[{"url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/13759668","source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","id":3241559,"pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:59 +0100","titre":"President's Message / Message de la présidente","description":"Le texte français suit. Dear CALLeagues, First, a heartfelt thank you to everyone who took the time to fill in our conference survey. Your feedback is invaluable as we plan future conferences. As promised, we held two draws for those who completed the survey, and I am delighted to announce the winners: congratulations to Emma Scott, who wins the Moncton Delta gift certificate, and to Betty Dykstra, who wins $100 off next year's conference! I am pleased to share that Our Executive Director (OED) has now officially taken over sole management of CALL/ACBD's account. We are still very much in a period of integration, and I ask for your continued patience as the OED team learns our needs and ways of working. As they review how we do things, OED has also been offering helpful suggestions for process improvements and identifying opportunities to tidy up and strengthen our existing practices. We are grateful for their fresh perspective and attention to detail, and we look forward to building an even stronger foundation together. I am also proud to announce CALL/ACBD's first sponsored webinar , hosted by Soutron. This new partnership offering is part of our new partnership prospectus for non-conference opportunities, which is designed to connect our vendors with our members throughout the year. Please see the details below, and I hope many of you will join us. Looking ahead, our Members Open Forum will be held on November 4 at 12 ET. A formal notice with registration link will go out on Monday. This is your opportunity to share with the board issues that concern you, and to ask questions of the Board. Soon after, the Board and OED will meet in Winnipeg for our annual special Board meeting, where we will take a deeper dive into CALL/ACBD's priorities and how to ensure the long-term strength of our association. Thank you all for your continued support and engagement. Katarina Daniels Chères et chers collègues, Tout d'abord, un immense merci à toutes celles et ceux qui ont pris le temps de remplir notre sondage sur le congrès. Vos commentaires sont précieux pour la planification de nos prochains congrès. Comme promis, nous avons procédé à deux tirages parmi les personnes ayant répondu au sondage, et j'ai le plaisir d'annoncer les gagnantes : félicitations à Emma Scott, qui remporte la carte-cadeau du Delta Moncton, et à Betty Dykstra, qui remporte un rabais de 100 $ sur l'inscription au congrès de l'an prochain ! . Je suis heureuse de vous annoncer que Votre Directeur général (VDG) assume désormais officiellement, et à lui seul, la gestion du compte de la CALL/ACBD. Nous sommes toujours en pleine période d'intégration, et je vous remercie de continuer à faire preuve de patience pendant que l'équipe de VDG se familiarise avec nos besoins et nos façons de faire. En examinant nos pratiques, VDG nous propose aussi des améliorations utiles à nos processus et repère des occasions de clarifier et de renforcer nos pratiques actuelles. Nous apprécions grandement ce regard neuf et ce souci du détail, et nous avons h'te de b'tir ensemble des bases encore plus solides. Je suis également particulièrement fière d'annoncer le tout premier webinaire commandité de la CALL/ACBD , animé par Soutron. Cette nouvelle offre de partenariat fait partie de notre nouveau prospectus de partenariat pour les occasions hors congrès, qui vise à mettre nos fournisseurs en relation avec nos membres tout au long de l'année. Vous trouverez tous les détails ci-dessous, et j'espère que vous serez nombreuses et nombreux à y participer. Pour la suite, notre Forum virtuel pour les membres se tiendra le 4 novembre à 12h (HE). Un avis officiel comprenant le lien d’inscription sera envoyé lundi. Ce forum sera"},{"description":"Root, root root for the regions lfair September 24, 2018 | 2:03PM Root, root root for the regions By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection T his year eight major league baseball teams are celebrating milestone anniversaries – and so are the FTC’s regional offices. In 1918, the Commission opened the first three of its regional offices. Today, eight regional offices continue to knock it out the park on behalf of America’s consumers. So it’s only fitting that on this momentous day we acknowledge the regional offices’ century of pennant-winning performances. According to the Commission’s 1918 Annual Report, “In order to expedite the greatly increased work of the Commission . . . small branch offices were established in New York, Chicago, and San Francisco.” Over time, the FTC has added other locations for a current total of eight offices in seven regions. Regional staff work with the Bureau of Consumer Protection and the Bureau of Competition on investigations and litigation. But they are in a unique position to host roundtables and workshops in their communities; to coordinate with local, state, and cross-border law enforcers; and to build partnerships with consumer groups and small business organizations within their region. According to the scouting report, there isn’t a pitch they can’t hit. Here’s a brief look at each region’s box score with a focus on just a few of their many MVP contributions to the FTC’s consumer protection mission. East Central Region . In 1918, the Cleveland Indians finished just out of pennant contention, but the FTC’s Cleveland-based office works hard to bring home the W for consumers and small businesses. For example, ECR has brought a number of cases over the past two decades to protect small businesses in their area and around the country, including cramming, business directory, and unordered merchandise scams. Recently, ECR played a central role in Operation Main Street, the FTC’s recent initiative against scammers targeting small businesses. Midwest Region . Chicago fans may be divided in their loyalty to the Cubs and the White Sox, but consumers who lost money to scammers who used the services of a major money transfer company are united in their appreciation for the FTC-DOJ settlement that returned $586 million back to them. And just recently, MWR hosted the Commission’s workshop on cryptocurrency scams and took a lead role in Operation Tech Trap, a coordinated state, federal, and international effort to shut down tech support fraudsters. Northeast Region . Given New York’s connection to names like Huggins, Houk, Stengel, Berra, and Torre, it’s no wonder the FTC’s Northeast Region has particular expertise in coaching. But in NER’s case, it’s about companies that make deceptive “coaching” and money-making representations. The New York-based office also has been one of the FTC’s power hitters in addressing misleading practices in the affiliate marketing industry. And from their Big Apple location, NER has been a leader in educating consumers, particularly older Americans and small businesses. Northwest Region . Like their hometown Seattle Mariners, the FTC’s Northwest Region has a proven record of navigating the complexities on the field of play. NWR coordinated Operation Donate with Honor, a nationwide crackdown on fraudulent charities alleged to have conned consumers by falsely promising their contributions will help veterans and servicemembers. In addition, our team in Seattle regularly coordinates with Canadian counterparts to combat cross-border fraud. And they’ve been ahead of the curve on tech issues, bringing one of the FTC’s first internet cases in the 90s and more recently, an early online influencer action. Southeast Region . The Atlanta Braves boast a national fan base – and due to their expertise in fighting fraud, the FTC’s Southeast Region can be proud of its coast-to-coast impact,","id":3201877,"pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:07 +0200","titre":"Root, root root for the regions","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/09/root-root-root-regions","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/04/ftcs-google-settlement-whats-buzz","description":"The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz? wfg-adm109 April 1, 2011 | 4:28PM The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz? By Lesley Fair “Sweet!  Check out Buzz.” “Nah, go to my inbox.” That was the intriguing choice facing Gmail users last year when Google launched Google Buzz, its social network. But according to a settlement announced this week by the FTC, the company violated the privacy promises it made to Gmail users and used deceptive tactics in the Buzz rollout. The story starts with Google’s privacy policy. From October 2004 until October 2010, Gmail users were told, \"Gmail stores, processes and maintains your messages, contact lists and other data related to your account in order to provide service to you.\"  On the subject of the choices users had about the use of their personal information in all of Google’s products, including Gmail, the privacy policy said, \"When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use.\"  According to the FTC, statements like that conveyed that Google would use information from people signing up for Gmail only for the purpose of providing them with email service and that Google would ask for their consent before using their info for any other purpose. So far, so good. But then came the roll-out of Google Buzz. The service allows users to share updates, comments, pictures, videos, and the like through “buzzes” made either publicly or privately to individuals or groups of users. When Buzz was launched, Gmail users were taken to a welcome screen that announced the new service and presented the “Sweet!” or “Nah” choice. If users clicked “Nah,” the FTC complaint alleges that their info was nonetheless shared in a number of ways. First, the user could still be “followed” by Gmail users who enrolled in Buzz. Second, if the Gmail user had previously created a Google profile, he or she could appear on the public Google profiles of Buzz enrollees who were following them. Third, a link to Buzz would show up on the list of links on the user’s Gmail page. If the user clicked on that link, he or she would be taken to the Buzz welcome screen and would be automatically enrolled in Buzz without any disclosure of that fact. In other words, users would be enrolled in certain features of Buzz even if they didn’t sign up. So much for “Nah.” The FTC’s complaint alleges that despite what it said in its privacy policy, Google didn’t use information from people signing up for Gmail just for the purpose of providing email service. Rather, the company used it to populate Buzz. Thus, said the FTC, the representations in Google’s privacy policy were false or misleading. Furthermore, the agency alleged that despite the promise in its privacy policy that Google would ask for consumers’ consent before using their information for another purpose, Google went ahead and used it to populate its social network without getting their permission. The FTC charged that was false or misleading and constituted a deceptive practice. The next part of the story:   The not-so-sweet results when users clicked the “Sweet!”","titre":"The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz?","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200","id":3200009},{"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","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200","id":3195787,"description":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements wfg-adm109 June 13, 2012 | 12:25PM Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements By Lesley Fair The lawsuit against data broker Spokeo is the FTC’s first Fair Credit Reporting Act case addressing the collection of online info — including data from social networking sites — when used in the context of employment screening.  But that’s not the only way the Spokeo settlement touches on social media.  The FTC also charged that Spokeo violated Section 5 by having employees post glowing recommendations of the company’s services on news and technology websites without disclosing their true identity. Perhaps just the work of a rogue cubicle occupant?  No, said the FTC.  According to the complaint , Spokeo directed its employees to write the comments.  Spokeo managers then edited what they wrote and had the staffers post the endorsements using account names provided by Spokeo.  The purpose, says the FTC, was to give readers the misleading impression that the laudatory words had been posted by independent consumers or business users of Spokeo. The FTC’s revisions to its Endorsement Guides made headlines a few years ago.  Ironically enough, the provision that seemed to attract the most attention is one that didn’t change.  It’s the law — and it’s always been the law under Section 5 — that consumers have a right to know when there’s a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser.  Here’s how the Guides put it:  \"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement ( i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.\" According to the FTC, by posting comments that conveyed the untruthful impression that they came from satisfied users of Spokeo’s services, Spokeo engaged in false and misleading practices.  To settle the endorsement count in the lawsuit, Spokeo has agreed that it won’t misrepresent, expressly or by implication, the status of any user of a product or service — for example, that someone is an independent, ordinary endorser if that’s not the case.  The company also will clearly and prominently disclose any material connection between an endorser and Spokeo (or any other entity advertising, selling, or promoting a product) when a connection exists.  What about the bogus endorsements already posted?  Spokeo has seven days to take all reasonable steps to pull them down. Looking for more about complying with the Endorsement Guides?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking and watch this video: While you’re at it, share this post and those resources with your marketing staff, your ad agency, your PR firm, and anyone else who plays a role in your publicity and promotions. Next:  What the Spokeo settlement means for your business, your next ad campaign, and your job search"},{"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"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:10:10 +0200","id":3127461,"titre":"FTC, States Sue Amazon Over Secret Ad Surcharge Scheme","description":"Today, 22 states joined the Federal Trade Commission in filing suit against Amazon, alleging that the company engaged in deceptive and unfair practices that secretly inflated prices in its online search advertising auctions. The complaint   alleges that, for over seven years, Amazon has covertly and substantially increased the prices that more than one million brands and sellers were required to pay to advertise on its platform. As a result, the complaint alleges that Amazon’s scheme has likely extracted tens of billions of dollars from its unwitting advertising customers. “When one of the world’s largest online retailers engages in unfair and deceptive conduct, the impact can be staggering,” said Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “Amazon has millions of advertising customers who were misled into paying significantly higher prices. These higher costs were largely passed on to American consumers. The FTC under President Trump won’t allow this deception to continue.” The FTC, along with the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, allege Amazon has imposed undisclosed surcharges on its advertising customers, which include over 500,000 small- and medium-sized businesses that participated in auctions for advertising placements on Amazon.com and its mobile app. In these auctions, prospective advertisers bid to place Sponsored Product ads, Sponsored Brands ads and Display Ads alongside the results that appear when a consumer searches for a product using a keyword on Amazon’s store. Placements are auctioned to the highest-ranked bidder for each keyword. As described in the complaint, Amazon has represented to prospective advertisers for years that Amazon runs “second price” auctions where the winner of the auction would only pay “one cent more than the next highest bidder” for each successful bid for an advertising keyword. However, in practice, the complaint alleges that Amazon has charged its Sponsored Products advertisers their own winning bid close to 80% of the time and has effectively converted its nominally “second price” auction into a first price auction. According to the complaint, Amazon’s “second price” auctions have been described by Amazon, and understood by advertisers, to be run as generalized second-price, or GSP auctions, which have been the accepted industry standard for digital advertising placements. The complaint states that Amazon has made these or similar representations on its website, in training videos and in other public-facing materials, as well as in presentations made to advertisers by its hundreds of sales personnel.  The type of auction matters to advertisers because it impacts how they bid. In a sealed first-price auction—the type of auction where winners pay the amount of their winning bid—bidders run the risk that they might overbid. So, in repetitive auctions for the same goods, they will often reduce their bid to determine what the minimum amount needed to win future auctions might be. This is called bid shading. In second-price auctions, bidders are more likely to bid higher, closer to their true value for the product, because they will only be liable to pay the least bid amount needed to win under the auction’s rules.  As alleged in the complaint, Amazon told advertisers it ran a GSP, but for years its auction pricing had “a surcharge hidden in it,” in the words of one internal Amazon document. The complaint alleges that, beginning in 2019, Amazon changed its auction rules without notice by adding an undisclosed surcharge that Amazon referred to internally as a “soft reserve price.” This resulted in advertisers paying substantially more than the price determined by the GSP auction.  According to the complaint, Amazon","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-states-sue-amazon-over-secret-ad-surcharge-scheme","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"url":"http://anj.fr/uefa-european-football-championship-and-sports-betting-french-gambling-authority-anj","source":"ANJ","description":"UEFA European Football Championship and sports betting: the French Gambling Authority (ANJ) gathers operators and announces a dynamic and structuring action plan admin lun 13/09/2021 - 16:45 On 20 July 2021, the French Gambling Authority (ANJ) gathered sports betting’s operators in order to make the overview of the European Football Championship that has been scarred by some abuses. Resulting from a constructive exchange, these operators have agreed on the necessity to proceed at a rebalancing of their practices in order to preserve the recreational model of the French gambling market. As such, the ANJ introduced an action plan that seeks to reinforce operators’ compliance, to adapt and complete existing tools and, where required, to use sanctioning procedures. English Questionable practices highlighted during the European Football Championship UEFA European Football Championship 2021 confirmed the growing place of sports bets in France with EUR 434 million of online stakes. The French team matches have aroused a strong popularity by totalling EUR 88 million of online bets, which means an average of EUR 22 million per match. This competition has underlined the existence of questionable practices around sports betting, such as the media hype, the targeting of young people or the excessive stimulation of the game. For the first time, the public debate has seized this very subject and has relayed serious concerns coming from various circles. According to a Harris Interactive inquiry* conducted for the ANJ during the European Football Championship, more than half of those who had seen sports betting ads feel that they are too many of them and close to eight out of ten French people who had seen these ads consider that they can contain a risk of addiction. *Inquiry conducted by Harris Interactive online from the 6 to the 8 July 2021 for the ANJ with a cross section of 1038 French population aged over 18 years old. The ANJ has brought gambling operators together in order to learn from the European Football Championship After having drew the attention of operators on several critical points since June, the ANJ has gathered them on the 20 July in order to do the review of the European Football Championship and to address them the following messages: A yellow line has been crossed in terms of advertising pressure during this competition, which leads to question the model of regulation in place for the past 10 years; it is important to drastically and immediately reduce the sports betting’s advertising pressure. The commercial communications targeting young adults and keeping the illusion of easy money are particularly problematic. As a result of these discussions, which took place in a constructive atmosphere, gambling operators have decided that they collectively share the concerns expressed by the regulator and are prepared to work alongside it in order to propose some improvements and to limit these commercial communications. The ANJ establish an action plan for games offer to remain recreational and well-balanced Given the shared objective of recovery practices between regulator and operators, the ANJ has announced the launch of 5 projects to fight the observed abuses and to clarify or complete the legal framework. These projects should be over by the end of the year. Regarding advertisement: The ANJ has asked operators for a mid-term review of implementation of their promotional strategies as approved by the ANJ’s Board in January 2021 and reserves the right, after examination of these reviews, to initiate sanctions procedures in the event of noncompliance. The ANJ will launch a consultation of stakeholders on advertising in September. This will allow the ANJ to address recommendations to these stakeholders, and if necessary, to propose new tools of intervention. A partnership is initiated with the ARPP (Self-Regulatory Body of Advertising Professionals) in order to decline regulatory restrictions into concrete recommendations for operators. The objective is to issue precise and operational","id":719780,"pubDate":"Sun, 28 May 2023 19:23:47 +0200","titre":"UEFA European Football Championship and sports betting: the French Gambling Authority (ANJ) gathers operators and announces a dynamic and structuring action plan"}]