[{"source":"BEREC Office","id":3260964,"description":"BEREC Study trip to Japan yannick.stephan Tue, 03/11/2026 - 10:27 Latest News From 26 to 30 October, BEREC’s leadership visited Japan on a study trip aimed at strengthening international relations and exchanging experience with key partners from government, industry, research and academia. The delegation was led by BEREC Chair Marko Mismas (AKOS, Slovenia) and was made up of Vice-Chairs Alejandra de Ituarriaga (CNMC, Spain), Michel Van Bellinghen (BIPT, Belgium), Sarah Jacquier-Pelissier (Arcep, France), Giacomo Lasorella (AGCOM, Italy), Klaus Steinmaurer (RTR, Austria) and Robert Mourik (ComReg, Ireland). The representative of participants without voting rights, Milan Radulovic (EKIP, Montenegro), and the Director of the BEREC Office, Verena Weber, also joined the delegation. The visit was part of BEREC’s broader efforts to deepen dialogue with international stakeholders and to gather first-hand insight into developments in advanced digital and telecommunications markets. Japan, as a global leader in connectivity, technology and research, offered an ideal setting for discussions on the future of electronic communications and digital policy. Exchanges with public institutions During the visit, BEREC’s delegation met with representatives of the European Union Delegation to Japan and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. Conversations focused on the broader policy and regulatory landscape, shared priorities in connectivity, digital transformation and emerging technologies, and EU–Japan trade links, with a particular emphasis on digital matters. Discussions with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications covered developments in fixed broadband, including fibre deployment, digital infrastructure development and international submarine cables, as well as trends in Japan’s mobile communications policy, notably in relation to 5G and 6G. Developments in non-terrestrial networks, Japan’s policy approach to network resilience and AI governance, including the Hiroshima AI Process and the activities of the Friends Group, were also addressed. Dialogue with industry BEREC’s leadership also met with Sony, SoftBank, NTT, Rakuten and Ericsson. Discussions with industry provided an opportunity to exchange views on market developments, innovation in telecommunications and digital services, investment in network infrastructure, future network technologies, cloud-native solutions, Open RAN, and security and sustainability. At NTT, the company’s vision for the Innovative Optical and Wireless Network (IOWN) was also touched on, with developments in next-generation communications infrastructure and future network architecture highlighted. In addition to the meetings organised, the delegation visited a dedicated briefing facility at SoftBank’s headquarters, where guests were presented with advanced technologies and solutions developed by SoftBank and its partners. The visit included live demonstrations and interactive presentations, covering areas such as high-altitude platform stations (HAPS), non-terrestrial networks, artificial intelligence, 5G and digital transformation. Perspectives from academia and research The BEREC leadership also met with representatives from the University of Tokyo and the RIKEN Centre for Computational Science. These visits offered academic and research perspectives on emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, high-performance computing, data-driven innovation and the future development of digital ecosystems. The study trip underlined the importance of continued international engagement for BEREC, particularly amid rapid technological change and growing global interdependence in the electronic communications sector. The visit also reaffirmed BEREC’s commitment to exchanging knowledge and best practices with public authorities, market players and research institutions worldwide. <div","pubDate":"Tue, 03 Nov 2026 14:32:41 +0100","url":"https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/news/latest-news/berec-study-trip-to-japan","titre":"BEREC Study trip to Japan"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/07/we-cant-go-no-can-do","titre":"We can’t go for that (no can do)","id":3200011,"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.”","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"id":3194910,"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","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers"}]