[{"id":3203247,"description":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business lfair January 8, 2020 | 9:26AM FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business By Lesley Fair They say hindsight is 20/20, but what about foresight? We’re not ones to prognosticate, but a look at notable FTC cases and initiatives from the past year suggests some topics likely to be top of mind in months to come. Here is a non-exhaustive list of issues in our 2019 rearview mirror and likely visible through the 2020 windshield. Consumer privacy. The FTC’s $5 billion enforcement action against Facebook made history and headlines, but the other notable part of the case is the monumental change the order mandates to Facebook’s privacy ecosystem. The Commission opinion in Cambridge Analytica reaffirms the proposition that like any other claim, a company’s privacy promises are viewed through the lens of established FTC consumer perception principles. A series of cases demonstrates the agency’s continued commitment to challenging false or misleading representations about businesses’ compliance with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework. Another important development is the FTC’s proposed settlement with Retina-X . It’s our first action against a marketer of stalking apps – software that allowed purchasers to monitor the mobile devices on which they’re installed, without users’ knowledge. COPPA. Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act to ensure that when it comes to the collection of kids’ personal information online, parents are in the driver’s seat. The FTC settlement with YouTube – brought in conjunction with the New York Attorney General – alleges that the company collected kids’ personal data without parental consent, in violation of the COPPA Rule . The $170 million civil penalty broke the record for the largest remedy in an FTC COPPA case, set months before in our $5.7 million settlement with Musical.ly , now known as TikTok. If you’re a YouTube channel owner, read a special Business Blog post for tips on determining if your content is directed to children. Data security. Is your company honoring its data security promises and taking reasonable steps to safeguard the sensitive information in its possession? The FTC, CFPB, and State AG actions against Equifax illustrate how consumers are injured when companies ignore reasonably foreseeable threats. The settlement, which totals between $575 million and $700 million – also reminds businesses that heeding warnings about known risks is more prudent (and cost-effective) than the alternative. Three threads tie together the FTC’s unrelated actions against LightYear Dealer Technologies and InfoTrax Systems . They both sell management software to specific industries. They both allegedly failed to take reasonable steps to secure their networks, resulting in damaging data breaches. And they’re both covered by similar new orders the FTC has introduced in recent data security cases. If you or your clients are players in the Internet of Things, the settlement of the FTC’s litigation against connected device company D-Link sends an unmistakable message: The future of the IoT marketplace depends on secure software development. Endorsements, certifications, and influencers. Why is the FTC concerned about the accuracy of endorsements and certifications? Because they’re material to consumers. The FTC says Truly Organics’ claim that its personal care products were “certified organic” lathered up a double bubble of deception. First, its merchandise contained ingredients that weren’t organic. Second, the company falsely claimed that its products were certified by USDA’s National Organic Program. Other FTC developments focused on the use of endorsements in social media. The FTC’s action against Devumi alleges the company sold fake followers, phony subscribers, and bogus","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/01/ftc-consumer-protection-year-review-offers-2020-vision-your-business","titre":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3199073,"description":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs lfair March 18, 2019 | 10:24AM Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs By Lesley Fair First, the bad news: That nifty purchase needs a repair. Now the good news for consumers: It’s still under warranty. But where can they go to get it fixed? Can the manufacturer restrict a consumer’s ability to go to the independent repair shop of their choice? Can the manufacturer use glue, non-standard screws, and proprietary diagnostic software that make it difficult for independent repair shops to fix things? Do limitations like these affect consumers’ rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ? That’s the topic of Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions , an FTC event scheduled for July 16, 2019 . Enforced by the FTC, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act helps consumers make informed buying decisions and gives them access to remedies if the widget starts to fidget during the warranty period. One key consumer protection under Mag-Moss is that the law prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on the use of particular products or services. Here are some of the questions FTC staff intends to ask at Nixing the Fix : What’s the interplay between repair restrictions and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s anti-tying provision, which establishes that manufacturers can’t condition coverage on the use of parts or services identified by brand, trade, or corporate name? Do repair restrictions affect the market for extended warranties and service agreements? What types of restrictions are consumers running into when they try to get their stuff repaired? Are manufacturers’ restrictions having an impact on small fix-it businesses? Are manufacturers using software that may render products obsolete or unfixable if consumers engage in DIY or go to a local repair shop? Are repair restrictions necessary to reduce the risk of physical injury or to protect manufacturers from liability for products improperly repaired by others? Do consumers understand the effects of repair restrictions? We’re also looking for empirical research and data about the prevalence and impact of manufacturers’ repair restrictions. For example, what can you tell us about code that disables products that have been repaired by someone other than the manufacturer, product designs that make third-party repairs difficult (like attaching batteries with glue only the manufacturer can remove), contractual post-sale or licensing restrictions, or proprietary diagnostic software and replacement parts? Please send us your research and data by April 30, 2019. Do you have suggestions about possible panelists? Email us at nixingthefix@ftc.gov . Nixing the Fix will take place on July 16th at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. It’s free and open to the public. You can file public comments online and we’ll keep the record open until September 16, 2019. Follow the Business Blog for more information about the agenda and for watch-the-webcast instructions.","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","titre":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/03/nixing-fix-warranties-mag-moss-restrictions-repairs"},{"id":3199075,"description":"First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim lfair August 6, 2018 | 11:11AM First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim By Lesley Fair T he marketers behind a purported money-making promotion called Sellers Playbook appear to have skipped the chapter about complying with federal and state consumer protection laws. That’s the allegation in a complaint filed by the FTC and the Minnesota Attorney General . In addition, it’s the FTC’s first case charg ing violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. The roots of the allegations go back to another venture sued by the FTC earlier this year: FBA Stores, also known as Amazing Wealth System and Amazon Wealth Systems. The defendants in that case ran online ads and in-person workshops that claimed to reveal the secret s of making major money on Amazon. But few, if any, of the consumers who forked over thousands of dollars and implemented their “plug-and-play systems” earn ed the kind of cash the defendants claimed. Which brings us to Sellers Playbook, Exposure Marketing, Jessie Conners Tieva, and Matthew Tieva – Minnesota-based defendants charged with pitching the same kind of “secrets” to making big bucks on Amazon . According to the just-filed lawsuit , the striking similarities should come as no surprise. That ’s because defendant Jessie Tieva was a regular speaker at Amazing Wealth Systems’ workshops. How successful was she in getting consumers to sign up? The complaint charges that Ms. Tieva and her team generated more than $3.4 million in sales for Amazing Wealth Systems. And let’s be clear: We’re not talking about $3.4 million in sales by consumers who successfully implemented the system. We mean $3.4 million that consumers shelled out to the operators of Amazing Wealth Systems for which Tieva was paid a handsome commission. The complaint alleges that the new Sellers Playbook venture is, in effect, a copycat of the now-defunct Amazing Wealth Systems operation. The earning claims certainly have a familiar ring to them. Here’s how Sellers Playbook touted their “opportunity”: “Holy cow, guys. That’s when you start seeing the returns of what we want you to have, $20,000 a month,” “Potential Net Profit: $1,287,463.38,” “Starting with $1000...1 year later over $210,000,” and “How many of you would like to learn how to turn a $5- to $10,000 investment into a $25- to a $1.2 million return with your investment? Yeah. And you’re going to learn those strategies before you leave here today. There are a few other things Amazon Wealth Systems and Sellers Playbook have in common: 1) Neither company has any affiliation with Amazon; and 2) Both companies charged consumers hundreds of dollars – or even hefty five-figure fees – to sign up. Of course, few consumers make the kind of earnings the defendants claimed. According to the complaint, many of the webpages promoting Sellers Playbook contained an inconspicuous earnings disclaimer in grey near the bottom of the page. What’s more, at a live event, the defendants briefly displayed this slide, which one of the presenters downplayed with this statement: “That’s why they have us do this again. It makes the lawyers happy, disclaimers. But you got to do your part. Money’s not going to fall from the sky. But as long as you do a part, it’s going to happen.” T he complaint challenges the defendants’ earning claims as false or unsubstantiated under FTC law and the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. What’s more, the lawsuit alleges multiple violations of the FTC’s Business Opportunity Rule . The FTC and the AG also charge that provisions in the defendants’ form contracts try to restrict consumers’ ability to post reviews of their products, services, or conduct , in violation of the Consumer Review Fairness","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","titre":"First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/08/first-consumer-review-fairness-case-takes-promoters-big-bucks-amazon-claim"},{"titre":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/07/ftc-florida-ag-small-business-scrutinize-o-fishy-al-invoices","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","id":3198177},{"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","pubDate":"Sat, 26 Sep 2026 08:01:53 +0200","titre":"Trade Secrets as an Alternative to Patent Protection","url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/09/25/trade-secrets-as-an-alternative-to-patent-protection/"},{"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,"source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales","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"},{"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/","titre":"AI Act et Digital Omnibus : les entreprises doivent-elles revoir leur stratégie de conformité avant l’échéance du 2 août 2026 ?","pubDate":"Fri, 03 Jul 2026 13:54:38 +0200","source":"Alerion Avocats Actualités","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","id":3005236},{"pubDate":"Tue, 15 Oct 2024 09:34:30 +0200","url":"https://www.gf2i.org/actualites/2e-rencontre-avec-les-regulateurs-cnil/","titre":"2e Rencontre avec les Régulateurs : CNIL","id":1631363,"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","source":"Actualités - gf2i"},{"url":"https://www.gf2i.org/actualites/reglement-sur-la-cyber-solidarite/","titre":"Règlement européen sur la cyber-solidarité","pubDate":"Thu, 19 Oct 2023 18:14:42 +0200","source":"Actualités - gf2i","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}]