[{"titre":"The FTC's Google settlement: What's the buzz?","id":3200009,"pubDate":"Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:39 +0200","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!”","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2011/04/ftcs-google-settlement-whats-buzz"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/02/ftc-challenges-online-trading-academys-money-making-claims","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 08:07:09 +0200","id":3197414,"titre":"FTC challenges Online Trading Academy’s money-making claims","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"},{"titre":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements","id":3195787,"pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 14:06:13 +0200","description":"Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements wfg-adm109 June 13, 2012 | 12:25PM Speaking of Spokeo: Part 2 — The company’s allegedly bogus endorsements By Lesley Fair The lawsuit against data broker Spokeo is the FTC’s first Fair Credit Reporting Act case addressing the collection of online info — including data from social networking sites — when used in the context of employment screening.  But that’s not the only way the Spokeo settlement touches on social media.  The FTC also charged that Spokeo violated Section 5 by having employees post glowing recommendations of the company’s services on news and technology websites without disclosing their true identity. Perhaps just the work of a rogue cubicle occupant?  No, said the FTC.  According to the complaint , Spokeo directed its employees to write the comments.  Spokeo managers then edited what they wrote and had the staffers post the endorsements using account names provided by Spokeo.  The purpose, says the FTC, was to give readers the misleading impression that the laudatory words had been posted by independent consumers or business users of Spokeo. The FTC’s revisions to its Endorsement Guides made headlines a few years ago.  Ironically enough, the provision that seemed to attract the most attention is one that didn’t change.  It’s the law — and it’s always been the law under Section 5 — that consumers have a right to know when there’s a material connection between an advertiser and an endorser.  Here’s how the Guides put it:  \"When there exists a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement ( i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), such connection must be fully disclosed.\" According to the FTC, by posting comments that conveyed the untruthful impression that they came from satisfied users of Spokeo’s services, Spokeo engaged in false and misleading practices.  To settle the endorsement count in the lawsuit, Spokeo has agreed that it won’t misrepresent, expressly or by implication, the status of any user of a product or service — for example, that someone is an independent, ordinary endorser if that’s not the case.  The company also will clearly and prominently disclose any material connection between an endorser and Spokeo (or any other entity advertising, selling, or promoting a product) when a connection exists.  What about the bogus endorsements already posted?  Spokeo has seven days to take all reasonable steps to pull them down. Looking for more about complying with the Endorsement Guides?  Read The FTC’s Revised Endorsement Guides: What People are Asking and watch this video: While you’re at it, share this post and those resources with your marketing staff, your ad agency, your PR firm, and anyone else who plays a role in your publicity and promotions. Next:  What the Spokeo settlement means for your business, your next ad campaign, and your job search","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2012/06/speaking-spokeo-part-2-companys-allegedly-bogus-endorsements"},{"titre":"Practice Fusion case suggests 6 health privacy pointers","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","id":3194910,"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","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2016/06/practice-fusion-case-suggests-6-health-privacy-pointers"},{"id":3191275,"pubDate":"Thu, 01 Oct 2026 14:10:47 +0200","titre":"Lights out on unsubstantiated pain relief claims and deceptive native advertising","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?","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2020/06/lights-out-unsubstantiated-pain-relief-claims-deceptive-native-advertising","source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/08/ftc-announces-2027-telemarketer-fees-access-national-do-not-call-registry","source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"The Federal Trade Commission today announced new fees for telemarketers to access phone numbers on the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry for Fiscal Year 2027 which begins on October 1, 2026. All telemarketers calling consumers in the United States are required to download the numbers on the National DNC Registry to ensure they do not call consumers who have registered their phone numbers. The first five area codes are free to download, and organizations that are exempt, such as some charities and political callers, may obtain the entire list for free. Telemarketers must subscribe each year for access to the Registry numbers. The cost of accessing a single area code in the registry will be $85 in FY 2027, which is an increase of $3 from FY 2026. The maximum charge to any single entity for accessing all area codes nationwide will be $23,425 (up from $22,626 in FY 2026). The fee for accessing an additional area code for a half year will increase to $43 in FY 2027 from $41 in FY 2026. The Commission vote authorizing publication of the Federal Register notice announcing the new fees was 2-0. Note:  The new fees will go into effect on October 1,","pubDate":"Thu, 27 Aug 2026 08:03:44 +0200","id":3118417,"titre":"FTC Announces 2027 Telemarketer Fees to Access the National Do Not Call Registry"},{"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","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","pubDate":"Tue, 09 Dec 2025 09:50:02 +0100","id":2559842,"titre":"7-Eleven to Pay Record $4.5 Million Penalty to Settle FTC Antitrust Order Violation Case"}]