[{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/01/ftc-consumer-protection-year-review-offers-2020-vision-your-business","titre":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business","pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","id":3203247},{"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.","id":3201873,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/10/clothes-look-rn-database-qa-ftc-staff","titre":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/08/ftc-announces-first-mobile-app-case","titre":"FTC announces first mobile app case","id":3201055,"description":"FTC announces first mobile app case wfg-adm109 August 15, 2011 | 9:41AM FTC announces first mobile app case By Lesley Fair There are some combinations that raise immediate compliance issues for responsible businesses — and kids’ privacy and mobile applications are among them.   A settlement announced by the FTC — the agency’s first involving a mobile app — sends the important message that consumer protection laws and rules apply with full force in the mobile marketplace. W3 Innovations, which does business as Broken Thumbs Apps, develops and distributes mobile apps.   Several of their apps, including the Emily’s Girl World, Emily’s Dress Up & Shop, and Emily’s Runway High Fashion apps, were directed to children and were marketed in the Games-Kids section of Apple’s App Store.  The Emily apps, which had more than 50,000 downloads, allow kids to play games, create virtual models, and design outfits. The apps encouraged them to email Emily’s Blog with shouts-outs to friends or requests for advice. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule requires parental notice and consent before companies collect kids’ personal info online, whether through a website or a mobile app.  According to the FTC, W3 Innovations collected and maintained thousands of e-mail addresses from users of the Emily apps without giving notice of their information collection practices and without getting verifiable parental consent. That, says the FTC, violated the COPPA Rule. In addition to a $50,000 civil penalty, the settlement — which names both the company and its president — bars future COPPA violations and requires them to delete all kids’ personal information collected in violation of the Rule. Today the FTC also released Living Life Online , a resource for children with short articles, activities, quizzes, and an ask-the-expert column.  Being online is part of kids’ lives. Living Life Online helps them be better digital citizens. Share it with your children or with parents of kids wrestling with topics ranging from cyberbullying to cell phone bill shock.  Order free copies from the FTC’s bulk order page","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:12:17 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/01/pink-slip-slip-first-ftc-cases-challenging-deceptive-car-title-loans","titre":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3192605,"description":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans lfair January 30, 2015 | 9:12AM Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans By Lesley Fair She’s got a competition clutch with four on the floor And she purrs like a kitten ‘til the lake pipes roar. And if that ain’t enough to make you flip your lid, There's one more thing. I got the pink slip, Daddy. Back in the days of the Beach Boys’ “Little Deuce Coupe,” the only risk to a car title – the pink slip – was when hot rodders bet them on drag races.The FTC just announced its first two settlements with car title lenders that underscore additional risks to consumers’ pink slips and wallets. What should other companies consider if they want to avoid crossing the yellow line? The complaints challenge allegedly illegal practices by First American Title Lending of Georgia, which operates over 30 locations in that state, and Finance Select, which does business as Fast Cash Title Pawn at five Georgia locations and two in Alabama. What’s a car title loan? It’s typically a high-cost, short-term loan secured with a consumer’s free-and-clear car title. The lender holds on to the title as long as payments keep coming in. Of course, if consumers don’t pay, the lender takes the car. Car title loans tend to run between $1,000 and $10,000. They have high interest rates – the typical APR can be a whopping 300% – and short repayment periods, sometimes only 30 days. Each payment after that first month is called a “renewal.” Given that many consumers who take out car title loans are in financial distress, it’s not surprising that loans may extend over a much longer period. According to the FTC, the average is more like eight renewals. In addition to holding the consumer’s car title, the lender charges monthly fees, sometimes as much as 25% of the amount borrowed per month. That means that after eight renewals, a consumer taking out a $1,000 loan could wind up paying $2,000 in fees. The FTC says the companies’ ads lured consumers in with promises of “zero” interest, but then failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose hidden conditions attached to those eye-catching deals. For example, First American Title Lending touted “0% interest” in big headlines on websites, billboards, newspaper ads, yard signs, and elsewhere. What consumers weren’t clearly told was that they’d only get the 0% rate if they were new customers, if they paid by money order or certified funds, and if they paid in full within 30 days. If it took them longer to pay – the norm in the industry – consumers would have to pony up hefty finance charges calculated back to Day 1 of that \"0% interest\" loan, as well as the fees that started on Day 31. According to the complaint, Fast Cash Title Pawn similarly advertised “0% Title Loans,” sometimes adding “1st 30 days 0%,” without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the substantial strings that were attached – including that if the consumer didn’t pay in full within 30 days, they’d have to pay the finance charge for the first 30 days in addition to charges that kicked in on Day 31.  The lawsuits allege that the companies’ practices violate the FTC Act.  The FTC says First American Title Lending also violated the Truth in Lending Act and Reg Z. Under the proposed settlements, the companies will have to clearly disclose all the qualifying terms associated with getting a loan at the advertised rate and what the finance charge would be after an introductory period ends. The orders also prohibit misrepresentations about material terms of any loan agreement. The FTC’s message to members of the industry is that they’re not flying (driving?) under the radar. Truth-in-advertising standards apply to car title loans, too. What's more, companies will be held to well-established principles of"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising lfair June 25, 2020 | 3:00PM Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising By Lesley Fair For consumers struggling with severe or chronic pain, ads for a product called Willow Curve appeared to offer light at the end of the tunnel. But the FTC alleges the marketers made false and unsubstantiated claims for the product , a device that applied low-level light and mild heat to the site of pain – and set people back between $599 and $799 in the process. The proposed settlement also sheds light on the FTC’s ongoing concern with deceptive native advertising. The complaint names two Michigan companies, Physician’s Technology, LLC, and Willow Labs, LLC, and two individuals affiliated with both businesses, Dr. Ronald Shapiro and David Sutton. In ads on national TV, satellite radio, online, and in social media, the defendants claimed that for people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic neuropathy, nerve damage, shingles, fibromyalgia, lupus, torn tendons, and other serious conditions, the light-emitting Willow Curve would provide “real, lasting, proven pain relief, without the costs, risks or inconvenience associated with elective surgery, prescription drugs or office visits.” The defendants also sold Willow Curve through a network of distributors and resellers, supplying them with promotional materials touting the product’s purported health benefits. What’s more, the defendants claimed to have clinical studies to support what they said about Willow Curve and that the FDA had reviewed and approved the device for its advertised pain relief and other health benefits. The FTC challenges those claims as false. The complaint also alleges the defendants advertised a “risk-free” and “money-back” guarantee for consumers if they were “not completely satisfied” within a specified time period. But the FTC says in many instances, the defendants required consumers to jump through hoops to get the hefty purchase price back – for example, by first undertaking a regimen of 92 “treatments” over a 180-day period. According to the complaint, those requirements were hidden behind hyperlinks or buried in paperwork in the Willow Curve box. Despite the defendants’ claim that they issued refunds within seven to ten business days, the FTC says some people never got their money back. Others got a refund a year or more later or only after reporting the defendants to a State Attorney General or the Better Business Bureau. Another notable count relates to the defendants’ use of native advertising. For example, what appeared to be an online magazine article, “Understanding the Gender Gap in Sports Injuries and Treatment,” was actually advertising for Willow Curve. According to the FTC, the defendants hired a marketing company to write this article and others, which looked a lot like the non-advertising content of the magazines and newspapers in which the ads ran. The complaint alleges the articles weren’t identifiable as ads, including when consumers posted or shared them on social media or in email. The settlement includes a judgment of $22 million, which – based on the defendants’ financial condition – will be partially suspended when defendants Shapiro and Sutton each pay $200,000. Among other things, the proposed order requires the defendants to have randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled testing to support a broad range of pain relief claims. The order also prohibits them from representing expressly or by implication that advertising is a statement or opinion from an independent publisher or source. The case illuminates some issues of interest to advertisers. Support pain relief claims with sound science.   There’s a predictable cycle. As more consumers experience chronic and serious pain, more marketers position their products as purported remedies. What comes next?","id":3191275,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/lights-out-unsubstantiated-pain-relief-claims-deceptive-native-advertising","titre":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 14:10:47 +0200"},{"titre":"FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-requires-amazon-pay-225-million-resolve-charges-it-knowingly-violated-fair-credit-reporting-act","pubDate":"Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:09:43 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"Amazon will pay $2.25 million in civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the online retail giant knowingly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by refusing to provide transaction records to consumers whose personal information was used by identity thieves to commit fraud. The complaint , filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, alleged that in numerous instances, Amazon.com Inc. failed to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to, within 30 days of a consumer’s request, provide victims of identity theft with application and business transaction records about fraudulent transactions made in their names. According to the complaint, Amazon had no written policy to respond to Section 609(e) requests until early 2025, after it learned of the FTC’s investigation, despite prior outreach from FTC staff advising the company to review its compliance with Section 609(e). “Amazon often put identity theft victims through a Kafkaesque ordeal by demanding they identify the thief who stole their information before Amazon would release the records the law entitles them to—records that could help victims protect themselves and recover from the fraudulent conduct,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will not allow companies to simply ignore their legal obligations, especially those designed to support and protect identity theft victims.” Many consumers who contacted Amazon to report fraud were told by its customer service agents that they could not provide the requested records for “security” or “privacy” reasons, the complaint alleged. For example, one consumer reported that when they contacted Amazon seeking business records related to unauthorized charges stemming from a fraudulent account, a company representative said they could not share details about the other account that had used the consumer’s credit card for “security reasons” unless the consumer guessed the name on the account (the name used by the identity thief), which the consumer was unable to do after making 30 attempts. The complaint alleged that in other instances, Amazon agents told consumers they were not able to access the requested records. Amazon even refused to provide application and business transaction records to law enforcement agencies who had been authorized to, and who did, submit requests to Amazon on behalf of consumers who were victims of identity theft. Some frustrated consumers resorted to sending copies of the FCRA and FTC guidance to Amazon in hopes of receiving the requested records, but Amazon still failed to comply with the law. The complaint also alleged that in some cases where Amazon ultimately provided requested records, it failed to respond to consumers within the 30-day timeframe required by the FCRA. In addition to the $2.25 million civil penalty—a record for a Section 609(e) violation—the proposed order will prohibit Amazon from failing to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, requiring the company to provide the records lawfully requested by identity theft victims and law enforcement agencies acting on their behalf. The order also requires Amazon to provide notice to consumers about how identity theft victims can request records under the FCRA. The company must also contact consumers who had requested records since April 2024 from Amazon but did not receive them to inform these consumers that it may have additional records and that the consumers may request those records from Amazon. This is the second case the FTC has brought using its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA. The FTC announced its first case involving a violation of Section 609(e) of the FCRA in 2020 against Kohl’s Department Stores Inc . The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the DOJ and to approve the proposed stipulated order. The DOJ filed the complaint and final","id":2997627},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.46298/cst.11574","titre":"Modelling the governance of European medium-sized port-cities","pubDate":"Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:03:48 +0200","description":"The paper presents a model designed to analyse port governance. It considers that thestakeholders ability to adopt cooperative behaviors constitutes the key element to portdevelopment. Its focus is on medium-sized European ports and fifteen cases were studied. Eachterritory was first subject to a qualitative survey and analysis of the contents of local stakeholdersdiscourse (over 80 interviews conducted). The material is rich, allowing for the comparisonbetween two or even three ports, yet the delicate nature of the relations brought to light addsconsiderable complexity to the comparison within a larger ensemble. The paper, therefore,proposes a semi-automatic treatment which helps to mitigate this difficulty by means of acomputer model based on graph theory. It involves a modelling system based on the relationsbetween the entities of the system. In this context, the relations between stakeholders wereanalysed in order to create typologies and eventually envisage some standard models ofgovernance. In order to territorialize the subject, six typical cases out of fifteen were used: LeHavre, Nantes-Saint Nazaire, Dunkirk (France), Gdynia (Poland), Klaipėda (Lituania), Hamina-Kotka (Finland).All these port environments modelled according to a single format (i.e. a graph) led to theapplication of a certain number of metrics which enables them to be compared. Two mainmetrics were presented in the framework of this paper for illustrative purposes: “Density” and“S_metric”. These metrics originating in graph theory, coupled with other indicators (distributionof degrees and number of hubs per port), allowed to measure the relationships' intensity and thedistribution of these intensities among the stakeholders, and to identify the main stakeholders orconversely the least","id":2815873,"source":"Les Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport - Scientific Papers in Transportation - Dernières publications"},{"source":"BEREC Office","id":2793006,"description":"BEREC Provides Early Assessment of the Digital Networks Act, Welcoming Ambition While Highlighting Areas for Improvement yannick.stephan Mon, 30/03/2026 - 12:57 Press Releases The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) today published its early assessment of the European Commission’s proposal for a Digital Networks Act (DNA). BEREC welcomes the overarching ambition to modernise the regulatory framework for Europe’s connectivity sector and to support resilient, sustainable and high quality digital networks. At the same time, BEREC identifies important areas where further refinement is needed to ensure that the DNA strengthens, rather than complicates, Europe’s internal market for electronic communications. BEREC stands ready to provide its regulatory expertise in order to avoid undue complexity or uncertainty and to ensure that the final framework delivers a competitive, connected and resilient digital Europe. BEREC welcomes the updated objectives introduced by the DNA , including resilience, sustainability, in addition to the existing objectives addressed by the European Electronic Communications Code. While BEREC supports the ambition to strengthen the competitiveness of the EU digital sector, it highlights that this can only be achieved through an effective and robust competition framework. It further notes that the proposal introduces elements of greater centralisation that require further clarification to ensure they contribute effectively to a well functioning internal market. While BEREC recognises the Commission’s intention to streamline the General Authorisation procedures, the proposed Single Passport mechanism raises concerns from several perspectives. In particular, by concentrating significant enforcement responsibilities in the Member State of first notification, the system risks forum shopping, uneven supervisory burdens and slower enforcement. Overall, BEREC considers that the proposal could introduce greater operational complexity, administrative burden and legal uncertainty, without offering clear benefits over the current straightforward authorisation regime. BEREC also notes that the DNA proposes major changes to spectrum management , including treating spectrum as an EU‑level resource and introducing common rules for fees, long‑duration rights and satellite authorisation. While these measures aim at harmonisation, BEREC warns that the proposed single market procedure, which includes a Commission veto, signifies a notable trend towards centralisation and raises certain concerns. BEREC also cautions that some proposals in particular the introduction of unlimited license duration and automatic renewals, risk favouring existing rights holders and reducing market contestability. On the other hand, it welcomes it proposed role in the market shaping aspects of spectrum assignment. On satellite authorisation, BEREC supports EU coordination but stresses the need for alignment with ITU‑R rules. The DNA’s move to treat numbering resources as a common Union asset introduces a more centralised approach, and while BEREC sees potential benefits in greater harmonisation, it notes that key concepts—such as an EU wide numbering plan and pan European numbering ranges—require further clarification. BEREC also considers that additional analysis of demand, use cases and operational impacts would help ensure that any new framework is aligned with the needs of end users, operators and regulators. BEREC welcomes the preservation of the Significant Market Power regime, a cornerstone of the EU regulatory model, alongside the continued availability of symmetric access tools . Nonetheless, several DNA proposals, including new sequencing rules for remedies, the potential removal of the Recommendation on Relevant Markets, and expanded Commission veto powers could reduce the ability of NRAs to address national market needs. BEREC supports the goal of enabling a smooth transition from copper to fibre networks and recognises improvements made to","pubDate":"Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:33:01 +0200","url":"https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/news/press-releases/berec-provides-early-assessment-of-the-digital-networks-act-welcoming-ambition-while-highlighting-areas-for-improvement","titre":"BEREC Provides Early Assessment of the Digital Networks Act, Welcoming Ambition While Highlighting Areas for Improvement"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:50:38 +0100","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-secures-settlement-banning-growth-cave-defendants-marketing-selling-business-opportunities","titre":"FTC Secures Settlement Banning Growth Cave Defendants from Marketing and Selling Business Opportunities and Credit Repair Programs","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2659689,"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"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","description":"7-Eleven, Inc. and its parent company, Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd., (collectively 7-Eleven) will pay $4.5 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit alleging that the convenience store chain violated a 2018 FTC consent order by acquiring a fuel outlet in St. Petersburg, Fla. without providing the Commission prior notice. The $4.5 million penalty marks the largest civil penalty ever collected in an FTC case involving a prior-notice violation. It is also the largest negotiated settlement of any order violation in the FTC Bureau of Competition’s history. “Under the Trump-Vance FTC, merger remedies that protect competition are once again on the table. But for merger remedies to work, firms must abide by the terms of their consent orders, and we will hold parties accountable when they don’t live up to their commitments,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “7-Eleven failed to fulfill the terms of the FTC’s consent order and is now paying a record price. The FTC will not hesitate to protect the public by actively enforcing order violations and seeking penalties against future violators.” The settlement resolves an FTC lawsuit filed in 2023. That suit arose from a 2018 consent order to resolve the FTC’s antitrust claims that 7-Eleven’s $3.3 billion acquisition of 1,100 retail fuel outlets from Sunoco would harm competition and raise fuel prices for consumers in 76 local markets. In the consent order, 7-Eleven agreed to divest certain fuel outlets and to provide prior notice to the FTC before making future acquisitions of competing fuel outlets in the local markets. This prior notice allowed the FTC to investigate—and, if needed, file an enforcement action—if additional acquisitions by 7-Eleven harmed consumers in these local markets. The consent order specifically listed the St. Petersburg outlet as one that 7-Eleven could not acquire without providing the FTC with prior notice. According to the FTC’s complaint, 7-Eleven acquired the St. Petersburg fuel outlet in December 2018, in violation of the consent order. On March 25, 2022—over three years after 7-Eleven acquired the St. Petersburg outlet—7-Eleven first informed the Commission it had acquired the St. Petersburg outlet. The FTC found that 7-Eleven’s internal controls for ensuring compliance with the consent order were wholly inadequate and that the company failed to implement any meaningful systems to ensure compliance with the Commission order. In addition to the $4.5 million in civil penalties, 7-Eleven was required to divest the St. Petersburg outlet to a strong buyer. 7-Eleven also agreed to commit to additional prior approval and prior notice requirements, which will help ensure that the Commission is made aware of any attempts by 7-Eleven to further consolidate in the local fuel markets addressed in the FTC’s order.  The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the stipulated final judgment and order for permanent injunction and civil penalty was","id":2559842,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/7-eleven-pay-record-45-million-penalty-settle-ftc-antitrust-order-violation-case","titre":"7-Eleven to Pay Record $4.5 Million Penalty to Settle FTC Antitrust Order Violation Case","pubDate":"Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:50:02 +0100"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:53:21 +0200","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/dma-and-gdpr-edpb-and-european-commission-endorse-joint-guidelines-clarify-common_en","titre":"DMA and GDPR: EDPB and European Commission endorse joint guidelines to clarify common touchpoints","source":"EDPB News","id":2425502,"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. "},{"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)","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","pubDate":"Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:51:20 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 21 May 2025 15:52:14 +0200","titre":"The French SA fines SOLOCAL 900 000 €","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/french-sa-fines-solocal-900-000-eu_en","source":"EDPB News","id":2130472,"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)"}]