[{"description":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening chundycz April 9, 2014 | 12:13AM Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening By Lesley Fair When the talk turns to Big Data, part of the conversation is about all the public information available about people's lives – and how companies market it to prospective employers, landlords, etc.  Two cases just announced by the FTC  serve as a cautionary reminder to members of the industry that what they do may be subject to the long-standing consumer protections of the  Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) .  InfoTrack, an Illinois company, and San Diego-based Instant Checkmate will be paying civil penalties to settle FTC lawsuits that they violated the FCRA.  Is it time for an FCRA refresher at your business? Instant Checkmate marketed its reports as a way for prospective employers and landlords to investigate applicants.  For example, the company advertised that one of the “GOOD REASONS to get instant criminal checks on anyone right now” was to “check out tenants before they rent.”  It also used a Google Ad Words campaign to make sure its site appeared when people searched for background checks on nannies, babysitters, maids, and housekeepers.  What kind of information would buyers get?  Current and previous addresses, birth certificates, arrest histories, and marriage and divorce records, to name just a few examples. InfoTrack offered similar services to employers nationwide, including background screening reports with people’s driving records, education and employment information, criminal histories, and even records from sex offender registries. How does the FCRA come in?  The law defines a “consumer report” as a “communication of any information” by a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that bears on a person’s “credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living” which is used (or expected to be used) as a factor in establishing their eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, or other reasons outlined in the law. According to the FTC, what Instant Checkmate and InfoTrack were doing triggered the FCRA.  For example, companies covered by the law must follow procedures to assure their reports are as accurate as possible, must take steps to see that those using their reports have permissible purposes for accessing them, and must provide required User Notices explaining key protections for consumers.  The law imposes special requirements when CRAs provide reports containing public record information that could have an adverse effect on a person’s ability to get a job.  In that case, the CRA must either: 1) notify the consumer that it’s reporting the information in the public record; or 2) maintain “strict procedures” – that’s the language in the law – designed to ensure the reported public information is complete and up to date. You’ll want to read the complaints for specifics of where the FTC says the companies fell short, but one example cited in the lawsuit against InfoTrack offers an object lesson on why FCRA protections are so important to consumers – and how the consequences can be devastating when companies don’t live up to the law.  According to the FTC, the reports InfoTrack provided to prospective employers included information about whether a job applicant was on the National Sex Offender Registry.  The employer would provide the first and last name and the date of birth to help InfoTrack with its search.  The problem was that before the fall of 2011, no date of birth was available for many names on the Registry.  If InfoTrack’s search found more than one person with the same first and last name, it reported a “possible match” to employers and gave them reports that included several different people with the","id":3198181,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/04/keep-fcra-foreground-when-subject-background-screening","titre":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:46 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Sat, 26 Sep 2026 08:01:53 +0200","url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/09/25/trade-secrets-as-an-alternative-to-patent-protection/","titre":"Trade Secrets as an Alternative to Patent Protection","id":3178670,"description":"A perpetual question from clients is whether a new development should be protected by filing a patent application or kept as a trade secret? Patents are granted by national patent offices for new, useful and not obvious inventions. Patents require a full and public description of the idea and the details needed by a skilled person to put that idea into practice. For example, Section 27(3)(c) of the Patent Act requires that for machines, the patent “explain the principle of the machine and the best mode in which the inventor has contemplated the application of that principle”. This quid pro . . . [more] The post Trade Secrets as an Alternative to Patent Protection appeared first on Slaw","source":"Slaw"},{"source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWCOP 29 (T3) Case No: 14028041 In the Court of Protection in the matter of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in the matter of the Mental Health Act 1983 23 July 2026 Before: Mr Justice Peel Between: Patricia (by her Accredited Legal Representative) -v- Cygnet Healthcare Ltd Patricia’s father Patricia’s mother Patricia’s aunt The post Re Patricia (MHA 1983 and s28 MCA 2005) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3050912,"titre":"Re Patricia (MHA 1983 and s28 MCA 2005)","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/re-patricia-mha-1983-and-s28-mca-2005/","pubDate":"Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:06:26 +0200"},{"id":3005236,"description":"Notre Associée Corinne THIERACHE, au sein du département Propriété intellectuelle, Droit des technologies et du numérique & Protection des données personnelles, décrypte, aux côtés de Aya Lyazidi, Etudiante du Master 2 Droit du Numérique de Panthéon-Assas sous la direction du professeur @Jérôme Passa, dans une chronique publiée par Alliancy les enjeux liés à l’articulation entre […] The post AI Act et Digital Omnibus : les entreprises doivent-elles revoir leur stratégie de conformité avant l'échéance du 2 août 2026 ? appeared first on Alerion Avocats Paris","source":"Alerion Avocats Actualités","pubDate":"Fri, 03 Jul 2026 13:54:38 +0200","titre":"AI Act et Digital Omnibus : les entreprises doivent-elles revoir leur stratégie de conformité avant l’échéance du 2 août 2026 ?","url":"https://www.alerionavocats.com/ai-act-et-digital-omnibus-les-entreprises-doivent-elles-revoir-leur-strategie-de-conformite-avant-lecheance-du-2-aout-2026/"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/stubhub-refunding-10-million-fees-consumers-after-deceptive-ticket-pricing","titre":"StubHub Refunding $10 Million in Fees to Consumers After Deceptive Ticket Pricing","pubDate":"Fri, 10 Apr 2026 08:08:44 +0200","description":"StubHub, the nation’s largest ticket exchange and resale ticket provider, will pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company violated the FTC Act and the agency’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees by deceptively advertising ticket prices on its website without clearly and conspicuously disclosing up-front how much consumers actually would pay, including all mandatory fees. “The Commission’s Fees Rule makes it very clear that the total price of live-event tickets must be disclosed up-front to enable consumers to make fully informed purchasing decisions,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Price transparency is essential to a free and competitive marketplace. Today’s settlement underscores the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that consumers pay the price they are promised.” The FTC’s action against StubHub Holdings, Inc., follows a  warning letter the agency sent the online ticket platform in May 2025 stating that multiple prices displayed on its website appeared to be in violation of the Fees Rule. Under the Rule, which took effect on May 12, 2025 , it is an unfair and deceptive practice for any business to offer, display, or advertise the price of a live-event ticket without clearly, conspicuously, and most prominently disclosing the total price, which the Rule defines as “the maximum total of all fees or charges a consumer must pay for any good(s) or service(s) and any mandatory ancillary good or service.” Misrepresenting prices also violates the FTC Act. Today’s action also follows the Administration’s recent Executive Order on Ticketing , which includes a directive for the FTC to “take appropriate action . . . to ensure price transparency at all stages of the ticket-purchase process, including the secondary ticketing market.” According to the Commission’s complaint , in mid-May 2025—after the Rule went into effect—StubHub advertised its ticket prices without disclosing the full price consumers would actually pay by failing to include mandatory fees and to disclose the total price everywhere it displayed prices. Specifically, the FTC alleges StubHub failed to provide the total price for tickets—including high-demand National Football League tickets in the lead-up to when the NFL schedule was announced on May 14, 2025—in the first three pricing displays on its website. On the initial two pricing displays, in numerous instances, the advertised price did not include all mandatory fees, and StubHub did not disclose the total price. On the third pricing display, StubHub listed multiple fees and charges but did not disclose the total price. The proposed order settling StubHub’s alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Fees Rule requires the company to pay $10 million, which the company will use to provide monetary relief to eligible consumers through a settlement and consumer redress distribution program. The order also prohibits StubHub from misrepresenting the total price of any good or service; any fee or charge, including its nature, purpose, amount, or refundability, as well as why the fee or charge is being imposed; the final payment amount for any transaction; and any other material fact including those related to refunds or cancellations. The proposed order also prohibits StubHub from: Offering, displaying, or advertising any price of a good or service without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price; Failing to disclose the total price more prominently than any other pricing information; Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the amount of any fees or charges that have been excluded from the total price and what they are for, as well as the final payment amount—before the consumer agrees to pay for a product or service; and Violating the Commission’s Fees Rule. Within 90 days of the date of the order StubHub must provide redress to two groups of eligible","id":2818173,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"description":"Septembre 2024 / Compte rendu Pour la deuxième de ses Rencontres avec les Régulateurs, le gf2i a reçu le 26 septembre 2024, Régis CHATELLIER, Responsable d’études prospectives – Laboratoire d’innovation numérique de la CNIL pour un échange sur la mise en œuvre des dispositions du chapitre IV du DGA relatif à l’altruisme en matière de données. Régis CHATELLIER a tout d’abord mentionné le champ d’application du DGA et rappelé les différentes modalités d’utilisation des données traitées du règlement (UE) n° 2022/868 sur la gouvernance des données (Data Governance Act – DGA) en précisant qu’il n’a pas vocation à traiter de la protection de celles-ci (les règles sur la protection des données à caractère personnel s’appliquent de manière habituelles). L’échange a particulièrement porté sur : – la distinction entre le régime de l’altruisme de données – réservé à des utilisations à finalité d’intérêt général – et celui des intermédiaires de données et les éventuelles conséquences juridiques quant à l’exploitation des données, – les critères de définition de l’intérêt général qui relèvent de l’échelon national, – le suivi et le contrôle opérés par la CNIL (contrôle de pièces fournies lors de la notification de l’activité, rapport de transparence, traitement de plaintes éventuelles), – le rôle des autorités publiques et des territoires dans la mise en œuvre du régime des entités... Voir l'article The post 2e Rencontre avec les Régulateurs : CNIL first appeared on gf2i","id":1631363,"source":"Actualités - gf2i","url":"https://www.gf2i.org/actualites/2e-rencontre-avec-les-regulateurs-cnil/","titre":"2e Rencontre avec les Régulateurs : CNIL","pubDate":"Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:34:30 +0200"},{"titre":"Règlement européen sur la cyber-solidarité","url":"https://www.gf2i.org/actualites/reglement-sur-la-cyber-solidarite/","pubDate":"Thu, 19 Oct 2023 18:14:42 +0200","description":"Mai 2023 L’œil du gf2i – Le Règlement sur la cyber-solidarité, dernière brique du rempart européen contre les cyberattaques Le Cyber Solidarity Act (ou Règlement sur la cyber-solidarité) est un nouveau projet de règlement européen que la Commission a présenté le 18 avril dernier. Ce projet traduit la volonté de l’Union Européenne de renforcer la coopération des Etats européens en matière de lutte contre les cyberattaques importantes, ces dernières étant de nature à ignorer les frontières. Il s’inscrit donc dans le plus large plan réglementaire de l’Union Européenne de cybersécurité comprenant des textes comme le Cybersecurity Act ou encore le Cyber Resilience Act que nous avions déjà présenté dans un précédent Œil du gf2i. Avec ce nouveau projet, c’est 1,1 milliard d’euros que la Commission européenne va ajouter à son budget alloué à la cybersécurité qui commence véritablement à prendre de l’ampleur. L’UE s’étant déjà bien dotée en matière de cybersécurité sur les dernières années, il est nécessaire de comprendre les apports potentiels de ce projet aux règlements existants. Quel rôle va jouer ce nouveau règlement dans le vaste plan européen de cyber protection ? Ce nouveau texte vise particulièrement à renforcer la préparation des pays européens et leur capacité de réaction... Voir l'article The post Règlement européen sur la cyber-solidarité first appeared on gf2i","id":931481,"source":"Actualités - gf2i"}]