[{"titre":"Let's Make a Seal","pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:12:17 +0200","id":3192608,"description":"Let's Make a Seal wfg-adm109 January 12, 2011 | 5:31PM Let's Make a Seal By Lesley Fair For many people, environmental considerations play an important role in what they put in their shopping carts.  But it's tough to know when green claims are credible.  Seals and certifications can be a useful tool to help shoppers decide where to place their trust and how to spend their money — but only if they're backed by solid proof. The FTC’s proposed settlement with Tested Green, Nonprofit Management LLC, and Jeremy Ryan Claeys demonstrates the importance of ensuring that claims conveyed to consumers through seals and certifications are supported by sound science.  According to the FTC, the company and Claeys advertised and sold a Tested Green certification, touted as “the nation’s leading certification program for businesses that produce green products or use green processes in the manufacture of goods and services.”  The company’s website hyped the program as “the nation’s leading certification for green businesses with over 45,000 certifications in the United States.” Tested Green said that to qualify for the \"Rapid” certification, companies had to “answer a series of questions about the green activities your business participates in.”  To qualify for the “Pro” Certification, companies had to supply the same documentation, but Tested Green required more:  a possible site visit “to verify the green practices are legitimate and meet universal green standards.” Despite those claims, the FTC says that no applicant was required to answer a series of questions about their business’ green activities, and no applicant for the Pro certification was ever subject to a site visit as a condition of certification.  According to the FTC, the only “green” activity the company insisted on was ponying up $189.95 for the Rapid certification or $549.95 for the Pro version. The FTC charged that as soon as businesses paid the fee, Tested Green sent them the logo and a “certification verification page” they could use to advertise their Tested Green certified status. But problems with the Tested Green program didn’t end there.  Tested Green claimed that its program was endorsed by the National Green Business Association and the National Association of Government Contractors.  Independent industry groups?  Not so.  According to the FTC, they were businesses owned and operated by respondent Claeys. The FTC’s complaint alleged that Tested Green’s certifications conveyed the false claim that the products or services bearing the certification had been independently and objectively evaluated based on their environmental attributes or benefits.  Additionally, by furnishing businesses with the certification and the tools to advertise it, Tested Green provided them with what they needed for the commission of deceptive acts and practices – the “means and instrumentalities,” in legal parlance – which is itself a deceptive act in violation of Section 5. The FTC also charged that Tested Green’s use of “endorsements” from the National Green Business Association and the National Association of Government Contractors was false and misleading since they owned and operated the groups.  The failure to disclose the relationship between the two groups and Tested Green was a deceptive practice,","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/01/lets-make-seal"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-ban-kochava-subsidiary-selling-sensitive-location-data-settle-charges-they-sold-location-data","description":"The Federal Trade Commission will prohibit data broker Kochava and its subsidiary from selling, sharing or disclosing sensitive location data without consumers’ affirmative express consent to settle allegations the companies sold location data from hundreds of millions of mobile devices that could be used to trace the movements of individuals.    The FTC  sued Idaho-based Kochava in August 2022 alleging that its collection, use and disclosure of precise location data invaded consumers’ privacy by revealing their movements, including visits to sensitive locations such as health facilities and places of worship. The FTC alleged that because consumers were unaware of and did not consent to this data sharing, consumers had no way of avoiding the harm resulting from its collection and disclosure. Under the proposed order resolving the FTC’s litigation, Kochava and its subsidiary,  Collective Data Solutions (CDS), which has taken over Kochava’s data broker business, will be prohibited from selling, licensing, transferring, sharing or disclosing sensitive location data in any products or services unless they obtain a consumer’s affirmative express consent and the data is used to provide a service directly requested by the consumer. The subsidiary and Kochava (if Kochava sells or uses precise location data) also are required to: Establish and implement a sensitive location data program to develop a comprehensive list of sensitive locations to prevent the sale, transfer or disclosure of sensitive location data; Implement a supplier assessment program designed to confirm that consumers have provided consent for the collection and use of all location data obtained by the subsidiary or Kochava; Submit incident reports to the FTC when the companies determine a third party shared consumers’ precise location data in violation of contractual requirements; Allow consumers to request the names of any business or individual to which CDS or Kochava has knowledge that consumers’ precise location data was sold, and provide consumers with an easy way to withdraw consent for the sale of their device’s precise location data; and Create a data retention schedule that will require the deletion of data on an established timeframe. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 2-0. The FTC filed the proposed order   in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. NOTE:  Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge. The lead attorneys on this matter are Jennifer Rimm, Erik Jones, Mike Sherling, Elizabeth C. Scott, and Julia Horwitz in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","titre":"FTC to Ban Kochava and Subsidiary from Selling Sensitive Location Data to Settle Charges They Sold Location Data Linked to Millions of Mobile Devices","id":2865224,"pubDate":"Tue, 05 May 2026 08:04:47 +0200"},{"id":2577895,"pubDate":"Wed, 17 Dec 2025 09:50:37 +0100","titre":"FTC Will Require Illusory Systems to Return Money Stolen by Hackers and Implement an Information Security Program","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","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","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/05/ftc-files-amicus-brief-dojs-proposed-final-judgment-against-google-antitrust-violations","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","description":"The Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief today in support of the Department of Justice’s Revised Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) related to Google’s antitrust violations. In August 2024, a federal judge found that Google violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by maintaining monopolies in general search services and general text advertising. As part of the RPFJ aimed at remedying these violations, DOJ proposed that Google be required to share targeted portions of its search index, user, and ads data with certain competitors for a limited period of time with suitable security and privacy safeguards. As the nation’s primary privacy enforcer, the FTC has a strong interest in ensuring that companies vigorously protect consumers’ privacy and long experience with crafting appropriate remedies to address such privacy and data security violations. “The privacy safeguards proposed by DOJ are in line with the measures the FTC has required numerous companies to take to address privacy and data security failures,” said Katherine White, Deputy Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The RPFJ may also force Google and other market participants to finally compete on protecting consumer privacy.” In its brief , the FTC described the ways in which the RPFJ is consistent with the Commission’s own privacy and data-security orders, and noted Google’s questionable track record related to privacy. The company has entered into three separate consent agreements with the FTC since 2011 over alleged privacy violations. DOJ’s RPFJ includes similar safeguards to those required by the FTC under the privacy orders the agency has entered into with numerous companies for allegedly failing to protect consumer privacy and data security, according to the FTC’s brief. These privacy orders include requirements that companies establish programs designed to identify and mitigate potential privacy and security risks. These programs are also subject to independent audits by third-party assessors and oversight by the FTC or a federal court. DOJ’s RPFJ recommends that the court appoint a Technical Committee made up of independent experts that would be charged with ensuring that Qualified Competitors that receive data from Google have adequate safeguards in place to protect Google users’ privacy. The FTC’s brief argued that the Technical Committee’s oversight is critical to ensuring Google—and competitors who receive user data—adhere to their required privacy obligations, particularly given Google’s past privacy lapses, which included paying a civil penalty for  violating its 2011 privacy order with the FTC. In addition, the brief noted that the RPFJ’s data sharing requirements may create an incentive for Google and other market participants to compete on privacy and data protection, driving higher quality protection market wide. The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the amicus brief was 1-0-2, with Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Mark R. Meador recused. Commissioner Holyoak is recused from participating in this matter due to her previous work as Utah’s Solicitor General, where she led Utah’s involvement in the litigation against Google that is the subject of today’s","pubDate":"Sat, 10 May 2025 09:48:18 +0200","id":2106726,"titre":"FTC Files Amicus Brief on DOJ’s Proposed Final Judgment Against Google for Antitrust Violations"}]