[{"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","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","id":3203247,"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","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3196242,"description":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't wfg-adm109 October 21, 2013 | 11:17AM Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't By Lesley Fair There are lots of nifty phone accessories, bottle holders, tow straps, pet items, and lanyards out there.  So a label that says the product is Made in the USA may help make the decision for some consumers.  When it bears the American flag and says “TRULY MADE IN THE USA,” that just might seal the deal.  But according to an FTC lawsuit , a lot of the “Made in the USA” merchandise touted by Logan, Utah-based E.K. Ekcessories wasn’t really made in the USA – turning the company’s claims from a Yankee Doodle Do to a Yankee Doodle Don't. E.K. Ekcessories sells a variety of outdoor equipment through popular retailers and on its own site.  In addition to the labels, the company touted its products’ U.S. pedigree with statements like “For 28 years E.K. Ekcessories has been producing superior quality made accessories in our 60,000 sq. ft. facility in Logan, Utah,” and “Our source of pride and satisfaction abounds from a true ‘Made in USA’ product.” To say an item is made in the USA, all or virtually all of it has to be U.S.-made.  In other words, all significant parts and processing must be of U.S. origin, and the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content. That’s the standard explained in the FTC’s 1997 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims.  But according to the complaint, in many cases, E.K. Ekcessories made “Made in USA” representations that were flat-out false.  In other instances, the FTC says the company slapped a label on a product without a reasonable basis for making the claim.  Both courses of conduct violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed order, the company can’t say a product is made in the USA unless all or virtually all of it really is made in the United States.  The order also bans other misleading claims about products’ country of origin. Given that other companies are selling the deceptively labeled merchandise, E.K. Ekcessories has to contact all distributors who bought or received products between January 1, 2010 and May 1, 2013, explaining the FTC’s lawsuit.  The retailers will be asked to pull marketing materials that say all E.K. Ekcessories stuff is U.S.-made or that describe a specific list of products as made in the United States, of U.S.-origin, or “Truly Made in the USA.”  For certain lines of products, they’ll get stickers to cover the inaccurate claims. You can file an online comment about the proposed settlement by November 21, 2013. The message for marketers?  First , it’s a good time to brush up on how to comply with Made in USA standards.  The Business Center has a dedicated Made in USA page to make that easier for you.  Second , given just how important many consumers take a Made in USA claim, companies that make that statement falsely or without a reasonable basis are risking law enforcement action.  Truly.","pubDate":"Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:05:12 +0200","titre":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/10/made-usa-avoiding-yankee-doodle-dont"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype lfair May 2, 2016 | 10:52AM Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype By Lesley Fair Animation fans remember the ballet-dancing pink hippos in Fantasia . In Egyptian mythology, the god of disorder was depicted as a red hippo. And many consumers – especially those already in financial distress – were drawn in by national TV and radio ads for BlueHippo, a company that claimed to finance the purchase of computers and other electronics for people with “less than perfect credit, bad credit, no credit.” A $13.4 million ruling by a United States District Judge in an FTC contempt action sends a message to hippos of all hues (and businesses) about the FTC’s commitment to effective order enforcement. In 2008, the FTC sued BlueHippo Funding and BlueHippo Capital for, among other things, not delivering ordered merchandise, failing to make disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, and illegally conditioning the extension of credit on consumers’ “agreement” to repay by preauthorized electronic debit. One common tactic was that BlueHippo said it would deliver the product once the consumer made 13 weekly payments, but then didn’t make good on that promise. The FTC also alleged that in many instances, BlueHippo debited consumers’ accounts without first disclosing that consumers couldn’t get a refund even if they cancelled before delivery. The defendants settled that case , agreeing to pay up to $5 million in redress and to change how they did business in the future. The FTC went back to court in 2009 , alleging that BlueHippo was flouting the terms of the settlement and continuing to engage in illegal practices. The Court granted the FTC’s contempt motion against the corporate defendants and CEO Joseph Rensin, but entered a remedy of only $609,000. The FTC appealed the financial ruling. Arguing that there should be a presumption that consumers relied on the defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, the FTC sought a contempt order of $14 million – the gross sales the defendants generated through their illegal conduct. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled , “We agree with the FTC and join our sister circuits in adopting a presumption of consumer reliance in FTC civil contempt actions.” The appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine “whether the FTC has demonstrated that it is entitled to a presumption of consumer reliance. If so, the court should use defendants’ gross receipts as a baseline for calculating the consumers’ actual loss, and defendants should then be afforded an opportunity to proffer evidence showing that an offset of the baseline is warranted.” What’s the latest development? On remand, the trial court entered a judgment against CEO Rensin for $13.4 million, the financial harm the court determined that consumers suffered as a result of the scheme. The case is another illustration of the FTC’s interest in effective order enforcement. To settle cases and then not follow through to see that defendants live up to their promises would be, well, hippo-critical.","id":3195790,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/05/judge-orders-134-million-contempt-action-challenging-bluehippo-hype","titre":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:14 +0200"},{"description":"Case number: AC-2026-LON-002515 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court In the matter of an application for judicial review 17 July 2026 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Sheldon Between: The King on the application of (1) RDS (2) Bayswater Support Group (Claimants) -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Defendant) and NHS England (Interested Party) Order Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12) Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply ORDER BY THE HON. Mr Justice Sheldon (1) Anonymity a. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998: i. the names of the First Claimant, his children and his former spouse are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; ii. the name of the chair of the Second Claimant, her children and any partner are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public. iii. the First Claimant and chair of the Second Claimant are to be referred to orally and in writing as ‘RDS’ and ‘RDA’ respectively. iv. The First Claimant and Chair of the Second Claimant are permitted to use ‘care of’ (c/o) addresses of the Claimants’ solicitors in the claim form and on any witness statements filed. b. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the First Claimant or Chair of the Second Claimant, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of any of them, in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings. c. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): i. the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the said Claimants or any of the other individuals referred to in (a)(i) or (ii); ii. if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants or to the identification of any of the other individuals referred to in (a)(i) or (ii), a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; iii. unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case. iv. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party. (2) Interested Party : NHS England, named in these proceedings as an Interested Party, shall be removed forthwith as a party to these proceedings. (3) Permission : Permission to apply for judicial review is refused. (4) Costs : The Claimants must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £7,026.60. (5) Further provision as to costs : (a) Where the Claimants do not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below): (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimants may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed. (ii) If the Claimants do not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimants must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)). (iii) If the Claimants file and serve a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above: the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages); if the other party files and serves on the Claimants submissions in response, the Claimants may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve","id":3081876,"source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales","titre":"RDS and Bayswater Support Group -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (anonymity order)","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rds-and-bayswater-support-group-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-and-social-care-anonymity-order/","pubDate":"Fri, 07 Aug 2026 14:03:33 +0200"},{"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","id":3042974,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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":"Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:04:33 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:09:43 +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","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","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"source":"BEREC Office","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","id":2793006,"titre":"BEREC Provides Early Assessment of the Digital Networks Act, Welcoming Ambition While Highlighting Areas for Improvement","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","pubDate":"Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:33:01 +0200"}]