[{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs lfair March 18, 2019 | 10:24AM Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs By Lesley Fair First, the bad news: That nifty purchase needs a repair. Now the good news for consumers: It’s still under warranty. But where can they go to get it fixed? Can the manufacturer restrict a consumer’s ability to go to the independent repair shop of their choice? Can the manufacturer use glue, non-standard screws, and proprietary diagnostic software that make it difficult for independent repair shops to fix things? Do limitations like these affect consumers’ rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ? That’s the topic of Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions , an FTC event scheduled for July 16, 2019 . Enforced by the FTC, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act helps consumers make informed buying decisions and gives them access to remedies if the widget starts to fidget during the warranty period. One key consumer protection under Mag-Moss is that the law prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on the use of particular products or services. Here are some of the questions FTC staff intends to ask at Nixing the Fix : What’s the interplay between repair restrictions and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s anti-tying provision, which establishes that manufacturers can’t condition coverage on the use of parts or services identified by brand, trade, or corporate name? Do repair restrictions affect the market for extended warranties and service agreements? What types of restrictions are consumers running into when they try to get their stuff repaired? Are manufacturers’ restrictions having an impact on small fix-it businesses? Are manufacturers using software that may render products obsolete or unfixable if consumers engage in DIY or go to a local repair shop? Are repair restrictions necessary to reduce the risk of physical injury or to protect manufacturers from liability for products improperly repaired by others? Do consumers understand the effects of repair restrictions? We’re also looking for empirical research and data about the prevalence and impact of manufacturers’ repair restrictions. For example, what can you tell us about code that disables products that have been repaired by someone other than the manufacturer, product designs that make third-party repairs difficult (like attaching batteries with glue only the manufacturer can remove), contractual post-sale or licensing restrictions, or proprietary diagnostic software and replacement parts? Please send us your research and data by April 30, 2019. Do you have suggestions about possible panelists? Email us at nixingthefix@ftc.gov . Nixing the Fix will take place on July 16th at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. It’s free and open to the public. You can file public comments online and we’ll keep the record open until September 16, 2019. Follow the Business Blog for more information about the agenda and for watch-the-webcast instructions.","id":3199073,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/03/nixing-fix-warranties-mag-moss-restrictions-repairs","titre":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/08/first-consumer-review-fairness-case-takes-promoters-big-bucks-amazon-claim","titre":"First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","description":"First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim lfair August 6, 2018 | 11:11AM First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim By Lesley Fair T he marketers behind a purported money-making promotion called Sellers Playbook appear to have skipped the chapter about complying with federal and state consumer protection laws. That’s the allegation in a complaint filed by the FTC and the Minnesota Attorney General . In addition, it’s the FTC’s first case charg ing violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. The roots of the allegations go back to another venture sued by the FTC earlier this year: FBA Stores, also known as Amazing Wealth System and Amazon Wealth Systems. The defendants in that case ran online ads and in-person workshops that claimed to reveal the secret s of making major money on Amazon. But few, if any, of the consumers who forked over thousands of dollars and implemented their “plug-and-play systems” earn ed the kind of cash the defendants claimed. Which brings us to Sellers Playbook, Exposure Marketing, Jessie Conners Tieva, and Matthew Tieva – Minnesota-based defendants charged with pitching the same kind of “secrets” to making big bucks on Amazon . According to the just-filed lawsuit , the striking similarities should come as no surprise. That ’s because defendant Jessie Tieva was a regular speaker at Amazing Wealth Systems’ workshops. How successful was she in getting consumers to sign up? The complaint charges that Ms. Tieva and her team generated more than $3.4 million in sales for Amazing Wealth Systems. And let’s be clear: We’re not talking about $3.4 million in sales by consumers who successfully implemented the system. We mean $3.4 million that consumers shelled out to the operators of Amazing Wealth Systems for which Tieva was paid a handsome commission. The complaint alleges that the new Sellers Playbook venture is, in effect, a copycat of the now-defunct Amazing Wealth Systems operation. The earning claims certainly have a familiar ring to them. Here’s how Sellers Playbook touted their “opportunity”: “Holy cow, guys. That’s when you start seeing the returns of what we want you to have, $20,000 a month,” “Potential Net Profit: $1,287,463.38,” “Starting with $1000...1 year later over $210,000,” and “How many of you would like to learn how to turn a $5- to $10,000 investment into a $25- to a $1.2 million return with your investment? Yeah. And you’re going to learn those strategies before you leave here today. There are a few other things Amazon Wealth Systems and Sellers Playbook have in common: 1) Neither company has any affiliation with Amazon; and 2) Both companies charged consumers hundreds of dollars – or even hefty five-figure fees – to sign up. Of course, few consumers make the kind of earnings the defendants claimed. According to the complaint, many of the webpages promoting Sellers Playbook contained an inconspicuous earnings disclaimer in grey near the bottom of the page. What’s more, at a live event, the defendants briefly displayed this slide, which one of the presenters downplayed with this statement: “That’s why they have us do this again. It makes the lawyers happy, disclaimers. But you got to do your part. Money’s not going to fall from the sky. But as long as you do a part, it’s going to happen.” T he complaint challenges the defendants’ earning claims as false or unsubstantiated under FTC law and the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. What’s more, the lawsuit alleges multiple violations of the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule . The FTC and the AG also charge that provisions in the defendants’ form contracts try to restrict consumers’ ability to post reviews of their products, services, or conduct , in violation of the Consumer Review Fairness","id":3199075,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:46 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/04/keep-fcra-foreground-when-subject-background-screening","titre":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening","id":3198181,"description":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening chundycz April 9, 2014 | 12:13AM Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening By Lesley Fair When the talk turns to Big Data, part of the conversation is about all the public information available about people's lives – and how companies market it to prospective employers, landlords, etc.  Two cases just announced by the FTC  serve as a cautionary reminder to members of the industry that what they do may be subject to the long-standing consumer protections of the  Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) .  InfoTrack, an Illinois company, and San Diego-based Instant Checkmate will be paying civil penalties to settle FTC lawsuits that they violated the FCRA.  Is it time for an FCRA refresher at your business? Instant Checkmate marketed its reports as a way for prospective employers and landlords to investigate applicants.  For example, the company advertised that one of the “GOOD REASONS to get instant criminal checks on anyone right now” was to “check out tenants before they rent.”  It also used a Google Ad Words campaign to make sure its site appeared when people searched for background checks on nannies, babysitters, maids, and housekeepers.  What kind of information would buyers get?  Current and previous addresses, birth certificates, arrest histories, and marriage and divorce records, to name just a few examples. InfoTrack offered similar services to employers nationwide, including background screening reports with people’s driving records, education and employment information, criminal histories, and even records from sex offender registries. How does the FCRA come in?  The law defines a “consumer report” as a “communication of any information” by a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that bears on a person’s “credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living” which is used (or expected to be used) as a factor in establishing their eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, or other reasons outlined in the law. According to the FTC, what Instant Checkmate and InfoTrack were doing triggered the FCRA.  For example, companies covered by the law must follow procedures to assure their reports are as accurate as possible, must take steps to see that those using their reports have permissible purposes for accessing them, and must provide required User Notices explaining key protections for consumers.  The law imposes special requirements when CRAs provide reports containing public record information that could have an adverse effect on a person’s ability to get a job.  In that case, the CRA must either: 1) notify the consumer that it’s reporting the information in the public record; or 2) maintain “strict procedures” – that’s the language in the law – designed to ensure the reported public information is complete and up to date. You’ll want to read the complaints for specifics of where the FTC says the companies fell short, but one example cited in the lawsuit against InfoTrack offers an object lesson on why FCRA protections are so important to consumers – and how the consequences can be devastating when companies don’t live up to the law.  According to the FTC, the reports InfoTrack provided to prospective employers included information about whether a job applicant was on the National Sex Offender Registry.  The employer would provide the first and last name and the date of birth to help InfoTrack with its search.  The problem was that before the fall of 2011, no date of birth was available for many names on the Registry.  If InfoTrack’s search found more than one person with the same first and last name, it reported a “possible match” to employers and gave them reports that included several different people with the","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/06/speaking-spokeo-part-2-companys-allegedly-bogus-endorsements","titre":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements","id":3195787,"description":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements wfg-adm109 June 13, 2012 | 12:25PM Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements By Lesley Fair The lawsuit against data broker Spokeo is the FTC’s first Fair Credit Reporting Act case addressing the collection of online info — including data from social networking sites — when used in the context of employment screening.  But that’s not the only way the Spokeo settlement touches on social media.  The FTC also charged that Spokeo violated Section 5 by having employees post glowing recommendations of the company’s services on news and technology websites without disclosing their true identity. Perhaps just the work of a rogue cubicle occupant?  No, said the FTC.  According to the complaint , Spokeo directed its employees to write the comments.  Spokeo managers then edited what they wrote and had the staffers post the endorsements using account names provided by Spokeo.  The purpose, says the FTC, was to give readers the misleading impression that the laudatory words had been posted by independent consumers or business users of Spokeo. The FTC’s revisions to its Endorsement Guides made headlines a few years ago.  Ironically enough, the provision that seemed to attract the most attention is one that didn’t change.  It’s the law — and it’s always been the law under Section 5 — that consumers have a right to know when there’s a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser.  Here’s how the Guides put it:  \"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement ( i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.\" According to the FTC, by posting comments that conveyed the untruthful impression that they came from satisfied users of Spokeo’s services, Spokeo engaged in false and misleading practices.  To settle the endorsement count in the lawsuit, Spokeo has agreed that it won’t misrepresent, expressly or by implication, the status of any user of a product or service — for example, that someone is an independent, ordinary endorser if that’s not the case.  The company also will clearly and prominently disclose any material connection between an endorser and Spokeo (or any other entity advertising, selling, or promoting a product) when a connection exists.  What about the bogus endorsements already posted?  Spokeo has seven days to take all reasonable steps to pull them down. Looking for more about complying with the Endorsement Guides?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking and watch this video: While you’re at it, share this post and those resources with your marketing staff, your ad agency, your PR firm, and anyone else who plays a role in your publicity and promotions. Next:  What the Spokeo settlement means for your business, your next ad campaign, and your job search","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","titre":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/company-pay-22-million-offering-free-credit-scores-turned-out-be-not-so-free","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3194913,"description":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free wfg-adm109 November 19, 2014 | 11:12AM Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free By Lesley Fair We’ve brought law enforcement actions – dozens of ‘em. We’ve held workshops, issued reports, and sent warning letters. If it takes sky writing, tap dancing, and a float in a Thanksgiving Day parade, we’ll do that, too. But here’s what’s not going to happen. The FTC is not giving up until businesses get the message that: 1) Free means free; and 2) Key terms and conditions have to be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. A $22 million settlement announced by the FTC and the AGs of Illinois and Ohio with a national credit monitoring service advertising so-called “free” credit scores emphasizes that point. Another note for practitioners: It's the FTC's third case alleging violations of ROSCA . One Technologies and related outfits marketed their credit monitoring programs, MyCreditHealth and ScoreSense, through at least 50 sites, including FreeScore360.com, FreeScoreOnline.com and ScoreSense.com. Their strategy was simple. Buy advertising on search engines so their ads show up near the top when people look for phrases like “free credit report\" and then follow up with a persuasive pitch: “View your latest Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus in 60 seconds for $0!” According to the lawsuit , the defendants failed to clearly tell consumers that if they availed themselves of those “free” services and didn’t cancel within seven days, the defendants would ding their credit cards for $29.95 a month over and over and over again. The complaint includes screen shots of the defendants’ sites, but before looking at them, take out your reading glasses because they’ll come in handy in trying to locate where the defendants chose to tell people about that $29.95 monthly fee. One line of fine print added in late 2012 said “Free 7-Day trial when you order your 3 Free Credit Scores. Membership is then just $29.95 per month until you call to cancel.” The first problem: The type was tiny – a fraction of the size of the defendants’ multiple use of the word “free.” The second problem: Why should consumers even have to be on the look-out for the cost, given that the defendants so prominently advertised it as “free”? A second purported disclosure appeared as an obscure hyperlink on the page where people typed in their Social Security number and birthdate.  Sandwiched between the logos of various security firms and a large color button that said CONTINUE was this less-than-crystal-clear statement: By clicking on the ‘Continue’ button, you agree to the Offer Details, to the Terms and Conditions, acknowledge receipt of our Privacy Policy and agree to its terms . . . The “Offer Details” link triggered a small pop-up that said, among other things, “At the end of the 7-day trial period, your credit/debit card will be charged $29.95 on a monthly basis until you call to cancel.” Another place the defendants put the information was on a side panel of the Payment Form in white letters on a grey background – a color combination one of the defendants’ own employees described as “known to cause seizures in lab rats.” According to the complaint, once people spotted the unauthorized charges on their accounts, the defendants didn’t make it easy to stop the billing.  And even when people asked for their money back because they hadn’t approved of the charges, the defendants denied refunds to many of them. The lawsuit alleges violations of the FTC Act, as well as the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and related state rules. In addition, the complaint is the third FTC action to charge violations of ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers’"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":3176041,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission announced today that is considering whether to update its Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses or take other action to prevent online platforms from engaging in ad-optimization practices that may be furthering impersonation scams. In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published in the Federal Register , the FTC is seeking comment on the extent to which ad-optimization tools and services offered by social media, search engines and other digital marketplace platforms further efforts by scammers to impersonate legitimate businesses and government agencies using online ads.  “Free markets depend on trust, transparency and consumers’ ability to make informed choices. Impersonation scams—especially when amplified by digital platforms that profit from them—do more than rob Americans of their hard-earned money,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They erode the very foundation that allows competitive markets to function. Today’s impersonation scams are no longer the work of isolated con artists; they are sophisticated, highly engineered operations powered by the same advertising and targeting tools that platforms sell to legitimate businesses. Consumers reported nearly $3.5 billion in losses to impersonation fraud last year, and the true cost is likely far higher. “The Commission’s mission has always been to safeguard the conditions under which competitive markets can thrive. Increasingly, consumers rely on a small number of dominant digital platforms for everyday transactions—from shopping, banking and travel bookings to accessing government services. Yet these platforms are the very places fraudsters seek out consumers, exploiting their trust while platforms profit from optimizing and disseminating scam ads. “Today’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking asks whether the Commission should require platforms to take concrete steps to prevent impersonation ads from ever reaching consumers. By exploring potential new obligations platforms would have to follow, the rulemaking aims to ensure that Americans participate in an online economy where truthful information guides consumer choice.”  Impersonation scams have topped the list of fraud complaints reported to the FTC by consumers in recent years. In 2025, the FTC received more than 1 million reports about imposter scams from consumers, who reported losing nearly $3.5 billion to such scams. In addition, online platforms play an important role in many scams. For example, nearly 30% of consumers who reported losing money to scammers in 2025 said they were first contacted on social media platforms, with reported losses reaching $2.1 billion. The ANPRM notes that impersonation scams have been amplified by search engines, social media and other digital marketplace platforms that profit from optimizing online ads for third parties, regardless of whether the third parties are legitimate. The ANPRM seeks comment on a wide range of topics related to the use of these ad-optimization tools and services and the proliferation of ads that impersonate businesses and government agencies including:  The financial incentives driving these platforms to offer ad-optimization tools and services, details on how each tool and service optimizes the content and delivery of the ad, and the steps platforms currently take to prevent the use of such tools and services for deceptive advertising The extent to which these platform ad-optimization tools and services constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices by furthering impersonation scams Whether these unfair or deceptive acts or practices are prevalent in the marketplace and whether the Commission should address these acts or practices by amending the existing Impersonation Rule, proposing a new separate rule or implementing non-regulatory Measures Measures the Commission could consider in crafting any new regulations, including vetting","pubDate":"Fri, 25 Sep 2026 08:10:48 +0200","titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Whether to Update Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses to Address Platforms’ Role in Promoting Impersonation Scams","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/ftc-seeks-public-comment-whether-update-rule-impersonation-government-businesses-address-platforms"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":3120376,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized orders requiring Cox Media Group (CMG) and two other firms to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting. In three separate complaints first announced in May , the FTC alleged that Georgia-based media and marketing company CMG Media Corporation, which does business as  Cox Media Group , and two marketing firms it worked with, New Hampshire-based MindSift LLC  and Wisconsin-based  1010 Digital Works LLC ,  deceived customers by claiming they used a special algorithm to listen in on and detect pertinent conversations from smart devices in order to target ads to consumers within a specific geographic region. Contrary to these companies’ claims, however, the marketing service wasn’t based on voice data, and consumers hadn’t opted into this service. If the service had functioned as advertised, this collection and use of consumers’ voice data without adequate consent would itself violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed orders settling the FTC’s allegations,  CMG must pay $880,000 while both  MindSift and  1010 Digital Works  must each pay $25,000, which will be used to provide redress to CMG customers impacted by these practices. In addition, each defendant is prohibited from making any misrepresentation about the qualities or features of its advertising or marketing services; the collection and use of voice data and whether consumers have provided their consent to collect, use or disclose their voice data; and the geographic targeting capabilities of its advertising or marketing services. After receiving two comments on the proposed settlement orders, the Commission voted 2-0 to give final approval to the consent","pubDate":"Fri, 28 Aug 2026 08:07:59 +0200","titre":"FTC Finalizes Orders with Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms Settling Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-finalizes-orders-cox-media-group-two-other-firms-settling-charges-they-deceived-customers-about"},{"id":3042974,"description":"Alexander Mashinsky, the former CEO of cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network Inc. (Celsius), and his business partners, Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein, will pay a total of $16.5 million to resolve the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that they deceived users by falsely promising that deposits made to their cryptocurrency platform would be safe and always available. Mashinsky and Leon have also agreed to a ban on marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit, exchange, invest or withdraw assets. Similarly, Goldstein has agreed to a ban on marketing or selling retail products or services that can be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute or trade cryptocurrency. In its  July 2023 complaint , the FTC alleged that Celsius and its co-founders promised consumers that Celsius was “safer” than a bank or other traditional financial institutions and misrepresented that their deposits were safe because Celsius earned profits at “no risk” to consumers by making secured loans to other exchanges. The FTC says the company and its top executives deceived users by falsely promising them that they could withdraw their deposits at any time, that the company maintained a $750 million insurance policy for deposits, that it had sufficient reserves to meet customer obligations and that those in its Earn program could earn rewards as high as 18% annual percentage yield on deposits. They also repeatedly claimed that the company did not make any unsecured loans. The FTC, however, alleged that the promises were false and that its top executives continued to claim that customers’ deposits were safe days before the company filed for bankruptcy. The settlement orders with the FTC require Mashinsky to pay $10 million, Leon to pay $4.1 million and Goldstein to pay $2.4 million. In addition,  the order with Mashinsky ,  the order with Leon ,   and the proposed order with Goldstein   will also prohibit the Celsius co-founders from: Marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit or withdraw certain assets, as Mashinsky, Leon and Goldstein’s deceptive conduct led to enormous consumer injury; Making misrepresentations regarding the benefits of any product or service or any other material fact about any other product or service; and Violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, including by obtaining or attempting to obtain customer financial information by making false, fictitious or fraudulent representations; and Finally, the orders with Mashinsky and Leon prohibit them from disclosing nonpublic personal information about consumers unless the consumer first provides express informed consent. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order with Mashinsky was 3–0 and was approved prior to the departure of former Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. The Commission votes approving the stipulated final orders with Leon and Goldstein were both 2–0. The FTC filed the proposed orders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court Judge. The staff attorneys on this matter are Stephanie Liebner, Carlton Mosley and Sally Tieu of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","pubDate":"Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:04:33 +0200","titre":"Founders of Celsius Network Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/founders-celsius-network-ordered-pay-165-million-resolve-ftc-charges"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:09:43 +0200","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","titre":"FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2997627,"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"},{"titre":"EDPB conference on cross-regulatory cooperation: what we learned","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/edpb-conference-cross-regulatory-cooperation-what-we-learned_en","pubDate":"Tue, 24 Mar 2026 14:08:47 +0100","description":"Brussels, 23 March - On 17 March 2026, the EDPB conference “Cross-regulatory interplay and cooperation in the EU: a data protection perspective” took place in Brussels. The event showcased high-level discussions, featuring contributions from representatives of key EU institutions, European Data Protection Authorities, academia and industry.  Key takeaways from the panel discussions Throughout the day, three panels were held, focusing on 1) data protection and competition , 2) the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the GDPR , and 3) the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the GDPR .  During the first panel , speakers emphasised the critical need for cooperation between regulatory bodies in the fields of data protection and competition and shared views on what regulators in the two fields can learn from each other, especially in the aftermath of the Bundeskartellamt ruling. A speaker emphasized that regulators should align their approaches and recognize synergies between the two fields, such as protecting consumers and data subjects. Others pointed out that fixing harm to end users does not always solve competition issues, and that data protection should be considered in competition analysis only when relevant, on a case-by-case basis. Panellists also highlighted the need to cooperate not just on individual cases, but on broader concepts and legal principles.  In this context, the EDPB has recently agreed to develop joint guidelines with the European Commission to address the interplay between competition law and data protection. The discussions in the second panel centred on the joint guidelines on the DMA and the GDPR , which were developed by the European Commission and the EDPB and recently underwent public consultation. The joint guidelines are an unprecedented work and a good example of regulatory cooperation paving the way for further examples ahead, in line with the  EDPB Strategy 2024-2027 and  Helsinki Statement ’s objectives to strengthen cross-regulatory cooperation. A crucial goal of the guidelines is the development of a coherent and compatible interpretation of the DMA and the GDPR while respecting the regulatory competences. It was emphasised that these guidelines help break silos, strengthen consistency, and provide further clarity and legal certainty. All of this contributes to easier compliance, which is valued by stakeholders and increases trust. At the same time, certain speakers suggested improvements to the final version of the guidelines, bearing in mind the DMA should not be given primacy over the GDPR and that the measures companies have to comply with should be proportionate.  Other examples of cooperation in this domain were also mentioned, such as the participation in the High Level Group for the Digital Markets Act and specific instances of cooperation on concrete cases.  The last panel of the day explored how the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the GDPR interact. Panellists provided the example of the protection of minors: age   verification should be effective yet fully in line with data protection legislation.  They highlighted the growing need for strong coordination between the two frameworks, including the role of the European Board for Digital Services and other ways for the Commission and the EDPB to work together. A speaker also underlined the challenges and ongoing work on cross-regulatory cooperation from the perspective of a national authority. Another speaker urged regulators to work on building a fully coherent interpretation of the two frameworks and more globally of the digital legislation. Panellists also stressed that emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are reshaping online ecosystems and, as a result, the role of the DSA and the GDPR.  The panel concluded with a clear message: online safety under the DSA and the lawful processing of personal data are two sides of the same coin, both calling for the DSA and the GDPR to be read coherently.  Highlights from the keynote speeches The event also","id":2780286,"source":"EDPB News"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-will-require-illusory-systems-return-money-stolen-hackers-implement-information-security-program","titre":"FTC Will Require Illusory Systems to Return Money Stolen by Hackers and Implement an Information Security Program","pubDate":"Wed, 17 Dec 2025 09:50:37 +0100","description":"The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Illusory Systems Inc. for failing to implement adequate data security measures, leading to a major security breach in which hackers stole $186 million from consumers. Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s allegations, Utah-based Illusory, which does business as Nomad, will be required to implement an information security program to address numerous alleged security failures and to return recovered money to affected consumers. “The FTC Act requires companies to take reasonable security measures,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It’s important that companies live up to their security promises to consumers.” In its complaint , the FTC alleged that Nomad prominently touted its security in its advertising, claiming that it offered “security-first” services. The FTC, however, alleged that the company failed to live up to these promises by failing to: use secure coding practices; implement processes for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports and responding to security incidents; and utilize widely known technologies that might have helped mitigate consumer losses. According to the complaint, in June 2022, Nomad introduced inadequately tested code that included a significant vulnerability. Just over a month later, hackers began exploiting the vulnerability. The FTC alleged that Nomad failed to respond to the attack in time because of its inadequate security and incident response measures, which led to the loss of $186 million. The company was able to recover some money, but consumers lost approximately $100 million. Nomad was warned about the dangers of inadequate testing as well as the need to ensure it had adequate staff and security in place. The company, however, failed to implement basic safety measures that would mitigate consumer losses, the FTC alleged. Under the proposed order , Nomad will be prohibited from making misrepresentations about its security practices. In addition, the company will also be required to: Implement a comprehensive information security program that is designed to protect consumers from theft or other unauthorized access and address the security issues outlined in the FTC’s complaint; Obtain biennial assessments of its information security program by an independent third party and cooperate with the third-party assessor; and Return to consumers money recovered following the security breach that was not already returned to customers. The Commission voted 2-0 to accept the proposed complaint and order for public comment. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. NOTE:  The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $51,744. The lead staff attorneys on this matter are M. Hasan Aijaz and Julia Horwitz with the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","id":2577895,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"}]