[{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","id":3203247,"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","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","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/06/speaking-spokeo-part-2-companys-allegedly-bogus-endorsements","titre":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements","id":3195787,"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200","description":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements wfg-adm109 June 13, 2012 | 12:25PM Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements By Lesley Fair The lawsuit against data broker Spokeo is the FTC’s first Fair Credit Reporting Act case addressing the collection of online info — including data from social networking sites — when used in the context of employment screening.  But that’s not the only way the Spokeo settlement touches on social media.  The FTC also charged that Spokeo violated Section 5 by having employees post glowing recommendations of the company’s services on news and technology websites without disclosing their true identity. Perhaps just the work of a rogue cubicle occupant?  No, said the FTC.  According to the complaint , Spokeo directed its employees to write the comments.  Spokeo managers then edited what they wrote and had the staffers post the endorsements using account names provided by Spokeo.  The purpose, says the FTC, was to give readers the misleading impression that the laudatory words had been posted by independent consumers or business users of Spokeo. The FTC’s revisions to its Endorsement Guides made headlines a few years ago.  Ironically enough, the provision that seemed to attract the most attention is one that didn’t change.  It’s the law — and it’s always been the law under Section 5 — that consumers have a right to know when there’s a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser.  Here’s how the Guides put it:  \"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement ( i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.\" According to the FTC, by posting comments that conveyed the untruthful impression that they came from satisfied users of Spokeo’s services, Spokeo engaged in false and misleading practices.  To settle the endorsement count in the lawsuit, Spokeo has agreed that it won’t misrepresent, expressly or by implication, the status of any user of a product or service — for example, that someone is an independent, ordinary endorser if that’s not the case.  The company also will clearly and prominently disclose any material connection between an endorser and Spokeo (or any other entity advertising, selling, or promoting a product) when a connection exists.  What about the bogus endorsements already posted?  Spokeo has seven days to take all reasonable steps to pull them down. Looking for more about complying with the Endorsement Guides?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking and watch this video: While you’re at it, share this post and those resources with your marketing staff, your ad agency, your PR firm, and anyone else who plays a role in your publicity and promotions. Next:  What the Spokeo settlement means for your business, your next ad campaign, and your job search"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers lfair June 8, 2016 | 9:01AM Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers By Lesley Fair Combine two of the most talked-about consumer protection topics – health privacy and consumer-generated online content – and what do you get? A proposed FTC settlement with Practice Fusion, the largest cloud-based electronic health records company in the country, and six compliance tips for others in the industry. One of San Francisco-based Practice Fusion’s primary products is an electronic records system for outpatient providers. In 2009, the company launched “Patient Fusion,” an online portal where patients whose providers were already using Practice Fusion could view or download their health information or transmit it to another provider. Patient Fusion also let patients send and receive secure messages from their providers. Fast forward several years and the company decided to expand Patient Fusion to include a public directory where current and prospective enrollees could search for doctors geographically or by specialty, read patient reviews of providers, and request appointments. But Practice Fusion had to ask itself a question familiar to many online companies: How do we get the content – in this case, patient reviews? That’s the focus of the FTC’s lawsuit. According to the complaint , Practice Fusion solicited data in a misleading way that led some patients to believe they were sending follow-up messages directly to their doctors about their diagnosis, medical treatment, prescriptions, etc. – and not contributing content to a public website. Practice Fusion, however, populated its new site with the information those people provided, some of which was highly sensitive. Here’s what happened. After appointments with their doctors, patients received emails titled “How was your visit?” The message continued, “To help improve your service in the future, please let us know how your visit went” and included a link with rating stars. The message ended this way: Thank you, Dr. [Name] In a footer, the message said “This email was sent to you by Patient Fusion®, a tool Doctor [Name] uses to deliver the highest quality of care to patients.” Below that in smaller print it said “Sent on behalf of Doctor [Name]’s office by: Practice Fusion.” If patients clicked the link, they were taken to a page that asked for feedback about things like how long they had to wait for their appointment, the doctor’s bedside manner, and whether their medical concern was addressed. There also was a text box where patients were invited to “leave a review for your provider.” Below that was a pre-checked box with the phrase “Keep this review anonymous.” What did some people put in that box? Highly sensitive information directly addressed to their doctors, not evaluations meant to be shared publicly. Here are just a few examples: “Dr [name], My Xanax prescription that I received on Monday was for 1 tablet a day but usually it’s for 2 tablets a day. I have not taken it to the pharmacy yet. Can I pick up a new one, or can I get a prescription called into a pharmacy? Thanks, [patient’s full name] “I called today and left a message regarding my daughter and no one has returned my call. I think she is depressed and has stated several times this week that she wishes she was dead. Could someone please call me [phone number]?” “The cefuroxime axetil does not seem to be doing anything for me. I did a little research and I think I have a yeast infection called candida. Not sure what to do about it yet. I guess I will first try to change my diet. Medication? [patient’s full name] “I would like to make an appointment for my back pain and possible shingles. Can you please call me @ [phone number]? Thank you! [patient's full name]” “I HAVE NO INFECTION [healthcare provider name].  EVERYTHING WENT","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","id":3194910,"titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers"},{"url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/edpb-brings-clarity-data-processing-scientific-research-speeds-finalisation_en","source":"EDPB News","pubDate":"Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:15:11 +0200","id":2829942,"titre":"EDPB brings clarity to data processing for scientific research, speeds up the finalisation of the anonymisation guidelines and approves first European data protection seal as a tool for transfers","description":"Brussels, 16 April – During its latest plenary, the EDPB has adopted Guidelines on processing of personal data for scientific research purposes . In addition, the Board has created a team to speed up the finalisation of the guidelines on anonymisation. The EDPB has also adopted two opinions on the two sets of the Europrivacy certification criteria for approval as European Data Protection Seals, one of which to be used as a tool for transfers. Many areas of scientific research rely on the processing of individuals’ personal data, and this has driven significant scientific breakthroughs that benefit society. The rise of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, also contributes to scientific progress by enabling researchers to use and analyse data in innovative ways. The main objective of the EDPB guidelines on scientific research is to provide more clarity for researchers and make GDPR compliance easier , while ensuring the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights . “Scientific research can drive societal progress and improve our daily lives.  Our guidelines facilitate innovative research by helping researchers to navigate the GDPR. The EDPB is committed to supporting the scientific community and unlocking the full potential of scientific research in the EU while upholding data protection rights.\" EDPB Chair, Anu Talus In its guidelines, the Board provides clarifications on the concept of ‘scientific research’ . To determine if the processing takes place for scientific research purposes in the meaning of the GDPR, the Board provides six key-indicative factors that should be considered, in addition to the nature, scope, context and purposes of processing. These are: 1) methodical and systematic approach, 2) adherence to ethical standard, 3) verifiability and transparency, 4) autonomy and independence, 5) objectives of the research, and 6) potential to contribute to existing scientific knowledge or apply existing knowledge in novel ways. If the research activities meet these six factors, they can be presumed to constitute scientific research. Otherwise, the controller should justify and be able to demonstrate why the activities should be considered scientific research, within the meaning of the GDPR. Further processing for scientific research purposes is presumed to be compatible with the initial purpose for collecting individuals’ personal data. Therefore, controllers are not obliged to do the purpose compatibility test under the GDPR to determine if the new processing is compatible with the original purpose of collection. However, controllers must still make sure that the legal basis of the initial processing is also suitable for the further processing of personal data for scientific research purposes. Controllers can rely on “broad consent” where the purposes of research are not fully known at the time of collecting the personal data. In this case, researchers should respect ethical standards for scientific research and put additional safeguards in place to compensate for the lack of purpose specification. Controllers can also ask individuals to consent to different individual research projects separately, as soon as the purposes of those projects become known (dynamic consent). A combination of both broad and dynamic consent is also possible. In addition, the EDPB clarifies rights of individuals when their personal data are processed for scientific purposes. This includes the rights to erasure and object for which limitations may apply when personal data are processed for scientific research purposes. The Board provides examples to explain when the right to erasure can be considered likely to render impossible or seriously impair the objective of conducting scientific research. The EDPB also explains when controllers may reject an individuals’ objection to the processing of their personal data for scientific research purposes. This can be the case when processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out for reasons of"},{"url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/edpb-conference-cross-regulatory-cooperation-what-we-learned_en","source":"EDPB News","id":2780286,"pubDate":"Tue, 24 Mar 2026 14:08:47 +0100","titre":"EDPB conference on cross-regulatory cooperation: what we learned","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"},{"url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-opinion-ai-models-gdpr-principles-support-responsible-ai_en","source":"EDPB News","id":1792119,"pubDate":"Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:47:16 +0100","titre":"EDPB opinion on AI models: GDPR principles support responsible AI","description":"Brussels, 18 December - The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has adopted an opinion* on the use of personal data for the development and deployment of AI models . This opinion looks at 1) when and how AI models can be considered anonymous, 2) whether and how legitimate interest can be used as a legal basis for developing or using AI models, and 3) what happens if an AI model is developed using personal data that was processed unlawfully. It also considers the use of first and third party data. The opinion was requested by the Irish Data Protection Authority (DPA) with a view to seeking Europe-wide regulatory harmonisation. To gather input for this opinion, which deals with fast-moving technologies that have an important impact on society, the EDPB organised a stakeholders’ event and had an exchange with the EU AI Office. EDPB Chair Talus said: “AI technologies may bring many opportunities and benefits to different industries and areas of life. We need to ensure these innovations are done ethically, safely, and in a way that benefits everyone. The EDPB wants to support responsible AI innovation by ensuring personal data are protected and in full respect of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).” Regarding anonymity , the opinion says that whether an AI model is anonymous should be assessed  on a case by case basis by the DPAs. For a model to be anonymous, it should be very unlikely (1) to directly or indirectly identify individuals whose data was used to create the model, and (2) to extract such personal data from the model through queries. The opinion provides a non-prescriptive and non-exhaustive list of methods to demonstrate anonymity. With respect to legitimate interest , the opinion provides general considerations that DPAs should take into account when they assess if legitimate interest is an appropriate legal basis for processing personal data for the development and the deployment of AI models. A three-step test helps assess the use of legitimate interest as a legal basis. The EDPB gives the examples of a conversational agent to assist users, and the use of AI to improve cybersecurity. These services can be beneficial for individuals and can rely on legitimate interest as a legal basis, but only if the processing is shown to be strictly necessary and the balancing of rights is respected. The opinion also includes a number of criteria to help DPAs assess if individuals may reasonably expect certain uses of their personal data. These criteria include: whether or not the personal data was publicly available, the nature of the relationship between the individual and the controller, the nature of the service, the context in which the personal data was collected, the source from which the data was collected, the potential further uses of the model, and whether individuals are actually aware that their personal data is online. If the balancing test shows that the processing should not take place because of the negative impact on individuals, mitigating measures may limit this negative impact. The opinion includes a non-exhaustive list of examples of such mitigating measures, which can be technical in nature, or make it easier for individuals to exercise their rights or increase transparency. Finally, when an AI model was developed with unlawfully processed personal data, this could have an impact on the lawfulness of its deployment, unless the model has been duly anonymised. Considering the scope of the request from the Irish DPA, the vast diversity of AI models and their rapid evolution, the opinion aims to give guidance on various elements that can be used for conducting a case by case analysis. In addition, the EDPB is currently developing guidelines covering more specific questions, such as web scraping. Note to editors: *An Article 64(2) opinion addresses a matter of general application or produces effects in more than one Member"}]