[{"description":"Setting the debt parking brake lfair November 30, 2020 | 12:14PM Setting the debt parking brake By Lesley Fair What are the biggest risks of parking? A dinged door? A bruised bumper? For consumers victimized by the pernicious practice of debt parking, the impact on their financial health can be devastating. And if you’re a debt collector who engages in debt parking, an FTC settlement with Midwest Recovery Systems suggests you could face law enforcement action for violations of the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Just what is debt parking? It’s the practice of placing purported debts on consumers’ credit reports without first attempting to communicate with the consumer about the debt. Some call it “passive debt collection,” but there’s nothing passive about the injury it can inflict. Consumers often don’t learn about it until a mortgage company, prospective employer, or other decision maker pulls their credit report and spots what appears to be an unpaid debt. With a house, car, or job in the balance, many people feel pressured to pay up – even though they may not actually owe the money. That’s the tactic the FTC says Missouri-based Midwest Recovery Systems and owners Brandon M. Tumber, Kenny W. Conway, and Joseph H. Smith engaged in. According to the lawsuit, since at least 2015, the defendants have reported to credit reporting agencies more than $98 million in bogus or highly questionable debts for payday loans, debts subject to unresolved fraud claims, debts in bankruptcy, debts in the process of being rebilled to consumers’ medical insurance, and even debts people had already paid. The FTC alleges the defendants continued to collect those debts even in the face of billowing red flags about their validity. In fact, when consumers were able to dispute the purported debts, the defendants have regularly concluded that between 80% and 97% of them were either inaccurate or invalid. That’s not surprising, given that many of those debts originated from certain payday lenders and others whom the FTC has sued for their own illegal practices. Here’s an example cited in the complaint of how the defendants used debt parking to help line their pockets with millions in gross revenue. When applying for a mortgage, a consumer was told that an outstanding medical debt of $1,500 had lowered his credit score, which threatened to put the kibosh on buying a house. He contacted the hospital where he supposedly owed the debt, only to be told that he owed just an $80 co-pay. In spite of that, the FTC says the defendants refused to remove the debt and threatened the consumer with a lawsuit if he didn’t pony up. His complaint was one of thousands that Midwest Recovery received. For people who work in the collections field, the pleading in this case merit a careful read. In addition to alleging the defendants made false or unsubstantiated representations in violation of the FTC Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , the complaint expressly challenges their debt parking tactics as an unfair practice under the FDCPA. The FTC says they also violated the FDCPA by failing to provide validation notices – one of the protections in the statute designed to ensure consumers have the information they need to dispute an invalid debt. Three other counts charge the defendants with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by furnishing information to credit reporting agencies they knew or had reasonable cause to believe was inaccurate, by failing to conduct reasonable investigations of disputes, and by failing to report the results of those investigations to consumers. The settlement suggests some takeaway tips for others in the collections ecosystem. Consumers’ credit reports are a NO PARKING zone. This is the first FTC case to address debt parking – and thus the first to challenge the practice as unfair under the FDCPA – but the message couldn’t be clearer. Debt collectors that park fake or","titre":"Setting the debt parking brake","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","id":3201875,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/11/setting-debt-parking-brake"},{"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","titre":"First FTC ROSCA case challenges bogus BOGO and \"free\" claims","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200","id":3201052,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/10/first-ftc-rosca-case-challenges-bogus-bogo-free-claims"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/07/we-cant-go-no-can-do","description":"We can’t go for that (no can do) lfair July 17, 2017 | 11:38AM We can’t go for that (no can do) By Lesley Fair Of course, phantom debt collection – the practice of pressuring people to pay “debts” they don’t owe – harms consumers. But as an FTC complaint demonstrates, when phantom debt collectors strike, they could affect your company, too. According to the FTC , a Florida-based outfit engaged in a scheme to defraud consumers through the collection of debts people didn’t actually owe or the company didn’t have the authority to collect. The complaint charges that the defendants – Hardco Holding Group, S & H Financial Group, Dequan M. Sicard, and Daryl M. Hall (no, not that Daryl Hall) – violated the FTC Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. When contacting consumers, in many instances the defendants allegedly impersonated attorneys and threatened to have people thrown in jail if they didn’t pay up on delinquent payday loans – loans, remember, that many consumers didn’t take out in the first place and defendants didn’t have the right to collect. One tactic involved contacting people with a “case number” and directing them to dial a callback number. On the second call, the defendants allegedly said they were affiliated with named law firms and that the consumer had committed a felony, could go to prison, or faced arrest. According to the complaint , to boost the credibility of their threat of pending or imminent legal action, the defendants claimed to have the consumer’s Social Security number, bank account number, or contact information for family members. Afraid of legal repercussions, many consumers knuckled under to the demand for payment. The FTC says the defendants also told third parties that consumers owed money, a violation of the FDCPA. In addition, the complaint charges that the defendants didn’t disclose their identity to consumers, failed to provide proper validation notices, and used other false, misleading, and abusive tactics. Phantom debt collectors unquestionably injure consumers, but how could conduct like that affect your company? According to the lawsuit, when pressed to identify themselves, the defendants often gave the names or addresses of legitimate small businesses that had nothing to do with the purported debt or the debt collectors. When concerned consumers contacted those companies to complain, their employees got an understandably angry earful. From the FTC’s perspective, unrelated small businesses shouldn’t have their reputations sullied by others’ allegedly illegal tactics. A federal court in Orlando has temporarily halted the operation and frozen its assets. The FTC wants to stop the illegal practices once and for all. What can consumers do if they’re getting calls for debts they don’t owe ? File a complaint with the FTC. How can small businesses help protect their good names? Every now and then, do a selfie search with your company name and a word like “debt.” If you see consumer posts that suggest that a debt collector is illegally using your name – or if your employees are getting complaints about debt collection calls supposedly coming from your company – let the FTC know about it , too. In the meantime, businesses looking for FDCPA compliance resources can visit the FTC’s debt collection page for some – in the words of the other Daryl Hall (and let’s not forget John Oates) – “Adult Education.”","titre":"We can’t go for that (no can do)","id":3200011,"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200"},{"id":3198177,"pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","titre":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices","description":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices lfair July 30, 2018 | 11:05AM FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices By Lesley Fair If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. But the same can’t be said for a mailer that looks like an official invoice. It could be an “o- fishy -al” offer that deceptively mimics the appearance of a government document. A case filed by the FTC and the Florida Attorney General challenges the practice of sending mailers that allegedly create the false impression that small businesses are required to buy labor regulation posters from the sender. Consider what defendants Starwood Consulting, also doing business as Corporate Compliance Services, and company president Thomas Henry Fred, Jr., sent to small businesses. The mailers – which include a Washington, D.C., 202 area code – are titled “LABOR LAW COMPLIANCE REQUEST FORM” and include the warning “Failure to comply with posting regulations can lead to fines up to $17,000.” The mailers include a “Business ID” and instruct recipients to respond by a certain date. Small businesses can’t miss the purported consequences of ignoring the letter: Your business is required by federal law to post a current compliant labor law poster in the workplace. Federal law requires that this poster be placed on the property of the business. Whether you have 1 employee or 1,000 you must post current employment posters in the workplace. The poster must also include information about workers compensation benefits. Pursuant to federal law 29 USC Sec. 999(i) & 29 USC Sec. 2005 penalties and risks of non-compliance with posting regulations can lead to potential fines of $17,000 per instance, for failing to post federally required information. Further, lawsuits can be tolled based on failing to display mandatory posters. . . . To obtain your Federal employment labor law poster, please detach the above coupon and return it in the enclosed envelope with your document processing fee of $84.00. The mailer continues: “IMPORTANT! FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY WHEN COMPLETING THIS FORM.” Those instructions include directions to detach the “payment coupon,” return it with the “document fee” of $84, and keep the bottom portion as the “official receipt.” The enclosed return envelope is addressed to “Corporate Compliance Services, Compliance Processing Center.” That’s a description of the mailer, but here are the facts, according to the FTC and the AG. First, the mailer isn’t from a government entity or affiliate. Starwood Consulting and its d/b/a Corporate Compliance Services are private companies in the business of selling those posters. In addition, despite the 202 area code, the defendants have no operations in Washington and posters similar to the ones the defendants peddle are available for free from the U.S. Department of Labor. What about those statutory provisions referring to “potential fines of $17,000 per instance”? In fact, neither of those citations has anything to do with labor posters. 29 U.S.C. § 999(i) refers to repealed provisions of the Young Adult Conservation Corps and 29 U.S.C. § 2005 addresses the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. According to the complaint , recipients of the mailer are often small businesses that have recently incorporated or established limited liability companies. What’s more, some businesses say they never received the posters they paid for. Others report they got second notices that they had to pay another $84 fee to get an updated poster. Despite a small “disclaimer” at the bottom of the reverse side of the mailer that “[t]his offer serves as a solicitation and not to be intended as a bill due,” the FTC and the AG say that business owners were misled and filed more than 250 complaints about the company. (According to the Better Business","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/07/ftc-florida-ag-small-business-scrutinize-o-fishy-al-invoices","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"titre":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype","id":3195790,"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:14 +0200","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.","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/05/judge-orders-134-million-contempt-action-challenging-bluehippo-hype"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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,"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200","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","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/07/buckle-two-lane-look-car-buying","titre":"Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying","id":3194915,"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:38 +0200","description":"Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying lfair July 30, 2020 | 1:04PM Buckle up for a two-lane look at car buying By Lesley Fair It’s one of the biggest purchases people make, but two new FTC staff reports examine some common pitfalls when consumers are in the market for a car. Buckle down and read the Bureau of Consumer Protection’s Buckle Up: Navigating Auto Sales and Financing , which focuses on the challenges buyers face in getting accurate, understandable information when shopping for a vehicle. Not in the auto business? Not so fast. The deep-dive analysis of  Buckle Up  and an accompanying report by BCP staff and the Bureau of Economics – The Auto Buyer Study: Lessons From In-Depth Consumer Interviews And Related Research  – offer insights into the perception and behavior of consumers in the study that can apply to other industries. The FTC’s interest in auto-related transactions goes back decades. (Check out Volume 1 of Federal Trade Commission Decisions for a 1919 case regarding deception in the sale of auto parts.) The FTC has brought law enforcement actions challenging illegal practices, held workshops and roundtables to hear from consumer groups and industry members, and educated buyers and sellers about their rights and responsibilities. One notable feature about the two new reports is that FTC staff went straight to the source and based their views, in part, on detailed interviews with consumers about their experiences when buying and financing a vehicle. You’ll want to read Buckle Up from bumper to bumper, but one key finding is that consumers may be unaware of key terms in sales and financing contracts. One reason may be the extent to which the negotiations process focuses primarily on the monthly payment. That approach can leave consumers in the dark about other important – sometimes even more important – financial variables like the down payment, the length of financing, the total sales price, and the annual percentage rate. So let’s say the consumer has decided on a vehicle and has come to an agreement on the price. All done? Consumers may think the checkered flag is in sight, but for the dealership, negotiations have just begun. First, as the report suggests, “price” can be an elusive concept in the context of car buying. Does it mean sticker price, out-the-door price, total sales price, or something else? Furthermore, it’s often in a last-lap meeting in the financing office that dealers raise the issue of add-ons – purchases like extended warranties, service plans, credit insurance, GAP policies, window etching, etc., that can add substantially to what consumers walking into the office thought the price was. Add-ons also may have limits or conditions and may not cover what consumers expect. The staff report suggests several reasons why add-ons were the single greatest area of confusion for consumers who participated in the study. According to the report, the talk turned to add-ons only after long hours (or days or weeks) of negotiations left consumers feeling both pressured to close the deal and confused by the details. Even the very nature of the products left many consumers bewildered. Are these add-ons mandatory? Are they free? Is the cost included in what consumers perceive as the already agreed-upon price? Does the dealership’s practice of bundling – offering add-ons as a package – mean buyers can’t pick and choose the add-ons they want? What about consumers’ opportunity to review the purchase and financing paperwork? As the report notes, “[T]he length of the auto-buying process, the amount of paperwork involved, and the technical industry jargon often coalesce to make meaningful review and engagement a challenging task.” Participants in the study cited the exhausting negotiation process, a sense of feeling rushed at the end, information overload that left some of them “overwhelmed,” and the difficulty of reviewing documents on a tablet or other"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers lfair June 8, 2016 | 9:01AM Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers By Lesley Fair Combine two of the most talked-about consumer protection topics – health privacy and consumer-generated online content – and what do you get? A proposed FTC settlement with Practice Fusion, the largest cloud-based electronic health records company in the country, and six compliance tips for others in the industry. One of San Francisco-based Practice Fusion’s primary products is an electronic records system for outpatient providers. In 2009, the company launched “Patient Fusion,” an online portal where patients whose providers were already using Practice Fusion could view or download their health information or transmit it to another provider. Patient Fusion also let patients send and receive secure messages from their providers. Fast forward several years and the company decided to expand Patient Fusion to include a public directory where current and prospective enrollees could search for doctors geographically or by specialty, read patient reviews of providers, and request appointments. But Practice Fusion had to ask itself a question familiar to many online companies: How do we get the content – in this case, patient reviews? That’s the focus of the FTC’s lawsuit. According to the complaint , Practice Fusion solicited data in a misleading way that led some patients to believe they were sending follow-up messages directly to their doctors about their diagnosis, medical treatment, prescriptions, etc. – and not contributing content to a public website. Practice Fusion, however, populated its new site with the information those people provided, some of which was highly sensitive. Here’s what happened. After appointments with their doctors, patients received emails titled “How was your visit?” The message continued, “To help improve your service in the future, please let us know how your visit went” and included a link with rating stars. The message ended this way: Thank you, Dr. [Name] In a footer, the message said “This email was sent to you by Patient Fusion®, a tool Doctor [Name] uses to deliver the highest quality of care to patients.” Below that in smaller print it said “Sent on behalf of Doctor [Name]’s office by: Practice Fusion.” If patients clicked the link, they were taken to a page that asked for feedback about things like how long they had to wait for their appointment, the doctor’s bedside manner, and whether their medical concern was addressed. There also was a text box where patients were invited to “leave a review for your provider.” Below that was a pre-checked box with the phrase “Keep this review anonymous.” What did some people put in that box? Highly sensitive information directly addressed to their doctors, not evaluations meant to be shared publicly. Here are just a few examples: “Dr [name], My Xanax prescription that I received on Monday was for 1 tablet a day but usually it’s for 2 tablets a day. I have not taken it to the pharmacy yet. Can I pick up a new one, or can I get a prescription called into a pharmacy? Thanks, [patient’s full name] “I called today and left a message regarding my daughter and no one has returned my call. I think she is depressed and has stated several times this week that she wishes she was dead. Could someone please call me [phone number]?” “The cefuroxime axetil does not seem to be doing anything for me. I did a little research and I think I have a yeast infection called candida. Not sure what to do about it yet. I guess I will first try to change my diet. Medication? [patient’s full name] “I would like to make an appointment for my back pain and possible shingles. Can you please call me @ [phone number]? Thank you! [patient's full name]” “I HAVE NO INFECTION [healthcare provider name].  EVERYTHING WENT","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","id":3194910,"titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers"},{"description":"FleetCor and its CEO will pay $100 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission administrative action alleging that the company charged its customers, who overwhelmingly are small businesses, undisclosed fees in connection with their use of fuel cards that FleetCor falsely promised businesses would save them money. In a complaint first filed in federal court in 2019 , the FTC alleged that FleetCor Technologies Inc., now known as Corpay Inc., and its CEO Ronald Clarke imposed a broad array of unauthorized fees that its customers never knew about and did not agree to pay, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and harming tens of thousands of customers.  In addition, FleetCor charged late fees to customers who had either paid on time or were prevented by FleetCor from paying on time. FleetCor also misrepresented the gas savings, fraud-control features, and fees associated with its fuel cards. “FleetCor deceived its small business customers by promising fuel savings that never materialized, while unfairly charging them hidden and unauthorized fees,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “In addition to the relief the FTC has obtained in federal court, this order will help return money to the customers the company took advantage of.” According to the complaint, FleetCor often waited to begin charging many fees until several billing cycles passed, making the fees less noticeable to consumers. The complaint also alleged that FleetCor’s invoices did not disclose that any fees were being charged, requiring customers to proactively view other account management reports. Even on those documents, many fees were obscured among other information or not listed at all. In 2023, a federal district court entered summary judgment for the FTC on all counts, finding that FleetCor had charged its customers hidden or otherwise unauthorized fees and misrepresented the gas savings and fees associated with FleetCor’s fuel cards. The court-imposed order permanently prohibits FleetCor from: billing a customer for any charge unless FleetCor has obtained the customer’s express informed consent and provided clear and unavoidable information about the charge; hiding material information about a charge behind a hyperlink; and making deceptive claims about its fuel cards. In 2026, a federal appeals court upheld the summary judgment against FleetCor on all counts and affirmed the permanent injunction against it.  The court affirmed the judgment against Clarke on all but one count and vacated the injunction as to Clarke.  As part of the settlement order with the FTC, FleetCor and Clarke will pay $100 million, which will be used to provide redress to the company’s business customers harmed by its practices. FleetCor and Clarke have also agreed not to oppose reimposition of a federal court injunction against Clarke.  The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement was 1-0-1. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson is recused. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. NOTE: When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to","pubDate":"Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:08:58 +0200","id":3160549,"titre":"FleetCor Agrees to Pay $100 Million to Resolve Administrative Action After Federal Court Finds that It Violated the FTC Act by Charging Unauthorized Fees","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/fleetcor-agrees-pay-100-million-resolve-administrative-action-after-federal-court-finds-it-violated","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"source":"Les Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport - Scientific Papers in Transportation - Dernières publications","url":"https://doi.org/10.46298/cst.13310","titre":"The Covid-19 crisis and the French urban public transport: What are the short-, medium- and long-term effects on provision and funding?","id":2815881,"pubDate":"Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:03:49 +0200","description":"While the development of urban public transport (UPT) is considered a priority to promote the ecological transition, the Covid-19 health crisis has affected its operation. It results from constraints on supply, made necessary by travel restrictions and limitations on economic activity during periods of confinement. Existing literature has focused mainly on the use of different modes of transport, changes in mobility practices and the way governments managed the crisis. This article focuses instead on the effects of covid-19 on the supply and financing of UPT, and analyses whether this crisis has given rise to new dynamics in the mobility organising authorities (AOMs). Using data from 95 AOMs (i.e. 35% of all AOMs in 2019) and a survey of some 39 AOMs (14%), three main results are established. First, there is a big fall in fare revenue, whatever the category of AOM in France. However, due to the small proportion of UPT funding paid for by users, this decline is easily offset by a variation in the mobility tax (versement mobilité), government subsidies and an increase in the contribution from local authorities. Second, the AOMs seem confident about the funding for prospects, through an expected increase in UPT patronage and a stability, or even an expected dynamic, in the mobility tax in the future. As a result, the health crisis does not seem to have encouraged the AOMs to find new resources to finance the development of their UPT services in the medium-to-long term. Third, and finally, the health crisis has contributed to shift travel policy priorities in the AOMs, in particular when it comes to investment strategies, by raising the importance of developing the use of"},{"description":"The Federal Trade Commission issued a policy statement today announcing that the Commission will not bring an enforcement action under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule) against certain website and online service operators that collect, use, and disclose personal information for the sole purpose of determining a user’s age via age verification technologies. The COPPA Rule requires operators of commercial websites or online services directed to children under 13, and operators with actual knowledge they are collecting personal information from a child, to provide notice of their information practices to parents and to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information collected from a child under 13. Age verification technologies play a critical role in helping parents as they monitor their children’s online activities. Since COPPA was enacted in 1998, there’s been an explosion in the use of internet-connected technologies by children. To help parents navigate the challenges associated with their children’s online activities, some states have started requiring some websites and online services to use age verification mechanisms to help determine the age of users. But as noted at the FTC’s recent workshop on age verification technologies , some age verification technologies may require the collection of personal information from children, prompting questions about whether such activities could violate the COPPA Rule. “Age verification technologies are some of the most child-protective technologies to emerge in decades,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Our statement incentivizes operators to use these innovative tools, empowering parents to protect their children online.” The policy statement states that the Commission will not bring an enforcement action under the COPPA Rule against operators of general audience sites and services and mixed audience sites and services that collect, use, or disclose personal information for the sole purpose of determining a user’s age without first obtaining verifiable parental consent—if they comply with certain conditions, specifically that they: do not use or disclose information collected for age verification purposes for any purpose except to determine a user’s age; do not retain this information longer than necessary to fulfill the age verification purposes, and delete such information promptly thereafter; disclose information collected for age verification purposes only to those third parties the operator has taken reasonable steps to determine are capable of maintaining the confidentiality, security, and integrity of the information, including by obtaining certain written assurances from those third parties; provide clear notice to parents and children of the information collected for age verification purposes; employ reasonable security safeguards for information collected for age verification purposes; and take reasonable steps to determine that any product, service, method, or third party utilized for age verification purposes is likely to provide reasonably accurate results as to the user’s age. The policy statement indicates that the Commission intends to initiate a review of the COPPA Rule to address age verification mechanisms. The policy statement will remain effective until the Commission publishes final rule amendments on this issue in the Federal Register, or until otherwise withdrawn. The Commission vote to issue the policy statement was 2-0. The lead staffer on this matter is Manmeet Dhindsa from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","pubDate":"Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:21:56 +0100","id":2721034,"titre":"FTC Issues COPPA Policy Statement to Incentivize the Use of Age Verification Technologies to Protect Children Online","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-issues-coppa-policy-statement-incentivize-use-age-verification-technologies-protect-children","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"id":2703238,"pubDate":"Wed, 18 Feb 2026 15:27:14 +0100","titre":"EDPB identifies challenges hindering the full implementation of the right to erasure","description":"Brussels, 18 February - The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has adopted a  report on its Coordinated Enforcement Framework (CEF) action on the right to be forgotten (Art.17 GDPR) .  The  Board selected this topic  as it is one of the most frequently exercised GDPR rights and one about which DPAs frequently receive complaints from individuals. The main objectives of this coordinated action are to ensure that the right to erasure is effectively exercised by individuals in Europe and understand how controllers comply with this right in practice. In addition, the EDPB identified good practices and the most important related challenges, with the aim of providing further guidance on this topic.  Throughout 2025, 32 DPAs across Europe took part in this initiative. More specifically, 9 DPAs have initiated new formal investigations or have continued ongoing ones, and 23 DPAs carried out a fact-finding exercise. A total of 764 controllers across Europe responded to the action, ranging from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to big companies active in many different industries and fields, as well as various types of public entities. The results of these national actions have been aggregated and analysed together allowing for targeted follow-up on both national and EU level.   Areas of improvement and main challenges The report lists the issues that were identified, along with a series of recommendations addressed to controllers, to help them implement the right to erasure. Seven recurring main challenges were identified by DPAs. The results confirmed some of the findings of the 2024 coordinated action on the right of access , for example when it comes to the lack of appropriate internal procedures to handle requests, or the lack of sufficient information provided to individuals. In addition, participating DPAs reported specific findings related to the reliance by some controllers on inefficient anonymisation techniques to handle erasure requests as an alternative to deletion. DPAs also noted inconsistent practices, and the difficulties faced by controllers regarding the determination of retention periods and the deletion of personal data in the context of back-ups. In addition, as the right to erasure is not an absolute right, some controllers face difficulties in assessing and applying the conditions for the exercise of this right, including in carrying out the different balancing tests between the right to erasure and other rights and freedoms.   Follow-up to help organisations comply  Extensive guidance, documents and templates exist at national level to help controllers comply with the right of erasure and help individuals exercise this right. In line with the Helsinki Statement’s objectives of making GDPR compliance easier and ensuring consistent interpretation and enforcement across Europe, the extensive guidance and templates already available at national level will be leveraged at EDPB level where appropriate.   Background and next steps The CEF is a key action of the EDPB under its 2024-2027 Strategy , aimed at streamlining enforcement and cooperation among DPAs.  In 2023, the EDPB published the report on its first coordinated action on the  use of cloud-based services by the public sector . In 2024, the EDPB also published the report on the outcome of the second coordinated action on the  designation and position of Data Protection Officers . In 2025, the EDPB issued the report on its third coordination action on the  implementation of the right of access . The CEF 2026 action will be on the  obligations of transparency and information under the GDPR .   For further information: DA DPA:   EDPB vedtager rapport om dataansvarliges overholdelse af retten til sletning EL DPA: Ολοκλήρωση της συντονισμένης δράσης του","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/edpb-identifies-challenges-hindering-full-implementation-right-erasure_en","source":"EDPB News"},{"description":"The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Illusory Systems Inc. for failing to implement adequate data security measures, leading to a major security breach in which hackers stole $186 million from consumers. Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s allegations, Utah-based Illusory, which does business as Nomad, will be required to implement an information security program to address numerous alleged security failures and to return recovered money to affected consumers. “The FTC Act requires companies to take reasonable security measures,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It’s important that companies live up to their security promises to consumers.” In its complaint , the FTC alleged that Nomad prominently touted its security in its advertising, claiming that it offered “security-first” services. The FTC, however, alleged that the company failed to live up to these promises by failing to: use secure coding practices; implement processes for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports and responding to security incidents; and utilize widely known technologies that might have helped mitigate consumer losses. According to the complaint, in June 2022, Nomad introduced inadequately tested code that included a significant vulnerability. Just over a month later, hackers began exploiting the vulnerability. The FTC alleged that Nomad failed to respond to the attack in time because of its inadequate security and incident response measures, which led to the loss of $186 million. The company was able to recover some money, but consumers lost approximately $100 million. Nomad was warned about the dangers of inadequate testing as well as the need to ensure it had adequate staff and security in place. The company, however, failed to implement basic safety measures that would mitigate consumer losses, the FTC alleged. Under the proposed order , Nomad will be prohibited from making misrepresentations about its security practices. In addition, the company will also be required to: Implement a comprehensive information security program that is designed to protect consumers from theft or other unauthorized access and address the security issues outlined in the FTC’s complaint; Obtain biennial assessments of its information security program by an independent third party and cooperate with the third-party assessor; and Return to consumers money recovered following the security breach that was not already returned to customers. The Commission voted 2-0 to accept the proposed complaint and order for public comment. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. NOTE:  The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $51,744. The lead staff attorneys on this matter are M. Hasan Aijaz and Julia Horwitz with the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","titre":"FTC Will Require Illusory Systems to Return Money Stolen by Hackers and Implement an Information Security Program","id":2577895,"pubDate":"Wed, 17 Dec 2025 09:50:37 +0100","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-will-require-illusory-systems-return-money-stolen-hackers-implement-information-security-program"}]