[{"titre":"Le français dans la fonction publique fédérale","url":"https://hdl.handle.net/1866/46873","pubDate":"Tue, 03 Nov 2026 08:25:09 +0100","description":"dc.contributor.author: Larochelle, Vincent dc.date.issued: 2026-10 dc.description.abstract: Ce mémoire analyse la politique linguistique canadienne à travers l’un de ses aspects fondamentaux, celui des langues officielles dans la fonction publique fédérale canadienne. En partant d’une mise en contexte historique couvrant la période allant de la Conquête anglaise à la Révolution tranquille, il rappelle d’abord le contexte social dans lequel évoluaient les Canadiens français et les Canadiens anglais, et auquel la politique linguistique canadienne était censée répondre. Pour évaluer l’efficacité de la politique linguistique canadienne, ce mémoire procède à une analyse inédite de la composition linguistique de la fonction publique canadienne au fil du temps. Cette analyse de données s’étalant sur plus de 50 ans révèle un double constat : si les fonctionnaires francophones sont désormais représentés à la hauteur du poids démographique qu’ils occupent dans la société canadienne, les postes français ont subi un effondrement de près de 70% entre 1973 et 2024, passant de 12,5% à seulement 3,2% de l’ensemble des postes, tandis que les postes anglais demeurent quasi-stables, ne perdant sur la même période que 3,1% de leurs effectifs. Dans une fonction publique censée être bilingue selon la Loi, il y a aujourd’hui 15 fois plus de postes anglais que de postes français. Il y a par ailleurs six fois moins de postes français dans la fonction publique fédérale canadienne que le poids réel des francophones au sein de la société canadienne. En outre, pour chaque poste anglais disponible pour un fonctionnaire anglophone, le fonctionnaire francophone a accès à 6 fois moins de postes français. Il en résulte que, comme jadis, l’anglais demeure la langue de travail nettement dominante de la fonction publique fédérale, tandis que le français continue d’être marginalisé, en contradiction avec certains des objectifs de la Loi sur les langues officielles.; This master’s thesis analyzes the Canadian language policy through one of its fundamental aspects, official languages within the Canadian federal public service. Starting with a historical overview spanning the period going from the English Conquest to the Quiet Revolution, it first recalls the social context in which French Canadians and English Canadians evolved, and to which the Canadian language policy was supposed to respond. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Canadian language policy, this thesis carries out an original analysis of the linguistic composition of the federal public service over time. This over 50-year data analysis reveals a dual finding: while francophone public servants are now represented in proportion to their demographic weight in Canadian society, french positions have collapsed by nearly 70% between 1973 and 2024, falling from 12.5% to only 3.2% of all positions, whereas English positions have remained nearly stable, losing only 3.1% of their share over the same period. In a public service that is supposed to be bilingual under the Act, there are today 15 times more English positions than French positions. Moreover, there are six times fewer French positions in the Canadian public service than the actual demographic weight of Francophones in the Canadian society. Furthermore, for every Anglophone public servant who obtains a position in their language, a Francophone public servant has 6 times fewer chances of obtaining a position in their language. As a result, as in the past, English remains the clearly dominant working language of the federal public service, while french continues to be marginalized, in contradiction with some of","id":3260041,"source":"Faculté de droit Travaux récents"},{"source":"Canadian Association of Law Libraries / L'Association canadienne des bibliothèques de droit CALL/ACBD Blog","id":3241472,"description":"Le français suit plus bas. We all have a few tricks up our sleeve when it comes to performing legal research. We sometimes share them with clients. And sometimes, we like to use those tricks to hunt down seemingly impossible to find material and wow them. Because nothing is “impossible” for law librarians. The CALL blog has started a new regular series of research tips and tricks. Please share your favourite or coolest strategies with Michel-Adrien Sheppard to have them published on the CALL blog. Nous avons tous nos trucs favoris quand il s'agit de faire de la recherche juridique. Parfois, nous les partageons avec nos clients. Et parfois, nous aimons les épater en utilisant ces trucs et astuces pour mettre la main sur des informations apparemment impossibles à trouver. Car rien n’est « impossible » pour des bibliothécaires de droit. Le blogue de l'ACBD a lancé une nouvelle série sur les trucs et astuces de recherche. SVP partagez vos stratégies les plus intéressantes ou les plus « cool » avec Michel-Adrien Sheppard afin de les faire publier sur le blogue de CALL/ACBD. Today: Finding Standards ( Susannah Tredwell, Manager of Library Services at DLA Piper (Canada) LLP , Vancouver ). It originally appeared on Slaw.ca on August 31, 2022. It is republished here with permission of the author. Standards, which “ establish accepted practices, technical requirements, and terminologies ”, are often referenced by acts and regulations; in order to be able to properly interpret a piece of legislation you may need to see the standard it is referring to. Frequently the fastest and most efficient solution (if not the cheapest) is to buy the standard, either in print or electronic format. However, if you’re buying a digital version it is important to be aware of how the standard is licenced, e.g. in some cases the person who bought the standard is the only person who can use it. For Canadian standards, the   Standards Council of Canada   (confusingly — for law librarians at least — abbreviated SCC) is a useful place to start. Standards are frequently referred to by a number (e.g. “CSA Z1008:21”) where the first letters indicate who issued the standard (in this case the   Canadian Standards Association ) , the middle numbers indicate the number of the standard, and the last number indicates the year of issue (i.e. 2021). Standards are frequently revised or replaced, so it is important to know which particular version of a standard you are looking for. Older standards can be more challenging to find. Your local public library may own some standards in print format so it is worthwhile checking with them. A number of Canadian standards are available for free; for example you can find the online collection of Codes Canada publications (including the National Building Code of Canada 2020, the National Plumbing Code of Canada 2020 and the National Fire Code of Canada 2020) at   https://nrc-publications.canada.ca/eng/search/?q=NRCCode . Similarly the British Columbia Codes 2018 are available online at   https://www.bccodes.ca/index.html","pubDate":"Mon, 26 Oct 2026 07:55:49 +0100","titre":"CALL Research Tips & Tricks: Finding Standards / Trucs et astuces de recherche de l’ACBD: comment trouver des normes","url":"https://www.callacbd.ca/CALL-Blog/12930018"},{"description":"Two on the aisle for FTC’s “That’s the Ticket” workshop lfair June 6, 2019 | 10:40AM Two on the aisle for FTC’s “That’s the Ticket” workshop By Lesley Fair Humphrey Bogart said it in “The African Queen” and it was a catchphrase popularized by Jon Lovitz on “Saturday Night Live.” But to the FTC, That’s the Ticket is the name of a June 11, 2019, workshop to explore consumer protection issues related to online ticket sales – and the agenda is out now. Consumers who try to buy tickets online to a concert, theatrical performance, or sporting event have often expressed frustration with the process. That’s the Ticket will bring together advocates, industry members, academics, and law enforcers to explore the topic from the consumer’s perspective. FTC Commissioner Slaughter will open the event at 9:30 ET. Next on the agenda: Professor Eric Budish from the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, who will share his insights into the issues. The first panel will explore Bots and the BOTS Act . Passed in 2016, the Better Online Ticket Sales Act makes it illegal to “circumvent a security measure, access control system, or other technological control or measure on an Internet website or online service that is used by the ticket issuer to enforce posted event ticket purchasing limits or to maintain the integrity of posted online ticket purchasing order rules.” The next panel will address Other Consumer Protection Issues Around Ticket Availability . After a mid-day break, the topic will turn to The Adequacy of Ticket Price and Fee Disclosures . Do consumers have accurate information about how much they’ll be charged? The last panel of the afternoon will consider Consumer Confusion: What and From Whom Am I Buying? Do buyers have a clear picture of what they’re getting and the identity of the seller? Mary Engle, Director of the FTC’s Division of Advertising Practices, will offer closing remarks. Ironically enough, you don’t need a ticket to attend That’s the Ticket , which will take place on June 11th at the FTC’s Constitution Center conference facility, 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, DC. The event is free and open to the public or you can watch via webcast, which will go live moments before the 9:30 ET starting time on the That’s the Ticket event page. We’ll also live tweet using the hashtag #FTCticket.    ","id":3198174,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2019/06/two-aisle-ftcs-thats-ticket-workshop","titre":"Two on the aisle for FTC’s “That’s the Ticket” workshop","pubDate":"Mon, 05 Oct 2026 14:07:45 +0200"},{"titre":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2014/11/company-pay-22-million-offering-free-credit-scores-turned-out-be-not-so-free","pubDate":"Sat, 03 Oct 2026 08:09:37 +0200","description":"Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free wfg-adm109 November 19, 2014 | 11:12AM Company to pay $22 million for offering \"free\" credit scores that turned out to be not so free By Lesley Fair We’ve brought law enforcement actions – dozens of ‘em. We’ve held workshops, issued reports, and sent warning letters. If it takes sky writing, tap dancing, and a float in a Thanksgiving Day parade, we’ll do that, too. But here’s what’s not going to happen. The FTC is not giving up until businesses get the message that: 1) Free means free; and 2) Key terms and conditions have to be clearly and conspicuously disclosed. A $22 million settlement announced by the FTC and the AGs of Illinois and Ohio with a national credit monitoring service advertising so-called “free” credit scores emphasizes that point. Another note for practitioners: It's the FTC's third case alleging violations of ROSCA . One Technologies and related outfits marketed their credit monitoring programs, MyCreditHealth and ScoreSense, through at least 50 sites, including FreeScore360.com, FreeScoreOnline.com and ScoreSense.com. Their strategy was simple. Buy advertising on search engines so their ads show up near the top when people look for phrases like “free credit report\" and then follow up with a persuasive pitch: “View your latest Credit Scores from All 3 Bureaus in 60 seconds for $0!” According to the lawsuit , the defendants failed to clearly tell consumers that if they availed themselves of those “free” services and didn’t cancel within seven days, the defendants would ding their credit cards for $29.95 a month over and over and over again. The complaint includes screen shots of the defendants’ sites, but before looking at them, take out your reading glasses because they’ll come in handy in trying to locate where the defendants chose to tell people about that $29.95 monthly fee. One line of fine print added in late 2012 said “Free 7-Day trial when you order your 3 Free Credit Scores. Membership is then just $29.95 per month until you call to cancel.” The first problem: The type was tiny – a fraction of the size of the defendants’ multiple use of the word “free.” The second problem: Why should consumers even have to be on the look-out for the cost, given that the defendants so prominently advertised it as “free”? A second purported disclosure appeared as an obscure hyperlink on the page where people typed in their Social Security number and birthdate.  Sandwiched between the logos of various security firms and a large color button that said CONTINUE was this less-than-crystal-clear statement: By clicking on the ‘Continue’ button, you agree to the Offer Details, to the Terms and Conditions, acknowledge receipt of our Privacy Policy and agree to its terms . . . The “Offer Details” link triggered a small pop-up that said, among other things, “At the end of the 7-day trial period, your credit/debit card will be charged $29.95 on a monthly basis until you call to cancel.” Another place the defendants put the information was on a side panel of the Payment Form in white letters on a grey background – a color combination one of the defendants’ own employees described as “known to cause seizures in lab rats.” According to the complaint, once people spotted the unauthorized charges on their accounts, the defendants didn’t make it easy to stop the billing.  And even when people asked for their money back because they hadn’t approved of the charges, the defendants denied refunds to many of them. The lawsuit alleges violations of the FTC Act, as well as the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and related state rules. In addition, the complaint is the third FTC action to charge violations of ROSCA, the Restore Online Shoppers’","id":3194913,"source":"FTC USA Business Blog Posts"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":3120376,"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","pubDate":"Fri, 28 Aug 2026 08:07:59 +0200","titre":"FTC Finalizes Orders with Cox Media Group, Two Other Firms Settling Charges They Deceived Customers About “Active Listening” AI-Powered Marketing Service","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"},{"description":"Case number: AC-2026-LON-002515 In the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court In the matter of an application for judicial review 17 July 2026 Before: The Hon. Mr Justice Sheldon Between: The King on the application of (1) RDS (2) Bayswater Support Group (Claimants) -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Defendant) and NHS England (Interested Party) Order Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12) Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply ORDER BY THE HON. Mr Justice Sheldon (1) Anonymity a. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998: i. the names of the First Claimant, his children and his former spouse are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; ii. the name of the chair of the Second Claimant, her children and any partner are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public. iii. the First Claimant and chair of the Second Claimant are to be referred to orally and in writing as ‘RDS’ and ‘RDA’ respectively. iv. The First Claimant and Chair of the Second Claimant are permitted to use ‘care of’ (c/o) addresses of the Claimants’ solicitors in the claim form and on any witness statements filed. b. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the First Claimant or Chair of the Second Claimant, or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of any of them, in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings. c. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): i. the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the said Claimants or any of the other individuals referred to in (a)(i) or (ii); ii. if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants or to the identification of any of the other individuals referred to in (a)(i) or (ii), a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time; iii. unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case. iv. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party. (2) Interested Party : NHS England, named in these proceedings as an Interested Party, shall be removed forthwith as a party to these proceedings. (3) Permission : Permission to apply for judicial review is refused. (4) Costs : The Claimants must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £7,026.60. (5) Further provision as to costs : (a) Where the Claimants do not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below): (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimants may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed. (ii) If the Claimants do not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimants must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)). (iii) If the Claimants file and serve a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above: the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages); if the other party files and serves on the Claimants submissions in response, the Claimants may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve","id":3081876,"source":"Judgement Courts Tribunals England Wales","titre":"RDS and Bayswater Support Group -v- Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (anonymity order)","url":"https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/rds-and-bayswater-support-group-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-and-social-care-anonymity-order/","pubDate":"Fri, 07 Aug 2026 14:03:33 +0200"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","description":"Alexander Mashinsky, the former CEO of cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network Inc. (Celsius), and his business partners, Shlomi Daniel Leon and Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein, will pay a total of $16.5 million to resolve the Federal Trade Commission’s charges that they deceived users by falsely promising that deposits made to their cryptocurrency platform would be safe and always available. Mashinsky and Leon have also agreed to a ban on marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit, exchange, invest or withdraw assets. Similarly, Goldstein has agreed to a ban on marketing or selling retail products or services that can be used to buy, sell, deposit, withdraw, distribute or trade cryptocurrency. In its  July 2023 complaint , the FTC alleged that Celsius and its co-founders promised consumers that Celsius was “safer” than a bank or other traditional financial institutions and misrepresented that their deposits were safe because Celsius earned profits at “no risk” to consumers by making secured loans to other exchanges. The FTC says the company and its top executives deceived users by falsely promising them that they could withdraw their deposits at any time, that the company maintained a $750 million insurance policy for deposits, that it had sufficient reserves to meet customer obligations and that those in its Earn program could earn rewards as high as 18% annual percentage yield on deposits. They also repeatedly claimed that the company did not make any unsecured loans. The FTC, however, alleged that the promises were false and that its top executives continued to claim that customers’ deposits were safe days before the company filed for bankruptcy. The settlement orders with the FTC require Mashinsky to pay $10 million, Leon to pay $4.1 million and Goldstein to pay $2.4 million. In addition,  the order with Mashinsky ,  the order with Leon ,   and the proposed order with Goldstein   will also prohibit the Celsius co-founders from: Marketing or selling products or services that can be used to deposit or withdraw certain assets, as Mashinsky, Leon and Goldstein’s deceptive conduct led to enormous consumer injury; Making misrepresentations regarding the benefits of any product or service or any other material fact about any other product or service; and Violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, including by obtaining or attempting to obtain customer financial information by making false, fictitious or fraudulent representations; and Finally, the orders with Mashinsky and Leon prohibit them from disclosing nonpublic personal information about consumers unless the consumer first provides express informed consent. The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order with Mashinsky was 3–0 and was approved prior to the departure of former Commissioner Melissa Holyoak. The Commission votes approving the stipulated final orders with Leon and Goldstein were both 2–0. The FTC filed the proposed orders in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court Judge. The staff attorneys on this matter are Stephanie Liebner, Carlton Mosley and Sally Tieu of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","id":3042974,"url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/07/founders-celsius-network-ordered-pay-165-million-resolve-ftc-charges","titre":"Founders of Celsius Network Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges","pubDate":"Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:04:33 +0200"},{"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","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,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers"},{"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","id":2826725,"description":"The Federal Trade Commission today announced it is seeking public comment on whether a rule is needed to address unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with the services provided by online food and grocery delivery platforms nationwide. As detailed in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to be published shortly in the Federal Register, the FTC is seeking written comments, including data, evidence, analyses, and arguments, to help determine how best to prevent unfair or deceptive acts or practices and to ensure that the agency addresses concerns from both consumers and industry. “Online grocery fees that are unclear, inconsistently disclosed, or revealed only at the last moment before consumers make a purchase distort competition and harm consumers,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Clear and truthful pricing is essential to competitive markets. The Commission’s enforcement track record suggests that consumers continue to face a suite of fees that prevent them from making informed comparisons. The Trump-Vance FTC is committed to addressing unlawful grocery delivery pricing that obscures the true cost of groceries.” Unfair or deceptive fee practices violate the FTC Act. The Commission recently brought several actions against online food delivery platforms for unfair or deceptive practices that violated the FTC Act. For example, in December 2025, the FTC announced a $60 million settlement with  Instacart over allegations it falsely advertised “free delivery” on consumers’ first three orders on the platform and then charged them service fees that were not disclosed until checkout. And, in December 2024, the FTC obtained a $25 million settlement with  GrubHub over allegations it misled consumers about the cost of delivery on its platform. These cases illustrate that hidden and misleading fees and charges are a recurring problem related to online delivery platforms, despite enforcement actions to protect consumers’ interests. Also, while numerous states have recently adopted laws requiring food and grocery delivery platforms to more clearly disclose fees and include all mandatory fees in advertised prices, they have not adopted uniform rules that apply to all food delivery platforms across the country. The ANPRM asks the public to comment on whether a rule is needed to prevent unfair or deceptive fee practices in connection with online food delivery services including: Total Price. Do food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price for food or grocery items ordered for local delivery or pickup? Fees and Charges. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose the existence, nature, purpose, refundability, or recipient of any fees, charges, or other costs for a delivery or pickup order? Variable or Contingent Fees . Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose factors used to determine any fees, charges, or other costs that are variable or contingent on consumer selections, such as number or type of items bought or delivery location? Material Restrictions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether fees, charges, or other costs are mandatory or optional, or any material restrictions, limitations, or restrictions that may result in additional charges or that may diminish the consumer’s use of the good or service? Price Differentials. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered in the store or restaurant? Personalized Pricing.  Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose whether the prices of items ordered are the same as, or different from, the prices of the same items offered to other consumers on the platform? Discounts or Promotions. Do online food delivery platforms clearly and conspicuously disclose material","pubDate":"Wed, 15 Apr 2026 08:10:57 +0200","titre":"FTC Seeks Public Comment on Unfair and Deceptive Fee Practices in Online Food and Grocery Delivery Services","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/04/ftc-seeks-public-comment-unfair-deceptive-fee-practices-online-food-grocery-delivery-services"},{"description":"The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Illusory Systems Inc. for failing to implement adequate data security measures, leading to a major security breach in which hackers stole $186 million from consumers. Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s allegations, Utah-based Illusory, which does business as Nomad, will be required to implement an information security program to address numerous alleged security failures and to return recovered money to affected consumers. “The FTC Act requires companies to take reasonable security measures,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It’s important that companies live up to their security promises to consumers.” In its complaint , the FTC alleged that Nomad prominently touted its security in its advertising, claiming that it offered “security-first” services. The FTC, however, alleged that the company failed to live up to these promises by failing to: use secure coding practices; implement processes for receiving and addressing vulnerability reports and responding to security incidents; and utilize widely known technologies that might have helped mitigate consumer losses. According to the complaint, in June 2022, Nomad introduced inadequately tested code that included a significant vulnerability. Just over a month later, hackers began exploiting the vulnerability. The FTC alleged that Nomad failed to respond to the attack in time because of its inadequate security and incident response measures, which led to the loss of $186 million. The company was able to recover some money, but consumers lost approximately $100 million. Nomad was warned about the dangers of inadequate testing as well as the need to ensure it had adequate staff and security in place. The company, however, failed to implement basic safety measures that would mitigate consumer losses, the FTC alleged. Under the proposed order , Nomad will be prohibited from making misrepresentations about its security practices. In addition, the company will also be required to: Implement a comprehensive information security program that is designed to protect consumers from theft or other unauthorized access and address the security issues outlined in the FTC’s complaint; Obtain biennial assessments of its information security program by an independent third party and cooperate with the third-party assessor; and Return to consumers money recovered following the security breach that was not already returned to customers. The Commission voted 2-0 to accept the proposed complaint and order for public comment. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov. 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. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $51,744. The lead staff attorneys on this matter are M. Hasan Aijaz and Julia Horwitz with the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer","id":2577895,"source":"Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers","url":"https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/12/ftc-will-require-illusory-systems-return-money-stolen-hackers-implement-information-security-program","titre":"FTC Will Require Illusory Systems to Return Money Stolen by Hackers and Implement an Information Security Program","pubDate":"Wed, 17 Dec 2025 09:50:37 +0100"},{"pubDate":"Thu, 09 Oct 2025 15:53:21 +0200","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","id":2425502,"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. ","source":"EDPB News"},{"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,"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"}]