[{"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"},{"titre":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/01/ftc-consumer-protection-year-review-offers-2020-vision-your-business","pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business lfair January 8, 2020 | 9:26AM FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business By Lesley Fair They say hindsight is 20/20, but what about foresight? We’re not ones to prognosticate, but a look at notable FTC cases and initiatives from the past year suggests some topics likely to be top of mind in months to come. Here is a non-exhaustive list of issues in our 2019 rearview mirror and likely visible through the 2020 windshield. Consumer privacy. The FTC’s $5 billion enforcement action against Facebook made history and headlines, but the other notable part of the case is the monumental change the order mandates to Facebook’s privacy ecosystem. The Commission opinion in Cambridge Analytica reaffirms the proposition that like any other claim, a company’s privacy promises are viewed through the lens of established FTC consumer perception principles. A series of cases demonstrates the agency’s continued commitment to challenging false or misleading representations about businesses’ compliance with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework. Another important development is the FTC’s proposed settlement with Retina-X . It’s our first action against a marketer of stalking apps – software that allowed purchasers to monitor the mobile devices on which they’re installed, without users’ knowledge. COPPA. Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to ensure that when it comes to the collection of kids’ personal information online, parents are in the driver’s seat. The FTC settlement with YouTube – brought in conjunction with the New York Attorney General – alleges that the company collected kids’ personal data without parental consent, in violation of the COPPA Rule . The $170 million civil penalty broke the record for the largest remedy in an FTC COPPA case, set months before in our $5.7 million settlement with Musical.ly , now known as TikTok. If you’re a YouTube channel owner, read a special Business Blog post for tips on determining if your content is directed to children. Data security. Is your company honoring its data security promises and taking reasonable steps to safeguard the sensitive information in its possession? The FTC, CFPB, and State AG actions against Equifax illustrate how consumers are injured when companies ignore reasonably foreseeable threats. The settlement, which totals between $575 million and $700 million – also reminds businesses that heeding warnings about known risks is more prudent (and cost-effective) than the alternative. Three threads tie together the FTC’s unrelated actions against LightYear Dealer Technologies and InfoTrax Systems . They both sell management software to specific industries. They both allegedly failed to take reasonable steps to secure their networks, resulting in damaging data breaches. And they’re both covered by similar new orders the FTC has introduced in recent data security cases. If you or your clients are players in the Internet of Things, the settlement of the FTC’s litigation against connected device company D-Link sends an unmistakable message: The future of the IoT marketplace depends on secure software development. Endorsements, certifications, and influencers. Why is the FTC concerned about the accuracy of endorsements and certifications? Because they’re material to consumers. The FTC says Truly Organics’ claim that its personal care products were “certified organic” lathered up a double bubble of deception. First, its merchandise contained ingredients that weren’t organic. Second, the company falsely claimed that its products were certified by USDA’s National Organic Program. Other FTC developments focused on the use of endorsements in social media. The FTC’s action against Devumi alleges the company sold fake followers, phony subscribers, and bogus","id":3203247},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff lfair October 5, 2017 | 11:18AM A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff By Lesley Fair It’s not much bigger than a postage stamp, but the label on many textile, wool, and fur products provides important information, including fiber content, country of origin, and a company name or Registered Identification Number (RN). The FTC administers the RN system and industry members will want to check out recent upgrades to the RN website . With RNs and labels on our mind, we asked some common RN-related questions to attorney Josh Millard, whom we’d label as one of the FTC’s go-to people on the subject. First things first. What’s an RN? JOSH:   A Registered Identification Number (RN) is a numerical designation – the prefix RN followed by a set of digits – that identifies the company responsible for marketing, distributing or otherwise handling a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts.  Because some labels are small and some company names are long, the law allows U.S.-based businesses to use an RN as a “shorthand” identification. We think the upgrades to the RN website will make it even easier for businesses to use. How do I get an RN for my company? JOSH:   Apply online. FTC staff will review your application and email you typically within 1-3 business days. As soon as your application has been approved, you’ll receive your RN.  How much does it cost to get an RN? JOSH:   There’s no charge. Is it mandatory that companies use an RN on labels? JOSH:   No, you don’t have to use an RN. It’s perfectly acceptable to include your company name instead, but many companies prefer to use an RN because it takes up less space. The RN system has other benefits, too. For example, it lets people identify your business easily through the RN Search screen . Consumers or other industry members can type in the number and readily find your business. Our company doesn’t reside in the United States.  Can we get an RN? JOSH:   Only U.S.-based businesses can get an RN. If your foreign company manufactures or is involved in the advertising, distribution, or sale of a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts, put the company name on the label instead of an RN. Alternatively, you can label the product with the RN or business name of a U.S. company directly involved with importing, distributing, or selling the product when that’s the case. Going through our records we found we have multiple RNs.  Is that a problem? JOSH:   It’s not prohibited, but we no longer issue multiple RNs to a single company and encourage companies to cancel any extra RNs to simplify recordkeeping. Our headquarters has moved since we applied for an RN.  Do we need to update our application? JOSH:   Yes. If there has been a change to your business name, address, or legal status, please update the information in your RN registration.  An RN can be cancelled if a business doesn’t keep its information up to date, so it’s wise to check. The good news is that the upgraded RN website makes that easier to do. What if we choose to use a company name on the label, rather than an RN? JOSH:   You must include the full name your company uses to do business – in other words, the name that appears on documents like purchase orders or invoices. It can’t be a trademark, trade name, brand, or designer name unless that’s also the name under which your company does business. What kind of guidance does the FTC have for industry members? JOSH:  Threading Your Way Through the Labeling Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts is a great place to start, and the FTC’s Clothing and Textiles page includes links to brochures, cases, workshops and other compliance resources.","id":3201873,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/10/clothes-look-rn-database-qa-ftc-staff","titre":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200"},{"titre":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/10/first-ftc-rosca-case-challenges-bogus-bogo-free-claims","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims wfg-adm109 October 21, 2014 | 12:02PM First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims By Lesley Fair It’s called ROSCA – the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act – and it prohibits marketers from charging consumers for an online transaction unless the marketer has clearly disclosed all material terms of the deal and received the consumer’s express informed consent. Your e-commerce clients will want to know about the FTC’s first ROSCA case , filed recently in Nevada. According to the lawsuit, Health Formulas, LLC and a tangle of related California- and Nevada-based companies and individuals – consumers may know them as Simple Pure Nutrition – pitched a variety of products for weight loss, muscle building, virility, and skin care. The defendants advertised diet supplements like Pure Green Coffee Bean Plus and RKG Extreme as a shortcut to drop the pounds: “Burn fat without diet or exercise,” “Extreme weight loss!” “Shed pounds fast!” “Super concentrated double fat burning,” etc. Among the defendants’ more colorful business names: Weight Loss Dojo, Longhorn Marketing (sorry, Texas fans), Black Bull, and Unleash the Thunder. But unsubstantiated weight loss claims were just the start. The FTC says the defendants lured people in with bogus promises of a “free” trial or deceptive buy-one-get-one (BOGO) offers. Then they tricked consumers into giving their credit or debit card information with the false implication that consumers had to “just pay shipping.”   Digits in hand, the defendants really went to town, allegedly signing consumers up without their authorization for a negative option program that billed their accounts over and over again, to the monthly tune of between $60 and $210. The FTC says the defendants violated ROSCA by using a negative option feature without providing clear and conspicuous disclosures, getting the consumer’s express informed consent, and offering a simple mechanism for stopping the recurring charges. The FTC’s complaint also cites the defendants’ hard-to-find and hard-to-understand fine-print “terms and conditions,” which consumers could reach only by scrolling through the equivalent of two printed pages and clicking on an obscure hyperlink. Assuming they found it – and that’s a big if – the typical “terms and conditions” document was 10 pages long. On some websites, consumers had to scroll down the payment page to see further fine-print disclosures about the cost of the products. The first sentence reiterated what consumers generally understood (“You must pay a shipping and handling fee of $4.95 for us to send you a full 30 day supply of Garcinia Cambogia Extract”) but it wasn’t until the middle of the paragraph that the defendants mentioned that the trial period lasts only 14 days, that it began when the items were shipped (not delivered), and that consumers would be charged after that. Other websites didn’t even include that information. According to the lawsuit, consumers who attempted to take the defendants up on their money-back guarantee were met with a series of undisclosed roadblocks. In addition to the ROSCA counts, the FTC says the defendants’ practices violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by debiting consumers’ accounts on a recurring basis without their prior written authorization. What’s more, the complaint charges that the defendants continued to call people after being told to cut it out, in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule’s entity-specific Do Not Call provisions. The FTC says they also violated the TSR through a series of deceptive upsells. A federal judge has entered a temporary restraining order and the FTC is seeking to put a permanent stop to the defendants’ illegal practices. If your clients have ROSCA questions, the","id":3201052},{"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":"Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:05:12 +0200","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.","id":3196242,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"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,"titre":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/05/judge-orders-134-million-contempt-action-challenging-bluehippo-hype","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:14 +0200"},{"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":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/company-pay-22-million-offering-free-credit-scores-turned-out-be-not-so-free","titre":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free"},{"titre":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/01/pink-slip-slip-first-ftc-cases-challenging-deceptive-car-title-loans","pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:12:17 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans lfair January 30, 2015 | 9:12AM Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans By Lesley Fair She’s got a competition clutch with four on the floor And she purrs like a kitten ‘til the lake pipes roar. And if that ain’t enough to make you flip your lid, There's one more thing. I got the pink slip, Daddy. Back in the days of the Beach Boys’ “Little Deuce Coupe,” the only risk to a car title – the pink slip – was when hot rodders bet them on drag races.The FTC just announced its first two settlements with car title lenders that underscore additional risks to consumers’ pink slips and wallets. What should other companies consider if they want to avoid crossing the yellow line? The complaints challenge allegedly illegal practices by First American Title Lending of Georgia, which operates over 30 locations in that state, and Finance Select, which does business as Fast Cash Title Pawn at five Georgia locations and two in Alabama. What’s a car title loan? It’s typically a high-cost, short-term loan secured with a consumer’s free-and-clear car title. The lender holds on to the title as long as payments keep coming in. Of course, if consumers don’t pay, the lender takes the car. Car title loans tend to run between $1,000 and $10,000. They have high interest rates – the typical APR can be a whopping 300% – and short repayment periods, sometimes only 30 days. Each payment after that first month is called a “renewal.” Given that many consumers who take out car title loans are in financial distress, it’s not surprising that loans may extend over a much longer period. According to the FTC, the average is more like eight renewals. In addition to holding the consumer’s car title, the lender charges monthly fees, sometimes as much as 25% of the amount borrowed per month. That means that after eight renewals, a consumer taking out a $1,000 loan could wind up paying $2,000 in fees. The FTC says the companies’ ads lured consumers in with promises of “zero” interest, but then failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose hidden conditions attached to those eye-catching deals. For example, First American Title Lending touted “0% interest” in big headlines on websites, billboards, newspaper ads, yard signs, and elsewhere. What consumers weren’t clearly told was that they’d only get the 0% rate if they were new customers, if they paid by money order or certified funds, and if they paid in full within 30 days. If it took them longer to pay – the norm in the industry – consumers would have to pony up hefty finance charges calculated back to Day 1 of that \"0% interest\" loan, as well as the fees that started on Day 31. According to the complaint, Fast Cash Title Pawn similarly advertised “0% Title Loans,” sometimes adding “1st 30 days 0%,” without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the substantial strings that were attached – including that if the consumer didn’t pay in full within 30 days, they’d have to pay the finance charge for the first 30 days in addition to charges that kicked in on Day 31.  The lawsuits allege that the companies’ practices violate the FTC Act.  The FTC says First American Title Lending also violated the Truth in Lending Act and Reg Z. Under the proposed settlements, the companies will have to clearly disclose all the qualifying terms associated with getting a loan at the advertised rate and what the finance charge would be after an introductory period ends. The orders also prohibit misrepresentations about material terms of any loan agreement. The FTC’s message to members of the industry is that they’re not flying (driving?) under the radar. Truth-in-advertising standards apply to car title loans, too. What's more, companies will be held to well-established principles of","id":3192605},{"source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales","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,"url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rds-and-bayswater-support-group-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-and-social-care-anonymity-order/","titre":"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"},{"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","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"},{"description":"The Federal Trade Commission today announced it is seeking public comment on whether a rule is needed to address unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with the services provided by online food and grocery delivery platforms nationwide. As detailed in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published shortly in the Federal Register, the FTC is seeking written comments, including data, evidence, analyses, and arguments, to help determine how best to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices and to ensure that the agency addresses concerns from both consumers and industry. “Online grocery fees that are unclear, inconsistently disclosed, or revealed only at the last moment before consumers make a purchase distort competition and harm consumers,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Clear and truthful pricing is essential to competitive markets. The Commission’s enforcement track record suggests that consumers continue to face a suite of fees that prevent them from making informed comparisons. The Trump-Vance FTC is committed to addressing unlawful grocery delivery pricing that obscures the true cost of groceries.” Unfair or deceptive fee practices violate the FTC Act. The Commission recently brought several actions against online food delivery platforms for unfair or deceptive practices that violated the FTC Act. For example, in December 2025, the FTC announced a $60 million settlement with  Instacart over allegations it falsely advertised “free delivery” on consumers’ first three orders on the platform and then charged them service fees that were not disclosed until checkout. And, in December 2024, the FTC obtained a $25 million settlement with  GrubHub over allegations it misled consumers about the cost of delivery on its platform. These cases illustrate that hidden and misleading fees and charges are a recurring problem related to online delivery platforms, despite enforcement actions to protect consumers’ interests. Also, while numerous states have recently adopted laws requiring food and grocery delivery platforms to more clearly disclose fees and include all mandatory fees in advertised prices, they have not adopted uniform rules that apply to all food delivery platforms across the country. The ANPRM asks the public to comment on whether a rule is needed to prevent unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with online food delivery services including: Total Price. Do food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price for food or grocery items ordered for local delivery or pickup? Fees and Charges. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the existence, nature, purpose, refundability, or recipient of any fees, charges, or other costs for a delivery or pickup order? Variable or Contingent Fees . Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose factors used to determine any fees, charges, or other costs that are variable or contingent on consumer selections, such as number or type of items bought or delivery location? Material Restrictions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether fees, charges, or other costs are mandatory or optional, or any material restrictions, limitations, or restrictions that may result in additional charges or that may diminish the consumer’s use of the good or service? Price Differentials. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered in the store or restaurant? Personalized Pricing.  Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered to other consumers on the platform? Discounts or Promotions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose material","id":2826725,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/ftc-seeks-public-comment-unfair-deceptive-fee-practices-online-food-grocery-delivery-services","pubDate":"Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:10:57 +0200"},{"source":"BEREC Office","id":2793006,"description":"BEREC Provides Early Assessment of the Digital Networks Act, Welcoming Ambition While Highlighting Areas for Improvement yannick.stephan Mon, 30/03/2026 - 12:57 Press Releases The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) today published its early assessment of the European Commission’s proposal for a Digital Networks Act (DNA). BEREC welcomes the overarching ambition to modernise the regulatory framework for Europe’s connectivity sector and to support resilient, sustainable and high quality digital networks. At the same time, BEREC identifies important areas where further refinement is needed to ensure that the DNA strengthens, rather than complicates, Europe’s internal market for electronic communications. BEREC stands ready to provide its regulatory expertise in order to avoid undue complexity or uncertainty and to ensure that the final framework delivers a competitive, connected and resilient digital Europe. BEREC welcomes the updated objectives introduced by the DNA , including resilience, sustainability, in addition to the existing objectives addressed by the European Electronic Communications Code. While BEREC supports the ambition to strengthen the competitiveness of the EU digital sector, it highlights that this can only be achieved through an effective and robust competition framework. It further notes that the proposal introduces elements of greater centralisation that require further clarification to ensure they contribute effectively to a well functioning internal market. While BEREC recognises the Commission’s intention to streamline the General Authorisation procedures, the proposed Single Passport mechanism raises concerns from several perspectives. In particular, by concentrating significant enforcement responsibilities in the Member State of first notification, the system risks forum shopping, uneven supervisory burdens and slower enforcement. Overall, BEREC considers that the proposal could introduce greater operational complexity, administrative burden and legal uncertainty, without offering clear benefits over the current straightforward authorisation regime. BEREC also notes that the DNA proposes major changes to spectrum management , including treating spectrum as an EU‑level resource and introducing common rules for fees, long‑duration rights and satellite authorisation. While these measures aim at harmonisation, BEREC warns that the proposed single market procedure, which includes a Commission veto, signifies a notable trend towards centralisation and raises certain concerns. BEREC also cautions that some proposals in particular the introduction of unlimited license duration and automatic renewals, risk favouring existing rights holders and reducing market contestability. On the other hand, it welcomes it proposed role in the market shaping aspects of spectrum assignment. On satellite authorisation, BEREC supports EU coordination but stresses the need for alignment with ITU‑R rules. The DNA’s move to treat numbering resources as a common Union asset introduces a more centralised approach, and while BEREC sees potential benefits in greater harmonisation, it notes that key concepts—such as an EU wide numbering plan and pan European numbering ranges—require further clarification. BEREC also considers that additional analysis of demand, use cases and operational impacts would help ensure that any new framework is aligned with the needs of end users, operators and regulators. BEREC welcomes the preservation of the Significant Market Power regime, a cornerstone of the EU regulatory model, alongside the continued availability of symmetric access tools . Nonetheless, several DNA proposals, including new sequencing rules for remedies, the potential removal of the Recommendation on Relevant Markets, and expanded Commission veto powers could reduce the ability of NRAs to address national market needs. BEREC supports the goal of enabling a smooth transition from copper to fibre networks and recognises improvements made to","pubDate":"Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:33:01 +0200","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"},{"titre":"DMA and GDPR: EDPB and European Commission endorse joint guidelines to clarify common touchpoints","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/dma-and-gdpr-edpb-and-european-commission-endorse-joint-guidelines-clarify-common_en","pubDate":"Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:53:21 +0200","description":"Brussels, 09 October - The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission endorsed joint guidelines on the interplay between the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) . These are the first joint guidelines by the Board and the European Commission. In line with its 2024-2027 Strategy and the recent Helsinki Statement’s objectives to make GDPR compliance easier and strengthen consistency, the EDPB has cooperated with the European Commission, each within their respective mandates, to facilitate the coherent application of the DMA*and GDPR and to increase legal certainty for gatekeepers, business users, beneficiaries and individuals. EDPB Chair Anu Talus said:   “These joint guidelines are the result of a fruitful cooperation between the EDPB and the European Commission. This is the first time that the EDPB and the European Commission prepare guidelines jointly. This approach maximises usefulness of the guidance by simplifying compliance for businesses and bringing enhanced legal certainty to them.  The guidelines will help gatekeepers, business users and individuals to better understand their obligations and rights under the DMA, and ensure a consistent, effective and complementary application of the DMA and EU data protection law.” How the DMA and the GDPR interact The DMA and the GDPR both protect individuals in the digital landscape , but their goals are complementary as they address interconnected challenges: individual rights and privacy in case of the GDPR and fairness and contestability of digital markets under the DMA.    Several activities regulated by the DMA entail the processing of personal data by gatekeepers and, in several provisions, the DMA explicitly refers to definitions and concepts included in the GDPR. The joint guidelines clarify how gatekeepers can implement these DMA provisions in accordance with EU data protection law . For example, the EDPB and the Commission specify which elements gatekeepers should consider in order to comply with the requirements of specific choice and valid consent under Art. 5(2) DMA and the GDPR, and thus to lawfully combine or cross-use personal data in core platform services. The EDPB and the Commission also address other provisions including those related to the distribution of third party apps and stores, data portability, data access requests and interoperability of messaging services.   Next steps The Board and the Commission have just launched a joint public consultation on the first version of the guidelines which will be open until 4 December 2025 .  This will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment and provide feedback. All submissions will be published on the DMA website to which a link will be included on the EDPB website, after the consultation period has closed. The final text, incorporating input received during the consultation, will be prepared jointly by the Board and the Commission, and will be adopted by the EDPB and European Commission.   More guidelines on the way Following these first joint guidelines with the Commission, further work is underway to clarify the new cross-regulatory landscape and maintain coherent and consistent safeguards for the protection of personal data. In this regard, the EDPB is working with the Commission, specifically with the AI Office, on joint guidelines on the interplay between the AI Act and EU data protection laws. Note to editors: The Digital Markets Act is one of the first regulatory tools that aims to tackle unfair practices of gatekeepers in digital markets. Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing core platform services, such as online search engines, app stores, and messenger services. The main objective of the DMA is to make the markets in the digital sector fairer and more contestable. ","id":2425502,"source":"EDPB News"}]