[{"source":"The Conversation – Articles (FR)","description":"KEY TAKEAWAYS The French high schooler-led uprising is not a sign of a generational struggle pitting the young against baby boomers. The uprisings indicate a state of discontentment reflecting three grievances: failings within the education system, eco-anxiety and concerns over employment in the age of AI. Far from demanding a break with the established order, young protesters are simply asking for the right to live a good and fair life... like their predecessors before them. Rarely has Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents seemed so relevant to the times in which we are living. Although the discontents we are currently witnessing do not necessarily affect society as a whole, they are certainly impacting an entire generation born in the 21st century, as well as their parents and their social environment. Admittedly, we know that generations are not homogeneous and that any attempt to generalise is an oversimplification. Nevertheless, the high schoolers that are taking to the streets to protest in this day and age belong to a relatively homogeneous age cohort. You would be forgiven for thinking that the current unrest is the result of a clash of generations. From the outside, it is often viewed as a generational tug of war between a struggling young population and the rest: an aging but relatively prosperous Europe . Criticism is, without doubt, being directed at “baby-boomers” or those born during the thirty years following World War II (which were marked by economic prosperity and low unemployment, conditions that now seem a world away today). The problem lies elsewhere Nevertheless, this is not a generational conflict, and the fact that a substantial proportion of parents , as well as the majority of the population , share the students’ demands shows that the problem lies elsewhere. These demands are nothing new, and they help explain why many parents joined their children during the first demonstrations, along with teachers, to show their support over deteriorating conditions in high schools. The students and their initial demands were hijacked by more politically radical movements, some even revolutionary or anarchist, as well as opportunistic groups that took advantage of the disorder to loot shops and businesses, without any tangible political agenda. According to an official report dated October 14, 2026, “937 law enforcement officers, 248 students and 149 members of educational staff have been injured since the beginning of the high school student movement.” The demonstrations on October 18 resulted in more than 1,800 arrests . The proliferation of various groups with overlapping demands muddles the student movements’ original message, leaving us with little more than the smouldering remnants of a battlefield. Nevertheless, it is the central concerns of these students that I wish to explore here. Ultimately, this movement appears to lie at the intersection of several anxiety-inducing issues. Rather than speaking of a convergence of struggles, we should speak of a convergence of anxieties. Three sources of anxiety The movement appears to reflect the convergence of three factors that are also sources of concern: the perceived deterioration of public education ecological anxiety the new difficulties young people face in the labour market, particularly those associated with the development of artificial intelligence (AI). These three factors provide fertile ground for psychosocial anxiety. The high school students’ main demands appear legitimate and concern improving working conditions: replacing absent teachers, shortening excessively long school days, reducing the number of students per class, repairing and maintaining infrastructure, and improving or abolishing Parcoursup , the widely criticised higher education admissions platform that is often difficult to understand. These demands echo the broader perception that conditions in the French school system have deteriorated and that the system is relatively inefficient compared with those of neighbouring countries.","id":3248553,"url":"https://theconversation.com/france-three-overlapping-woes-are-fuelling-a-generation-of-discontent-295102","titre":"France: three overlapping woes are fuelling a generation of discontent","pubDate":"Thu, 29 Oct 2026 07:58:22 +0100"},{"id":3241470,"description":"CALL member Dominique Garingan , Library Manager in the Calgary office of Parlee McLaws LLP, recently wrote an article on \" The Singular They: Gender Inclusivity in Canadian Legal Writing and Style Guides \" . It originally appeared on the website Notes Between Us on June 22, 2022 . It is reprinted here with permission. Language is a product of culture, and it is known that the English language lacks a singular pronoun that signifies the non-specific   he   or   she . Although at times unintentional, this singularity versus plurality of pronouns, coupled with gendered indicators, has helped entrench the binary perceptions of gender found in writing which we are now seeking to change.  The Department of Justice of Canada recently provided a   series of guidelines   on the use of gender-neutral language in a legislative context. These guidelines include as a recommendation the use of the singular   they   and its other grammatical forms ( them ,   themselves , and   their ) to refer to indefinite pronouns and singular nouns 1 . In addition, dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary ( definition 2 | blog ), the Canadian Oxford Dictionary ( definition 3 ), the Cambridge Dictionary ( definition ) and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary ( definition | blog ) have acknowledged both the acceptability – and, for some, the controversy – of the singular   they. While there seems to be a growing acceptance towards gender inclusive and non-binary pronouns, this post seeks to explore an increasingly acknowledged yet still seemingly paradoxical entity in legal writing:   the singular   they . This post briefly investigates the use and acceptance or lack thereof of   they   as a singular pronoun through a review of a limited sample of Canadian legal research, writing, and style guides accessible to the writer. Although current writing practices on gender inclusivity may have since changed since the publication of these titles, this post hopes to assist writers, researchers, librarians, and information professionals by providing a non-exhaustive point-in-time review of Canadian legal writing references and help facilitate a turning point in the journey towards greater inclusivity in legal writing. The Literature Reviewed (in Reverse Order of Publication) Edward Berry,   Writing Reasons: A Handbook for Judges , 5th ed (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2020).  In the sample of guides reviewed,   Writing Reasons   seemed to provide the most inclusive perspective in its instruction. It was somewhat refreshing to see a writing handbook for judges as being the most progressive in its recommendations, albeit also the most recently published. The guide contains a section entitled   Prejudicial Language   and provides a checklist for more inclusive strategies. (p 114-115) “Invite the parties to define their own identity” is first on the list. As an example, Berry notes that some people may prefer the gender neutral   Mx.   to   Mr.   or   Ms . “Be wary of personal pronouns” is also listed. Here, Berry states that those who don’t identify as male or female may prefer   they . Berry notes the acceptance of   they   as a singular pronoun. However, the","source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:48 +0100","titre":"CALL Member Article: Gender Inclusivity in Canadian Legal Writing and Style Guides","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12854401"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 15 Oct 2026 08:26:22 +0200","titre":"The (Currently) Uneven Intelligence of AI in Comparative Constitutional Law","url":"https://verfassungsblog.de/the-currently-uneven-intelligence-of-ai-in-comparative-constitutional-law/","source":"Scoop.it - Documentation juridique (Stéphan Cottin)","id":3218421,"description":"This article belongs to the debate » Thinking Machines, Thinking Lawyers14 October 2026The (Currently) Uneven Intelligence of AI in Comparative Constitutional Law From Years of Research to a Single Prompt? Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to accelerate and improve the quality of research. This potential has inspired numerous projects exploring how AI could help scholarship on constitutional law. For example, there is research using AI to interpret constitutions,1) apply constitutional principles,2) and predict court rulings.3) Even the question of whether AI could improve the process of constitution-making has been studied.4) AI’s potential is particularly significant for comparative constitutional research. Systematically comparing legal systems requires locating sources from different jurisdictions, which are often difficult to access and only available in local languages. The creation of comparative legal datasets has thus involved considerable personnel, time, and financial resources. AI can overcome many of these obstacles. AI models can search for and translate foreign-language sources, filter them, and convert the filtered information into a dataset. In doing so, AI offers the prospect of datasets — which previously required years of research and the efforts of numerous experts and research assistants to compile — being just a prompt away. However, whether AI models can generate comparative law datasets that are qualitatively comparable to human-coded datasets has not yet been addressed (although Guha et al provide an example for a broader legal benchmarking exercise).5) We therefore conducted our own benchmarking study.6) We found evidence suggesting that recent AI models may be able to code simple factual data, but they are likely unreliable substitutes for expert human coders when conceptual or interpretive judgment is required. The Benchmarking Project: Seven Coding Tasks, Four Datasets, Two LLMs In our project, we tested the ability of two large language models (LLMs) to code different types of information relevant to comparative constitutional law. We specifically assessed whether LLMs can reproduce information from four existing comparative constitutional law datasets, all of which were compiled through human coding and which served as a ‘ground truth’ for our exercise. From these datasets, we asked the LLMs to code seven variables, which can be thought of as seven tasks relevant to the creation of comparative constitutional law datasets. Each of these tasks is either a test of fact-finding or reasoning abilities. First, from the Executive Term Limit Evasion Dataset,7) we drew information on whether presidents in 106 presidential systems have evaded constitutionally mandated term limits between 2000 and 2019. The dataset includes one variable on whether presidents attempt to overstay past the end of their term. The second variable captures what strategies executives use for doing so, such as amending the constitution, replacing it with a new one, or asking the court to interpret term limits out of the constitution. While determining whether a president overstayed is a fact-finding task, assessing the strategy used to do so requires reasoning. Second, from the Comparative Constitution Making Dataset,8) we drew information on the process by which constitutions were adopted in democracies between 1900 and 2015. This dataset also includes fact-finding variables such as (1) whether citizens were involved in the formulation, discussion, or submission of reform proposals, and (2) whether citizens participated in popular referendums at any stage in the process. The dataset’s most important variable (3) captures whether constitutions reflect ‘plural elite agreement,’ that is, whether all relevant elite factions in society were involved and represented during the process. The recreation of this variable requires reasoning. Third, from the Characteristics of National Constitutions Dataset9), we drew on its coding of 43 first-generation constitutional"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 08 Oct 2026 08:06:58 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/01/ftc-consumer-protection-year-review-offers-2020-vision-your-business","titre":"FTC consumer protection year in review offers 2020 vision for your business","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":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","description":"Full Disclosure wfg-adm109 September 7, 2010 | 11:56AM Full Disclosure By Lesley Fair The FTC’s first law enforcement action related to the revised Endorsement Guides offers compliance insights for marketers.  In a proposed settlement with Reverb Communications, Inc. , the FTC alleged that employees of a public relations agency hired by game developers posed as consumers and posted reviews on Apple’s iTunes store without disclosing that the reviews came from people working on behalf of the developers. According to the FTC, in addition to giving their clients’ game apps high ratings, Reverb employees posted comments like \"Amazing new game,\" \"ONE of the BEST,\" \"[Company] hits another home run with [product name],\" \"Really Cool Game\" \"GREAT, family-friendly board game app,\" \"One of the best apps just got better\" and \"[Company] does it again!\" They didn’t disclose that the company was hired to promote the games and that it often got a percentage of the sales. The FTC alleged that these facts would have been relevant to consumers who were evaluating the reviews and deciding whether to buy the apps. The FTC’s proposed settlement, which names both the company and its owner, requires the company to take down the deceptive endorsements, and bans similar misrepresentations in the future.  Looking for more information?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking","id":3201057,"titre":"Full Disclosure","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2010/09/full-disclosure","pubDate":"Wed, 07 Oct 2026 08:05:50 +0200"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz? wfg-adm109 April 1, 2011 | 4:28PM The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz? By Lesley Fair “Sweet!  Check out Buzz.” “Nah, go to my inbox.” That was the intriguing choice facing Gmail users last year when Google launched Google Buzz, its social network. But according to a settlement announced this week by the FTC, the company violated the privacy promises it made to Gmail users and used deceptive tactics in the Buzz rollout. The story starts with Google’s privacy policy. From October 2004 until October 2010, Gmail users were told, \"Gmail stores, processes and maintains your messages, contact lists and other data related to your account in order to provide service to you.\"  On the subject of the choices users had about the use of their personal information in all of Google’s products, including Gmail, the privacy policy said, \"When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use.\"  According to the FTC, statements like that conveyed that Google would use information from people signing up for Gmail only for the purpose of providing them with email service and that Google would ask for their consent before using their info for any other purpose. So far, so good. But then came the roll-out of Google Buzz. The service allows users to share updates, comments, pictures, videos, and the like through “buzzes” made either publicly or privately to individuals or groups of users. When Buzz was launched, Gmail users were taken to a welcome screen that announced the new service and presented the “Sweet!” or “Nah” choice. If users clicked “Nah,” the FTC complaint alleges that their info was nonetheless shared in a number of ways. First, the user could still be “followed” by Gmail users who enrolled in Buzz. Second, if the Gmail user had previously created a Google profile, he or she could appear on the public Google profiles of Buzz enrollees who were following them. Third, a link to Buzz would show up on the list of links on the user’s Gmail page. If the user clicked on that link, he or she would be taken to the Buzz welcome screen and would be automatically enrolled in Buzz without any disclosure of that fact. In other words, users would be enrolled in certain features of Buzz even if they didn’t sign up. So much for “Nah.” The FTC’s complaint alleges that despite what it said in its privacy policy, Google didn’t use information from people signing up for Gmail just for the purpose of providing email service. Rather, the company used it to populate Buzz. Thus, said the FTC, the representations in Google’s privacy policy were false or misleading. Furthermore, the agency alleged that despite the promise in its privacy policy that Google would ask for consumers’ consent before using their information for another purpose, Google went ahead and used it to populate its social network without getting their permission. The FTC charged that was false or misleading and constituted a deceptive practice. The next part of the story:   The not-so-sweet results when users clicked the “Sweet!”","id":3200009,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/04/ftcs-google-settlement-whats-buzz","titre":"The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz?","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200"},{"titre":"Franchise Fundamentals: Taking a deep dive into the Franchise Disclosure Document","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2023/05/franchise-fundamentals-taking-deep-dive-franchise-disclosure-document","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:24 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Franchise Fundamentals: Taking a deep dive into the Franchise Disclosure Document lfair May 23, 2023 | 6:41PM Franchise Fundamentals: Taking a deep dive into the Franchise Disclosure Document By Lesley Fair Love at first sight may (or may not) be a real thing, but when it comes to investing your money, it’s unwise to fall for a franchise without first subjecting it to tough-minded scrutiny. The third in the FTC’s Franchise Fundamentals blog series walks through an essential part of that evaluation: an in-depth review of the Financial Disclosure Document (FDD) required by the FTC’s Franchise Rule . You must receive the Franchise Disclosure Document at least 14 days before you’re asked to sign any contract or pay any money to the franchisor or one of its affiliates. In fact, you have the right to the FDD once the franchisor has received your application and agrees to consider it. So speak up if you don’t receive it and ask questions – lots of them – as you review the FDD and any attached documents.   Image Indeed, the franchisor’s conduct regarding the FDD may raise some red flags about how they do business. Providing the FDD doesn’t establish that a franchisor is reputable – it’s required by law, after all – but if a franchisor doesn’t promptly provide this mandatory document, gives you an incomplete FDD, evades your probing questions, or tries to rush you through the process, it doesn’t speak well of their approach to legal compliance.  Assuming you have the FDD in hand, let’s consider some of the 23 required items line by line. Here are things to look for as you review the FDD. Franchisor’s Background (FDD Item 1) Item 1 provides background information about the franchisor and any parent companies, predecessors, and affiliates, including how long the franchise has been in business. It also lets you know if there are any legal requirements unique to the franchised business, like the need to get a special license or permit. This can help you understand the costs and risks you would be taking on. Business Background (FDD Item 2) Remember the old adage “People are known by the company they keep”? Well, companies are known by the people they keep, which is why Item 2 identifies directors, principal officers, and other key executives. Pay attention to their business backgrounds, their experience in managing a franchise system, and how long they’ve been with the franchisor. Litigation History (FDD Item 3) Item 3 lists information about prior litigation, including whether the franchisor or any of its executive officers have been convicted of certain crimes or have been found liable – or settled lawsuits – related to the franchise relationship. Lawsuits against the franchisor could mean it hasn’t honored its agreements or that franchisees are dissatisfied with its performance. Item 3 also says whether the franchisor has sued any of its franchisees in the past year. That information could suggest problems in the franchise system. For example, if a franchisor sued franchisees for failing to pay royalties, was it because franchisees weren’t successful and couldn’t make their royalty payments? Bankruptcy (FDD Item 4) Have the franchisor, its affiliates, or any of its executives filed for bankruptcy? Item 4 discloses that information and could give you insights into the financial condition of the business.  Initial and Other Fees (FDD Items 5-7) Items 5-7 go over some of the costs involved in starting and operating a franchise. That could include things like deposits or franchise fees (some of which may be non-refundable); what you’ll have to pay for initial inventory, signs, equipment, leases, or rentals; and ongoing costs, like royalties and advertising fees. A Consumer’s Guide to Buying a Franchise suggests more than a dozen other areas of financial inquiry, which should give you an indication about the importance of both getting in touch with your inner bean","id":3199079},{"id":3199074,"description":"Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first. lfair November 13, 2018 | 12:24PM Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first. By Lesley Fair It started as one of those “run it up the flagpole” ideas to enlist big-name gymnasts to promote a brand of mosquito repellent just as news stories about the 2016 Brazil Olympics were sounding warnings about the Zika virus. Public relations firm Creaxion Corporation and specialty sports magazine publisher Inside Publications used a variety of digital strategies on behalf of the brand: athlete endorsements, social media posts, “advertorials,” and consumer reviews. But according to the FTC’s complaint , their efforts violated established FTC advertising principles. Which of those strategies are you using? And are you avoiding legal pitfalls by making appropriate disclosures? Creaxion – an Atlanta-based marketing and PR company – was approached by client HealthPro Brands to help launch its mosquito repellent. They agreed Creaxion would produce a “strategic media relations campaign” that would be “tied to the worldwide outbreak of the Zika Virus.” Creaxion then contacted Inside Publications, publisher of magazines like Inside Volleyball , Inside Cheerleading , and Inside Gymnastics , to broker a partnership with HealthPro. You’ll want to read the complaint for details about the “Social and Digital Media Activation and Athlete Engagement” agreement between HealthPro and Inside Publications, but here are some of the things HealthPro paid for: endorsements by leading gymnasts, magazine “articles” featuring the repellent, the product’s placement in “Good Luck” gift baskets from Inside Gymnastics to top U.S. gymnasts, and social media posts touting the product by Inside Publications and athlete endorsers. According to the complaint, Creaxion president Mark Pettit acted as an intermediary between Inside Publications and HealthPro. Ultimately, 2004 Olympic gold medal gymnast Carly Patterson Caldwell agreed to become a paid spokesperson. She received several thousand dollars for social media posts and an Inside Gymnastics advertorial. (She decided not to attend the Brazil Olympics because of her concerns about Zika.) Olympic gold medal gymnast Jake Dalton also signed on and was paid for promoting the repellent to his fans and followers. The two gymnasts posted endorsements of the repellent on social media without disclosing their paid promotional relationship. For example, Ms. Patterson Caldwell said on Facebook, “I was definitely bummed to have to make the decision to not go to Rio for the summer Olympics because of the threat of the Zika virus, but working on starting a family and being safe and protecting myself was way more important to my husband and me! I am so thankful to have found a safe and organic product (FIT Organic) that will ease my worries as mosquito season approaches.” Similarly, Mr. Dalton posted on Twitter, “Getting Rio Ready! Not worried about Zika. Fit Organic has my back and body covered. Love the Fit mosquito repellent.” Inside Publications also posted and reposted statements on social media about the repellent, primarily through its Inside Gymnastics account, including some featuring Patterson Caldwell and Dalton. According to the complaint, Inside Publications didn’t disclose the spokespersons’ paid promotional relationships with HealthPro or that its own posts were paid ads. Nor did it disclose that the “Caring for Carly,” “The latest on Zika” and “Move Over Mosquitos” articles were really paid ads. The FTC also says Creaxion conducted an online consumer review program that reimbursed Creaxion employees and “friends” for buying FIT repellent and reviewing the product online without disclosing their affiliation with the brand. The complaint charges that the gymnasts’ statements about the repellent were falsely represented as the","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","titre":"Planning a social media marketing campaign? Read this first.","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/11/planning-social-media-marketing-campaign-read-first"},{"id":3198181,"description":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening chundycz April 9, 2014 | 12:13AM Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening By Lesley Fair When the talk turns to Big Data, part of the conversation is about all the public information available about people's lives – and how companies market it to prospective employers, landlords, etc.  Two cases just announced by the FTC  serve as a cautionary reminder to members of the industry that what they do may be subject to the long-standing consumer protections of the  Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) .  InfoTrack, an Illinois company, and San Diego-based Instant Checkmate will be paying civil penalties to settle FTC lawsuits that they violated the FCRA.  Is it time for an FCRA refresher at your business? Instant Checkmate marketed its reports as a way for prospective employers and landlords to investigate applicants.  For example, the company advertised that one of the “GOOD REASONS to get instant criminal checks on anyone right now” was to “check out tenants before they rent.”  It also used a Google Ad Words campaign to make sure its site appeared when people searched for background checks on nannies, babysitters, maids, and housekeepers.  What kind of information would buyers get?  Current and previous addresses, birth certificates, arrest histories, and marriage and divorce records, to name just a few examples. InfoTrack offered similar services to employers nationwide, including background screening reports with people’s driving records, education and employment information, criminal histories, and even records from sex offender registries. How does the FCRA come in?  The law defines a “consumer report” as a “communication of any information” by a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that bears on a person’s “credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living” which is used (or expected to be used) as a factor in establishing their eligibility for credit, insurance, employment, or other reasons outlined in the law. According to the FTC, what Instant Checkmate and InfoTrack were doing triggered the FCRA.  For example, companies covered by the law must follow procedures to assure their reports are as accurate as possible, must take steps to see that those using their reports have permissible purposes for accessing them, and must provide required User Notices explaining key protections for consumers.  The law imposes special requirements when CRAs provide reports containing public record information that could have an adverse effect on a person’s ability to get a job.  In that case, the CRA must either: 1) notify the consumer that it’s reporting the information in the public record; or 2) maintain “strict procedures” – that’s the language in the law – designed to ensure the reported public information is complete and up to date. You’ll want to read the complaints for specifics of where the FTC says the companies fell short, but one example cited in the lawsuit against InfoTrack offers an object lesson on why FCRA protections are so important to consumers – and how the consequences can be devastating when companies don’t live up to the law.  According to the FTC, the reports InfoTrack provided to prospective employers included information about whether a job applicant was on the National Sex Offender Registry.  The employer would provide the first and last name and the date of birth to help InfoTrack with its search.  The problem was that before the fall of 2011, no date of birth was available for many names on the Registry.  If InfoTrack’s search found more than one person with the same first and last name, it reported a “possible match” to employers and gave them reports that included several different people with the","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:46 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/04/keep-fcra-foreground-when-subject-background-screening","titre":"Keep FCRA in the foreground when the subject is background screening"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2018/07/ftc-florida-ag-small-business-scrutinize-o-fishy-al-invoices","titre":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices lfair July 30, 2018 | 11:05AM FTC, Florida AG to small business: Scrutinize “o-fishy-al” invoices By Lesley Fair If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. But the same can’t be said for a mailer that looks like an official invoice. It could be an “o- fishy -al” offer that deceptively mimics the appearance of a government document. A case filed by the FTC and the Florida Attorney General challenges the practice of sending mailers that allegedly create the false impression that small businesses are required to buy labor regulation posters from the sender. Consider what defendants Starwood Consulting, also doing business as Corporate Compliance Services, and company president Thomas Henry Fred, Jr., sent to small businesses. The mailers – which include a Washington, D.C., 202 area code – are titled “LABOR LAW COMPLIANCE REQUEST FORM” and include the warning “Failure to comply with posting regulations can lead to fines up to $17,000.” The mailers include a “Business ID” and instruct recipients to respond by a certain date. Small businesses can’t miss the purported consequences of ignoring the letter: Your business is required by federal law to post a current compliant labor law poster in the workplace. Federal law requires that this poster be placed on the property of the business. Whether you have 1 employee or 1,000 you must post current employment posters in the workplace. The poster must also include information about workers compensation benefits. Pursuant to federal law 29 USC Sec. 999(i) & 29 USC Sec. 2005 penalties and risks of non-compliance with posting regulations can lead to potential fines of $17,000 per instance, for failing to post federally required information. Further, lawsuits can be tolled based on failing to display mandatory posters. . . . To obtain your Federal employment labor law poster, please detach the above coupon and return it in the enclosed envelope with your document processing fee of $84.00. The mailer continues: “IMPORTANT! FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS EXACTLY WHEN COMPLETING THIS FORM.” Those instructions include directions to detach the “payment coupon,” return it with the “document fee” of $84, and keep the bottom portion as the “official receipt.” The enclosed return envelope is addressed to “Corporate Compliance Services, Compliance Processing Center.” That’s a description of the mailer, but here are the facts, according to the FTC and the AG. First, the mailer isn’t from a government entity or affiliate. Starwood Consulting and its d/b/a Corporate Compliance Services are private companies in the business of selling those posters. In addition, despite the 202 area code, the defendants have no operations in Washington and posters similar to the ones the defendants peddle are available for free from the U.S. Department of Labor. What about those statutory provisions referring to “potential fines of $17,000 per instance”? In fact, neither of those citations has anything to do with labor posters. 29 U.S.C. § 999(i) refers to repealed provisions of the Young Adult Conservation Corps and 29 U.S.C. § 2005 addresses the Employee Polygraph Protection Act. According to the complaint , recipients of the mailer are often small businesses that have recently incorporated or established limited liability companies. What’s more, some businesses say they never received the posters they paid for. Others report they got second notices that they had to pay another $84 fee to get an updated poster. Despite a small “disclaimer” at the bottom of the reverse side of the mailer that “[t]his offer serves as a solicitation and not to be intended as a bill due,” the FTC and the AG say that business owners were misled and filed more than 250 complaints about the company. (According to the Better Business","id":3198177},{"titre":"FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/02/ftc-challenges-online-trading-academys-money-making-claims","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:09 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims lfair February 12, 2020 | 4:35PM FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims By Lesley Fair Ads for health products often target Boomer Consumers, but those aren’t the only claims pitched to people looking toward retirement. An FTC action alleges a company called Online Trading Academy has taken in more than $370 million by gearing its deceptive representations to that demographic. In addition, the complaint alleges violations of the Consumer Review Fairness Act. According to the FTC, the California-based operation, related companies, and three individual defendants advertise a “patented strategy” that consumers can apply “to any asset class including stocks, options, futures and currencies” to rake in big money. They claim their “training programs” – with price tags as high as $50,000 – will teach consumers how to “invest like the pros on Wall Street.” ”No matter your experience and goals,” people were told the defendants’ “proven” strategy was “designed to make money in any market, whether it’s going up or down.” The complaint recounts the process the defendants use to attract consumers through TV and radio ads, online promotions, and direct mail. First comes an in-person “preview” seminar. Next, people pay $299 for a three-day “orientation.” That’s where the defendants urge attendees to sign up for seminars costing thousands more. The defendants assign each attendee an “Education Counselor” – a/k/a salesperson working on commission – who follows up by phone or email. According to the complaint, the defendants train their Education Counselors not to “look like, act like or sound like, a traditional salesperson,” but instead to take on a “role” and lead consumers through “The Pain Funnel,” Q&A designed to overcome consumer qualms. To get people to sign up for more seminars, the defendants routinely offer to finance all or part of the cost with loans at 18%, with the promise to forgive the interest if the consumer pays the total off within six months. The FTC says that in some instances, the defendants lead buyers to believe they’ll be able to repay the loan quickly with money they’ll make using that “patented strategy.” So how much does Online Trading Academy say consumers will earn? A central theme of their pitch is “You don’t have to work on Wall Street to make money like Wall Street.” Infomercials feature purchasers claiming that “in three hours I made $12,000” or “I made $32,000 in less than seven trading days.” In a YouTube video, a retiree says he made “$40,000 in a single trade.” In addition, a speaker at a live event claimed consumers “could potentially make $50,000 of annual income with an account size as low as $5,000” because Online Trading Academy has “a patent on the fact that you can time the markets,” which “gives us the ability to know when to get in and when to get out, long-term and short-term.” Other speakers – including some of the named defendants – paint a picture of lavish lifestyles filled with international travel, a “super luxury car” every year, and homes in areas where kids have “live-in nannies, cooks, gardeners.” One speaker said the money he made using Online Trading Academy’s strategy allows him to live in an enclave so exclusive that a neighbor, a renowned Olympic gold medalist, taught his daughter to swim. But the facts paint a different picture. The FTC alleges the defendants don’t systematically collect data sufficient to substantiate their earnings claims. But even the evidence they do have gave them good reason to know their representations are deceptive. For starters, according to the FTC, the defendants know that few consumers who","id":3197414},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","id":3197409,"description":"Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication lfair August 11, 2017 | 10:47AM Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication By Thomas B. Pahl, Acting Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection To make it harder for hackers to bluff their way onto a computer network, careful companies follow the advice of Start with Security and require strong authentication practices . We’ve considered FTC settlements, closed investigations, and the questions we get from businesses about implementing good authentication “hygiene.” Here are some tips on using effective authentication procedures to help safeguard your network. Insist on long, complex, and unique passwords. A password’s very reason for being is to be easy for a user to remember, but hard for a fraudster to figure out. Obvious choices like ABCABC, 121212, or qwerty are the digital equivalent of a “hack me” sign. Furthermore, experts have determined that passphrases or longer passwords are generally harder to crack. The smarter strategy is for companies to think through their standards, implement minimum requirements, and educate users about how to create stronger passwords. Also, when you install software, applications, or hardware on your network, computers, or devices, change the default password immediately. And if you design products that require consumers to use a password, configure the initial set-up so they have to change the default password. Example: A staff member attempts to select payroll as the password for the database that includes employee payroll information. The company sets up its system to reject an obvious choice like that. Example: To access the corporate network, a business allows employees to type in their username and a shared password common to everyone who works there. Employees are also allowed to use that shared password to access other services on the system, some of which contain sensitive personal information. The more prudent policy would be to require strong, unique passwords for each employee and to insist that they use different passwords to access different applications. Example: At a staff meeting, a company’s IT manager offers tips for employees about good password hygiene. She explains that passphrases or longer passwords are better than short passwords based on standard dictionary words or well-known information (for example, a child’s name, a pet, a birthday, or a favorite sports team). By establishing a more secure corporate password standard and educating employees about implementing it, the IT manager is taking a step to help her company reduce the risk of unauthorized access. Store passwords securely. A company’s first line of defense against data thieves is a workforce trained to keep passwords secret. But even the strongest password is ineffective if an employee writes it on a sticky note on her desk or shares it with someone else. Train your staff not to disclose passwords in response to phone calls or emails, including ones that may appear to be coming from a colleague. Con artists have been known to impersonate corporate officials by spoofing phone numbers or email addresses. A compromised password poses a particular risk if it can be used to open the door to even more sensitive information – for example, a database of other user credentials maintained on the network in plain, readable text. Make it difficult for data thieves to turn a lucky password guess into a catastrophic breach of your company’s most sensitive data by implementing policies and procedures to store credentials securely. Example: A new employee gets a call from someone who claims to be the company’s system administrator. The caller asks him to verify his network password. Because the new staffer learned about impersonation scams at an in-house security orientation, he refuses to disclose his password and instead reports the incident to the appropriate person in the company. Example: A company keeps user credentials and other passwords in plain","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:08 +0200","titre":"Stick with Security: Require secure passwords and authentication","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/08/stick-security-require-secure-passwords-authentication"},{"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","id":3194910,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers","titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/10/ftc-secures-settlement-protects-small-businesses-illegal-price-discrimination","titre":"FTC Secures Settlement that Protects Small Businesses from Illegal Price Discrimination","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:36 +0200","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","id":3194908,"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués"},{"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","pubDate":"Fri, 02 Oct 2026 08:12:17 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","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","id":3192605},{"pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 14:10:47 +0200","titre":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/lights-out-unsubstantiated-pain-relief-claims-deceptive-native-advertising","id":3191275,"description":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising lfair June 25, 2020 | 3:00PM Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising By Lesley Fair For consumers struggling with severe or chronic pain, ads for a product called Willow Curve appeared to offer light at the end of the tunnel. But the FTC alleges the marketers made false and unsubstantiated claims for the product , a device that applied low-level light and mild heat to the site of pain – and set people back between $599 and $799 in the process. The proposed settlement also sheds light on the FTC’s ongoing concern with deceptive native advertising. The complaint names two Michigan companies, Physician’s Technology, LLC, and Willow Labs, LLC, and two individuals affiliated with both businesses, Dr. Ronald Shapiro and David Sutton. In ads on national TV, satellite radio, online, and in social media, the defendants claimed that for people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic neuropathy, nerve damage, shingles, fibromyalgia, lupus, torn tendons, and other serious conditions, the light-emitting Willow Curve would provide “real, lasting, proven pain relief, without the costs, risks or inconvenience associated with elective surgery, prescription drugs or office visits.” The defendants also sold Willow Curve through a network of distributors and resellers, supplying them with promotional materials touting the product’s purported health benefits. What’s more, the defendants claimed to have clinical studies to support what they said about Willow Curve and that the FDA had reviewed and approved the device for its advertised pain relief and other health benefits. The FTC challenges those claims as false. The complaint also alleges the defendants advertised a “risk-free” and “money-back” guarantee for consumers if they were “not completely satisfied” within a specified time period. But the FTC says in many instances, the defendants required consumers to jump through hoops to get the hefty purchase price back – for example, by first undertaking a regimen of 92 “treatments” over a 180-day period. According to the complaint, those requirements were hidden behind hyperlinks or buried in paperwork in the Willow Curve box. Despite the defendants’ claim that they issued refunds within seven to ten business days, the FTC says some people never got their money back. Others got a refund a year or more later or only after reporting the defendants to a State Attorney General or the Better Business Bureau. Another notable count relates to the defendants’ use of native advertising. For example, what appeared to be an online magazine article, “Understanding the Gender Gap in Sports Injuries and Treatment,” was actually advertising for Willow Curve. According to the FTC, the defendants hired a marketing company to write this article and others, which looked a lot like the non-advertising content of the magazines and newspapers in which the ads ran. The complaint alleges the articles weren’t identifiable as ads, including when consumers posted or shared them on social media or in email. The settlement includes a judgment of $22 million, which – based on the defendants’ financial condition – will be partially suspended when defendants Shapiro and Sutton each pay $200,000. Among other things, the proposed order requires the defendants to have randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled testing to support a broad range of pain relief claims. The order also prohibits them from representing expressly or by implication that advertising is a statement or opinion from an independent publisher or source. The case illuminates some issues of interest to advertisers. Support pain relief claims with sound science.   There’s a predictable cycle. As more consumers experience chronic and serious pain, more marketers position their products as purported remedies. What comes next?","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock chundycz May 8, 2020 | 9:01AM Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock By Andrew Smith, Director, FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, the FTC has released dozens of warning letters against people trying to make an illegal buck off the Coronavirus. More than a month in, it seems like a good time to look back at what’s happened. If you follow this blog, you’ll know these have been busy weeks – with advice about spotting the many scams we’re all facing, news of the warning letters sent on a wide range of scams, and some enforcement actions filed. You might wonder: Why send letters? Why not just sue the !*$@&#? Fair question. But the letters are working. And, given the scope of the scams out there right now, we want to get the best and fastest results we can with the most efficient tool we have. Right now, for these Coronavirus-related issues, that’s warning letters. In general, here’s how it goes: We spot someone advertising something with no proof that it works – and, in many cases, telling outright lies about its wonders. We send a letter pointing out the illegal things they’re doing. They then have 48 hours to tell us what they’ve done to resolve the problems we’ve raised. In nearly all cases so far, those who get the letters have stopped making the false claims or selling the scammy thing – whether cures from a product or earnings from a work-at-home scheme. Within 48 hours: no more lying to people, no more stealing people’s money. During a crisis like this, we’ve prioritized stopping as many bad actors as we can, as quickly as we can. And when a warning letter will do that, we’ll take that win. Most of the letters sent so far relate to the first scams out of the box: the treatments and cures – many of which we heard about from you. These treatments and cures were, of course, not at all what they claimed to be. The sellers peddled everything from teas and essential oils to IV or ozone “therapies,” stem cell treatments, and high doses of Vitamin C. All of these products have had one thing in common: There was no evidence – none – that they work against the Coronavirus. The warning letters are working in other areas, too. We’ve sent 13 letters to VoIP service providers and other companies, telling them we see how they’re helping illegal telemarketers or robocallers make calls related to COVID-19, and telling them to cut it out. And, just two weeks ago, we sent 10 letters to multi-level marketing (MLM) companies for making exaggerated earnings claims for their business opportunity selling fake Coronavirus treatments or cures from home. These companies hit the daily double: false income claims for their work-at-home program and unsubstantiated health claims for their products. But sometimes you need more firepower to get the desired result. It took a lawsuit to stop a company that, allegedly, pretended to be affiliated with the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program, fooling hundreds – if not thousands – of small businesses. And, last week, we filed suit against Whole Leaf Organics for allegedly claiming to treat not only the Coronavirus, but also cancer with CBD. Both cases are now pending. What we know about COVID-19 changes every week. And right now, the scammers are shifting their focus to the economic impact payments, among other things, to find new ways to get your money or information. But here are some things that remain true: Scammers are peddling cures and treatments with no proof they work. Remember: Right now, there is nothing that has been proven to prevent COVID-19. Anyone who tells you to pay them by gift card, money transfer, cash, or Bitcoin is a scammer. Period. And, if they say they’re from the government, they’re not. Never give your Social Security, bank account, or credit card number to anyone who contacts you. Again, not even if they say","id":3189429,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/05/fighting-coronavirus-scams-taking-stock","titre":"Fighting Coronavirus scams: Taking stock","pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 08:11:56 +0200"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/03/ftc-takes-unproven-health-claims-own-dorsements","titre":"FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements”","pubDate":"Wed, 30 Sep 2026 14:10:25 +0200","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements” lfair March 19, 2020 | 4:38PM FTC takes on unproven health claims and “own-dorsements” By Lesley Fair It’s a disturbing trend. Companies are targeting older consumers, claiming to have easy answers for serious diseases for which there may not be a proven cure. That’s one allegation in the FTC’s action against Nevada-based telemarketer Health Center, Inc.   Another count challenges what we call “own-dorsements.” According to Health Center’s telemarketing scripts, websites, social media, and testimonials from supposedly satisfied customers, the company’s Rejuvi-Cell oral spray and Rejuvi-Sea and Rejuvi-Stem pills could treat a broad range of medical conditions: everything from cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease to hepatitis, heart attacks, and high cholesterol. In promoting the products, which sold in packages priced between $350 and $800, the company checked the buzzword boxes with science-y sounding terms like homeopathic , adult stem cell enhancement , and marine phytoplankton . The company claimed that diseases like diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and dementia “could be greatly reduced if not eliminated” through the use of its products. According to the complaint , Health Center’s telemarketers – who were instructed to follow the scripts word-for-word – told consumers the main ingredient of Rejuvi-Sea “alkalizes your body . . . so you can’t grow cancer cells.” Then there were heartfelt testimonials from purported customers who described themselves as “walking on air” and “amazed and redeemed,” thanks to the products. But the FTC says the company hasn’t conducted any studies demonstrating the products cure or treat any diseases or health conditions and there are no human clinical studies in the scientific literature to that effect. What’s more, the lawsuit alleges that some of those glowing endorsements that appeared to come from satisfied customers across the country were actually “own-dorsements” – testimonials from Health Center’s own employees. To settle the case , the defendants have agreed to injunctive provisions, including a requirement that a broad range of health claims must have the support of randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled human clinical testing. Almost all of the $8.6 million judgment will be suspended, based on their financial condition. Aside from the obvious points that the FTC continues to take a close look at cures targeting older consumers and that companies shouldn’t palm off endorsements from employees as independent opinions, the case illustrates two other important principles. First, the defendants’ unlawful practices were the subject of an earlier enforcement action by the Iowa Attorney General. Companies shouldn’t have to be told once of the need to substantiate their health claims – and they certainly shouldn’t have to be told twice. Second, the complaint includes a count for violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule , which prohibits misrepresentations about “any material aspect of the performance, efficacy, nature, or central characteristics of goods or services that are the subject of a sales offer.” That’s yet another reason to keep your telemarketing efforts above board .","id":3187485},{"id":3176041,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission announced today that is considering whether to update its Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses or take other action to prevent online platforms from engaging in ad-optimization practices that may be furthering impersonation scams. In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published in the Federal Register , the FTC is seeking comment on the extent to which ad-optimization tools and services offered by social media, search engines and other digital marketplace platforms further efforts by scammers to impersonate legitimate businesses and government agencies using online ads.  “Free markets depend on trust, transparency and consumers’ ability to make informed choices. Impersonation scams—especially when amplified by digital platforms that profit from them—do more than rob Americans of their hard-earned money,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “They erode the very foundation that allows competitive markets to function. Today’s impersonation scams are no longer the work of isolated con artists; they are sophisticated, highly engineered operations powered by the same advertising and targeting tools that platforms sell to legitimate businesses. Consumers reported nearly $3.5 billion in losses to impersonation fraud last year, and the true cost is likely far higher. “The Commission’s mission has always been to safeguard the conditions under which competitive markets can thrive. Increasingly, consumers rely on a small number of dominant digital platforms for everyday transactions—from shopping, banking and travel bookings to accessing government services. Yet these platforms are the very places fraudsters seek out consumers, exploiting their trust while platforms profit from optimizing and disseminating scam ads. “Today’s advance notice of proposed rulemaking asks whether the Commission should require platforms to take concrete steps to prevent impersonation ads from ever reaching consumers. By exploring potential new obligations platforms would have to follow, the rulemaking aims to ensure that Americans participate in an online economy where truthful information guides consumer choice.”  Impersonation scams have topped the list of fraud complaints reported to the FTC by consumers in recent years. In 2025, the FTC received more than 1 million reports about imposter scams from consumers, who reported losing nearly $3.5 billion to such scams. In addition, online platforms play an important role in many scams. For example, nearly 30% of consumers who reported losing money to scammers in 2025 said they were first contacted on social media platforms, with reported losses reaching $2.1 billion. The ANPRM notes that impersonation scams have been amplified by search engines, social media and other digital marketplace platforms that profit from optimizing online ads for third parties, regardless of whether the third parties are legitimate. The ANPRM seeks comment on a wide range of topics related to the use of these ad-optimization tools and services and the proliferation of ads that impersonate businesses and government agencies including:  The financial incentives driving these platforms to offer ad-optimization tools and services, details on how each tool and service optimizes the content and delivery of the ad, and the steps platforms currently take to prevent the use of such tools and services for deceptive advertising The extent to which these platform ad-optimization tools and services constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices by furthering impersonation scams Whether these unfair or deceptive acts or practices are prevalent in the marketplace and whether the Commission should address these acts or practices by amending the existing Impersonation Rule, proposing a new separate rule or implementing non-regulatory Measures Measures the Commission could consider in crafting any new regulations, including vetting","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","pubDate":"Fri, 25 Sep 2026 08:10:48 +0200","titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Whether to Update Rule on Impersonation of Government and Businesses to Address Platforms’ Role in Promoting Impersonation Scams","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/09/ftc-seeks-public-comment-whether-update-rule-impersonation-government-businesses-address-platforms"},{"description":"Today, 22 states joined the Federal Trade Commission in filing suit against Amazon, alleging that the company engaged in deceptive and unfair practices that secretly inflated prices in its online search advertising auctions. The complaint   alleges that, for over seven years, Amazon has covertly and substantially increased the prices that more than one million brands and sellers were required to pay to advertise on its platform. As a result, the complaint alleges that Amazon’s scheme has likely extracted tens of billions of dollars from its unwitting advertising customers. “When one of the world’s largest online retailers engages in unfair and deceptive conduct, the impact can be staggering,” said Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “Amazon has millions of advertising customers who were misled into paying significantly higher prices. These higher costs were largely passed on to American consumers. The FTC under President Trump won’t allow this deception to continue.” The FTC, along with the attorneys general of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington, allege Amazon has imposed undisclosed surcharges on its advertising customers, which include over 500,000 small- and medium-sized businesses that participated in auctions for advertising placements on Amazon.com and its mobile app. In these auctions, prospective advertisers bid to place Sponsored Product ads, Sponsored Brands ads and Display Ads alongside the results that appear when a consumer searches for a product using a keyword on Amazon’s store. Placements are auctioned to the highest-ranked bidder for each keyword. As described in the complaint, Amazon has represented to prospective advertisers for years that Amazon runs “second price” auctions where the winner of the auction would only pay “one cent more than the next highest bidder” for each successful bid for an advertising keyword. However, in practice, the complaint alleges that Amazon has charged its Sponsored Products advertisers their own winning bid close to 80% of the time and has effectively converted its nominally “second price” auction into a first price auction. According to the complaint, Amazon’s “second price” auctions have been described by Amazon, and understood by advertisers, to be run as generalized second-price, or GSP auctions, which have been the accepted industry standard for digital advertising placements. The complaint states that Amazon has made these or similar representations on its website, in training videos and in other public-facing materials, as well as in presentations made to advertisers by its hundreds of sales personnel.  The type of auction matters to advertisers because it impacts how they bid. In a sealed first-price auction—the type of auction where winners pay the amount of their winning bid—bidders run the risk that they might overbid. So, in repetitive auctions for the same goods, they will often reduce their bid to determine what the minimum amount needed to win future auctions might be. This is called bid shading. In second-price auctions, bidders are more likely to bid higher, closer to their true value for the product, because they will only be liable to pay the least bid amount needed to win under the auction’s rules.  As alleged in the complaint, Amazon told advertisers it ran a GSP, but for years its auction pricing had “a surcharge hidden in it,” in the words of one internal Amazon document. The complaint alleges that, beginning in 2019, Amazon changed its auction rules without notice by adding an undisclosed surcharge that Amazon referred to internally as a “soft reserve price.” This resulted in advertisers paying substantially more than the price determined by the GSP auction.  According to the complaint, Amazon","id":3127461,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-states-sue-amazon-over-secret-ad-surcharge-scheme","titre":"FTC, States Sue Amazon Over Secret Ad Surcharge Scheme","pubDate":"Tue, 01 Sep 2026 08:10:10 +0200"},{"description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized orders requiring Cox Media Group (CMG) and two other firms to pay a total of $930,000 to settle allegations they deceived customers by falsely claiming to offer an AI-powered service that could target localized ads based on conversations captured from consumers’ smart devices and that consumers had opted into such targeting. In three separate complaints first announced in May , the FTC alleged that Georgia-based media and marketing company CMG Media Corporation, which does business as  Cox Media Group , and two marketing firms it worked with, New Hampshire-based MindSift LLC  and Wisconsin-based  1010 Digital Works LLC ,  deceived customers by claiming they used a special algorithm to listen in on and detect pertinent conversations from smart devices in order to target ads to consumers within a specific geographic region. Contrary to these companies’ claims, however, the marketing service wasn’t based on voice data, and consumers hadn’t opted into this service. If the service had functioned as advertised, this collection and use of consumers’ voice data without adequate consent would itself violate the FTC Act. Under the proposed orders settling the FTC’s allegations,  CMG must pay $880,000 while both  MindSift and  1010 Digital Works  must each pay $25,000, which will be used to provide redress to CMG customers impacted by these practices. In addition, each defendant is prohibited from making any misrepresentation about the qualities or features of its advertising or marketing services; the collection and use of voice data and whether consumers have provided their consent to collect, use or disclose their voice data; and the geographic targeting capabilities of its advertising or marketing services. After receiving two comments on the proposed settlement orders, the Commission voted 2-0 to give final approval to the consent","id":3120376,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-finalizes-orders-cox-media-group-two-other-firms-settling-charges-they-deceived-customers-about","titre":"FTC Finalizes Orders with Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms Settling Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service","pubDate":"Fri, 28 Aug 2026 08:07:59 +0200"},{"description":"<p>This paper reports on an experiment which connects document design with document theory. Document design is about what documents should do. We use the example of document graphs and of Cosma, a visualization program created during the HyperOtlet research programme, to show how theory can inform design decisions and help conceptualize results. This paper is currently under peer review.</p> <hr/> <section id=\"document-design-or-information-design\" class=\"level1\"> <h1>Document design or information design?</h1> <p><span class=\"citation\" data-cites=\"findeli2015\">Findeli (2015)</span> defines design as diagnostic and prescriptive, an example of “projective” epistemology: designers view the world as a project to realize, rather than an object to know. This definition of design implies that document design is less about what documents <em>are</em> and more about what they <em>should do</em>. This aligns with the evolution of document theory from an ontic view of documents to a functional one, which was pioneered by the European documentation movement in the first half of the twentieth century and reintroduced as “neo-documentation” in the literature during the 1990s.</p> <p>Currently in the literature, document design is mostly considered to be a part of information design.<a href=\"#fn1\" class=\"footnote-ref\" id=\"fnref1\" role=\"doc-noteref\"><sup>1</sup></a> The purpose of information design is to create effective communications <span class=\"citation\" data-cites=\"renkema2006 pettersson2002\">(Renkema 2006 ; see also Pettersson 2002)</span>. Document design is usually taught within communications programs ; in the US, in either English or fine arts departments <span class=\"citation\" data-cites=\"schriver1997\">(Schriver 1997, p. 92‑93)</span> ; in France, in Information and Communication Science departments.</p> <p>Research on information design has very few connections with documentation. It has been criticized for its lack of theory: <span class=\"citation\" data-cites=\"carliner2006\">Carliner (2006, p. 10–14)</span> warned about the field’s tendency to generalize findings despite shaky conceptual foundations and a limited understanding of topics such as the World Wide Web.<a href=\"#fn2\" class=\"footnote-ref\" id=\"fnref2\" role=\"doc-noteref\"><sup>2</sup></a> We believe document theory can help address some of these challenges and bring perspective to information design.</p> <p><span class=\"citation\" data-cites=\"zacklad2019a\">Zacklad (2019)</span> gives us an example of this. He draws from document theory to define information design as the interplay between textualization (creating content information), documentarization (shaping the medium) and auctorialization (creating author identities). Zacklad puts documentarization at the heart of information design (see fig. <a href=\"#fig:zacklad2019\">1</a>). Documentarization can be internal (the organization of fragments into documents) or external (the relational organization of documents, e.g. classification); it can involve different roles or positions (author, editor, printer/programmer, distributor, reader); it implies significant differences between designing the systems that involve documents (“system-oriented design”) and designing the documents themselves (“author design”).</p> <figure id=\"fig:zacklad2019\"> <img src=\"https://www.arthurperret.fr/img/2023-docam-zacklad2019.png\" class=\"fullwidth\" alt=\"Information design according to","id":3047509,"source":"Blog d'Arthur Perret","url":"https://www.arthurperret.fr/blog/2023-11-01-document-theory-and-document-design.html","titre":"[Article] Document theory and document design","pubDate":"Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:17:34 +0200"},{"pubDate":"Fri, 03 Jul 2026 08:06:27 +0200","titre":"FTC Approves Final Order Against Publishing.com, Settling Allegations It Misled Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/ftc-approves-final-order-against-publishingcom-settling-allegations-it-misled-consumers","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":3004264,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized an order with Publishing.com LLC and its two principals, settling allegations that they misled consumers about how much money consumers were likely to earn using their self-publishing products. Under the order finalized by the Commission, Publishing.com and its principals, CEO Christian Mikkelsen and Chief Product Officer Rasmus Mikkelsen, will pay $1.5 million and be required to substantiate earnings claims in the future. In a complaint first announced in April 2026, the FTC alleged that Publishing.com claimed its programs and services would help consumers earn substantial income publishing e-books and audiobooks online. The FTC further alleged that Christian and Rasmus Mikkelsen claimed that they personally used this system to obtain significant wealth through online self-publishing. The FTC alleged, however, that most consumers who bought Publishing.com’s products and services never made the income the company promised in its advertising. Consumers who sought refunds discovered that Publishing.com imposed many additional conditions, which were often buried in fine print or the company’s lengthy terms of service, that made it difficult or impossible for consumers to get their money back. The FTC’s complaint further alleged that the company failed to disclose when reviews were written by company employees or other interested people, including relatives of the Mikkelsens, and that the company offered incentives to people for providing positive testimonials. The final order approved by the Commission prohibits Publishing.com and the Mikkelsens from: Making earnings claims unless they are not misleading and they have a reasonable basis to support them; Making the specific misrepresentations detailed in the complaint, as well as misrepresentations concerning material facts in the sale of any product or service; Failing to disclose terms and conditions of any cancellation or refund policy or failing to promptly honor a consumer’s cancellation or refund request in accordance with company policies; and Making misrepresentations regarding endorsements and reviews. The final order also requires the company and the Mikkelsens to disclose any unexpected material connections with endorsers or reviewers and any payments or other incentives for posting reviews. The Commission voted 2-0 to finalize the order and sent responses to the five"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-requires-amazon-pay-225-million-resolve-charges-it-knowingly-violated-fair-credit-reporting-act","titre":"FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act","pubDate":"Wed, 01 Jul 2026 08:09:43 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"Amazon will pay $2.25 million in civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the online retail giant knowingly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by refusing to provide transaction records to consumers whose personal information was used by identity thieves to commit fraud. The complaint , filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, alleged that in numerous instances, Amazon.com Inc. failed to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to, within 30 days of a consumer’s request, provide victims of identity theft with application and business transaction records about fraudulent transactions made in their names. According to the complaint, Amazon had no written policy to respond to Section 609(e) requests until early 2025, after it learned of the FTC’s investigation, despite prior outreach from FTC staff advising the company to review its compliance with Section 609(e). “Amazon often put identity theft victims through a Kafkaesque ordeal by demanding they identify the thief who stole their information before Amazon would release the records the law entitles them to—records that could help victims protect themselves and recover from the fraudulent conduct,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will not allow companies to simply ignore their legal obligations, especially those designed to support and protect identity theft victims.” Many consumers who contacted Amazon to report fraud were told by its customer service agents that they could not provide the requested records for “security” or “privacy” reasons, the complaint alleged. For example, one consumer reported that when they contacted Amazon seeking business records related to unauthorized charges stemming from a fraudulent account, a company representative said they could not share details about the other account that had used the consumer’s credit card for “security reasons” unless the consumer guessed the name on the account (the name used by the identity thief), which the consumer was unable to do after making 30 attempts. The complaint alleged that in other instances, Amazon agents told consumers they were not able to access the requested records. Amazon even refused to provide application and business transaction records to law enforcement agencies who had been authorized to, and who did, submit requests to Amazon on behalf of consumers who were victims of identity theft. Some frustrated consumers resorted to sending copies of the FCRA and FTC guidance to Amazon in hopes of receiving the requested records, but Amazon still failed to comply with the law. The complaint also alleged that in some cases where Amazon ultimately provided requested records, it failed to respond to consumers within the 30-day timeframe required by the FCRA. In addition to the $2.25 million civil penalty—a record for a Section 609(e) violation—the proposed order will prohibit Amazon from failing to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, requiring the company to provide the records lawfully requested by identity theft victims and law enforcement agencies acting on their behalf. The order also requires Amazon to provide notice to consumers about how identity theft victims can request records under the FCRA. The company must also contact consumers who had requested records since April 2024 from Amazon but did not receive them to inform these consumers that it may have additional records and that the consumers may request those records from Amazon. This is the second case the FTC has brought using its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA. The FTC announced its first case involving a violation of Section 609(e) of the FCRA in 2020 against Kohl’s Department Stores Inc . The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the DOJ and to approve the proposed stipulated order. The DOJ filed the complaint and final","id":2997627},{"titre":"FTC Data Show People Reported Losing $3.5 Billion to Imposter Scams in 2025","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-data-show-people-reported-losing-3-point-5-billion-imposter-scams-2025","pubDate":"Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:09:40 +0200","description":"New data from the Federal Trade Commission reveal that people reported losing a staggering $3.5 billion to imposter scams in 2025, with reported losses increasing nearly three times since 2020. FTC data also show that people reported imposter scams more than any other fraud category in 2025—nearly one in three fraud reports were about imposter scams. These scams lured consumers through text, phone, email, social media, search engine results and other means. Some of the costliest impersonation scams start with a fake security alert, often from a bank. People are convinced to move money to “protect” it, with their losses often limited only by their available funds. Last year, people reported losing nearly $1 billion to business impersonators with the highest reported losses to bank impersonators—and about $920 million to government impersonators, up from $866 million and $789 million respectively in 2024. The FTC has seen a striking increase in reported fraud losses to all types of fraud—about $16 billion was reported lost in 2025, the highest on record and an increase of about 25% compared to the 2024 figure. “Consumers derive enormous benefits from competitive markets built on truthful information. But fraud undermines that foundation, impeding the market process and preventing markets from operating efficiently,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will use every tool available to combat one of the most pernicious forms of fraud—government and business impersonation—and to protect the integrity of the digital economy.” The data underscore the importance of the FTC’s work with the  Elder Justice Coordinating Council (EJCC) , which is working to help raise awareness of imposter scams and other scams impacting older adults as well as other consumers. This year, the FTC, along with the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services and members of the EJCC, is leading the Never Ever campaign, a public-private coordinated consumer education effort to raise awareness of government and business imposter scams. In addition to the federal agency members of the EJCC , the campaign also includes private sector representatives such as the American Bankers Association, USTelecom, Google and Microsoft. To help the public spot imposter scams, EJCC members launched the Never Ever campaign, which is aimed at promoting messaging on the key actions that government and businesses will Never Ever take. The Never Ever campaign will run from June 15 to June 26, in conjunction with World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. This first-of-its-kind public-private partnership includes participants from a wide range of organizations and is aimed at directing consumers to a website that includes information and resources to help them avoid imposter scams and what to do if they spot one. Enforcement Actions To help combat impersonation scams, the FTC in 2024 finalized the Impersonation Rule. The Rule gives the agency stronger tools to combat and deter scammers who impersonate government agencies and businesses, enabling the FTC to file federal court cases seeking to get money back to injured consumers and civil penalties against rule violators. Since then, the FTC has vigorously enforced the rule and brought a dozen enforcement actions that have resulted in halting imposter schemes and obtained over $70 million in redress for consumers. In 2025, the FTC brought law enforcement actions under the Impersonation Rule against:  American Tax Service (IRS imposter scheme);  MediaAlpha (government imposter scheme to sell health insurance);  Click Profit (business imposter money making scam);  Blackstone Legal (phantom debt business imposter scheme) and  Accelerated Debt Settlement (government and business imposter scheme that targeted older adults for debt relief). More recently, the  FTC filed a complaint against Innovative Partners in April 2026 , alleging the operators","id":2959787,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-begins-enforcing-take-it-down-act","titre":"FTC Begins Enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act","pubDate":"Wed, 20 May 2026 08:10:24 +0200","description":"The Federal Trade Commission today began enforcing the TAKE IT DOWN Act (TIDA), a law requiring platforms, at the request of victims, to remove intimate photos or videos shared online without victims’ consent. As part of its enforcement role, the FTC has launched TakeItDown.ftc.gov , a website allowing victims and survivors to submit complaints about platforms that have failed to act on valid requests for the removal of nonconsensual intimate images. The website also accepts complaints about platforms that have failed to create a process for people to request removal of these images. “Thanks to First Lady Melania Trump’s dedication, the public, especially children, will have recourse against digital exploitation and extortion,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “In the age of AI, anyone can be targeted, and that becomes even more appalling if children are involved. The TAKE IT DOWN Act empowers families and provides the FTC with an effective tool to protect minors against this form of abuse.” The FTC enforces Section 3 of the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which set a May 19, 2026, deadline for covered platforms to give people a way to request the removal of intimate photos or videos shared online without their consent and to remove those intimate images, and known identical copies, within 48 hours of a valid request. The FTC has published new guidance to help consumers in the event that nonconsensual intimate images of them are posted online. The FTC also issued  guidance for businesses about how to ensure they are complying with the law. Underscoring the FTC’s commitment, Chairman Ferguson  sent letters last week to major platforms—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X—reminding them of businesses’ obligation to comply fully with TIDA no later than May 19,","id":2893630,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"pubDate":"Tue, 28 Apr 2026 10:47:09 +0200","titre":"Read more","url":"https://www.thecybersecurityrevieweurope.com/news/key-drivers-behind-the-rising-demand-for-virtual-cisos--nwid-1282.html","id":2852311,"description":"Key Drivers Behind the Rising Demand for Virtual CISOs Wednesday, April 22,2026 Businesses are navigating the challenges of a digital-first environment, which is driving an increased demand for expert-driven cybersecurity solutions. The virtual chief information security officer (vCISO) has become essential for organizations seeking to enhance their cybersecurity resilience while managing costs effectively. Effective security leadership is more crucial than ever, particularly in light of the evolving threat landscape, which includes ransomware attacks and data breaches. Addressing Cybersecurity Challenges Organizations face a significant escalation in cyberattacks as hackers continually evolve their tactics. This dynamic landscape makes it challenging for businesses to maintain effective defenses. A vCISO plays a pivotal role by providing specialized guidance in threat intelligence, risk management, and incident response. By working with a vCISO, companies can proactively identify vulnerabilities and implement comprehensive security frameworks tailored to their needs. This partnership empowers organizations to build stronger defenses against the rising tide of cyber threats. Compliance with various regulations remains a formidable hurdle for many businesses. Non-compliance can incur severe penalties and damage reputations, prompting the need for expert oversight. A vCISO helps organizations navigate complex regulatory landscapes and ensures ongoing assessments and strategic roadmaps to meet compliance needs. By implementing best practices aligned with the latest standards, businesses can mitigate risks and enhance their security posture. A Cost-Effective Solution for Security Leadership Hiring a full-time chief information security officer can be a significant financial burden, especially for small and mid-sized businesses (SMBs) with limited resources. A vCISO offers a cost-effective alternative, providing high-level security expertise without the expenses associated with a permanent hire. Organizations can customize vCISO services, enabling them to pay only for the cybersecurity guidance they require, thus allowing for more efficient allocation of resources. The digital transformation driven by adopting technologies like cloud computing, remote work, and the Internet of Things has further amplified the need for vCISOs. These advancements expand attack surfaces, making traditional security approaches insufficient. A vCISO aids organizations in implementing modern cybersecurity frameworks, ensuring robust data protection across various environments, including cloud services and remote workforces. Additionally, the ongoing shortage of cybersecurity professionals enhances the appeal of vCISOs. Many companies struggle to find and retain in-house talent, but a vCISO can provide immediate access to seasoned security experts with extensive industry knowledge. This accessibility allows businesses to improve their security strategy without the delays associated with lengthy hiring processes. The flexibility and scalability offered by vCISO services make them suitable for organizations of all sizes. Whether a startup outlines its initial cybersecurity strategy or an established firm seeks ongoing risk assessments, vCISOs can deliver tailored security solutions that effectively address specific business objectives.","source":"The Cybersecurity Review Europe"},{"id":2829942,"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","source":"EDPB News","pubDate":"Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:15:11 +0200","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","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2026/edpb-brings-clarity-data-processing-scientific-research-speeds-finalisation_en"},{"id":2818173,"description":"StubHub, the nation’s largest ticket exchange and resale ticket provider, will pay $10 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company violated the FTC Act and the agency’s Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees by deceptively advertising ticket prices on its website without clearly and conspicuously disclosing up-front how much consumers actually would pay, including all mandatory fees. “The Commission’s Fees Rule makes it very clear that the total price of live-event tickets must be disclosed up-front to enable consumers to make fully informed purchasing decisions,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Price transparency is essential to a free and competitive marketplace. Today’s settlement underscores the Commission’s commitment to ensuring that consumers pay the price they are promised.” The FTC’s action against StubHub Holdings, Inc., follows a  warning letter the agency sent the online ticket platform in May 2025 stating that multiple prices displayed on its website appeared to be in violation of the Fees Rule. Under the Rule, which took effect on May 12, 2025 , it is an unfair and deceptive practice for any business to offer, display, or advertise the price of a live-event ticket without clearly, conspicuously, and most prominently disclosing the total price, which the Rule defines as “the maximum total of all fees or charges a consumer must pay for any good(s) or service(s) and any mandatory ancillary good or service.” Misrepresenting prices also violates the FTC Act. Today’s action also follows the Administration’s recent Executive Order on Ticketing , which includes a directive for the FTC to “take appropriate action . . . to ensure price transparency at all stages of the ticket-purchase process, including the secondary ticketing market.” According to the Commission’s complaint , in mid-May 2025—after the Rule went into effect—StubHub advertised its ticket prices without disclosing the full price consumers would actually pay by failing to include mandatory fees and to disclose the total price everywhere it displayed prices. Specifically, the FTC alleges StubHub failed to provide the total price for tickets—including high-demand National Football League tickets in the lead-up to when the NFL schedule was announced on May 14, 2025—in the first three pricing displays on its website. On the initial two pricing displays, in numerous instances, the advertised price did not include all mandatory fees, and StubHub did not disclose the total price. On the third pricing display, StubHub listed multiple fees and charges but did not disclose the total price. The proposed order settling StubHub’s alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Fees Rule requires the company to pay $10 million, which the company will use to provide monetary relief to eligible consumers through a settlement and consumer redress distribution program. The order also prohibits StubHub from misrepresenting the total price of any good or service; any fee or charge, including its nature, purpose, amount, or refundability, as well as why the fee or charge is being imposed; the final payment amount for any transaction; and any other material fact including those related to refunds or cancellations. The proposed order also prohibits StubHub from: Offering, displaying, or advertising any price of a good or service without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the total price; Failing to disclose the total price more prominently than any other pricing information; Failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the amount of any fees or charges that have been excluded from the total price and what they are for, as well as the final payment amount—before the consumer agrees to pay for a product or service; and Violating the Commission’s Fees Rule. Within 90 days of the date of the order StubHub must provide redress to two groups of eligible","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","pubDate":"Fri, 10 Apr 2026 08:08:44 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/stubhub-refunding-10-million-fees-consumers-after-deceptive-ticket-pricing","titre":"StubHub Refunding $10 Million in Fees to Consumers After Deceptive Ticket Pricing"},{"source":"BEREC Office","id":2793006,"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","pubDate":"Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:33:01 +0200","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","titre":"BEREC Provides Early Assessment of the Digital Networks Act, Welcoming Ambition While Highlighting Areas for Improvement"},{"url":"https://www.berec.europa.eu/en/public-consultations-calls-for-inputs/public-consultation-on-the-draft-berec-report-on-virtual-worlds-and-web-40","titre":"Public consultation on the draft BEREC Report on Virtual Worlds and Web 4.0","pubDate":"Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:32:59 +0200","description":"Public consultation on the draft BEREC Report on Virtual Worlds and Web 4.0 yannick.stephan Tue, 17/03/2026 - 09:26 Breadcrumbs Public Consultations & Calls for Inputs Deadline: Monday, 20 April 2026 (17:00 CEST) During the 66th BEREC plenary meeting (12-13 March 2026), the Board of Regulators approved the Draft BEREC Report on Virtual Worlds and Web 4.0 (BoR (26) 39) for public consultation. The report in a nutshell Virtual worlds (VW) and web 4.0 are at the basis of a transition to the 4th generation of internet based services, leading toward industry 4.0 and smart society. This shift is driven by artificial intelligence (AI) integration in networks and services. Hence, web 4.0 and immersive services are meant to have a significant economic and social impact by transforming the way in which industrial production evolves and automates its processes. At the same time, they transform the fruition of online content and applications by users. This draft BEREC Report provides a fully-fledged analysis. The first part of the draft Report dives into the connectivity developments as well as the transition to network-as-a-service (NaaS). It also provides examples of use cases cutting across industrial and societal applications. The second part deals with challenges posed to electronic communications networks/services (ECN/S) operators related either to the investment lines or to business models and market positioning. In such a scenario, focus is dedicated also to regulatory challenges, for instance the need to guarantee openness and interoperability and to foster investment. The Report builds on previous BEREC work, including the high-level position on artificial intelligence and virtual worlds provided as a contribution to the call for inputs on competition in generative AI and VW issued in 2024 by the European Commission (EC). The report is framed in the following 5 chapters and Conclusion: Introduction Chapter by providing a definition for VW, based on its key characteristics; Chapter 2 provides some concrete examples of use cases; Chapter 3 describes the connectivity challenges faced to enable VW and the network upgrades; Chapter 4 assesses the potential role of electronic communication providers in the provision of VW/Web 4.0 services, as well as any possible future profit streams and incentives; Chapter 5 examines the potential electronic communications regulatory challenges that may arise. Submit your contributions Interested parties are kindly asked to send their contributions via email to berec_virtualworld_pc@distro.berec.europa.eu no later than 20 April 2026 (17:00 CEST). Contributions should preferably be sent in English. To facilitate processing of the responses, the comments provided should clearly refer to the certain chapters/paragraphs of the document. After submitting the contribution, you will receive an acknowledgement email. In case you do not receive it, please contact the BEREC Office via the same email. All stakeholders are strongly encouraged to submit their contributions as early as possible – those received after the above-mentioned deadline will not be taken into account. In accordance with the BEREC policy on public consultations , BEREC will publish all contributions and a summary of the contributions, respecting confidentiality requests. Any such request should clearly indicate information that is considered confidential and should be accompanied by a non-confidential version. Privacy statement type Privacy Statement for Public Consultation Category Name Ongoing Public Consultations and Calls for Inputs Notify subscribers","id":2792998,"source":"BEREC Office"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2679350,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission is returning nearly $23 million to consumers nationwide who bought deceptively marketed overseas real estate lots in what the sellers pitched as Sanctuary Belize, a supposed luxury development in southern, coastal Belize, as well as its nearby sister development, Kanantik. The FTC is mailing 1,659 checks to defrauded investors. The average amount of each check for Sanctuary Belize consumers is $16,462 and the average amount of each check for Kanantik consumers is $6,346.39. Today’s announcement represents the second mailing to consumers who invested in the Sanctuary Belize scheme, with approximately  $10 million distributed previously . The first round of checks was sent only to consumers who bought property within Sanctuary Belize. Today’s checks are going to both Sanctuary Belize investors, as well as consumers who invested in Kanantik, a related development owned and operated by some of the Sanctuary Belize defendants, and other areas covered by the court relief in this case. In November 2018, the FTC filed a complaint charging that Andris Pukke, a prior FTC defendant, and several other corporate and individual defendants deceived consumers who invested in Sanctuary Belize by promising they were investing in a luxury development and resort. The defendants, however, failed to deliver on the promised amenities, and consumers who invested in Sanctuary property lost money and could not resell their lots. Following a trial in 2020, a federal court found that the defendants, who took in more than $100 million, duped consumers into buying Sanctuary Belize lots by falsely claiming it would be a safe investment, that the development would include luxury amenities and be completed soon, and that consumers could resell their lots. The defendants appealed,  but the Court of Appeals confirmed the deceptive scheme and the monetary judgment against Pukke and his associates, Peter Baker and John Usher. The District Court  ordered the receiver to send an initial round of payments , with the money coming from previous settlements. As part of a second round of payments, the Commission is sending a total of $22,865,008.34 to consumers. Checks totaling $20,028,170.25 are being sent to 1,202 claim applicants who invested in properties within Sanctuary Belize, and checks totaling $2,836,838.09 are being sent to 447 claim applicants who invested in properties in the Kanantik and other covered development areas. Consumers who receive checks in this second distribution should cash them within 60 days, as indicated on the check. Consumers with questions about their payments should email the redress administrator, Rust Consulting, which is being supported by Ankura Consulting Group, LLC, at Payment@SanctuaryBelizeRedress.com . Consumers with other questions about the Sanctuary Belize receivership can contact  info@sanctuarybelizereceivership.com . The application process for requesting a payment is closed, and the receiver is no longer accepting applications from consumers. Consumers can also visit the receivership website at  www.SanctuaryBelizeReceivership.com to find other resources such as","pubDate":"Fri, 06 Feb 2026 09:48:14 +0100","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-sending-nearly-23-million-consumers-who-invested-deceptive-sanctuary-belize-kanantik-real-estate","titre":"FTC is Sending Nearly $23 Million to Consumers Who Invested in the Deceptive Sanctuary Belize and Kanantik Real Estate Development Schemes"},{"titre":"FTC Secures Settlement Banning Growth Cave Defendants from Marketing and Selling Business Opportunities and Credit Repair Programs","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-secures-settlement-banning-growth-cave-defendants-marketing-selling-business-opportunities","pubDate":"Wed, 28 Jan 2026 09:50:38 +0100","description":"Defendants behind a wide-ranging operation known as Growth Cave, including its co-CEOs, are permanently banned from marketing and selling business opportunities and credit repair programs as part of an FTC settlement to resolve allegations that their scheme cost consumers nearly $50 million. As part of that settlement, Growth Cave’s co-CEOs also will be required to liquidate millions of dollars’ worth of assets, including a multimillion-dollar house, to provide consumer redress. “On day one, the Trump-Vance FTC reprioritized combatting fraud that harms American markets. Today’s successful resolution demonstrates that the Commission is focused on protecting our markets from dishonest actors,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. The FTC  sued Growth Cave  in February 2025, alleging that consumers were deceived by false promises of significant income. Growth Cave allegedly offered numerous business opportunities, which regularly failed to deliver the promised results while costing consumers thousands of dollars. The amended complaint also alleges that consumers had trouble reaching Growth Cave employees and obtaining customer support. Named as defendants in the lawsuit were Growth Cave’s co-CEOs Lucas Lee-Tyson and Osmany Batte, Operations Manager Jordan Marksberry, related Growth Cave entities, and relief defendant Friendly Solar. The FTC previously approved, and the court entered, a stipulated order settling its charges against Marksberry late last August. That order bans Marksberry from: marketing or selling business opportunities, engaging in credit repair activities, and making misleading earning claims or assisting others in doing the same. Finally, the order includes a judgment of $48,597,538 against him, which has been partially suspended upon his payment of $35,000 to the Commission. The court orders announced today settle the FTC’s charges against all remaining defendants in this case. The first order (the LLT order) binds Lee-Tyson, individually and as an officer and/or owner of Growth Cave, LLC and LLT Research LLC. The second order (the Batte order)   binds Apex Mind, LLC; Osmany Batte, individually and as an officer of Growth Cave, LLC and Apex Mind, LLC; and relief defendant Friendly Solar, Inc. Both orders announced today contain similar conduct provisions, banning the defendants from selling and marketing—or assisting others in selling or marketing—business opportunities and from engaging in credit repair activities. They also prohibit the defendants from making misleading representations related to earnings claims, testimonials, and the use of artificial intelligence. The orders also impose judgments of $48,597,538 against the defendants, which will be partially suspended based on their inability to pay. The LLT order requires Lee-Tyson to sell a range of assets, including his multimillion-dollar house, and liquidate his investment and bank accounts. The proceeds of these transactions will be transferred to the Commission and will be used for consumer redress. The Batte order requires Batte to liquidate several assets including a Rolls-Royce and a Ferrari. Relief defendant Friendly Solar is required to transfer $43,000 to the Commission for its part in profiting from the defendants’ illegal conduct. The Commission vote approving the August stipulated order with defendant Marksberry was 3-0, and the vote approving the orders announced today against the remaining defendants was 2-0. The proposed orders were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The staff attorneys on this matter are Maris Snell and Adrienne Jenkins of the FTC’s East Central Region and Miles Freeman of the FTC’s Western Region Los","id":2659689,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2633494,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission finalized an order with General Motors and OnStar settling allegations that they collected, used, and sold consumers’ precise geolocation data and driving behavior data from millions of vehicles without adequately notifying consumers and obtaining their affirmative consent. Under the order finalized by the Commission, General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC, and OnStar, LLC (collectively GM), which are owned by General Motors Company, are prohibited from sharing certain consumer data with consumer reporting agencies. They also are required to take steps to provide greater transparency and choice to consumers over the collection, use, and disclosure of their connected vehicle data. In a complaint first announced in January 2025, the FTC alleged that GM used a misleading enrollment process to get consumers to sign up for its OnStar connected vehicle service and OnStar Smart Driver feature. The FTC also alleged that GM failed to clearly disclose that it collected consumers’ precise geolocation and driving behavior data via the Smart Driver feature and sold it to third parties without consumers’ consent. The final order approved by the Commission imposes a five-year ban on GM disclosing consumers’ geolocation and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies. This fencing-in relief is appropriate given GM’s egregious betrayal of consumers’ trust. And for the entire 20-year life of the order, GM will be required to: obtain affirmative express consent from consumers prior to collecting, using, or sharing connected vehicle data (including sharing data with consumer reporting agencies), with some exceptions such as for providing location data to emergency first responders; create a way for all U.S. consumers to request a copy of their data and seek its deletion; give consumers the ability to disable the collection of precise geolocation data from their vehicles if their vehicle has the necessary technology; and provide a way for consumers to opt out of the collection of geolocation and driver behavior data, with some limited exceptions. The Commission voted 2-0 to approve the final order and complaint as well as provide responses to","pubDate":"Thu, 15 Jan 2026 09:52:25 +0100","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/01/ftc-finalizes-order-settling-allegations-gm-onstar-collected-sold-geolocation-data-without-consumers","titre":"FTC Finalizes Order Settling Allegations that GM and OnStar Collected and Sold Geolocation Data Without Consumers’ Informed Consent"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","description":"7-Eleven, Inc. and its parent company, Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd., (collectively 7-Eleven) will pay $4.5 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit alleging that the convenience store chain violated a 2018 FTC consent order by acquiring a fuel outlet in St. Petersburg, Fla. without providing the Commission prior notice. The $4.5 million penalty marks the largest civil penalty ever collected in an FTC case involving a prior-notice violation. It is also the largest negotiated settlement of any order violation in the FTC Bureau of Competition’s history. “Under the Trump-Vance FTC, merger remedies that protect competition are once again on the table. But for merger remedies to work, firms must abide by the terms of their consent orders, and we will hold parties accountable when they don’t live up to their commitments,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “7-Eleven failed to fulfill the terms of the FTC’s consent order and is now paying a record price. The FTC will not hesitate to protect the public by actively enforcing order violations and seeking penalties against future violators.” The settlement resolves an FTC lawsuit filed in 2023. That suit arose from a 2018 consent order to resolve the FTC’s antitrust claims that 7-Eleven’s $3.3 billion acquisition of 1,100 retail fuel outlets from Sunoco would harm competition and raise fuel prices for consumers in 76 local markets. In the consent order, 7-Eleven agreed to divest certain fuel outlets and to provide prior notice to the FTC before making future acquisitions of competing fuel outlets in the local markets. This prior notice allowed the FTC to investigate—and, if needed, file an enforcement action—if additional acquisitions by 7-Eleven harmed consumers in these local markets. The consent order specifically listed the St. Petersburg outlet as one that 7-Eleven could not acquire without providing the FTC with prior notice. According to the FTC’s complaint, 7-Eleven acquired the St. Petersburg fuel outlet in December 2018, in violation of the consent order. On March 25, 2022—over three years after 7-Eleven acquired the St. Petersburg outlet—7-Eleven first informed the Commission it had acquired the St. Petersburg outlet. The FTC found that 7-Eleven’s internal controls for ensuring compliance with the consent order were wholly inadequate and that the company failed to implement any meaningful systems to ensure compliance with the Commission order. In addition to the $4.5 million in civil penalties, 7-Eleven was required to divest the St. Petersburg outlet to a strong buyer. 7-Eleven also agreed to commit to additional prior approval and prior notice requirements, which will help ensure that the Commission is made aware of any attempts by 7-Eleven to further consolidate in the local fuel markets addressed in the FTC’s order.  The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the stipulated final judgment and order for permanent injunction and civil penalty was","id":2559842,"titre":"7-Eleven to Pay Record $4.5 Million Penalty to Settle FTC Antitrust Order Violation Case","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/7-eleven-pay-record-45-million-penalty-settle-ftc-antitrust-order-violation-case","pubDate":"Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:50:02 +0100"},{"titre":"DMA and GDPR: EDPB and European Commission endorse joint guidelines to clarify common touchpoints","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/dma-and-gdpr-edpb-and-european-commission-endorse-joint-guidelines-clarify-common_en","pubDate":"Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:53:21 +0200","source":"EDPB News","description":"Brussels, 09 October - The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Commission endorsed joint guidelines on the interplay between the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) . These are the first joint guidelines by the Board and the European Commission. In line with its 2024-2027 Strategy and the recent Helsinki Statement’s objectives to make GDPR compliance easier and strengthen consistency, the EDPB has cooperated with the European Commission, each within their respective mandates, to facilitate the coherent application of the DMA*and GDPR and to increase legal certainty for gatekeepers, business users, beneficiaries and individuals. EDPB Chair Anu Talus said:   “These joint guidelines are the result of a fruitful cooperation between the EDPB and the European Commission. This is the first time that the EDPB and the European Commission prepare guidelines jointly. This approach maximises usefulness of the guidance by simplifying compliance for businesses and bringing enhanced legal certainty to them.  The guidelines will help gatekeepers, business users and individuals to better understand their obligations and rights under the DMA, and ensure a consistent, effective and complementary application of the DMA and EU data protection law.” How the DMA and the GDPR interact The DMA and the GDPR both protect individuals in the digital landscape , but their goals are complementary as they address interconnected challenges: individual rights and privacy in case of the GDPR and fairness and contestability of digital markets under the DMA.    Several activities regulated by the DMA entail the processing of personal data by gatekeepers and, in several provisions, the DMA explicitly refers to definitions and concepts included in the GDPR. The joint guidelines clarify how gatekeepers can implement these DMA provisions in accordance with EU data protection law . For example, the EDPB and the Commission specify which elements gatekeepers should consider in order to comply with the requirements of specific choice and valid consent under Art. 5(2) DMA and the GDPR, and thus to lawfully combine or cross-use personal data in core platform services. The EDPB and the Commission also address other provisions including those related to the distribution of third party apps and stores, data portability, data access requests and interoperability of messaging services.   Next steps The Board and the Commission have just launched a joint public consultation on the first version of the guidelines which will be open until 4 December 2025 .  This will be an opportunity for stakeholders to comment and provide feedback. All submissions will be published on the DMA website to which a link will be included on the EDPB website, after the consultation period has closed. The final text, incorporating input received during the consultation, will be prepared jointly by the Board and the Commission, and will be adopted by the EDPB and European Commission.   More guidelines on the way Following these first joint guidelines with the Commission, further work is underway to clarify the new cross-regulatory landscape and maintain coherent and consistent safeguards for the protection of personal data. In this regard, the EDPB is working with the Commission, specifically with the AI Office, on joint guidelines on the interplay between the AI Act and EU data protection laws. Note to editors: The Digital Markets Act is one of the first regulatory tools that aims to tackle unfair practices of gatekeepers in digital markets. Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing core platform services, such as online search engines, app stores, and messenger services. The main objective of the DMA is to make the markets in the digital sector fairer and more contestable. ","id":2425502},{"titre":"Administrative Sciences | Free Full-Text | Good Governance in Rural Local Administration","url":"https://www.scoop.it/topic/insp-vers-des-systemes-de-gouvernance-plus-efficients/p/4140143633/2023/01/23/administrative-sciences-free-full-text-good-governance-in-rural-local-administration/original","pubDate":"Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:19:07 +0200","source":"Collectivités territoriales gouvernance veille INSP","description":"The governance principle is an important aspect of good governance, and its implementation is believed to have a good impact on governance outcomes, such as corruption reduction and performance improvement. The governance principle has been developed for several types of organisations. However, previous studies did not focus on the rural local administration’s governance. This study aims to develop a good governance principle for the rural local administration. There are four objectives of this study: first, to identify governance principles and their indicators in the literature; second, to create a governance principle using exploratory factor analysis; third, to model the governance principle using the structural equation model (SEM); and finally, to analyse any different perceptions about the governance principles for the rural local administration using univariate analysis. The result showed that 33 indicators of governance principles were identified through the literature. Using 238 usable questionnaires and exploratory factor analysis, we found 6 governance principles: fairness and capability, inclusivity, legitimacy and direction, participation, performance and information, and transparency and accountability. Using the second-order SEM in SmartPLS, we developed a governance principle model for the rural local administration. A few indicators of governance principles found were deleted through measurement model validation. In addition, the univariate analysis concluded that perceptions did not differ by the sex, education level, and occupation type of respondents. In other words, they agreed with the governance principle for the rural local administration. This study has practical and theoretical implications, which are discussed in detail in this article. Lire l'article complet sur :","id":2407924},{"titre":"Interplay between the DSA and the GDPR: EDPB adopts guidelines","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/interplay-between-dsa-and-gdpr-edpb-adopts-guidelines_en","pubDate":"Fri, 12 Sep 2025 15:51:31 +0200","source":"EDPB News","description":"Brussels, 12 September - During its September plenary meeting, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has adopted guidelines on the interplay between the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) . These are the first set of EDPB guidelines on the interplay between the GDPR and the EU’s recently adopted digital laws. The DSA aims to complement the rules of the GDPR to ensure the highest level of protection of fundamental rights in the digital space. Its main goal is to create a safer online environment in which the fundamental rights of all users, including the right to freedom of expression, are protected. It applies to online intermediary services , such as search engines and platforms. Several provisions included in the DSA entail the processing of personal data by intermediary service providers. The EDPB guidelines contribute to the consistent application of the DSA and of the GDPR, insofar as some provisions of the DSA concern the processing of personal data by intermediary service providers and include references to GDPR concepts and definitions. While it is up to the competent authorities under the DSA - with the support of the European Board for Digital Services and EU courts - to interpret the DSA, there are a number of provisions which relate to the GDPR. These include: notice-and-action systems that help individuals or entities report illegal content recommender systems used by online platforms to automatically present specific content to the users of the platform with a certain relative order or prominence the provisions to ensure a high level of privacy, safety, and security of minors and prohibiting that profile-based advertising using their data is presented to them transparency of advertising by online platforms prohibition of profiling-based advertising using special categories of data  The EDPB guidelines help to understand how the GDPR should be applied in the context of DSA obligations. The EDPB also provides practical guidance relating to the cross-regulatory cooperation between authorities to coordinate enforcement which will provide more legal certainty for intermediary service providers and ultimately to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals. The guidelines will be subject to public consultation, providing stakeholders with the opportunity to comment and provide feedback. EDPB Chair Anu Talus said: “By clarifying the interplay between the DSA and the GDPR, these guidelines mark a significant step towards ensuring a coherent and effective EU digital rulebook, and they will help uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. I hope that stakeholders, including the competent authorities under the DSA, will make the most of the opportunity to contribute to the public consultation\". More work in the pipeline Following these first guidelines on the interplay between the GDPR and the DSA, further work is underway with other regulators to clarify the new cross-regulatory landscape and maintain coherent and consistent safeguards for the protection of personal data. In this regard, the EDPB is working on joint guidelines with the European Commission on the interplay between the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the GDPR, as well as on joint guidelines on the interplay between the AI Act and EU data protection laws.","id":2368407},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/08/ftc-challenges-anticompetitive-medical-device-deal","titre":"FTC Challenges Anticompetitive Medical Device Deal","pubDate":"Thu, 07 Aug 2025 09:48:21 +0200","source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","description":"The Federal Trade Commission today moved to block medical device supplier Edwards Lifesciences Corp.’s (Edwards) proposed acquisition of JenaValve Technology, Inc. (JenaValve) due to concerns that the acquisition would limit patient access to lifesaving medical devices used to treat a potentially fatal heart condition. The FTC alleges that over the span of two days in July 2024, Edwards executed agreements to acquire both JenaValve and JC Medical, the two leading companies competing to bring to market transcatheter aortic valve replacement devices that treat a heart condition called aortic regurgitation (TAVR-AR devices). Edwards closed its acquisition of JC Medical in August 2024, and its proposed $945 million acquisition of JenaValve would combine the only two companies with ongoing clinical trials in the United States for a TAVR-AR device. The deal threatens to reduce competition in the TAVR-AR market, likely resulting in reduced innovation, diminished product quality, and potentially increased prices for consumers, according to the complaint. “ Edwards’ attempt to buy the U.S. market for TAVR-AR devices would eliminate the head-to-head competition that has spurred innovation for lifesaving artificial heart valves,” said Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “The FTC is taking action to stop this anticompetitive deal and ensure that JenaValve and Edwards’ JC Medical subsidiary continue competing to innovate, expand treatment eligibility, and keep down costs. Americans deserve all the benefits that come from competition between medical device makers, just as they do in other markets.” More than 8 million Americans suffer from aortic regurgitation, which occurs when the heart’s aortic valve does not close properly, causing blood to backflow into the heart. Currently, surgical valve replacement via open heart surgery is the only U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved procedure to treat aortic regurgitation, and TAVR-AR devices offer a new and less invasive way to treat the condition. JenaValve is poised to become the first company to bring a TAVR-AR device, called Trilogy, to the commercial market in the United States. If Edwards acquires JenaValve, Edwards would gain control over the two most advanced TAVR-AR devices, the FTC complaint alleges. FDA approval or commercialization of any other TAVR-AR device in the United States by another company, aside from Edwards and JenaValve, is not expected for the foreseeable future. Direct head-to-head competition between Edwards, through its now-subsidiary JC Medical, and JenaValve has driven the two companies to accelerate the development of their TAVR-AR devices, the FTC’s complaint alleges. Ultimately, patients will benefit if JenaValve and Edwards continue to directly compete to complete their separate TAVR-AR device clinical trials, product improvements, and commercialization plans. The competition concerns caused by Edwards’ dual acquisition strategy are predicated on Edwards owning both JenaValve and JC Medical simultaneously, but Edwards has elected to attempt to buy JenaValve while retaining its ownership of JC Medical. Edwards has not been willing to engage on divesting JC Medical to resolve the competition concerns with the proposed JenaValve acquisition, according to the complaint. The Commission vote to issue an administrative complaint and authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction was 3-0. The federal court complaint and request for preliminary relief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to halt the transaction pending an administrative proceeding. NOTE : The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal","id":2298968},{"source":"EDPB News","id":2170441,"description":"Background information Date of final decision: 15 May 2025 National case Controller:  SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES Legal Reference(s): Article 7 (Conditions for consent), Article 6 (Lawfulness of processing) Decision: administrative fine and an order to cease electronic commercial prospecting in the absence of valid consent, together with a penalty of €10 000 per day overdue after a period of 9 months Key words: administrative fine, consent,  unsolicited communication   Summary of the Decision Origin of the case   As the French Supervisory Authority (SA) made commercial prospecting a priority topic for investigations in 2022, it focused on the practices of professionals in the sector, particularly those who resell data, including the many intermediaries in this ecosystem known as data brokers. The French SA carried out investigations on SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES which got prospect data mainly from data brokers, publishers of game contests and product testing sites (these actors are the first links in the chain, the primary collectors, who are responsible for collecting prospect data). SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES used this data to operate commercial prospecting by SMS or e-mail to individuals concerned, on behalf of its advertiser customer. It may also pass on some of this data to its customers, so that they can carry out their own commercial prospecting by telephone or post. Key Findings  Failure to comply with the obligation to obtain the consent of individuals to receive commercial prospecting by electronic means (Article L.34-5 of the French Post and Electronic Communications Code): The restricted committee considered that the misleading appearance of the forms used by data brokers made it impossible to obtain free and unambiguous consent, in compliance with the requirements of the GDPR, which would have formed the basis for the prospecting operations carried out by the company. Failure to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to processing of his or her personal data (Article 7 of the GDPR): The company failed to provide the French SA with proof of consent from individuals whose data has been transferred to it by one of its main suppliers. As a result, the French SA was unable to examine the collection forms used by this supplier and, therefore, the validity of the consent of the data subjects.   Decision  Based on the findings of the inspection, the restricted committee – the French SA body responsible for issuing sanctions – considered that the company had failed to comply with obligations under the French Post and Electronic Communications Code (CPCE) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding the collection and proof of consent.  It imposed on SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES:  a €900 000 fine which was made public; and an order to cease electronic commercial prospecting in the absence of valid consent, together with a penalty of €10 000 per day overdue after a period of 9 months.  The amount of this fine takes into account the very large number of people concerned (several million), the company's historical position on the market, the financial benefit derived from the breaches, and the measures taken by the company to comply with some of its obligations since the checks were carried out. For further information:  •  Courtiers en données : sanction de 900 000 euros à l’encontre de la société SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES (French) •  Data brokers: SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES fined €900,000  (English)","pubDate":"Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:51:20 +0200","titre":"The French SA fines SOLOCAL €900 000","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/french-sa-fines-solocal-eu900-000_en"},{"source":"EDPB News","id":2130472,"description":"Background information Date of final decision: 15 May 2025 National case Controller:  SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES Legal Reference(s): Article 7 (Conditions for consent), Article 6 (Lawfulness of processing) Decision: administrative fine and an order to cease electronic commercial prospecting in the absence of valid consent, together with a penalty of 10 000 € per day overdue after a period of 9 months Key words: administrative fine, consent,  unsolicited communication   Summary of the Decision Origin of the case   As the French Supervisory Authority (SA) made commercial prospecting a priority topic for investigations in 2022, it focused on the practices of professionals in the sector, particularly those who resell data, including the many intermediaries in this ecosystem known as data brokers. The French SA carried out investigations on SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES which got prospect data mainly from data brokers, publishers of game contests and product testing sites (these actors are the first links in the chain, the primary collectors, who are responsible for collecting prospect data). SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES used this data to operate commercial prospecting by SMS or e-mail to individuals concerned, on behalf of its advertiser customer. It may also pass on some of this data to its customers, so that they can carry out their own commercial prospecting by telephone or post. Key Findings  Failure to comply with the obligation to obtain the consent of individuals to receive commercial prospecting by electronic means (Article L.34-5 of the French Post and Electronic Communications Code): The restricted committee considered that the misleading appearance of the forms used by data brokers made it impossible to obtain free and unambiguous consent, in compliance with the requirements of the GDPR, which would have formed the basis for the prospecting operations carried out by the company. Failure to demonstrate that the data subject has consented to processing of his or her personal data (Article 7 of the GDPR): The company failed to provide the French SA with proof of consent from individuals whose data has been transferred to it by one of its main suppliers. As a result, the French SA was unable to examine the collection forms used by this supplier and, therefore, the validity of the consent of the data subjects.   Decision  Based on the findings of the inspection, the restricted committee – the French SA body responsible for issuing sanctions – considered that the company had failed to comply with obligations under the French Post and Electronic Communications Code (CPCE) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding the collection and proof of consent.  It imposed on SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES:  a 900 000 € fine which was made public; and an order to cease electronic commercial prospecting in the absence of valid consent, together with a penalty of 10 000 € per day overdue after a period of 9 months.  The amount of this fine takes into account the very large number of people concerned (several million), the company's historical position on the market, the financial benefit derived from the breaches, and the measures taken by the company to comply with some of its obligations since the checks were carried out. For further information:  •   Courtiers en données : sanction de 900 000 euros à l’encontre de la société SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES (French) •   Data brokers: SOLOCAL MARKETING SERVICES fined €900,000  (English)","pubDate":"Wed, 21 May 2025 15:52:14 +0200","titre":"The French SA fines SOLOCAL 900 000 €","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2025/french-sa-fines-solocal-900-000-eu_en"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission Concurrence communiqués","id":2044739,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission’s initial findings from its surveillance pricing market study revealed that details like a person’s precise location or browser history can be frequently used to target individual consumers with different prices for the same goods and services. The staff perspective is based on an examination of documents obtained by FTC staff’s 6(b) orders sent to  several companies in July aiming to better understand the shadowy market that third-party intermediaries use to set individualized prices for products and services based on consumers’ characteristics and behaviors, like location, demographics, browsing patterns and shopping history. Staff found that consumer behaviors ranging from mouse movements on a webpage to the type of products that consumers leave unpurchased in an online shopping cart can be tracked and used by retailers to tailor consumer pricing. “Initial staff findings show that retailers frequently use people’s personal information to set targeted, tailored prices for goods and services—from a person's location and demographics, down to their mouse movements on a webpage,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC should continue to investigate surveillance pricing practices because Americans deserve to know how their private data is being used to set the prices they pay and whether firms are charging different people different prices for the same good or service.” The FTC’s study of the 6(b) documents is still ongoing. The staff perspective is based on an initial analysis of documents provided by Mastercard, Accenture, PROS, Bloomreach, Revionics and McKinsey & Co. Image The FTC’s 6(b) study focuses on intermediary firms, which are the middlemen hired by retailers that can algorithmically tweak and target their prices. Instead of a price or promotion being a static feature of a product, the same product could have a different price or promotion based on a variety of inputs—including consumer-related data and their behaviors and preferences, the location, time, and channels by which a consumer buys the product, according to the perspective. The agency will only release information obtained from a 6(b) study as long as all data has been aggregated or anonymized to protect confidential trade secrets from company respondents, and therefore the staff perspective only includes hypothetical examples of surveillance pricing.  The staff perspective found that some 6(b) respondents can determine individualized and different pricing and discounts based on granular consumer data, like a cosmetics company targeting promotions to specific skin types and skin tones. The perspective also found that the intermediaries the FTC examined can show higher priced products based on consumers’ search and purchase activity. As one hypothetical outlined, a consumer who is profiled as a new parent may intentionally be shown higher priced baby thermometers on the first page of their search results. The FTC staff found that the intermediaries worked with at least 250 clients that sell goods or services ranging from grocery stores to apparel retailers. The FTC found that widespread adoption of this practice may fundamentally upend how consumers buy products and how companies compete. As the FTC continues its work in this area, it is issuing a request for information   today seeking public comment on consumers’ experiences with surveillance pricing. The RFI also asks for comments from businesses about whether surveillance pricing tools can lead to competitors gaining an unfair advantage, and whether gig workers or employees have been impacted by the use of surveillance pricing to determine their compensation. Comments are due by April 17. The Commission voted 3-2 to allow staff to issue the report. Commissioners Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak issued a dissenting statement related to the release of the initial research summaries. The FTC has additional resources on the interim","pubDate":"Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:51:48 +0200","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indicates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer","titre":"FTC Surveillance Pricing Study Indicates Wide Range of Personal Data Used to Set Individualized Consumer Prices"},{"url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-opinion-ai-models-gdpr-principles-support-responsible-ai_en","titre":"EDPB opinion on AI models: GDPR principles support responsible AI","pubDate":"Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:47:16 +0100","source":"EDPB News","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","id":1792119}]