-home program and unsubstantiated health claims for their products. But sometimes you need more firepower to get the desired result. It took a lawsuit to stop a company that, allegedly, pretended to be affiliated with the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, fooling hundreds – if not thousands – of small businesses. And, last week, we filed suit against Whole Leaf Organics for allegedly claiming to treat not only the Coronavirus, but also cancer with CBD. Both cases are now pending. What we know about COVID-19 changes every week. And right now, the scammers are shifting their focus to the economic impact payments, among other things, to find new ways to get your money or information. But here are some things that remain true: Scammers are peddling cures and treatments with no proof they work. Remember: Right now, there is nothing that has been proven to prevent COVID-19. Anyone who tells you to pay them by gift card, money transfer, cash, or Bitcoin is a scammer. Period. And, if they say they’re from the government, they’re not. Never give your Social Security, bank account, or credit card number to anyone who contacts you. Again, not even if they say"},{"description":"New data from the Federal Trade Commission reveal that people reported losing a staggering $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, with reported losses increasing nearly three times since 2020. FTC data also show that people reported imposter scams more than any other fraud category in 2025—nearly one in three fraud reports were about imposter scams. These scams lured consumers through text, phone, email, social media, search engine results and other means. Some of the costliest impersonation scams start with a fake security alert, often from a bank. People are convinced to move money to “protect” it, with their losses often limited only by their available funds. Last year, people reported losing nearly $1 billion to business impersonators with the highest reported losses to bank impersonators—and about $920 million to government impersonators, up from $866 million and $789 million respectively in 2024. The FTC has seen a striking increase in reported fraud losses to all types of fraud—about $16 billion was reported lost in 2025, the highest on record and an increase of about 25% compared to the 2024 figure. “Consumers derive enormous benefits from competitive markets built on truthful information. But fraud undermines that foundation, impeding the market process and preventing markets from operating efficiently,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will use every tool available to combat one of the most pernicious forms of fraud—government and business impersonation—and to protect the integrity of the digital economy.” The data underscore the importance of the FTC’s work with the  Elder Justice Coordinating Council (EJCC) , which is working to help raise awareness of imposter scams and other scams impacting older adults as well as other consumers. This year, the FTC, along with the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services and members of the EJCC, is leading the Never Ever campaign, a public-private coordinated consumer education effort to raise awareness of government and business imposter scams. In addition to the federal agency members of the EJCC , the campaign also includes private sector representatives such as the American Bankers Association, USTelecom, Google and Microsoft. To help the public spot imposter scams, EJCC members launched the Never Ever campaign, which is aimed at promoting messaging on the key actions that government and businesses will Never Ever take. The Never Ever campaign will run from June 15 to June 26, in conjunction with World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. This first-of-its-kind public-private partnership includes participants from a wide range of organizations and is aimed at directing consumers to a website that includes information and resources to help them avoid imposter scams and what to do if they spot one. Enforcement Actions To help combat impersonation scams, the FTC in 2024 finalized the Impersonation Rule. The Rule gives the agency stronger tools to combat and deter scammers who impersonate government agencies and businesses, enabling the FTC to file federal court cases seeking to get money back to injured consumers and civil penalties against rule violators. Since then, the FTC has vigorously enforced the rule and brought a dozen enforcement actions that have resulted in halting imposter schemes and obtained over $70 million in redress for consumers. In 2025, the FTC brought law enforcement actions under the Impersonation Rule against:  American Tax Service (IRS imposter scheme);  MediaAlpha (government imposter scheme to sell health insurance);  Click Profit (business imposter money making scam);  Blackstone Legal (phantom debt business imposter scheme) and  Accelerated Debt Settlement (government and business imposter scheme that targeted older adults for debt relief). More recently, the  FTC filed a complaint against Innovative Partners in April 2026 , alleging the operators","titre":"FTC Data Show People Reported Losing $3.5 Billion to Imposter Scams in 2025","id":2959787,"pubDate":"Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:09:40 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-data-show-people-reported-losing-3-point-5-billion-imposter-scams-2025"},{"description":"Brussels, 16 April – During its latest plenary, the EDPB has adopted Guidelines on processing of personal data for scientific research purposes . In addition, the Board has created a team to speed up the finalisation of the guidelines on anonymisation. The EDPB has also adopted two opinions on the two sets of the Europrivacy certification criteria for approval as European Data Protection Seals, one of which to be used as a tool for transfers. Many areas of scientific research rely on the processing of individuals’ personal data, and this has driven significant scientific breakthroughs that benefit society. The rise of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, also contributes to scientific progress by enabling researchers to use and analyse data in innovative ways. The main objective of the EDPB guidelines on scientific research is to provide more clarity for researchers and make GDPR compliance easier , while ensuring the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights . “Scientific research can drive societal progress and improve our daily lives.  Our guidelines facilitate innovative research by helping researchers to navigate the GDPR. The EDPB is committed to supporting the scientific community and unlocking the full potential of scientific research in the EU while upholding data protection rights.\" EDPB Chair, Anu Talus In its guidelines, the Board provides clarifications on the concept of ‘scientific research’ . To determine if the processing takes place for scientific research purposes in the meaning of the GDPR, the Board provides six key-indicative factors that should be considered, in addition to the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing. These are: 1) methodical and systematic approach, 2) adherence to ethical standard, 3) verifiability and transparency, 4) autonomy and independence, 5) objectives of the research, and 6) potential to contribute to existing scientific knowledge or apply existing knowledge in novel ways. If the research activities meet these six factors, they can be presumed to constitute scientific research. Otherwise, the controller should justify and be able to demonstrate why the activities should be considered scientific research, within the meaning of the GDPR. Further processing for scientific research purposes is presumed to be compatible with the initial purpose for collecting individuals’ personal data. Therefore, controllers are not obliged to do the purpose compatibility test under the GDPR to determine if the new processing is compatible with the original purpose of collection. However, controllers must still make sure that the legal basis of the initial processing is also suitable for the further processing of personal data for scientific research purposes. Controllers can rely on “broad consent” where the purposes of research are not fully known at the time of collecting the personal data. In this case, researchers should respect ethical standards for scientific research and put additional safeguards in place to compensate for the lack of purpose specification. Controllers can also ask individuals to consent to different individual research projects separately, as soon as the purposes of those projects become known (dynamic consent). A combination of both broad and dynamic consent is also possible. In addition, the EDPB clarifies rights of individuals when their personal data are processed for scientific purposes. This includes the rights to erasure and object for which limitations may apply when personal data are processed for scientific research purposes. The Board provides examples to explain when the right to erasure can be considered likely to render impossible or seriously impair the objective of conducting scientific research. The EDPB also explains when controllers may reject an individuals’ objection to the processing of their personal data for scientific research purposes. This can be the case when processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out for reasons of","id":2829942,"pubDate":"Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:15:11 +0200","titre":"EDPB brings clarity to data processing for scientific research, speeds up the finalisation of the anonymisation guidelines and approves first European data protection seal as a tool for transfers","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/edpb-brings-clarity-data-processing-scientific-research-speeds-finalisation_en","source":"EDPB News"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-secures-settlement-banning-growth-cave-defendants-marketing-selling-business-opportunities","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","pubDate":"Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:50:38 +0100","id":2659689,"titre":"FTC Secures Settlement Banning Growth Cave Defendants from Marketing and Selling Business Opportunities and Credit Repair Programs","description":"Defendants behind a wide-ranging operation known as Growth Cave, including its co-CEOs, are permanently banned from marketing and selling business opportunities and credit repair programs as part of an FTC settlement to resolve allegations that their scheme cost consumers nearly $50 million. As part of that settlement, Growth Cave’s co-CEOs also will be required to liquidate millions of dollars’ worth of assets, including a multimillion-dollar house, to provide consumer redress. “On day one, the Trump-Vance FTC reprioritized combatting fraud that harms American markets. Today’s successful resolution demonstrates that the Commission is focused on protecting our markets from dishonest actors,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. The FTC  sued Growth Cave  in February 2025, alleging that consumers were deceived by false promises of significant income. Growth Cave allegedly offered numerous business opportunities, which regularly failed to deliver the promised results while costing consumers thousands of dollars. The amended complaint also alleges that consumers had trouble reaching Growth Cave employees and obtaining customer support. Named as defendants in the lawsuit were Growth Cave’s co-CEOs Lucas Lee-Tyson and Osmany Batte, Operations Manager Jordan Marksberry, related Growth Cave entities, and relief defendant Friendly Solar. The FTC previously approved, and the court entered, a stipulated order settling its charges against Marksberry late last August. That order bans Marksberry from: marketing or selling business opportunities, engaging in credit repair activities, and making misleading earning claims or assisting others in doing the same. Finally, the order includes a judgment of $48,597,538 against him, which has been partially suspended upon his payment of $35,000 to the Commission. The court orders announced today settle the FTC’s charges against all remaining defendants in this case. The first order (the LLT order) binds Lee-Tyson, individually and as an officer and/or owner of Growth Cave, LLC and LLT Research LLC. The second order (the Batte order)   binds Apex Mind, LLC; Osmany Batte, individually and as an officer of Growth Cave, LLC and Apex Mind, LLC; and relief defendant Friendly Solar, Inc. Both orders announced today contain similar conduct provisions, banning the defendants from selling and marketing—or assisting others in selling or marketing—business opportunities and from engaging in credit repair activities. They also prohibit the defendants from making misleading representations related to earnings claims, testimonials, and the use of artificial intelligence. The orders also impose judgments of $48,597,538 against the defendants, which will be partially suspended based on their inability to pay. The LLT order requires Lee-Tyson to sell a range of assets, including his multimillion-dollar house, and liquidate his investment and bank accounts. The proceeds of these transactions will be transferred to the Commission and will be used for consumer redress. The Batte order requires Batte to liquidate several assets including a Rolls-Royce and a Ferrari. Relief defendant Friendly Solar is required to transfer $43,000 to the Commission for its part in profiting from the defendants’ illegal conduct. The Commission vote approving the August stipulated order with defendant Marksberry was 3-0, and the vote approving the orders announced today against the remaining defendants was 2-0. The proposed orders were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The staff attorneys on this matter are Maris Snell and Adrienne Jenkins of the FTC’s East Central Region and Miles Freeman of the FTC’s Western Region Los"},{"url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/dma-and-gdpr-edpb-and-european-commission-endorse-joint-guidelines-clarify-common_en","source":"EDPB News","pubDate":"Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:53:21 +0200","id":2425502,"titre":"DMA and GDPR: EDPB and European Commission endorse joint guidelines to clarify common touchpoints","description":"Brussels, 09 October - The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission endorsed joint guidelines on the interplay between the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) . These are the first joint guidelines by the Board and the European Commission. In line with its 2024-2027 Strategy and the recent Helsinki Statement’s objectives to make GDPR compliance easier and strengthen consistency, the EDPB has cooperated with the European Commission, each within their respective mandates, to facilitate the coherent application of the DMA*and GDPR and to increase legal certainty for gatekeepers, business users, beneficiaries and individuals. EDPB Chair Anu Talus said:   “These joint guidelines are the result of a fruitful cooperation between the EDPB and the European Commission. This is the first time that the EDPB and the European Commission prepare guidelines jointly. This approach maximises usefulness of the guidance by simplifying compliance for businesses and bringing enhanced legal certainty to them.  The guidelines will help gatekeepers, business users and individuals to better understand their obligations and rights under the DMA, and ensure a consistent, effective and complementary application of the DMA and EU data protection law.” How the DMA and the GDPR interact The DMA and the GDPR both protect individuals in the digital landscape , but their goals are complementary as they address interconnected challenges: individual rights and privacy in case of the GDPR and fairness and contestability of digital markets under the DMA.    Several activities regulated by the DMA entail the processing of personal data by gatekeepers and, in several provisions, the DMA explicitly refers to definitions and concepts included in the GDPR. The joint guidelines clarify how gatekeepers can implement these DMA provisions in accordance with EU data protection law . For example, the EDPB and the Commission specify which elements gatekeepers should consider in order to comply with the requirements of specific choice and valid consent under Art. 5(2) DMA and the GDPR, and thus to lawfully combine or cross-use personal data in core platform services. The EDPB and the Commission also address other provisions including those related to the distribution of third party apps and stores, data portability, data access requests and interoperability of messaging services.   Next steps The Board and the Commission have just launched a joint public consultation on the first version of the guidelines which will be open until 4 December 2025 .  This will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment and provide feedback. All submissions will be published on the DMA website to which a link will be included on the EDPB website, after the consultation period has closed. The final text, incorporating input received during the consultation, will be prepared jointly by the Board and the Commission, and will be adopted by the EDPB and European Commission.   More guidelines on the way Following these first joint guidelines with the Commission, further work is underway to clarify the new cross-regulatory landscape and maintain coherent and consistent safeguards for the protection of personal data. In this regard, the EDPB is working with the Commission, specifically with the AI Office, on joint guidelines on the interplay between the AI Act and EU data protection laws. Note to editors: The Digital Markets Act is one of the first regulatory tools that aims to tackle unfair practices of gatekeepers in digital markets. Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing core platform services, such as online search engines, app stores, and messenger services. The main objective of the DMA is to make the markets in the digital sector fairer and more contestable. "},{"description":"Background information Date of final decision: 15 May 2025 National case Controller:  SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES Legal Reference(s): Article 7 (Conditions for consent), Article 6 (Lawfulness of processing) Decision: administrative fine and an order to cease electronic commercial prospecting in the absence of valid consent, together with a penalty of €10 000 per day overdue after a period of 9 months Key words: administrative fine, consent,  unsolicited communication   Summary of the Decision Origin of the case   As the French Supervisory Authority (SA) made commercial prospecting a priority topic for investigations in 2022, it focused on the practices of professionals in the sector, particularly those who resell data, including the many intermediaries in this ecosystem known as data brokers. The French SA carried out investigations on SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES which got prospect data mainly from data brokers, publishers of game contests and product testing sites (these actors are the first links in the chain, the primary collectors, who are responsible for collecting prospect data). SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES used this data to operate commercial prospecting by SMS or e-mail to individuals concerned, on behalf of its advertiser customer. It may also pass on some of this data to its customers, so that they can carry out their own commercial prospecting by telephone or post. Key Findings  Failure to comply with the obligation to obtain the consent of individuals to receive commercial prospecting by electronic means (Article L.34-5 of the French Post and Electronic Communications Code): The restricted committee considered that the misleading appearance of the forms used by data brokers made it impossible to obtain free and unambiguous consent, in compliance with the requirements of the GDPR, which would have formed the basis for the prospecting operations carried out by the company. Failure to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to processing of his or her personal data (Article 7 of the GDPR): The company failed to provide the French SA with proof of consent from individuals whose data has been transferred to it by one of its main suppliers. As a result, the French SA was unable to examine the collection forms used by this supplier and, therefore, the validity of the consent of the data subjects.   Decision  Based on the findings of the inspection, the restricted committee – the French SA body responsible for issuing sanctions – considered that the company had failed to comply with obligations under the French Post and Electronic Communications Code (CPCE) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding the collection and proof of consent.  It imposed on SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES:  a €900 000 fine which was made public; and an order to cease electronic commercial prospecting in the absence of valid consent, together with a penalty of €10 000 per day overdue after a period of 9 months.  The amount of this fine takes into account the very large number of people concerned (several million), the company's historical position on the market, the financial benefit derived from the breaches, and the measures taken by the company to comply with some of its obligations since the checks were carried out. For further information:  •  Courtiers en données : sanction de 900 000 euros à l’encontre de la société SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES (French) •  Data brokers: SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES fined €900,000  (English)","pubDate":"Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:51:20 +0200","id":2170441,"titre":"The French SA fines SOLOCAL €900 000","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/french-sa-fines-solocal-eu900-000_en","source":"EDPB News"},{"description":"Background information Date of final decision: 15 May 2025 National case Controller:  SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES Legal Reference(s): Article 7 (Conditions for consent), Article 6 (Lawfulness of processing) Decision: administrative fine and an order to cease electronic commercial prospecting in the absence of valid consent, together with a penalty of 10 000 € per day overdue after a period of 9 months Key words: administrative fine, consent,  unsolicited communication   Summary of the Decision Origin of the case   As the French Supervisory Authority (SA) made commercial prospecting a priority topic for investigations in 2022, it focused on the practices of professionals in the sector, particularly those who resell data, including the many intermediaries in this ecosystem known as data brokers. The French SA carried out investigations on SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES which got prospect data mainly from data brokers, publishers of game contests and product testing sites (these actors are the first links in the chain, the primary collectors, who are responsible for collecting prospect data). SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES used this data to operate commercial prospecting by SMS or e-mail to individuals concerned, on behalf of its advertiser customer. It may also pass on some of this data to its customers, so that they can carry out their own commercial prospecting by telephone or post. Key Findings  Failure to comply with the obligation to obtain the consent of individuals to receive commercial prospecting by electronic means (Article L.34-5 of the French Post and Electronic Communications Code): The restricted committee considered that the misleading appearance of the forms used by data brokers made it impossible to obtain free and unambiguous consent, in compliance with the requirements of the GDPR, which would have formed the basis for the prospecting operations carried out by the company. Failure to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to processing of his or her personal data (Article 7 of the GDPR): The company failed to provide the French SA with proof of consent from individuals whose data has been transferred to it by one of its main suppliers. As a result, the French SA was unable to examine the collection forms used by this supplier and, therefore, the validity of the consent of the data subjects.   Decision  Based on the findings of the inspection, the restricted committee – the French SA body responsible for issuing sanctions – considered that the company had failed to comply with obligations under the French Post and Electronic Communications Code (CPCE) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding the collection and proof of consent.  It imposed on SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES:  a 900 000 € fine which was made public; and an order to cease electronic commercial prospecting in the absence of valid consent, together with a penalty of 10 000 € per day overdue after a period of 9 months.  The amount of this fine takes into account the very large number of people concerned (several million), the company's historical position on the market, the financial benefit derived from the breaches, and the measures taken by the company to comply with some of its obligations since the checks were carried out. For further information:  •   Courtiers en données : sanction de 900 000 euros à l’encontre de la société SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES (French) •   Data brokers: SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES fined €900,000  (English)","titre":"The French SA fines SOLOCAL 900 000 €","id":2130472,"pubDate":"Wed, 21 May 2025 15:52:14 +0200","source":"EDPB News","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/french-sa-fines-solocal-900-000-eu_en"},{"description":"Brussels, 18 December - The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has adopted an opinion* on the use of personal data for the development and deployment of AI models . This opinion looks at 1) when and how AI models can be considered anonymous, 2) whether and how legitimate interest can be used as a legal basis for developing or using AI models, and 3) what happens if an AI model is developed using personal data that was processed unlawfully. It also considers the use of first and third party data. The opinion was requested by the Irish Data Protection Authority (DPA) with a view to seeking Europe-wide regulatory harmonisation. To gather input for this opinion, which deals with fast-moving technologies that have an important impact on society, the EDPB organised a stakeholders’ event and had an exchange with the EU AI Office. EDPB Chair Talus said: “AI technologies may bring many opportunities and benefits to different industries and areas of life. We need to ensure these innovations are done ethically, safely, and in a way that benefits everyone. The EDPB wants to support responsible AI innovation by ensuring personal data are protected and in full respect of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).” Regarding anonymity , the opinion says that whether an AI model is anonymous should be assessed  on a case by case basis by the DPAs. For a model to be anonymous, it should be very unlikely (1) to directly or indirectly identify individuals whose data was used to create the model, and (2) to extract such personal data from the model through queries. The opinion provides a non-prescriptive and non-exhaustive list of methods to demonstrate anonymity. With respect to legitimate interest , the opinion provides general considerations that DPAs should take into account when they assess if legitimate interest is an appropriate legal basis for processing personal data for the development and the deployment of AI models. A three-step test helps assess the use of legitimate interest as a legal basis. The EDPB gives the examples of a conversational agent to assist users, and the use of AI to improve cybersecurity. These services can be beneficial for individuals and can rely on legitimate interest as a legal basis, but only if the processing is shown to be strictly necessary and the balancing of rights is respected. The opinion also includes a number of criteria to help DPAs assess if individuals may reasonably expect certain uses of their personal data. These criteria include: whether or not the personal data was publicly available, the nature of the relationship between the individual and the controller, the nature of the service, the context in which the personal data was collected, the source from which the data was collected, the potential further uses of the model, and whether individuals are actually aware that their personal data is online. If the balancing test shows that the processing should not take place because of the negative impact on individuals, mitigating measures may limit this negative impact. The opinion includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of such mitigating measures, which can be technical in nature, or make it easier for individuals to exercise their rights or increase transparency. Finally, when an AI model was developed with unlawfully processed personal data, this could have an impact on the lawfulness of its deployment, unless the model has been duly anonymised. Considering the scope of the request from the Irish DPA, the vast diversity of AI models and their rapid evolution, the opinion aims to give guidance on various elements that can be used for conducting a case by case analysis. In addition, the EDPB is currently developing guidelines covering more specific questions, such as web scraping. Note to editors: *An Article 64(2) opinion addresses a matter of general application or produces effects in more than one Member","titre":"EDPB opinion on AI models: GDPR principles support responsible AI","pubDate":"Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:47:16 +0100","id":1792119,"source":"EDPB News","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-opinion-ai-models-gdpr-principles-support-responsible-ai_en"}]