[{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/03/nixing-fix-warranties-mag-moss-restrictions-repairs","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","description":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs lfair March 18, 2019 | 10:24AM Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs By Lesley Fair First, the bad news: That nifty purchase needs a repair. Now the good news for consumers: It’s still under warranty. But where can they go to get it fixed? Can the manufacturer restrict a consumer’s ability to go to the independent repair shop of their choice? Can the manufacturer use glue, non-standard screws, and proprietary diagnostic software that make it difficult for independent repair shops to fix things? Do limitations like these affect consumers’ rights under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ? That’s the topic of Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions , an FTC event scheduled for July 16, 2019 . Enforced by the FTC, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act helps consumers make informed buying decisions and gives them access to remedies if the widget starts to fidget during the warranty period. One key consumer protection under Mag-Moss is that the law prohibits manufacturers from conditioning warranty coverage on the use of particular products or services. Here are some of the questions FTC staff intends to ask at Nixing the Fix : What’s the interplay between repair restrictions and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s anti-tying provision, which establishes that manufacturers can’t condition coverage on the use of parts or services identified by brand, trade, or corporate name? Do repair restrictions affect the market for extended warranties and service agreements? What types of restrictions are consumers running into when they try to get their stuff repaired? Are manufacturers’ restrictions having an impact on small fix-it businesses? Are manufacturers using software that may render products obsolete or unfixable if consumers engage in DIY or go to a local repair shop? Are repair restrictions necessary to reduce the risk of physical injury or to protect manufacturers from liability for products improperly repaired by others? Do consumers understand the effects of repair restrictions? We’re also looking for empirical research and data about the prevalence and impact of manufacturers’ repair restrictions. For example, what can you tell us about code that disables products that have been repaired by someone other than the manufacturer, product designs that make third-party repairs difficult (like attaching batteries with glue only the manufacturer can remove), contractual post-sale or licensing restrictions, or proprietary diagnostic software and replacement parts? Please send us your research and data by April 30, 2019. Do you have suggestions about possible panelists? Email us at nixingthefix@ftc.gov . Nixing the Fix will take place on July 16th at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. It’s free and open to the public. You can file public comments online and we’ll keep the record open until September 16, 2019. Follow the Business Blog for more information about the agenda and for watch-the-webcast instructions.","pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:06:23 +0200","id":3199073,"titre":"Nixing the Fix: Warranties, Mag-Moss, and restrictions on repairs"},{"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","titre":"EDPB opinion on AI models: GDPR principles support responsible AI","id":1792119,"pubDate":"Wed, 18 Dec 2024 15:47:16 +0100","source":"EDPB News","url":"https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/news/2024/edpb-opinion-ai-models-gdpr-principles-support-responsible-ai_en"}]