[{"titre":"LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order)","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/lc-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-anonymity-order/","pubDate":"Thu, 29 Oct 2026 08:01:50 +0100","description":"UT ref: UA-2026-000083-PIP In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber 28 October 2026 Before: Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anonymity Order Appellant: LC Respondents: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Tribunal venue: Scarborough Tribunal Case Nos: SC231/24/00181 Tribunal decision date: 29 August 2025 NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It is ordered , under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the appellant. The appellant shall be known as LC. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal for it to be varied or set aside. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales. REASONS This anonymity order is made on the application of the appellant. It is sought because “the appeal involves a disabled claimant and details of their disability are to reasonably be inferred from a prospectively publicised decision”. I have by a separate decision allowed the appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal. That decision will be published on public facing websites and, if no anonymity order is made, the appellant would be named in that decision. The principle of open justice is of fundamental importance to the justice system. An aspect of open justice is that parties’ names are made public. Derogation from this principle requires justification. Particular regard must be given to the importance of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to publish reports of cases. In this case, I am satisfied that it is necessary to derogate from the open justice principle to the limited extent of not naming the appellant. The appellant has ADHD and anxiety and depression and those features of his health and conditions need to be referred to in the decision on the appeal. In that context, I am satisfied that an anonymity order should be made because I accept a risk of harm could arise for this vulnerable appellant if he was to be identified in these proceedings, because those health details would then be in the public domain. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by this order and the final decision in this appeal being published online. The letters LC are not the appellant’s initials. The post LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3248599,"source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales"},{"url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12242053","titre":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries Intervention in Upcoming Supreme Court of Canada Copyright Case","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:47 +0100","source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","description":"By: Susannah Tredwell , Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP and James Bachmann , Instructional Librarian, Law Library, University of British Columbia Since 1988, when CALL/ACBD’s Copyright Committee was first set up, CALL/ACBD has advocated for its members' interests in the area of copyright. While the primary focus of CALL/ACBD’s copyright advocacy over the last few years has been on Crown copyright and primary law, CALL/ACBD has also made submissions about such areas as fair dealing and licencing. CALL/ACBD sees this work as not only supporting the needs of its members but also as serving the interests of access to justice as a whole. Continuing this work, on January 18, 2022 CALL/ACBD, along with Library Futures Institute, will act as an intervener in the Supreme Court of Canada case Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, et al. v. Entertainment Software Association, et al.   Kim Nayyer, CALL/ACBD’s President, and Robert Janes of JFK Law   will be representing CALL/ACBD and Library Futures. This case addresses the question of how the concepts of “communication to the public by telecommunication” and “making available on demand” as used in the Copyright Act should be understood. The outcome of this case has the potential to significantly impact various library activities, including controlled digital lending and possibly even the simple use of hyperlinks, particularly in light of the limited scope of current library and education exceptions in the Copyright Act . CALL/ACBD's submitted that the court refrain from broadly construing the terms “making available” and “Communication to the Public by Telecommunication” and that s. 2.4(1.1) of the act (\"Communication to the public by telecommunication\")   does not need to be understood as creating a new right.   You can find CALL/ACBD’s intervener's factum at https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/39418/FM050_Intervener_Canadian-Association-Law-Libraries-et-al.pdf . The other factums in this case are available at https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39418 .  CALL/ACBD has acted as an intervener at the Supreme Court of Canada on two other occasions. In Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. , which looked at Crown copyright, CALL/ACBD submitted   that “s. 12 Crown copyright does not extend to primary sources of law”. In York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency  (\"Access Copyright\"), CALL/ACBD submitted   that the SCC “should resist the temptation to modify or clarify the existing fair dealing test” stating that the existing test “is a flexible multifactorial test that allows libraries (and other institutions) to tailor access and appropriate copying policies that consider all relevant circumstances.” CALL/ACBD also made submissions to the 2018 review of the Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42: one general submission   and <a","id":3241460},{"source":"Arcom Textes juridiques","description":"The French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication (hereinafter ‘Arcom’), Having regard to Act No. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, as amended, on freedom of communication, in particular Articles 3-1 and 48 thereof; Having regard to the Decree of 13 November 1987, as amended, approving the terms of reference and specifications of Radio France and the National Audiovisual Institute; Having regard to Decree No. 2009-79 of 23 June 2009, as amended, laying down the terms of reference for the national broadcaster France Télévisions; Having regard to Decree No. 2012-85 of 25 January 2012, as amended, laying down the terms of reference of the national broadcasting organisation responsible for France’s international audiovisual services (France Médias Monde); Having regard to the submission of a case before the court on 20 July 2026 concerning a draft decree amending the terms of reference and specifications of the national broadcasting organisations; Having deliberated on 27 July 2026, issues the following opinion: By letter dated 20 July 2026, the Government referred to Arcom a draft amendment to the decrees approving the terms of reference and conditions of France Télévisions, Radio France and the company responsible for France’s audiovisual services (France Médias Monde). These amendments are intended, in particular, to implement notices Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 14 of the remit entrusted to Mr Bruno Lasserre, Honorary Vice-President of the Council of State, concerning the impartiality of the audiovisuel public service broadcasting, the conclusions of which were made public on 29 May 2026. In this regard, ARCOM welcomes the swift implementation of the proposals in the Lasserre report falling within its regulatory remit. The draft legislation submitted for its consideration makes it possible, in particular, to better define the scope of the requirement for impartiality and to enshrine it explicitly in the legislation setting out the obligations of public service broadcasters in the audiovisual sector. These new requirements will, however, necessitate the allocation of dedicated means, in particular to deal with the submission of cases before the court and to improve the functioning of the committees on integrity, independence and plurality of information and programmes (CHIPIP). The draft decree also summons ARCOM to make the following comments. I. – Provisions relating to the impartiality of public audiovisuel broadcasting Clarification of the requirement for impartiality and the obligations arising therefrom The draft decree clarifies the requirement for ‘impartiality in the public audiovisual industry’ set out in Article 3-1 of the Act of 30 September 1986, which is defined as ‘ an essential condition for building the necessary trust between the public, in all its diversity, and the public service, a common good that belongs to all”, implying “a duty to set an example in terms of transparency and honesty in reporting, as well as respect for the plurality of schools of thought and opinion ’ without hindering ‘the definition of an editorial line which, whilst implementing these principles, sets the services offered by the company apart’. The draft decree echoes the wording of the first notice of the Lasserre report and specifies in this regard that the requirement is to be assessed in a manner proportionate to the nature and format of the programmes and entails: the adoption, by each national broadcaster, of an editorial charter setting out the ethical rules applicable to news and the programmes that contribute to it; the establishment of proceedings for handling complaints regarding compliance with the charter; the publication of an annual report on the public’s perception of the impartiality of the services provided by the aforementioned broadcasters. As part of the monitoring of compliance with the terms of reference and specifications, Arcom, which is legally responsible for","id":3233315,"url":"https://www.arcom.fr/en/find-out-more/legal-area/legal-resources/opinion-27-july-2026-amendment-terms-reference-and-specifications-national-programme-companies-france-televisions-radio-france-and-france-medias-monde","titre":"Opinion of 27 July 2026 on the amendment of the terms of reference and specifications of the national programme companies France Télévisions, Radio France and France Médias Monde","pubDate":"Thu, 22 Oct 2026 08:04:53 +0200"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu kkrown September 5, 2025 | 10:00AM First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu Online marketplaces and third party sellers looking for a refresher on the INFORM Consumers Act should look no further than the recent settlement with Whaleco, Inc., which operates the online marketplace Temu. The complaint alleges the company failed to provide online shoppers with required information and tools. This is the first case brought to enforce the INFORM Act. The INFORM Act, which went into effect in 2023, seeks to make online transactions more transparent. Among other things, the law requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain information about high-volume third party sellers. ( Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act  has more on how the law defines terms, what’s required of online marketplaces, and the substantial penalties the FTC and state law enforcers may seek if online marketplaces violate the law.) In 2022, Temu launched its online marketplace in the United States, where consumers can view product listings on Temu’s homepage, through search results, and in gamified shopping experiences on the platform. According to the complaint, Temu violated the INFORM Act by failing to offer a mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity — electronically and by phone — on the gamified product listings of many high-volume third party sellers and by failing to offer a telephonic mechanism on non-gamified product listings. The complaint also alleges that Temu did not post required identifying information about sellers on its gamified product listings or mobile site, and that Temu’s disclosures, when made, were difficult to find. According to the settlement, Temu will pay a $2 million civil penalty, provide a telephonic mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity on listings, and make other required disclosures. Is your business covered by the INFORM Act? Make sure you:  Review the provisions of the INFORM Act thoroughly . Make sure you fully understand — and have measures in place to comply with — each of its requirements. Make required disclosures easy for consumers to notice . Required disclosures should stand out from any surrounding material and use plain language. Minimize or eliminate steps consumers need to take to reach required disclosures. Ensure required disclosures are available across all iterations of your platform . The INFORM Act mandates disclosures on all interfaces with product listings. And as your platforms evolve, regularly assess and update your compliance efforts. If your business sells through online platforms, check out  What Third Party Sellers Need to Know About the INFORM Consumers Act . This covers what sellers are impacted by the INFORM Act, what you can expect online platforms to require of you, and what information platforms must disclose about you to consumers. It also answers some questions you may have about the law. And if you spot a violation of the INFORM Act, r­eport it to the FTC using this  dedicated link","id":3198178,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/09/first-inform-consumers-act-enforcement-case-filed-against-online-marketplace-temu","titre":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200"},{"description":"FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims lfair February 12, 2020 | 4:35PM FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims By Lesley Fair Ads for health products often target Boomer Consumers, but those aren’t the only claims pitched to people looking toward retirement. An FTC action alleges a company called Online Trading Academy has taken in more than $370 million by gearing its deceptive representations to that demographic. In addition, the complaint alleges violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. According to the FTC, the California-based operation, related companies, and three individual defendants advertise a “patented strategy” that consumers can apply “to any asset class including stocks, options, futures and currencies” to rake in big money. They claim their “training programs” – with price tags as high as $50,000 – will teach consumers how to “invest like the pros on Wall Street.” ”No matter your experience and goals,” people were told the defendants’ “proven” strategy was “designed to make money in any market, whether it’s going up or down.” The complaint recounts the process the defendants use to attract consumers through TV and radio ads, online promotions, and direct mail. First comes an in-person “preview” seminar. Next, people pay $299 for a three-day “orientation.” That’s where the defendants urge attendees to sign up for seminars costing thousands more. The defendants assign each attendee an “Education Counselor” – a/k/a salesperson working on commission – who follows up by phone or email. According to the complaint, the defendants train their Education Counselors not to “look like, act like or sound like, a traditional salesperson,” but instead to take on a “role” and lead consumers through “The Pain Funnel,” Q&A designed to overcome consumer qualms. To get people to sign up for more seminars, the defendants routinely offer to finance all or part of the cost with loans at 18%, with the promise to forgive the interest if the consumer pays the total off within six months. The FTC says that in some instances, the defendants lead buyers to believe they’ll be able to repay the loan quickly with money they’ll make using that “patented strategy.” So how much does Online Trading Academy say consumers will earn? A central theme of their pitch is “You don’t have to work on Wall Street to make money like Wall Street.” Infomercials feature purchasers claiming that “in three hours I made $12,000” or “I made $32,000 in less than seven trading days.” In a YouTube video, a retiree says he made “$40,000 in a single trade.” In addition, a speaker at a live event claimed consumers “could potentially make $50,000 of annual income with an account size as low as $5,000” because Online Trading Academy has “a patent on the fact that you can time the markets,” which “gives us the ability to know when to get in and when to get out, long-term and short-term.” Other speakers – including some of the named defendants – paint a picture of lavish lifestyles filled with international travel, a “super luxury car” every year, and homes in areas where kids have “live-in nannies, cooks, gardeners.” One speaker said the money he made using Online Trading Academy’s strategy allows him to live in an enclave so exclusive that a neighbor, a renowned Olympic gold medalist, taught his daughter to swim. But the facts paint a different picture. The FTC alleges the defendants don’t systematically collect data sufficient to substantiate their earnings claims. But even the evidence they do have gave them good reason to know their representations are deceptive. For starters, according to the FTC, the defendants know that few consumers who","id":3197414,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/02/ftc-challenges-online-trading-academys-money-making-claims","titre":"FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:09 +0200"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"New FTC warning letters cite unsupported Coronavirus-related health and earnings claims sgressin April 24, 2020 | 12:44PM New FTC warning letters cite unsupported Coronavirus-related health and earnings claims By Seena Gressin The FTC is not the pen pal you want if you operate a multi-level marketing company but aren’t closely monitoring your distributors. In its latest round of warning letters, the FTC warns ten MLM companies that they are responsible for the claims made by their participants. The letters direct the companies to report within 48 hours what actions they’ve taken to stop their distributors from claiming their products can treat or prevent Coronavirus disease, that MLM business opportunity participants are likely to earn substantial income, or both. The FTC says that the health and earnings claims are unsubstantiated and therefore violate truth-in-advertising laws. The products at issue are not scientifically proven to treat or prevent COVID-19, the disease that Coronavirus causes. The FTC previously has sent warning letters to companies about their Coronavirus-related health claims, but the new letters are the first to also target claims about potential business opportunity earnings. The letters come at a time when millions of people are out of work and facing financial challenges as a result of the pandemic. MLM companies rely on a network of independent distributors, sometimes called business opportunity participants, to buy and resell their products, often through direct person-to-person sales or online. MLMs typically offer participants a cut of the sales made by people the participant recruits to invest in the business opportunity. The new recruits then try to sell the products, and try to recruit more people to do the same. Most people who join MLMs make little or no money. According to the FTC, distributors of the MLM companies receiving the letters have posted promotional messages on Facebook, Instagram, and other social media sites. Health claims the FTC letters cite include: “STAY SAFE!! MAKE YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM STRONG!!!” Standard coronavirus protection kit . #antiseptics and #immunity_support.” “HOW WILL YOU FIGHT OFF CORONA? USE NUTRABURST-CHAGA- .... #coronacure #coronaprevention ... #immunesupport #immunebooster ... #immunesystembooster” “Got the coronavirus heebeegeebees? Boost your immunity with this amazing deal!!!!” “... If interested to learn more or obtain oils or rollers Let me know A little extra protection can help #doterra #NursesCOVID19 #Dialysis #ImmunityBoosters #ImproveRespiratoryFunction” Earnings claims the FTC letters cite include: “...Living in quarantine and where 14 million people applied for unemployment just last week ... I’ll stick with the opportunity to change people’s lives ... turn a small investment into six figures .... #arbonne ... #quarantine #2020” “Need to make extra money? Find it difficult to pay your bills? Were you laid off/ #fired? Be your own Boss w/doTERRA essential oils. Msg me to achieve financial independence #laidoff #unemployed #cantpaymybills #cantpaymyrent #student #sales #sidehustle #makemoney #stayathomemom.” “[E]veryone’s getting stimulus checks right now... There is no better investment you could do... Take that money that you’re about to get back... figure out a way to make this happen tonight.” In the letters alleging unsubstantiated health claims, FTC staff reminds the companies that, under the FTC Act, claims that a product can prevent, treat, or cure a serious disease require the support of well-controlled human clinical studies. Because “no such study is currently known to exist” for the advertised products, the FTC says the companies “must immediately cease making all such claims.” In the letters alleging deceptive earnings claims, FTC staff reminds the companies that under the FTC Act, “claims about the potential to achieve a wealthy lifestyle, career-level income, or significant","id":3197413,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/04/new-ftc-warning-letters-cite-unsupported-coronavirus-related-health-earnings-claims","titre":"New FTC warning letters cite unsupported Coronavirus-related health and earnings claims","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200"},{"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.","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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"},{"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":"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","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","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"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 03 Jul 2026 07:58:41 +0200","url":"https://www.dailyintakeblog.com/2026/07/florida-officials-urge-federal-judge-to-dismiss-constitutional-challenge-to-cultivated-meat-ban/","titre":"Florida Officials Urge Federal Judge to Dismiss Constitutional Challenge to Cultivated-Meat Ban","source":"The Daily Intake","id":3004078,"description":"Officials in Florida are urging a federal judge to dismiss UPSIDE Food's (UPSIDE) constitutional challenge to the state's cultivated meat ban, SB 1084 , arguing that the company's claim is vague and unsubstantiated. UPSIDE claims that the ban was enacted for discriminatory purposes in violation of the Dormant Commer Clause. The company's complaint cites to public comments made by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Florida Ag Commissioner Wilton Simpson that claimed the out-of-state cultivated meat industry threatens Florida's in-state conventional meat and agricultural industries. UPSIDE argues that these comments demonstrate Florida's sole intent in enacting the ban was to protect the state's cattle industry. While the court previously denied UPSIDE's motion for a preliminary injunction and rejected its claim that the Poultry Products Inspection Act preempted the law, as we reported last year , it allowed the company to proceed with its constitutional challenges to the law. Florida's SB 1084, the nation's first state-wide cultivated meat ban, was enacted in May 2024. The law defines cultivated meat as “any meat or food product produced from cultured animal cells” and makes it unlawful for any manufacturer to sell, hold, or distribute cultivated meat in Florida. UPSIDE received federal approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell a cultivated chicken product in 2022. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and relay developments in this"},{"description":"BEREC focuses on digital accessibility progress in a hybrid workshop yannick.stephan Thu, 21/05/2026 - 12:03 Latest News On 9 June 2026, from 9:30 to 14:50 CEST, BEREC will host an external workshop on accessibility at the IRG Secretariat in Brussels, Belgium. It is a hybrid event and participants may also attend online. The aim of the workshop is to assess what improvements have been made in practice recently, in the area of accessibility of electronic communications as the European Accessibility Act (EAA) marks its first anniversary. What's on the agenda? The programme is structured around four sessions with interconnected perspectives on the topic: The first session will focus on the end-users and examine real-world accessibility challenges, and practical solutions that support everyday digital participation. The following session will bring together regulatory authorities to explore how national approaches are shaping implementation, and how accessibility can move beyond compliance towards best practice. During the third session, industry will take the floor and will examine how market players are adapting services, developing technical solutions, and meeting implementation challenges under the new framework. The final session will shift focus to academia for its insights on the latest research, innovation, and the role of emerging technologies in advancing more inclusive digital services. Book your spot soon Participation is open to all, subject to registration . Please note that due to the limited capacity at the IRG Secretariat, in-person attendance is limited to 40 participants. Once this number is reached, online participation will be the only option. Note that for the on-site participants, sign language interpretation will be provided. The deadline for in-person registration is 2 June 2026, and online registration closes on 7 June 2026. Connection details will be sent to the registered participants before the event.","id":2898029,"source":"BEREC Office","url":"https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/news/latest-news/berec-focuses-on-digital-accessibility-progress-in-a-hybrid-workshop","titre":"BEREC focuses on digital accessibility progress in a hybrid workshop","pubDate":"Thu, 21 May 2026 16:14:31 +0200"}]