[{"url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/lc-v-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-anonymity-order/","titre":"LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order)","pubDate":"Thu, 29 Oct 2026 08:01:50 +0100","description":"UT ref: UA-2026-000083-PIP In the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber 28 October 2026 Before: Stewart Wright Judge of the Upper Tribunal Between: LC -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Anonymity Order Appellant: LC Respondents: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Tribunal: First tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) Tribunal venue: Scarborough Tribunal Case Nos: SC231/24/00181 Tribunal decision date: 29 August 2025 NOTICE: Any breach of this order is liable to be treated as a contempt of court and may be punishable by imprisonment, fine or other sanctions under section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The maximum punishment that may be imposed is a sentence of two years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine. It is ordered , under rule 14(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal Rules) 2008, that, without the permission of this Tribunal, no one shall disclose or publish the name, or any part of the address, of the appellant in these proceedings or publish or reveal any other information that would be likely to lead to the identification of the appellant. The appellant shall be known as LC. Anyone who objects to this order may apply to the Upper Tribunal for it to be varied or set aside. A copy of this Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales. REASONS This anonymity order is made on the application of the appellant. It is sought because “the appeal involves a disabled claimant and details of their disability are to reasonably be inferred from a prospectively publicised decision”. I have by a separate decision allowed the appellant’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal. That decision will be published on public facing websites and, if no anonymity order is made, the appellant would be named in that decision. The principle of open justice is of fundamental importance to the justice system. An aspect of open justice is that parties’ names are made public. Derogation from this principle requires justification. Particular regard must be given to the importance of the right to freedom of expression, including the right to publish reports of cases. In this case, I am satisfied that it is necessary to derogate from the open justice principle to the limited extent of not naming the appellant. The appellant has ADHD and anxiety and depression and those features of his health and conditions need to be referred to in the decision on the appeal. In that context, I am satisfied that an anonymity order should be made because I accept a risk of harm could arise for this vulnerable appellant if he was to be identified in these proceedings, because those health details would then be in the public domain. The public interest in open justice and freedom of expression will still be served by this order and the final decision in this appeal being published online. The letters LC are not the appellant’s initials. The post LC v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (anonymity order) appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3248599,"source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 22 Oct 2026 08:04:53 +0200","titre":"Opinion of 27 July 2026 on the amendment of the terms of reference and specifications of the national programme companies France Télévisions, Radio France and France Médias Monde","url":"https://www.arcom.fr/en/find-out-more/legal-area/legal-resources/opinion-27-july-2026-amendment-terms-reference-and-specifications-national-programme-companies-france-televisions-radio-france-and-france-medias-monde","id":3233315,"description":"The French regulatory authority for audiovisual and digital communication (hereinafter ‘Arcom’), Having regard to Act No. 86-1067 of 30 September 1986, as amended, on freedom of communication, in particular Articles 3-1 and 48 thereof; Having regard to the Decree of 13 November 1987, as amended, approving the terms of reference and specifications of Radio France and the National Audiovisual Institute; Having regard to Decree No. 2009-79 of 23 June 2009, as amended, laying down the terms of reference for the national broadcaster France Télévisions; Having regard to Decree No. 2012-85 of 25 January 2012, as amended, laying down the terms of reference of the national broadcasting organisation responsible for France’s international audiovisual services (France Médias Monde); Having regard to the submission of a case before the court on 20 July 2026 concerning a draft decree amending the terms of reference and specifications of the national broadcasting organisations; Having deliberated on 27 July 2026, issues the following opinion: By letter dated 20 July 2026, the Government referred to Arcom a draft amendment to the decrees approving the terms of reference and conditions of France Télévisions, Radio France and the company responsible for France’s audiovisual services (France Médias Monde). These amendments are intended, in particular, to implement notices Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 14 of the remit entrusted to Mr Bruno Lasserre, Honorary Vice-President of the Council of State, concerning the impartiality of the audiovisuel public service broadcasting, the conclusions of which were made public on 29 May 2026. In this regard, ARCOM welcomes the swift implementation of the proposals in the Lasserre report falling within its regulatory remit. The draft legislation submitted for its consideration makes it possible, in particular, to better define the scope of the requirement for impartiality and to enshrine it explicitly in the legislation setting out the obligations of public service broadcasters in the audiovisual sector. These new requirements will, however, necessitate the allocation of dedicated means, in particular to deal with the submission of cases before the court and to improve the functioning of the committees on integrity, independence and plurality of information and programmes (CHIPIP). The draft decree also summons ARCOM to make the following comments. I. – Provisions relating to the impartiality of public audiovisuel broadcasting Clarification of the requirement for impartiality and the obligations arising therefrom The draft decree clarifies the requirement for ‘impartiality in the public audiovisual industry’ set out in Article 3-1 of the Act of 30 September 1986, which is defined as ‘ an essential condition for building the necessary trust between the public, in all its diversity, and the public service, a common good that belongs to all”, implying “a duty to set an example in terms of transparency and honesty in reporting, as well as respect for the plurality of schools of thought and opinion ’ without hindering ‘the definition of an editorial line which, whilst implementing these principles, sets the services offered by the company apart’. The draft decree echoes the wording of the first notice of the Lasserre report and specifies in this regard that the requirement is to be assessed in a manner proportionate to the nature and format of the programmes and entails: the adoption, by each national broadcaster, of an editorial charter setting out the ethical rules applicable to news and the programmes that contribute to it; the establishment of proceedings for handling complaints regarding compliance with the charter; the publication of an annual report on the public’s perception of the impartiality of the services provided by the aforementioned broadcasters. As part of the monitoring of compliance with the terms of reference and specifications, Arcom, which is legally responsible for","source":"Arcom Textes juridiques"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"i-Dressup and a data security mess-up lfair April 24, 2019 | 3:08PM i-Dressup and a data security mess-up By Lesley Fair Kids love to play dress-up, but parents wouldn’t want them rummaging through the attic or climbing to the top shelf of the wardrobe without permission and proper supervision. The i-Dressup.com website offered users – including children – a virtual way to play dress-up and design clothes without those potential dangers. But according to an FTC complaint, Unixiz, Inc. , the company behind i-Dressup, violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act in ways that created different kinds of risks. COPPA puts two separate sets of protections in place to help keep parents in control of personal information collected from their kids online. First, COPPA-covered companies must clearly disclose their information policies and get parental consent before collecting personal information from children under 13. Second, companies must provide reasonable and appropriate security for the data they collect. According to an FTC settlement, i-Dressup fell short on both COPPA requirements. The complaint alleges i-Dressup failed to provide sufficient notice on its site of the information it collected online from kids, how it used it, its disclosure practices, and other specifics required by the COPPA Rule. The company’s direct notices to parents were deficient, too. Among other things, they didn’t include the COPPA-required statement that if parents don’t provide consent within a reasonable time, i-Dressup will delete their online contact information from its records. Stick with the story because that failure turned out to be particularly troubling. In addition to letting users play online games, i-Dressup featured a community where they could “explore their creativity and fashion sense with unique personal profiles” and interact with others. To register, i-Dressup required people to submit a user name, password, birthdate, and email address. If the birthdate indicated the person was under 13, the email field changed to “Parent’s Email.” Once the under-13 user filled in the required fields and clicked “Join Now,” i-Dressup collected the personal information and sent a message to the address entered into the Parent’s Email field. The person receiving the email could consent by clicking the “Activate Now!” button. However, if the parent didn’t give consent, i-Dressup retained the personal information it had collected from the child online. The FTC says the company’s failure to delete that information violated Section 312.5(c)(1) of the COPPA Rule. In addition to violating COPPA’s parental consent provisions, i-Dressup allegedly violated the Rule’s data security requirements . According to the FTC, i-Dressup stored and transmitted users’ personal information (including passwords) in plain text. In addition, the company failed to perform network vulnerability testing of its network, even for well-known threats like SQL attacks; it didn’t implement an intrusion detection and prevention system; and it didn’t monitor for potential security incidents. The upshot? The company learned that a hacker had gained entry to its network and accessed information about 2.1 million users, including approximately 245,000 users who indicated they were under 13. To settle the case , i-Dressup and its owners will pay a $35,000 civil penalty. They’re also prohibited from violating COPPA in the future, and can’t sell, share, or collect any personal information until they implement a comprehensive data security program and get independent biennial assessments. In addition, they’ll have to provide the FTC with an annual certification of compliance. The message for sites and operators covered by COPPA is that an effective system of parental consent is only the first step toward compliance. Section 312.8 of the COPPA Rule also requires you to “establish and maintain reasonable","id":3203250,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/04/i-dressup-data-security-mess","titre":"i-Dressup and a data security mess-up","pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:59 +0200"},{"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"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/10/clothes-look-rn-database-qa-ftc-staff","titre":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 14:05:06 +0200","description":"A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff lfair October 5, 2017 | 11:18AM A clothes look at the RN database: Q&A with FTC staff By Lesley Fair It’s not much bigger than a postage stamp, but the label on many textile, wool, and fur products provides important information, including fiber content, country of origin, and a company name or Registered Identification Number (RN). The FTC administers the RN system and industry members will want to check out recent upgrades to the RN website . With RNs and labels on our mind, we asked some common RN-related questions to attorney Josh Millard, whom we’d label as one of the FTC’s go-to people on the subject. First things first. What’s an RN? JOSH:   A Registered Identification Number (RN) is a numerical designation – the prefix RN followed by a set of digits – that identifies the company responsible for marketing, distributing or otherwise handling a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts.  Because some labels are small and some company names are long, the law allows U.S.-based businesses to use an RN as a “shorthand” identification. We think the upgrades to the RN website will make it even easier for businesses to use. How do I get an RN for my company? JOSH:   Apply online. FTC staff will review your application and email you typically within 1-3 business days. As soon as your application has been approved, you’ll receive your RN.  How much does it cost to get an RN? JOSH:   There’s no charge. Is it mandatory that companies use an RN on labels? JOSH:   No, you don’t have to use an RN. It’s perfectly acceptable to include your company name instead, but many companies prefer to use an RN because it takes up less space. The RN system has other benefits, too. For example, it lets people identify your business easily through the RN Search screen . Consumers or other industry members can type in the number and readily find your business. Our company doesn’t reside in the United States.  Can we get an RN? JOSH:   Only U.S.-based businesses can get an RN. If your foreign company manufactures or is involved in the advertising, distribution, or sale of a product covered by the Textile, Wool, and Fur Acts, put the company name on the label instead of an RN. Alternatively, you can label the product with the RN or business name of a U.S. company directly involved with importing, distributing, or selling the product when that’s the case. Going through our records we found we have multiple RNs.  Is that a problem? JOSH:   It’s not prohibited, but we no longer issue multiple RNs to a single company and encourage companies to cancel any extra RNs to simplify recordkeeping. Our headquarters has moved since we applied for an RN.  Do we need to update our application? JOSH:   Yes. If there has been a change to your business name, address, or legal status, please update the information in your RN registration.  An RN can be cancelled if a business doesn’t keep its information up to date, so it’s wise to check. The good news is that the upgraded RN website makes that easier to do. What if we choose to use a company name on the label, rather than an RN? JOSH:   You must include the full name your company uses to do business – in other words, the name that appears on documents like purchase orders or invoices. It can’t be a trademark, trade name, brand, or designer name unless that’s also the name under which your company does business. What kind of guidance does the FTC have for industry members? JOSH:  Threading Your Way Through the Labeling Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts is a great place to start, and the FTC’s Clothing and Textiles page includes links to brochures, cases, workshops and other compliance resources.","id":3201873,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/08/first-consumer-review-fairness-case-takes-promoters-big-bucks-amazon-claim","titre":"First Consumer Review Fairness case takes on promoter’s “big bucks on Amazon” claim"},{"pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2025/09/first-inform-consumers-act-enforcement-case-filed-against-online-marketplace-temu","titre":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3198178,"description":"First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu kkrown September 5, 2025 | 10:00AM First INFORM Consumers Act enforcement case filed against online marketplace Temu Online marketplaces and third party sellers looking for a refresher on the INFORM Consumers Act should look no further than the recent settlement with Whaleco, Inc., which operates the online marketplace Temu. The complaint alleges the company failed to provide online shoppers with required information and tools. This is the first case brought to enforce the INFORM Act. The INFORM Act, which went into effect in 2023, seeks to make online transactions more transparent. Among other things, the law requires online marketplaces to collect, verify, and disclose certain information about high-volume third party sellers. ( Informing Businesses about the INFORM Consumers Act  has more on how the law defines terms, what’s required of online marketplaces, and the substantial penalties the FTC and state law enforcers may seek if online marketplaces violate the law.) In 2022, Temu launched its online marketplace in the United States, where consumers can view product listings on Temu’s homepage, through search results, and in gamified shopping experiences on the platform. According to the complaint, Temu violated the INFORM Act by failing to offer a mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity — electronically and by phone — on the gamified product listings of many high-volume third party sellers and by failing to offer a telephonic mechanism on non-gamified product listings. The complaint also alleges that Temu did not post required identifying information about sellers on its gamified product listings or mobile site, and that Temu’s disclosures, when made, were difficult to find. According to the settlement, Temu will pay a $2 million civil penalty, provide a telephonic mechanism for consumers to report suspicious activity on listings, and make other required disclosures. Is your business covered by the INFORM Act? Make sure you:  Review the provisions of the INFORM Act thoroughly . Make sure you fully understand — and have measures in place to comply with — each of its requirements. Make required disclosures easy for consumers to notice . Required disclosures should stand out from any surrounding material and use plain language. Minimize or eliminate steps consumers need to take to reach required disclosures. Ensure required disclosures are available across all iterations of your platform . The INFORM Act mandates disclosures on all interfaces with product listings. And as your platforms evolve, regularly assess and update your compliance efforts. If your business sells through online platforms, check out  What Third Party Sellers Need to Know About the INFORM Consumers Act . This covers what sellers are impacted by the INFORM Act, what you can expect online platforms to require of you, and what information platforms must disclose about you to consumers. It also answers some questions you may have about the law. And if you spot a violation of the INFORM Act, r­eport it to the FTC using this  dedicated link"},{"description":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't wfg-adm109 October 21, 2013 | 11:17AM Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't By Lesley Fair There are lots of nifty phone accessories, bottle holders, tow straps, pet items, and lanyards out there.  So a label that says the product is Made in the USA may help make the decision for some consumers.  When it bears the American flag and says “TRULY MADE IN THE USA,” that just might seal the deal.  But according to an FTC lawsuit , a lot of the “Made in the USA” merchandise touted by Logan, Utah-based E.K. Ekcessories wasn’t really made in the USA – turning the company’s claims from a Yankee Doodle Do to a Yankee Doodle Don't. E.K. Ekcessories sells a variety of outdoor equipment through popular retailers and on its own site.  In addition to the labels, the company touted its products’ U.S. pedigree with statements like “For 28 years E.K. Ekcessories has been producing superior quality made accessories in our 60,000 sq. ft. facility in Logan, Utah,” and “Our source of pride and satisfaction abounds from a true ‘Made in USA’ product.” To say an item is made in the USA, all or virtually all of it has to be U.S.-made.  In other words, all significant parts and processing must be of U.S. origin, and the product should contain no – or negligible – foreign content. That’s the standard explained in the FTC’s 1997 Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims.  But according to the complaint, in many cases, E.K. Ekcessories made “Made in USA” representations that were flat-out false.  In other instances, the FTC says the company slapped a label on a product without a reasonable basis for making the claim.  Both courses of conduct violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed order, the company can’t say a product is made in the USA unless all or virtually all of it really is made in the United States.  The order also bans other misleading claims about products’ country of origin. Given that other companies are selling the deceptively labeled merchandise, E.K. Ekcessories has to contact all distributors who bought or received products between January 1, 2010 and May 1, 2013, explaining the FTC’s lawsuit.  The retailers will be asked to pull marketing materials that say all E.K. Ekcessories stuff is U.S.-made or that describe a specific list of products as made in the United States, of U.S.-origin, or “Truly Made in the USA.”  For certain lines of products, they’ll get stickers to cover the inaccurate claims. You can file an online comment about the proposed settlement by November 21, 2013. The message for marketers?  First , it’s a good time to brush up on how to comply with Made in USA standards.  The Business Center has a dedicated Made in USA page to make that easier for you.  Second , given just how important many consumers take a Made in USA claim, companies that make that statement falsely or without a reasonable basis are risking law enforcement action.  Truly.","id":3196242,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","titre":"Made in USA? Avoiding a Yankee Doodle Don't","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2013/10/made-usa-avoiding-yankee-doodle-dont","pubDate":"Sun, 04 Oct 2026 08:05:12 +0200"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3195790,"description":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype lfair May 2, 2016 | 10:52AM Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype By Lesley Fair Animation fans remember the ballet-dancing pink hippos in Fantasia . In Egyptian mythology, the god of disorder was depicted as a red hippo. And many consumers – especially those already in financial distress – were drawn in by national TV and radio ads for BlueHippo, a company that claimed to finance the purchase of computers and other electronics for people with “less than perfect credit, bad credit, no credit.” A $13.4 million ruling by a United States District Judge in an FTC contempt action sends a message to hippos of all hues (and businesses) about the FTC’s commitment to effective order enforcement. In 2008, the FTC sued BlueHippo Funding and BlueHippo Capital for, among other things, not delivering ordered merchandise, failing to make disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, and illegally conditioning the extension of credit on consumers’ “agreement” to repay by preauthorized electronic debit. One common tactic was that BlueHippo said it would deliver the product once the consumer made 13 weekly payments, but then didn’t make good on that promise. The FTC also alleged that in many instances, BlueHippo debited consumers’ accounts without first disclosing that consumers couldn’t get a refund even if they cancelled before delivery. The defendants settled that case , agreeing to pay up to $5 million in redress and to change how they did business in the future. The FTC went back to court in 2009 , alleging that BlueHippo was flouting the terms of the settlement and continuing to engage in illegal practices. The Court granted the FTC’s contempt motion against the corporate defendants and CEO Joseph Rensin, but entered a remedy of only $609,000. The FTC appealed the financial ruling. Arguing that there should be a presumption that consumers relied on the defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions, the FTC sought a contempt order of $14 million – the gross sales the defendants generated through their illegal conduct. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled , “We agree with the FTC and join our sister circuits in adopting a presumption of consumer reliance in FTC civil contempt actions.” The appellate court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine “whether the FTC has demonstrated that it is entitled to a presumption of consumer reliance. If so, the court should use defendants’ gross receipts as a baseline for calculating the consumers’ actual loss, and defendants should then be afforded an opportunity to proffer evidence showing that an offset of the baseline is warranted.” What’s the latest development? On remand, the trial court entered a judgment against CEO Rensin for $13.4 million, the financial harm the court determined that consumers suffered as a result of the scheme. The case is another illustration of the FTC’s interest in effective order enforcement. To settle cases and then not follow through to see that defendants live up to their promises would be, well, hippo-critical.","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:14 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/05/judge-orders-134-million-contempt-action-challenging-bluehippo-hype","titre":"Judge orders $13.4 million in contempt action challenging BlueHippo hype"},{"description":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free wfg-adm109 November 19, 2014 | 11:12AM Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free By Lesley Fair We’ve brought law enforcement actions – dozens of ‘em. We’ve held workshops, issued reports, and sent warning letters. If it takes sky writing, tap dancing, and a float in a Thanksgiving Day parade, we’ll do that, too. But here’s what’s not going to happen. The FTC is not giving up until businesses get the message that: 1) Free means free; and 2) Key terms and conditions have to be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. A $22 million settlement announced by the FTC and the AGs of Illinois and Ohio with a national credit monitoring service advertising so-called “free” credit scores emphasizes that point. Another note for practitioners: It's the FTC's third case alleging violations of ROSCA . One Technologies and related outfits marketed their credit monitoring programs, MyCreditHealth and ScoreSense, through at least 50 sites, including FreeScore360.com, FreeScoreOnline.com and ScoreSense.com. Their strategy was simple. Buy advertising on search engines so their ads show up near the top when people look for phrases like “free credit report\" and then follow up with a persuasive pitch: “View your latest Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus in 60 seconds for $0!” According to the lawsuit , the defendants failed to clearly tell consumers that if they availed themselves of those “free” services and didn’t cancel within seven days, the defendants would ding their credit cards for $29.95 a month over and over and over again. The complaint includes screen shots of the defendants’ sites, but before looking at them, take out your reading glasses because they’ll come in handy in trying to locate where the defendants chose to tell people about that $29.95 monthly fee. One line of fine print added in late 2012 said “Free 7-Day trial when you order your 3 Free Credit Scores. Membership is then just $29.95 per month until you call to cancel.” The first problem: The type was tiny – a fraction of the size of the defendants’ multiple use of the word “free.” The second problem: Why should consumers even have to be on the look-out for the cost, given that the defendants so prominently advertised it as “free”? A second purported disclosure appeared as an obscure hyperlink on the page where people typed in their Social Security number and birthdate.  Sandwiched between the logos of various security firms and a large color button that said CONTINUE was this less-than-crystal-clear statement: By clicking on the ‘Continue’ button, you agree to the Offer Details, to the Terms and Conditions, acknowledge receipt of our Privacy Policy and agree to its terms . . . The “Offer Details” link triggered a small pop-up that said, among other things, “At the end of the 7-day trial period, your credit/debit card will be charged $29.95 on a monthly basis until you call to cancel.” Another place the defendants put the information was on a side panel of the Payment Form in white letters on a grey background – a color combination one of the defendants’ own employees described as “known to cause seizures in lab rats.” According to the complaint, once people spotted the unauthorized charges on their accounts, the defendants didn’t make it easy to stop the billing.  And even when people asked for their money back because they hadn’t approved of the charges, the defendants denied refunds to many of them. The lawsuit alleges violations of the FTC Act, as well as the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and related state rules. In addition, the complaint is the third FTC action to charge violations of ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers’","id":3194913,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","titre":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/company-pay-22-million-offering-free-credit-scores-turned-out-be-not-so-free","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:36 +0200","titre":"FTC Secures Settlement that Protects Small Businesses from Illegal Price Discrimination","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/10/ftc-secures-settlement-protects-small-businesses-illegal-price-discrimination","id":3194908,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission secured a settlement agreement with Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC, the nation’s largest distributor of wine and spirits, that will redress allegedly illegal price discrimination practices and make it easier for small businesses to compete against large chain retailers. The sweeping settlement covers nearly all Southern wine and spirits sales to the five largest chain retailers in 26 states. The settlement will also provide direct cash payments to harmed small businesses if an independent monitor finds that Southern violates the settlement order going forward. “This settlement marks a significant milestone for the FTC in its enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act, which Congress enacted to empower small businesses to compete against large ones,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Small businesses are an invaluable part of the American economy and way of life. The FTC is committed to ensuring that all businesses, no matter their size, can compete on a fair and level playing field to serve their customers and boost the entire American economy.” The FTC’s settlement with Southern delivers a successful conclusion to the Commission’s first enforcement action under the Robinson-Patman Act in a generation. Under the terms of a proposed stipulated order filed by the FTC , Southern will face limitations on its ability to charge small, independent retailers higher prices for wine and spirits than it charges competing large retail chains.  The FTC’s settlement resolves a  lawsuit brought by the Commission in 2024, which alleges that Southern violated the Robinson-Patman Act by depriving small, independent businesses access to discounts and rebates that were available to large competitors. As alleged in the complaint, these pricing practices interfere with the ability of independent retailers to compete against large national and regional chains and big box stores. Under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is generally unlawful for sellers to engage in price discrimination that harms competition by charging higher prices to disfavored retailers that purchase similar goods. According to the FTC’s complaint, Southern charged significantly higher prices for sales of identical bottles of wine and spirits during the same time period to independent retailers as compared to competing large chains, like Total Wine, Walmart and Kroger, even when the stores were located a few miles or even a few blocks from each other. Southern engaged in discriminatory pricing via a variety of mechanisms, such as by offering discounts and rebates to large buyers that were inaccessible to small competitors and were not justified by differences in the cost of distributing products to different retailers, the FTC’s complaint further alleged.  Settlement Terms  To resolve the FTC’s complaint, Southern has agreed to a series of conditions that will disincentivize the company from engaging in discriminatory pricing and compensate independent retailers if they are harmed. Specifically, the terms of the proposed stipulated order target “paired” transactions where Southern sells a product to a chain retailer at one price while contemporaneously selling that same product to a nearby independent retailer at a significantly higher price.  Southern will be in violation of the FTC’s proposed stipulated order, if, among other conditions, the paired transactions involve:  Significant price discrimination (exceeding a maximum threshold based on state-specific operating costs) Recurring price discrimination (in the aggregate, exceeding $5,000 over a 12-month period) Where a set of discriminatory paired transactions meets certain specifications, Southern can resolve the violation by paying the independent retailer 1.5 times the full aggregated price-differential amount. If Southern does not redress the price discrimination, the FTC can bring an enforcement action, and, if the Commission","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués"},{"id":3193166,"description":"Public consultation on the draft BEREC Work Programme 2027 yannick.stephan Thu, 01/10/2026 - 09:00 Breadcrumbs Public Consultations & Calls for Inputs Deadline to submit contributions:  31 October 2026 In January this year, BEREC adopted the Outline BEREC Work Programme 2027 , which reflected BEREC's objectives for the upcoming year. BEREC launched a first Call for inputs on the Work Programme 2027 from 27 February to 15 April. During the call for proposals, several additional actions were identified. Considering the early input received, during the 68th BEREC ordinary meetings (1-2 October 2026), the Board of Regulators adopted the draft BEREC Work Programme 2027 [BoR (26) 142] for public consultation. Background BEREC prepares its annual work programme in accordance with Article 21 of the BEREC Regulation and the BEREC Strategy 2026-2030 to guide how it organises and prioritises its work towards clearly defined objectives. The 2027 draft work programme was developed inclusively and transparently, with contributions from various stakeholders. This approach helps ensure that BEREC remains responsive to market needs, regulatory developments, and end-user expectations. Aim The BEREC Work Programme 2027 aims to align with the BEREC Strategy 2026-2030 and its five strategic pillars: Promoting full connectivity and the Digital Single Market; Supporting competition-driven and open digital ecosystems; Empowering end-users; Contributing to sustainable, secure, and resilient digital infrastructures; Strengthening BEREC’s capabilities and continuous improvement. The work programme will also take into consideration priorities set for BEREC’s institutional and international cooperation. Furthermore, the 2027 work programme has been developed against the backdrop of the ongoing review of the regulatory framework and the European Commission’s proposal for a Digital Networks Act, published in January 2026. This piece of legislation is meant to be the cornerstone shaping the future of the sector in the EU. As an advisory body to EU institutions for electronic communications, BEREC is committed to providing expert, independent advice to co-legislators and the European Commission throughout the legislative procedure. BEREC also aims to provide support and advice on other relevant policy developments. In addition to the mandatory work foreseen in the EU regulatory framework, the BEREC work programme follows a multiannual approach, meaning some projects started in 2026 will be completed in 2027 and are therefore included as carryovers. Additionally, recurring items are considered by default. Submit your contributions The incoming BEREC Chair 2027, Alejandra de Iturriaga Gandini (CNMC, Spain), encourages all interested stakeholders to provide their views and contributions to the draft BEREC Work Programme 2027 by submitting them to BEREC-WP2027@DISTRO.BEREC.EUROPA.EU by 31 October 2026 . After submitting the contribution, you will receive an automatic acknowledgement email. If you do not receive this acknowledgement, please contact the BEREC Office. Contributions should be sent preferably in English, and, to facilitate processing of the responses, the comments provided should clearly refer to specific paragraphs of the document. In accordance with the BEREC policy on public consultations , BEREC will publish all contributions and a summary thereof, respecting confidentiality requests. In that regard, please clearly mark the parts you define as confidential. We strongly encourage all stakeholders to submit their contributions as early as possible. Contributions received after the above-mentioned deadline will not be taken into account. Privacy statement type Privacy Statement for Public Consultation Category Name Ongoing Public Consultations and Calls for Inputs Notify subscribers","source":"BEREC Office","pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:34:17 +0200","url":"https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/public-consultations-calls-for-inputs/public-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-work-programme-2027","titre":"Public consultation on the draft BEREC Work Programme 2027"},{"id":3192605,"description":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans lfair January 30, 2015 | 9:12AM Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans By Lesley Fair She’s got a competition clutch with four on the floor And she purrs like a kitten ‘til the lake pipes roar. And if that ain’t enough to make you flip your lid, There's one more thing. I got the pink slip, Daddy. Back in the days of the Beach Boys’ “Little Deuce Coupe,” the only risk to a car title – the pink slip – was when hot rodders bet them on drag races.The FTC just announced its first two settlements with car title lenders that underscore additional risks to consumers’ pink slips and wallets. What should other companies consider if they want to avoid crossing the yellow line? The complaints challenge allegedly illegal practices by First American Title Lending of Georgia, which operates over 30 locations in that state, and Finance Select, which does business as Fast Cash Title Pawn at five Georgia locations and two in Alabama. What’s a car title loan? It’s typically a high-cost, short-term loan secured with a consumer’s free-and-clear car title. The lender holds on to the title as long as payments keep coming in. Of course, if consumers don’t pay, the lender takes the car. Car title loans tend to run between $1,000 and $10,000. They have high interest rates – the typical APR can be a whopping 300% – and short repayment periods, sometimes only 30 days. Each payment after that first month is called a “renewal.” Given that many consumers who take out car title loans are in financial distress, it’s not surprising that loans may extend over a much longer period. According to the FTC, the average is more like eight renewals. In addition to holding the consumer’s car title, the lender charges monthly fees, sometimes as much as 25% of the amount borrowed per month. That means that after eight renewals, a consumer taking out a $1,000 loan could wind up paying $2,000 in fees. The FTC says the companies’ ads lured consumers in with promises of “zero” interest, but then failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose hidden conditions attached to those eye-catching deals. For example, First American Title Lending touted “0% interest” in big headlines on websites, billboards, newspaper ads, yard signs, and elsewhere. What consumers weren’t clearly told was that they’d only get the 0% rate if they were new customers, if they paid by money order or certified funds, and if they paid in full within 30 days. If it took them longer to pay – the norm in the industry – consumers would have to pony up hefty finance charges calculated back to Day 1 of that \"0% interest\" loan, as well as the fees that started on Day 31. According to the complaint, Fast Cash Title Pawn similarly advertised “0% Title Loans,” sometimes adding “1st 30 days 0%,” without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the substantial strings that were attached – including that if the consumer didn’t pay in full within 30 days, they’d have to pay the finance charge for the first 30 days in addition to charges that kicked in on Day 31.  The lawsuits allege that the companies’ practices violate the FTC Act.  The FTC says First American Title Lending also violated the Truth in Lending Act and Reg Z. Under the proposed settlements, the companies will have to clearly disclose all the qualifying terms associated with getting a loan at the advertised rate and what the finance charge would be after an introductory period ends. The orders also prohibit misrepresentations about material terms of any loan agreement. The FTC’s message to members of the industry is that they’re not flying (driving?) under the radar. Truth-in-advertising standards apply to car title loans, too. What's more, companies will be held to well-established principles of","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:12:17 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2015/01/pink-slip-slip-first-ftc-cases-challenging-deceptive-car-title-loans","titre":"Pink slip slip-up: First FTC cases challenging deceptive car title loans"},{"titre":"Secretary of State for Justice -v- Glyn Razzell","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/secretary-of-state-for-justice-v-glyn-razzell/","pubDate":"Fri, 14 Aug 2026 14:05:49 +0200","source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales","description":"Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EWHC 2172 (Admin) Case No: AC-2026-LON-002538 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Referral of a Release Decision pursuant to S.32ZAA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 14 August 2026 Before: Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb DBE Between: Secretary of State for Justice -v- Glyn Razzell (HV4928) The post Secretary of State for Justice -v- Glyn Razzell appeared first on Courts and Tribunals Judiciary","id":3094436},{"source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales","id":3081876,"description":"Case number: AC-2026-LON-002515 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court In the matter of an application for judicial review 17 July 2026 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Sheldon Between: The King on the application of (1) RDS (2) Bayswater Support Group (Claimants) -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Defendant) and NHS England (Interested Party) Order Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12) Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply ORDER BY THE HON. Mr Justice Sheldon (1) Anonymity a. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998: i. the names of the First Claimant, his children and his former spouse are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; ii. the name of the chair of the Second Claimant, her children and any partner are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public. iii. the First Claimant and chair of the Second Claimant are to be referred to orally and in writing as ‘RDS’ and ‘RDA’ respectively. iv. The First Claimant and Chair of the Second Claimant are permitted to use ‘care of’ (c/o) addresses of the Claimants’ solicitors in the claim form and on any witness statements filed. b. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the First Claimant or Chair of the Second Claimant, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of any of them, in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings. c. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): i. the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the said Claimants or any of the other individuals referred to in (a)(i) or (ii); ii. if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants or to the identification of any of the other individuals referred to in (a)(i) or (ii), a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; iii. unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case. iv. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party. (2) Interested Party : NHS England, named in these proceedings as an Interested Party, shall be removed forthwith as a party to these proceedings. (3) Permission : Permission to apply for judicial review is refused. (4) Costs : The Claimants must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £7,026.60. (5) Further provision as to costs : (a) Where the Claimants do not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below): (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimants may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed. (ii) If the Claimants do not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimants must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)). (iii) If the Claimants file and serve a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above: the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages); if the other party files and serves on the Claimants submissions in response, the Claimants may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve","pubDate":"Fri, 07 Aug 2026 14:03:33 +0200","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rds-and-bayswater-support-group-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-and-social-care-anonymity-order/","titre":"RDS and Bayswater Support Group -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (anonymity order)"},{"source":"Slaw","description":"Once a patent is granted, it can be asserted in litigation against an alleged infringer. One of the remedies that can be obtained is “reasonable compensation” for pre-grant infringement pursuant to section 55(2) of the Patent Act . While relief is often sought and granted for pre-grant infringement, the remedy has some subtleties, including those arising from changing practices at the Canadian Patent Office. Section 55(2) of the Patent Act states the following: 55(2) A person is liable to pay reasonable compensation to a patentee and to all persons claiming under the patentee for any damage sustained by the patentee . . . [more] The post Patent Publication Dates appeared first on Slaw","id":3060093,"titre":"Patent Publication Dates","url":"https://www.slaw.ca/2026/07/28/patent-publication-dates/","pubDate":"Wed, 29 Jul 2026 07:59:26 +0200"},{"id":3004078,"description":"Officials in Florida are urging a federal judge to dismiss UPSIDE Food's (UPSIDE) constitutional challenge to the state's cultivated meat ban, SB 1084 , arguing that the company's claim is vague and unsubstantiated. UPSIDE claims that the ban was enacted for discriminatory purposes in violation of the Dormant Commer Clause. The company's complaint cites to public comments made by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Florida Ag Commissioner Wilton Simpson that claimed the out-of-state cultivated meat industry threatens Florida's in-state conventional meat and agricultural industries. UPSIDE argues that these comments demonstrate Florida's sole intent in enacting the ban was to protect the state's cattle industry. While the court previously denied UPSIDE's motion for a preliminary injunction and rejected its claim that the Poultry Products Inspection Act preempted the law, as we reported last year , it allowed the company to proceed with its constitutional challenges to the law. Florida's SB 1084, the nation's first state-wide cultivated meat ban, was enacted in May 2024. The law defines cultivated meat as “any meat or food product produced from cultured animal cells” and makes it unlawful for any manufacturer to sell, hold, or distribute cultivated meat in Florida. UPSIDE received federal approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell a cultivated chicken product in 2022. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor and relay developments in this","source":"The Daily Intake","pubDate":"Fri, 03 Jul 2026 07:58:41 +0200","titre":"Florida Officials Urge Federal Judge to Dismiss Constitutional Challenge to Cultivated-Meat Ban","url":"https://www.dailyintakeblog.com/2026/07/florida-officials-urge-federal-judge-to-dismiss-constitutional-challenge-to-cultivated-meat-ban/"},{"titre":"BEREC presents its assessment of the Digital Networks Act proposal","url":"https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/news/press-releases/berec-presents-its-assessment-of-the-digital-networks-act-proposal","pubDate":"Thu, 11 Jun 2026 10:23:49 +0200","description":"BEREC presents its assessment of the Digital Networks Act proposal yannick.stephan Wed, 10/06/2026 - 18:07 Press Releases Europe’s electronic communications framework is entering a pivotal phase of reform, with the proposed Digital Networks Act (DNA ) set to update the regulatory framework for connectivity across the EU. At the BEREC public debriefing on 10 June, the BEREC Chair, Marko Mismas (AKOS, Slovenia), and the Working Group Co-Chairs presented BEREC’s assessment of the DNA proposal, outlining key regulatory considerations that emerged from its analysis. BEREC welcomes the ambition of modernising the EU connectivity framework and supporting resilient, sustainable and high-quality digital networks. At the same time, the assessment highlights areas where further refinement may be needed to ensure that the future framework strengthens rather than adds unnecessary complexity to the internal market for electronic communications. BEREC has developed thematic papers examining key elements of the proposal in greater depth, supporting evidence-based input to the co-legislators. To further contribute to the policy debate, BEREC will publish three additional thematic papers by the end of June. BEREC remains committed to providing its technical and regulatory expertise to help shape a competitive, innovative and future-proof digital Europe. 5G slicing guidance BEREC experts look forward to receiving stakeholders’ input to the public consultation on the draft further guidance on 5G network slicing by 6 August 2026. The draft guidance aims to provide greater regulatory certainty for market players and support innovation in 5G services, while safeguarding open internet principles. Building on the existing Open Internet framework, the guidance will assist providers in assessing whether network slicing-based services comply with the Regulation, including in relation to internet access and specialised services. Reflecting the principle of technological neutrality, the approach is intended to remain relevant beyond 5G and to apply to other technologies that use comparable quality-of-service mechanisms. Call for inputs on roaming BEREC has issued a call for inputs regarding its work on roaming. This call aims to support the preparation of BEREC’s Opinion for the European Commission on the upcoming review of the EU Roaming Regulation and the Implementing Regulation on Fair Use Policy and Sustainability, which is scheduled for submission by the first quarter of 2027. Building on its 2025 Opinion, BEREC invites stakeholders to provide new information, evidence, and perspectives by 21 August 2026. In addition, following the consultation on possible amendments to the BEREC Roaming Benchmark Data Collection procedure, BEREC decided to maintain the current quarterly data collection approach. However, the expansion of the Roam-Like-at-Home regime to Ukraine and Moldova on 1 January 2026, together with the simplification proposals in BEREC’s 2025 Opinion on the Roaming Regulation, requires an update of the roaming data collection template. BEREC therefore launched a call for input on the revised template and invites operators to submit their comments by 3 July 2026. Emergency communications resilience Ensuring uninterrupted access to emergency services for end users remains a critical priority as 2G and 3G mobile networks are progressively phased out across Europe. During its latest plenary meeting, the Heads of the European regulators for electronic communications discussed and adopted a BEREC statement addressing concerns that some devices may fail to connect to emergency communications services, including 112, once legacy networks are switched off. The statement aims to raise awareness of the issue and calls for closer cooperation across the entire communications ecosystem. BEREC underlines the need for further investigation, improved detection of potential failures, and greater transparency among stakeholders to help safeguard the reliability of emergency communications throughout the technological","id":2947754,"source":"BEREC Office"},{"source":"Cornell Law Review","description":"The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 (Morrill Act) was the first federal legislation to fund public higher education in the United States, funding fifty-two land-grant universities (LGUs) that still exist today. While the purpose of the Act was to “democratiz[e] . . . education” focusing on the study of agriculture and mechanical arts,","id":2909081,"url":"https://publications.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawreview/2026/05/26/landback-to-indigenous-peoples-from-land-grab-universities/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=landback-to-indigenous-peoples-from-land-grab-universities","titre":"#Landback to Indigenous Peoples from “Land-Grab” Universities","pubDate":"Wed, 27 May 2026 08:32:11 +0200"},{"titre":"The Case for a New Congressional Review Act: Draft Legislation","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/no-volume/appendix-for-from-destruction-to-construction-the-case-for-a-new-congressional-review-act/","pubDate":"Sun, 17 May 2026 14:25:28 +0200","source":"Harvard Law Review","description":"Appendix: Draft Legislation A BILL To amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for congressional approval and statutory authorization of... The post The Case for a New Congressional Review Act: Draft Legislation appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2888693},{"id":2878537,"description":"Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding businesses of their obligation to comply fully with the Take It Down Act (TIDA) no later than May 19. Signed into law last year by President Donald J. Trump with the strong support of First Lady Melania Trump, TIDA requires covered platforms to establish a process allowing victims, including children, to request removal of intimate photos or videos shared without their consent.  The letters were sent to major platforms , including Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X. The letters state the definitions and requirements of the law, along with the penalties for non-compliance. “We stand ready to monitor compliance, investigate violations, and enforce the Take It Down Act,” said Chairman Ferguson. “Protecting the vulnerable—especially children—from this harmful abuse is a top priority for this agency and this administration. The Trump-Vance FTC is grateful for the First Lady’s leadership on the Take It Down Act and on children’s issues.”  The letter specifies that covered platforms must provide clear and conspicuous notice about the removal process. They must also take down the nonconsensual images, and all identical copies, within 48 hours of receiving a valid request. Under the law, “covered platforms” include various websites, apps and online services, such as social media, messaging, image or video sharing and gaming platforms. The FTC also has issued guidance about what companies should do as they prepare to comply with","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","pubDate":"Tue, 12 May 2026 08:07:00 +0200","titre":"FTC Chairman Ferguson Advises Companies to Comply with the Take It Down Act","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-chairman-ferguson-advises-companies-comply-take-it-down-act"},{"pubDate":"Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:10:57 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/ftc-seeks-public-comment-unfair-deceptive-fee-practices-online-food-grocery-delivery-services","titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services","id":2826725,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission today announced it is seeking public comment on whether a rule is needed to address unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with the services provided by online food and grocery delivery platforms nationwide. As detailed in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published shortly in the Federal Register, the FTC is seeking written comments, including data, evidence, analyses, and arguments, to help determine how best to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices and to ensure that the agency addresses concerns from both consumers and industry. “Online grocery fees that are unclear, inconsistently disclosed, or revealed only at the last moment before consumers make a purchase distort competition and harm consumers,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Clear and truthful pricing is essential to competitive markets. The Commission’s enforcement track record suggests that consumers continue to face a suite of fees that prevent them from making informed comparisons. The Trump-Vance FTC is committed to addressing unlawful grocery delivery pricing that obscures the true cost of groceries.” Unfair or deceptive fee practices violate the FTC Act. The Commission recently brought several actions against online food delivery platforms for unfair or deceptive practices that violated the FTC Act. For example, in December 2025, the FTC announced a $60 million settlement with  Instacart over allegations it falsely advertised “free delivery” on consumers’ first three orders on the platform and then charged them service fees that were not disclosed until checkout. And, in December 2024, the FTC obtained a $25 million settlement with  GrubHub over allegations it misled consumers about the cost of delivery on its platform. These cases illustrate that hidden and misleading fees and charges are a recurring problem related to online delivery platforms, despite enforcement actions to protect consumers’ interests. Also, while numerous states have recently adopted laws requiring food and grocery delivery platforms to more clearly disclose fees and include all mandatory fees in advertised prices, they have not adopted uniform rules that apply to all food delivery platforms across the country. The ANPRM asks the public to comment on whether a rule is needed to prevent unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with online food delivery services including: Total Price. Do food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price for food or grocery items ordered for local delivery or pickup? Fees and Charges. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the existence, nature, purpose, refundability, or recipient of any fees, charges, or other costs for a delivery or pickup order? Variable or Contingent Fees . Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose factors used to determine any fees, charges, or other costs that are variable or contingent on consumer selections, such as number or type of items bought or delivery location? Material Restrictions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether fees, charges, or other costs are mandatory or optional, or any material restrictions, limitations, or restrictions that may result in additional charges or that may diminish the consumer’s use of the good or service? Price Differentials. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered in the store or restaurant? Personalized Pricing.  Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered to other consumers on the platform? Discounts or Promotions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose material","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"titre":"EDPB annual report 2025: supporting stakeholders through guidance and dialogue","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/edpb-annual-report-2025-supporting-stakeholders-through-guidance-and-dialogue_en","pubDate":"Thu, 09 Apr 2026 14:14:02 +0200","source":"EDPB News","description":"Brussels, 09 April - The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has published its  2025 Annual Report . The report provides an overview of the EDPB work carried out in 2025 and reflects on important milestones, such as the adoption of the  Helsinki Statement on Enhanced Clarity, Support, and Engagement . “In 2025, we saw the data protection landscape change significantly. The rapid expansion of the EU’s digital regulatory framework has added complexity to the data protection ecosystem. To help organisations navigate this complexity and support compliance, the EDPB focused on enhancing legal certainty, making compliance more achievable in practice, and strengthening cooperation, both among Data Protection Authorities and with other regulators.  We also prioritised meaningful dialogue with stakeholders to ensure our work reflected real-world needs. Our achievements support economic growth while continuing to protect individuals’ fundamental rights to privacy and data protection.” EDPB Chair, Anu Talus   The Helsinki’s statement initiatives leading the way In 2025, the EDPB worked actively to address the demand for regulatory simplification to support innovation and economic growth, while ensuring the protection of individuals’ personal data.  With this in mind, the Board adopted the  Helsinki Statement on Enhanced Clarity, Support, and Engagement , which outlines new initiatives to  make GDPR compliance easier, strengthen consistency, enhance the dialogue and improve transparency with stakeholders and boost cross-regulatory cooperation .   For example, the Board launched a public consultation to ask organisations which templates would be most useful, organised several stakeholder events to consult organisations on upcoming guidelines and systematically published reports on stakeholder input.    Easing compliance for organisations and providing legal advice In the context of ongoing discussions on regulatory simplification at EU level, the EDPB actively contributed to legislative initiatives aimed at reducing administrative burden and streamlining requirements. The Board adopted a  joint opinion with the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on the Commission’s Proposal for a Regulation amending certain regulations, including the GDPR.  In addition, the Board held important discussions on this matter during plenary meetings, which subsequently informed the  EPDB/EDPS joint opinions on the Commission’s proposals on the  Digital Omnibus and on the  Digital Omnibus on AI adopted at the beginning of 2026. The Board also delivered five adequacy-related opinions concerning United Kingdom, Brazil and the European Patent Organisation (EPO).  In addition, the Board adopted  Recommendations on the legal basis for requiring the creation of user accounts on e-commerce websites , and  Recommendations on the 2027 WADA World Anti-Doping Code  upon request from the Commission.   Strengthening cross-regulatory cooperation Cross-regulatory cooperation was a key focus for the EDPB last year. The EDPB worked together with the European Commission to clarify how data protection and digital laws interact and to address legal and practical challenges in cross-sectoral cases. In 2025, the EDPB adopted its first set of  joint guidelines with the Commission on the interplay between the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the GDPR . The Board also worked with the Commission on joint guidelines on the interplay between the AI act and EU data protection laws for adoption in 2026.  In addition, the EDPB adopted  guidelines on the interplay between the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the GDPR .   Placing stakeholders at the heart of the EDPB work In 2025, a public consultation was launched on the  joint guidelines with the Commission on the DMA and the GDPR . The Board has also organised public consultations on the EDPB guidelines on  DSA and GDPR","id":2816021},{"titre":"BEREC Provides Early Assessment of the Digital Networks Act, Welcoming Ambition While Highlighting Areas for Improvement","url":"https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/news/press-releases/berec-provides-early-assessment-of-the-digital-networks-act-welcoming-ambition-while-highlighting-areas-for-improvement","pubDate":"Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:33:01 +0200","source":"BEREC Office","description":"BEREC Provides Early Assessment of the Digital Networks Act, Welcoming Ambition While Highlighting Areas for Improvement yannick.stephan Mon, 30/03/2026 - 12:57 Press Releases The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) today published its early assessment of the European Commission’s proposal for a Digital Networks Act (DNA). BEREC welcomes the overarching ambition to modernise the regulatory framework for Europe’s connectivity sector and to support resilient, sustainable and high quality digital networks. At the same time, BEREC identifies important areas where further refinement is needed to ensure that the DNA strengthens, rather than complicates, Europe’s internal market for electronic communications. BEREC stands ready to provide its regulatory expertise in order to avoid undue complexity or uncertainty and to ensure that the final framework delivers a competitive, connected and resilient digital Europe. BEREC welcomes the updated objectives introduced by the DNA , including resilience, sustainability, in addition to the existing objectives addressed by the European Electronic Communications Code. While BEREC supports the ambition to strengthen the competitiveness of the EU digital sector, it highlights that this can only be achieved through an effective and robust competition framework. It further notes that the proposal introduces elements of greater centralisation that require further clarification to ensure they contribute effectively to a well functioning internal market. While BEREC recognises the Commission’s intention to streamline the General Authorisation procedures, the proposed Single Passport mechanism raises concerns from several perspectives. In particular, by concentrating significant enforcement responsibilities in the Member State of first notification, the system risks forum shopping, uneven supervisory burdens and slower enforcement. Overall, BEREC considers that the proposal could introduce greater operational complexity, administrative burden and legal uncertainty, without offering clear benefits over the current straightforward authorisation regime. BEREC also notes that the DNA proposes major changes to spectrum management , including treating spectrum as an EU‑level resource and introducing common rules for fees, long‑duration rights and satellite authorisation. While these measures aim at harmonisation, BEREC warns that the proposed single market procedure, which includes a Commission veto, signifies a notable trend towards centralisation and raises certain concerns. BEREC also cautions that some proposals in particular the introduction of unlimited license duration and automatic renewals, risk favouring existing rights holders and reducing market contestability. On the other hand, it welcomes it proposed role in the market shaping aspects of spectrum assignment. On satellite authorisation, BEREC supports EU coordination but stresses the need for alignment with ITU‑R rules. The DNA’s move to treat numbering resources as a common Union asset introduces a more centralised approach, and while BEREC sees potential benefits in greater harmonisation, it notes that key concepts—such as an EU wide numbering plan and pan European numbering ranges—require further clarification. BEREC also considers that additional analysis of demand, use cases and operational impacts would help ensure that any new framework is aligned with the needs of end users, operators and regulators. BEREC welcomes the preservation of the Significant Market Power regime, a cornerstone of the EU regulatory model, alongside the continued availability of symmetric access tools . Nonetheless, several DNA proposals, including new sequencing rules for remedies, the potential removal of the Recommendation on Relevant Markets, and expanded Commission veto powers could reduce the ability of NRAs to address national market needs. BEREC supports the goal of enabling a smooth transition from copper to fibre networks and recognises improvements made to","id":2793006},{"titre":"EDPB conference on cross-regulatory cooperation: what we learned","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/edpb-conference-cross-regulatory-cooperation-what-we-learned_en","pubDate":"Tue, 24 Mar 2026 14:08:47 +0100","source":"EDPB News","description":"Brussels, 23 March - On 17 March 2026, the EDPB conference “Cross-regulatory interplay and cooperation in the EU: a data protection perspective” took place in Brussels. The event showcased high-level discussions, featuring contributions from representatives of key EU institutions, European Data Protection Authorities, academia and industry.  Key takeaways from the panel discussions Throughout the day, three panels were held, focusing on 1) data protection and competition , 2) the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the GDPR , and 3) the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the GDPR .  During the first panel , speakers emphasised the critical need for cooperation between regulatory bodies in the fields of data protection and competition and shared views on what regulators in the two fields can learn from each other, especially in the aftermath of the Bundeskartellamt ruling. A speaker emphasized that regulators should align their approaches and recognize synergies between the two fields, such as protecting consumers and data subjects. Others pointed out that fixing harm to end users does not always solve competition issues, and that data protection should be considered in competition analysis only when relevant, on a case-by-case basis. Panellists also highlighted the need to cooperate not just on individual cases, but on broader concepts and legal principles.  In this context, the EDPB has recently agreed to develop joint guidelines with the European Commission to address the interplay between competition law and data protection. The discussions in the second panel centred on the joint guidelines on the DMA and the GDPR , which were developed by the European Commission and the EDPB and recently underwent public consultation. The joint guidelines are an unprecedented work and a good example of regulatory cooperation paving the way for further examples ahead, in line with the  EDPB Strategy 2024-2027 and  Helsinki Statement ’s objectives to strengthen cross-regulatory cooperation. A crucial goal of the guidelines is the development of a coherent and compatible interpretation of the DMA and the GDPR while respecting the regulatory competences. It was emphasised that these guidelines help break silos, strengthen consistency, and provide further clarity and legal certainty. All of this contributes to easier compliance, which is valued by stakeholders and increases trust. At the same time, certain speakers suggested improvements to the final version of the guidelines, bearing in mind the DMA should not be given primacy over the GDPR and that the measures companies have to comply with should be proportionate.  Other examples of cooperation in this domain were also mentioned, such as the participation in the High Level Group for the Digital Markets Act and specific instances of cooperation on concrete cases.  The last panel of the day explored how the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the GDPR interact. Panellists provided the example of the protection of minors: age   verification should be effective yet fully in line with data protection legislation.  They highlighted the growing need for strong coordination between the two frameworks, including the role of the European Board for Digital Services and other ways for the Commission and the EDPB to work together. A speaker also underlined the challenges and ongoing work on cross-regulatory cooperation from the perspective of a national authority. Another speaker urged regulators to work on building a fully coherent interpretation of the two frameworks and more globally of the digital legislation. Panellists also stressed that emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence are reshaping online ecosystems and, as a result, the role of the DSA and the GDPR.  The panel concluded with a clear message: online safety under the DSA and the lawful processing of personal data are two sides of the same coin, both calling for the DSA and the GDPR to be read coherently.  Highlights from the keynote speeches The event also","id":2780286},{"pubDate":"Thu, 12 Feb 2026 09:37:57 +0100","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/drug-scheduling-as-institutional-design/","titre":"Drug Scheduling as Institutional Design","id":2690615,"description":"The United States makes bad choices when it comes to psychoactive drugs. Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), U.S. drug law has simultaneously fueled mass incarceration, inhibited needed access, and enabled an opioid crisis. The post Drug Scheduling as Institutional Design appeared first on Harvard Law Review","source":"Harvard Law Review"},{"source":"Harvard Law Review","description":"After New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, § 922(g) challenges proliferate. Enacted as the “centerpiece” of the Gun Control Act of 1968,... The post United States v. Duarte appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2629442,"titre":"United States v. Duarte","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/united-states-v-duarte/","pubDate":"Tue, 13 Jan 2026 16:49:11 +0100"},{"titre":"Federalism and the New National Security","url":"https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-139/federalism-and-the-new-national-security/","pubDate":"Fri, 12 Dec 2025 10:05:22 +0100","source":"Harvard Law Review","description":"U.S. states traditionally play a minor role in establishing national security policies, which generally fall within the federal government’s remit. But the return of great power competition with China and Russia and the accompanying proliferation of threats have spurred states to act on national security concerns. The post Federalism and the New National Security appeared first on Harvard Law Review","id":2567815},{"titre":"Statement on the Grant of Early Termination of the FTC’s Investigation of the Proposed Acquisition of Kellanova by Mars","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/06/statement-grant-early-termination-ftcs-investigation-proposed-acquisition-kellanova-mars","pubDate":"Thu, 26 Jun 2025 09:50:00 +0200","description":"Today, the FTC granted early termination of its review of Mars, Incorporated’s proposed acquisition of Kellanova. Mars is a global manufacturer of pet care, snacking, and food products. Kellanova owns legacy Kellogg brands, including in snacks, crackers, and frozen breakfasts, after spinning off its North American cereals business in 2023 as WK Kellogg Co. “The Commission cares deeply about any competition concerns that affect American consumers, including in food products,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the Bureau of Competition. “Commission staff closely reviewed every aspect of this transaction, including both specific product markets and potential portfolio effects from the acquisition. They turned over every stone needed to arrive at a robust assessment of the likely competitive effects of this transaction. After nearly a year of investigation, dozens upon dozens of interviews with non-parties at all levels of the supply chain (including large chains and small, independent businesses), extensive data analysis, sworn testimony from party witnesses, and the review of hundreds of thousands of documents, staff found that the evidence pointed in one direction: this transaction does not meet the standard for an anticompetitive merger set by Section 7 of the Clayton Act.” “In other countries, Mars and Kellanova offer different products than they do in the United States, and they face different market participants, consumer preferences, and shopping practices. Notably, Kellanova continues to sell breakfast cereal in other markets, including the European Union, that it does not sell in the United States,” continued Guarnera. “The Trump-Vance FTC takes an America First approach to antitrust enforcement. Our job is to protect competition and consumers in the United States. Our job is to determine whether there is a violation of American law that we can prove in court. And once we’ve concluded there is not, our job is to get out of the","id":2208210,"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-approves-final-order-exxon-pioneer-deal","titre":"FTC Approves Final Order in Exxon-Pioneer Deal","pubDate":"Sat, 18 Jan 2025 09:55:34 +0100","description":"The Federal Trade Commission today finalized a consent order that resolves antitrust concerns surrounding Exxon Mobil Corporation’s (Exxon) acquisition of oil producer Pioneer Natural Resources. The final consent order settles FTC charges first announced in  May 2024 . Under the final consent order , Exxon is prohibited from nominating, designating, or appointing founder and former Pioneer CEO Scott Sheffield to the Exxon board or from serving in an advisory capacity in any way to the Exxon board or Exxon’s management. Additionally, the final consent order requires that for a period of five years, Exxon shall not nominate, designate, or appoint any Pioneer employee or director, other than certain named individuals, to the Exxon board. In addition, under the final order, Exxon, for a period of 10 years, will agree to certain Clayton Act Section 8 attestation and reporting obligations. Following a public comment period, the Commission voted 3-2 to approve the final order, with Commissioners Andrew N. Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak dissenting. Chair Lina M. Khan issued a statement . Commissioner Holyoak issued a dissenting statement joined by Commissioner","id":1852937,"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués"}]