![[Valid RSS]](images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Valid RSS")
This is a valid RSS feed.
This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.o ...
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.o ...
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.o ...
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.o ...
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.o ...
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.o ...
line 16, column 35: (30 occurrences) [help]
<guid isPermaLink="false">85395</guid>
^
line 53, column 0: (3 occurrences) [help]
<description><div data-entity-type="block_content" data-entity-uuid="0f ...
line 53, column 0: (3 occurrences) [help]
<description><div data-entity-type="block_content" data-entity-uuid="0f ...
<description><div data-entity-type="block_content" data-entity-uuid="0f ...
<description><div data-entity-type="block_content" data-entity-uuid="0f ...
<description><div data-entity-type="block_content" data-entity-uuid="0f ...
<description><div data-entity-type="block_content" data-entity-uuid="0f ...
line 68, column 0: (4 occurrences) [help]
<div class="field__item"> <img src="https://www.ftc. ...
line 68, column 0: (4 occurrences) [help]
<div class="field__item"> <img src="https://www.ftc. ...
line 68, column 0: (4 occurrences) [help]
<div class="field__item"> <img src="https://www.ftc. ...
<description><p>The sellers of a supposed N95-grade face mask called ...
line 245, column 0: (2 occurrences) [help]
<description><p>The Federal Trade Commission today issued a report t ...
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:schema="http://schema.org/" xmlns:sioc="http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#" xmlns:sioct="http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" version="2.0" xml:base="https://www.ftc.gov/"> <channel> <title>Federal Trade Commission - Protecting America's Consumers</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/</link> <description/> <language>en</language> <atom:link href="https://www.ftc.gov/feeds/press-release-consumer-protection.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/> <item> <title>FTC Finalizes Order with Blackbaud Related to Allegations the Firm’s Security Failures Led to Data Breach</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-finalizes-order-blackbaud-related-allegations-firms-security-failures-led-data-breach</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission has finalized an order against Blackbaud Inc. settling allegations that its lax security practices allowed a hacker to breach the company’s network and access the personal data of millions of consumers including Social Security and bank account numbers.</p><p>In a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-order-will-require-blackbaud-delete-unnecessary-data-boost-safeguards-settle-charges-its-lax">complaint first announced in February 2024</a>, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023181_blackbaud_final_consent_package.pdf">FTC charged</a> that the South Carolina firm, which provides data services and financial, fundraising, and administrative software services to companies, nonprofits and others, failed to implement appropriate safeguards to secure and protect the vast amounts of personal data it collects. As a result of these failures, a hacker in early 2020 exploited weaknesses in Blackbaud’s networks, which went undetected for three months, allowing the hacker to remove massive amounts of unencrypted sensitive consumer data belonging to Blackbaud’s customers. The company waited nearly two months to notify its customers about the breach and then misled consumers about the extent of the data that was stolen, according to the complaint.</p><p>Under <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023181_blackbaud_final_consent_package.pdf">the order</a>, Blackbaud is required to delete data that it no longer needs to provide its products or services and<strong> </strong>is prohibited from misrepresenting its data security and data retention policies. The order also requires Blackbaud to develop a comprehensive information security program that would address the issues highlighted by the FTC’s complaint and put in place a data retention schedule outlining its data deletion practices. It also requires Blackbaud to notify the FTC if it experiences a future data breach that it is required to report to any other local, state, or federal agency.</p><p>After receiving two comments, the Commission voted 3-0-2 to give final approval to the settlement. Commissioner Andrew Ferguson did not participate and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak was recused.</p></description> <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85395</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Announces Tentative Agenda for May 23 Open Commission Meeting</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-announces-tentative-agenda-may-23-open-commission-meeting</link> <description><p>Today, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina M. Khan announced that an open meeting of the Commission will be held virtually on Thursday, May 23, 2024. The open meeting will commence at 1 pm ET and will begin with time for members of the public to address the Commission.</p><p>The following items will be on the tentative agenda for the May 23 Commission meeting:</p><h2>Business Before the Commission:</h2><h3>Presentation on Final Rule on Government and Businesses Impersonation:</h3><p>Staff from the Bureau of Consumer Protection’s Division of Marketing Practices will provide a presentation on the Commission’s <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/01/2024-04335/trade-regulation-rule-on-impersonation-of-government-and-businesses">Final Rule Concerning Government and Business Impersonation</a>. The Rule, which went into effect last month, gives the agency stronger tools to combat scammers who impersonate businesses or government agencies, enabling the FTC to directly file federal court cases aimed at forcing scammers to return the money they made from government or business impersonation scams and seek civil penalties for their conduct.</p><h3>Staff Presentation on Roll-Up RFI: </h3><p>Staff from the Bureau of Competition will provide a presentation on the Commission’s Request for Information for public comment on corporate consolidation through serial acquisitions and roll-up strategies. The RFI seeks information from the general public on serial acquisitions across all sectors and industries in the U.S. economy, particularly those acquisitions that do not require review by antitrust agencies, and their effects on competition, consumers, workers, suppliers, and other stakeholders.</p><h3>Voice Cloning Challenge Winners Presentation: </h3><p>Representatives from the Division of Marketing Practices and the Office of Technology will provide a presentation on the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-winners-voice-cloning-challenge">Voice Cloning Challenge winners</a> and their ideas for protecting consumers from AI-enabled voice cloning harms, such as fraud, and the broader misuse of biometric data and creative content.</p><p>At the start of the meeting, Chair Khan will offer brief remarks and will then invite members of the public to share feedback on the Commission’s work generally and bring relevant matters to the Commission’s attention. Members of the public <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/speaker-registration-and-public-comment-submission-form-open-commission-meeting-05-23-24">must sign up<strong> </strong></a>for an opportunity to address the Commission virtually at the May 23 event.</p><p>Each commenter will be given two minutes to share their comments. Those who cannot participate during the event may submit written comments or a link to a prerecorded video through a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/speaker-registration-and-public-comment-submission-form-open-commission-meeting-05-23-24">webform</a><strong>.</strong> Speaker registration and comment submission will be available through Tuesday, May 21, 2024 at 8 pm ET.</p><p>A link to the event will be available on the day of the event, shortly before the meeting starts via FTC.gov. The event will be recorded, and the webcast and any related comments will be available on the Commission’s website after the meeting. The Commission retains discretion to make public comments available following the event on ftc.gov.</p></description> <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85381</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Releases Fiscal Year 2023 Annual Report</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-releases-fiscal-year-2023-annual-report</link> <description><p>Following Public Service Recognition Week, the Federal Trade Commission released its Fiscal Year <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/reports/fy-2023-annual-report">2023 Annual Report</a> outlining the agency’s work to protect consumers and promote competition.</p><p>“The FTC is focused on ensuring that American consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs can enjoy honest markets and the economic liberty that fair and free competition provides,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “As detailed in this report, the work of our talented and dedicated staff in FY 2023 made Americans’ lives better in meaningful and material ways—from safeguarding people’s access to affordable healthcare to protecting people’s sensitive data from unchecked surveillance.”</p><p>The report lays out the Commission’s work to vigorously enforce the nation’s antitrust and consumer protection laws in a constantly evolving modern economy. As artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making tools proliferated, the FTC’s enforcement and policy efforts have been forward-looking—enabling the agency to stay on the cutting edge as these technologies develop.</p><p>In FY 2023, the FTC made programmatic strides to protect Americans’—and especially children’s—privacy; hold companies that defraud the public accountable; stop companies from hiking prices with needless junk fees; shut down subscription tricks and traps; make clear there is no AI exemption for the laws on the books; and ensure that domestic manufacturers, independent repairers, and other small businesses can compete on a level playing field. As part of its work to protect consumers, the FTC in FY 2023:</p><ul><li>Sued <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/ftc-takes-action-against-amazon-enrolling-consumers-amazon-prime-without-consent-sabotaging-their">Amazon</a> for engaging in a years-long effort to enroll consumers into its Prime program without their consent while knowingly making it difficult for consumers to cancel their Prime subscriptions;</li><li>Announced the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/07/ftc-law-enforcers-nationwide-announce-enforcement-sweep-stem-tide-illegal-telemarketing-calls-us">largest telemarketing sweep</a> in U.S. history, in partnership with more than 100 federal and state law enforcers, targeting operations responsible for billions of illegal robocalls to Americans;</li><li>Filed a lawsuit against owners of a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/08/ftc-action-stops-business-opportunity-scheme-promised-its-ai-boosted-tools-would-power-high-earnings">money-making scheme</a> that claimed to use artificial intelligence to boost earnings for consumers’ e-commerce storefronts; and </li><li>Took action to protect Americans’ privacy by bringing several cases. They included actions against <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-doj-charge-amazon-violating-childrens-privacy-law-keeping-kids-alexa-voice-recordings-forever">Amazon</a> and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/ftc-will-require-microsoft-pay-20-million-over-charges-it-illegally-collected-personal-information">Microsoft</a> for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, against <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-ban-betterhelp-revealing-consumers-data-including-sensitive-mental-health-information-facebook">BetterHelp</a> for deceiving users about their health data sharing practices, against the maker of the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ovulation-tracking-app-premom-will-be-barred-sharing-health-data-advertising-under-proposed-ftc">Premom</a> app for violating the Health Breach Notification Rule, and against <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-says-ring-employees-illegally-surveilled-customers-failed-stop-hackers-taking-control-users">Ring</a> for failing to stop employees from viewing customer videos and hackers from taking control of consumers’ accounts, cameras, and videos.</li></ul><p>The FTC also continued to deploy its full toolkit to block anticompetitive mergers, halt anticompetitive practices to monopolize markets, and prevent businesses from using unfair tactics to gain an advantage. In critical sectors across the economy, the agency brought important and justified, yet challenging, theories and cases and pursued bold remedies to fully restore and prevent competitive harms. In addition to the FTC’s enforcement work, the agency worked to update U.S. federal enforcers’ merger policy to reflect market realities and help courts develop and clarify the law through amicus briefs. This work included:</p><ul><li>Taking action, in partnership with 17 state attorneys general, against <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-sues-amazon-illegally-maintaining-monopoly-power">Amazon</a> by alleging the company illegally maintained its monopoly power and raised prices for sellers and shoppers;</li><li>Filing a lawsuit against U.S. Anesthesia Partners and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/09/ftc-challenges-private-equity-firms-scheme-suppress-competition-anesthesiology-practices-across">private equity firm Welsh Carson</a> for engaging in a multi-year scheme to monopolize anesthesiology practices in Texas, driving up the prices of anesthesia services for Texas patients to increase profits; and</li><li>Blocking anticompetitive mergers in sectors across the economy, including the world’s largest health care data provider, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/07/ftc-sues-block-iqvias-acquisition-propel-media-prevent-increased-concentration-health-care">IQVIA’s</a>, proposed acquisition of Propel Media, Inc.</li></ul><p>Across the agency’s work, the FTC continued to prioritize opening its doors to hear from Americans across the country—including through Open Commission Meetings, comment dockets, public workshops, and listening forums. </p></description> <pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>bacree</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85368</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Chair Testifies before House Appropriations Subcommittee </title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-chair-testifies-house-appropriations-subcommittee</link> <description><p>Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina M. Khan today appeared before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government<strong> </strong>to discuss the agency's FY 2025 budget request and ongoing work to promote open, competitive markets and protect American consumers and businesses from fraud.</p><p>In her<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/testimony-chair-lina-m-khan-house-committee-appropriations-subcommittee-financial-services-general"> testimony</a><strong>,</strong> Chair Khan detailed how the agency is using its current funding and noted the value it provides to the American people. In FY 2023, every $1 of the FTC’s costs returned an estimated $14 in benefits to American consumers through its consumer protection and competition law enforcement efforts.</p><p>As the nation’s primary consumer protection agency, the FTC works to fight fraud, junk fees, and related harms affecting consumers; combat opioid recovery fraud and other health fraud; stand up for all consumers, including older adults, servicemembers, and historically underserved communities; protect privacy and data security; and ensure that domestic manufacturers, independent repairers, and other small businesses have a chance to compete fairly. On the competition side, the agency has prioritized its limited resources to target the root causes of anticompetitive conduct and tackle the most significant harms across markets, particularly by dominant firms whose business practices affect many Americans.</p><p>For FY 2025, the Commission has requested $535 million. This increase would help fund mandatory FY 2024 and anticipated FY 2025 pay increases and other inflationary non-pay expenses, as well as critical IT investments needed for the Commission to continue its enforcement work in an era of big data.</p></description> <pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85373</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Sends Refunds to Consumers Harmed by False Made in USA Claims by Cycra</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-sends-refunds-consumers-harmed-false-made-usa-claims-cycra</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $180,000 in refunds to consumers who were harmed by false Made in USA claims by the motocross and ATV parts maker Cycra.</p><p>On its website, social media and in product packaging, Cycra, from 2019 until at least May 2022, deceptively claimed that its products were made in the United States, according to the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Cycra-Inc-Complaint.pdf">FTC’s June 2023 complaint against the company</a>. The claims included a web banner that said, “Proudly designed, developed and manufactured in Lexington, North Carolina,” and product labels featuring the words “Made in USA” with an image of the American flag. Despite these claims, the FTC alleged Cycra regularly imported parts from Asia and Europe for its products, with some arriving in the U.S. already labeled “Made in USA”.</p><p>The FTC is sending payments to 889 consumers. Most consumers will get a check in the mail. Recipients should cash their checks within 90 days, as indicated on the check. Eligible consumers who did not have an address on file will receive a PayPal payment, which should be redeemed within 30 days.</p><p>Consumers who have questions about their payment should contact the refund administrator, Epiq Systems, at 855-787-8694 or visit the FTC website to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/recent-ftc-cases-resulting-refunds/refund-programs-frequently-asked-questions">view frequently asked questions</a> about the refund process. The Commission never requires people to pay money or provide account information to get a refund.</p><p>The Commission’s interactive dashboards for refund data provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2023, FTC actions led to $324 million in refunds to consumers across the country.</p></description> <pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jmayfield</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85359</guid> </item><item> <title>BetterHelp Customers Will Begin Receiving Notices About Refunds Related to a 2023 Privacy Settlement with FTC </title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/betterhelp-customers-will-begin-receiving-notices-about-refunds-related-2023-privacy-settlement-ftc</link> <description><div data-entity-type="block_content" data-entity-uuid="0fa652c4-baf3-48fe-9f0d-8fb3fa7044d2" data-embed-button="basic_block" data-entity-embed-display="view_mode:block_content.full" class="align-right embedded-entity" data-langcode="en" data-entity-embed-display-settings="[]"><div class="block-content block-content--type-basic block-content--840 block-content--view-mode-full"> <div class="block-content__content"> <div class="field field--name-field-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden"> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase"><article class="align-right media media--type-image media--view-mode-sm"><div class="media__content"> <div class="field field--name-field-media-image field--type-image field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label usa-sr-only">Image</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <img src="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/styles/scaled_sm/public/ftc_gov/images/badge-explore-data-ftc-refunds-resized.jpg?itok=Yc2wmn7d" width="390" height="244" alt="Explore Data Badge Resized" loading="lazy" typeof="foaf:Image" style="aspect-ratio: 390/244" /></div> </div> </div> </div> </article></a></div> </div></div> </div></div></div><p>About 800,000 people will begin receiving notices today that they are eligible for refunds stemming from the Federal Trade Commission’s 2023 settlement with BetterHelp related to allegations that the online therapy firm used and shared consumers’ health data, including sensitive information about their mental health, with third parties for advertising.</p><p>BetterHelp agreed to pay $7.8 million to settle the FTC’s charges, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/ftc-ban-betterhelp-revealing-consumers-data-including-sensitive-mental-health-information-facebook">first announced in March 2023, </a>that it used and revealed sensitive consumer data—specifically email addresses, IP addresses, and answers to personal health questions—for advertising purposes. The FTC alleged that BetterHelp shared this information with Facebook, Snapchat, and others for advertising, despite promising consumers that it would only disclose personal health data for limited purposes, such as to provide counseling services. The FTC charged that BetterHelp failed to obtain consumers’ consent before disclosing their health data and failed to limit how third parties use that data.</p><p>Eligible consumers will begin receiving emails about their payment from an independent redress administrator, Ankura Consulting Group. This email provides several payment options. Consumers who do nothing will get a payment via PayPal at the email address where they received their notice. Consumers who wish to choose a different payment method, such as a check or Zelle payment, will have until June 10, 2024 to select a different method. The administrator plans to send all payments this summer.</p><p>Payments will go to people who signed up and paid for services from a BetterHelp website between August 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020. BetterHelp has offered online counseling through several websites, including BetterHelp, MyTherapist, Teen Counseling, Faithful Counseling, Pride Counseling, iCounseling, Regain, and Terappeuta, which are all included in the refund program.</p><p>Consumers who have questions about the refund process should contact the independent refund administrator, at 1-833-637-4774 or via email at <a href="mailto:info@BetterHelpRefundProgram.com">info@BetterHelpRefundProgram.com</a>. The Commission never requires people to pay money or provide sensitive financial information to get a refund.</p><p>The Commission’s <a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase">interactive dashboards</a> for refund data provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2023, FTC actions led to $324 million in refunds to consumers across the country.</p></description> <pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85297</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Takes Action Against BlueSnap and its Former CEO and Senior VP for Credit Card Laundering, Processing Payments for Known Scammer</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-takes-action-against-bluesnap-its-former-ceo-senior-vp-credit-card-laundering-processing</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/BlueSnapTriStar-Complaint_0.pdf">is taking action</a> against payment processing company BlueSnap, Inc., along with its former CEO Ralph Dangelmaier and senior vice president Terry Monteith, charging them with knowingly processing payments for deceptive and fraudulent companies. The defendants have <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2223008bluesnapordersigned.pdf">agreed to a settlement</a> that will require them to turn over $10 million for consumers and stop processing payments for certain high-risk clients.</p><p>In a federal court complaint, the FTC charged that BlueSnap and its officers processed millions of dollars in credit card payments for <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/11/ftc-halts-debt-relief-scheme-bilked-millions-consumers-while-leaving-many-deeper-debt">ACRO Services</a> despite substantial evidence that the company was fraudulent. The FTC sued ACRO Services in November 2022.</p><p>“Companies like BlueSnap that knowingly process payments for scammers are breaking the law and making it easier to cheat consumers,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will continue cracking down on firms and their executives that break the law by facilitating fraud.”</p><p>According to the complaint, BlueSnap, Dangelmaier and Monteith turned a blind eye to glaring warnings that ACRO Services was defrauding consumers from at least 2019 to 2021. The FTC says BlueSnap continued processing payments from consumers who were targeted by the scam and even advised ACRO Services on how to avoid fraud detection programs.</p><p>The warnings received by BlueSnap and its officers about ACRO were clear, according to the complaint. In 2019, BlueSnap was told by another payment processor to consider closing ACRO’s accounts due to high rates of chargebacks from consumers, but it left them open. BlueSnap, the complaint charges, continued to process payments for ACRO for over a year even though reports from Visa repeatedly showed that between 29% and 40% of the company’s charges were being disputed as fraudulent and even after American Express directly contacted Monteith asking her to close down ACRO’s accounts.</p><p>In addition to external warnings about ACRO’s fraudulent behavior, BlueSnap’s own internal fraud monitoring team reported to both Dangelmaier and Monteith that ACRO was defrauding consumers and they still failed to act to shut down the company’s accounts, according to the complaint. According to the FTC, Dangelmaier and Monteith provided advice to ACRO’s owners on how to open new merchant accounts to evade fraud detection, and the BlueSnap officers funneled payments through those accounts until BlueSnap’s processing partner ordered it to shut them down.</p><p>The complaint charges that BlueSnap processed payments for other companies accused of fraud including Powerline Group, which was the target of a law enforcement action by the New York Attorney General. The FTC’s complaint notes that, as with ACRO, BlueSnap was aware of very high chargeback rates and continued to process the company’s payments until it was forced to stop in 2021.</p><p>The proposed court order agreed to by the defendants will require them to turn over $10 million to the FTC to provide refunds to consumers. In addition, the settlement will prohibit the defendants from providing payment processing services to debt collection or debt relief companies, as well as companies listed through an industry fraud monitoring program. In addition, the company will be required to closely screen and monitor other high-risk clients and be prohibited from helping any client take steps to evade fraud monitoring.</p><p>The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and proposed stipulated final order was 5-0. The FTC filed the complaint and final order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.</p><p><strong>NOTE: </strong>The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final injunctions/orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.</p><p>The staff attorneys on this matter are Margaret Burgess, Alan Bakowski, and Natalya Rice of the FTC’s Southeast Region.</p></description> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jmayfield</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85258</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Finalizes Order with InMarket Prohibiting It from Selling or Sharing Precise Location Data </title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-finalizes-order-inmarket-prohibiting-it-selling-or-sharing-precise-location-data</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission finalized a settlement with digital marketing and data aggregator InMarket Media over <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/InMarketMedia-Complaint.pdf">allegations</a> the company unlawfully collected and used consumers’ location data for advertising and marketing.</p><p>In a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-order-will-ban-inmarket-selling-precise-consumer-location-data">complaint announced in January 2024</a>, the FTC alleged that InMarket collects location information about consumers from a variety of sources, including its own apps and from third-party apps that incorporate its software development kit (SDK). InMarket combines this location information with other data to help target advertising based on consumers’ behavior. The FTC charged that InMarket failed to fully inform consumers about how their location data—which can include sensitive information about where they live, work and worship—would be used and that it would be combined with other data about those users for targeted advertising. It also failed to ensure that third-party apps that use its SDK obtained informed consent from consumers.</p><p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/InMarketMedia-DecisionandOrder.pdf">Under the order with InMarket</a>, the company will be prohibited from selling, sharing or licensing any precise location data and any product or service that categorizes or targets consumers based on sensitive location data. Other provisions require the company to: delete or destroy all the location data it previously collected and any products produced from this data unless it obtains consumer consent or ensures the data has been deidentified; provide a simple and easy-to-find way for consumers to withdraw their consent for the collection and use of their location data for InMarket apps and a mechanism to request deletion of any location data that InMarket previously collected; and create a sensitive location data program and privacy program.</p><p>After receiving one comment, the Commission voted 3-0-2 to finalize the settlement with InMarket. Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew N. Ferguson did not vote on the matter.</p></description> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85252</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Action Leads to $43.6 Million in Financial Relief from Water Treatment Financing Company Aqua Finance</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-action-leads-436-million-financial-relief-water-treatment-financing-company-aqua-finance</link> <description><p>A Federal Trade Commission action against household water treatment funding company Aqua Finance, Inc. (AFI) has led to a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/AquaFinance-FiledOrder.pdf">settlement</a> that will provide $20 million in refunds and an additional $23.6 million in debt forgiveness for consumers harmed by its dealers’ deceptive sales tactics.</p><p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/AquaFinance-FiledComplaint.pdf">The FTC’s complaint</a> against AFI charges that the company’s nationwide network of dealers went door-to-door, deceiving consumers about the financing terms for water filtering and softening products. According to the complaint, the bogus claims left consumers with thousands of dollars in unexpected debt and huge interest payments, while its financing terms impaired some consumers’ ability to sell their homes.</p><p>“AFI and its dealers used deceptive teaser rates to lure consumers into signing up for AFI’s loans, costing them hundreds of dollars extra apiece,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “As this order makes clear, the FTC will continue to use every tool available to hold upstream actors accountable for profiting from consumer harm.”</p><p>Since at least 2018, according to the complaint, AFI has provided dealers across the country with access to a variety of financing programs they can use when going door-to-door to sell consumers products and equipment that will supposedly increase the quality of the water in their home.</p><p>The FTC charges that AFI’s dealers have frequently used deception to lure consumers into taking on expensive financing and misleading them about the terms of AFI’s programs that offer deferred payments and low initial interest rates.</p><p>The complaint states that dealers frequently led consumers to think introductory rates and payments were permanent or failed to inform them that, even when payments were deferred, the loans were continuing to accumulate interest. Consumers were then left with payments they were unable to afford, leading to delinquencies and harm to their credit.</p><p>According to the complaint, in many cases dealers failed to clearly inform consumers that AFI’s financing products include AFI’s obtaining a security interest in the equipment sold to consumers and installed in their homes. This security interest essentially functions as a lien making it difficult or at times impossible for many consumers to sell their homes.</p><p>The complaint notes that AFI was aware that its dealers were misleading consumers and repeatedly failed to act to sanction or stop dealers from selling its financing. In a 2020 email, an AFI vice president wrote to the CEO regarding complaints the company received from consumers, “Two systemic issues we see repeatedly; lack of understanding of how interest works/thinks they are being over charged and a dissatisfaction with the product.”</p><p>Since 2018, the company received thousands of complaints both directly from consumers and through outside organizations, according to the FTC. Beyond issues with financing, consumers also told AFI that dealers had sold them non-functioning systems or deceived them about the terms or existence of warranties, charging them hundreds to fix systems that consumers believed were guaranteed.</p><p>In addition, the complaint points to practices by AFI itself that harmed consumers’ credit, including requiring consumers who had previously opened what they believed to be lines of credit to seek additional loans even when they should have still had credit available under their existing credit lines, causing harm to their credit ratings.</p><p>Under the terms of a proposed settlement agreed to by AFI, the company will be required to:</p><ul><li><strong>Closely monitor dealers:</strong> The order would require AFI to put robust monitoring programs in place for its dealers, including closely tracking complaints and investigating dealers, and terminating agreements with dealers who repeatedly mislead consumers.</li><li><strong>Make required disclosures: </strong>The order would require AFI to provide consumers with clear and conspicuous disclosures about the nature of the liens against consumers’ property that come with the company’s financing.</li><li><strong>Provide money for refunds:</strong> AFI will be required to pay $20 million to be used to provide refunds to consumers harmed by its dealers’ deception.</li><li><strong>Provide loan forgiveness:</strong> AFI will also be required to forgive loans totaling $23.6 million for certain consumers, including ensuring that any liens against those consumers’ property are lifted.</li><li><strong>Stop misrepresenting financing terms: </strong>AFI will be prohibited from misleading consumers about the terms of the financial products they offer.</li></ul><p>The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 3-0-2, with Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew Ferguson not participating. The FTC filed the complaint and stipulated final order<strong> </strong>in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.</p><p><strong>NOTE: </strong>The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.</p><p>The Commission thanks the Tennessee Office of Attorney General, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, and the Texas RioGrande Legal Aid for their assistance in this matter.</p><p>The FTC staff attorneys on this matter were Edward Hynes, Luis Gallegos, Reid Tepfer, Erica Hilliard, and Tammy Chung of the FTC’s Southwest Region.</p></description> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jmayfield</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85255</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC, DOJ, and HHS Extend Comment Period on Cross-Government Inquiry on Impact of Corporate Greed in Health Care</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-doj-hhs-extend-comment-period-cross-government-inquiry-impact-corporate-greed-health-care</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Antitrust Division, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are extending the deadline by 30 days for the public to comment on a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/federal-trade-commission-department-justice-department-health-human-services-launch-cross-government">tri-agency Request for Information (RFI)</a> examining private-equity and other corporations’ increasing control over health care markets. The new deadline is now June 5, 2024.</p><p>The cross-government inquiry seeks to understand how certain health care market transactions may increase consolidation and generate profits for firms while threatening patients’ health, workers’ safety, and the quality and affordability of health care for patients and taxpayers.</p><p>The RFI requests public comment on deals conducted by health systems, private payers, private equity funds, and other alternative asset managers that involve health care providers, facilities, or ancillary products or services. The RFI also seeks information on transactions that would not be reported to the Justice Department or FTC for antitrust review under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act.</p><p>The public can submit at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2024-0022">Regulations.gov</a>. Once submitted, comments will be posted to Regulations.gov. The comment period was originally set to end on May 6, 2024. </p></description> <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>vgraham</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85251</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC and FCC Sign Memorandum of Understanding on Continued Cooperation on Consumer Protection Issues</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-fcc-sign-memorandum-understanding-continued-cooperation-consumer-protection-issues</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have signed a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cooperation-agreements/safeguarding-securing-open-internet-fcc-ftc-memorandum-understanding">Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)</a> reiterating the agencies’ ongoing cooperation on consumer protection matters in response to the FCC’s decision last week to <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-402082A1.pdf">restore net neutrality</a> by reclassifying broadband service as a Title II telecommunications service.</p><p>“The FTC is squarely focused on protecting Americans from illegal business tactics, from tackling AI-enabled voice cloning fraud to fighting the scourge of robocalls. We look forward to continuing to work in close partnership with the FCC,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “Effective law enforcement requires targeting the upstream actors enabling unlawful conduct, and having the FCC as a partner here will be critical.”</p><p>“Consumers do not want their broadband provider cutting sweetheart deals, with fast lanes for some services and slow lanes for others. They do not want their providers engaging in blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel.<strong> </strong>“If consumers have problems, they expect the Nation’s expert authority on communications to be able to respond. Now we can. In partnership with our colleagues at the FTC, we will protect consumers and ensure internet openness, defend national security, and monitor network resiliency and reliability. I thank Chair Khan and her team for their leadership and cooperation in protecting consumers.”</p><p>The MOU formalizes the existing cooperation between the agencies, outlining how the FTC and FCC will coordinate consumer protection efforts. The memorandum details methods by which the agencies will coordinate and share information and recognizes the agencies’ expertise in their respective jurisdictions.</p><p>The MOU reiterates that the FTC would continue to have jurisdiction over non-common carrier activities carried out by common carriers and clarifies that the FCC order does not impact the FTC’s jurisdiction over Voice Over Internet Providers.</p><p>The agencies have followed a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2015/11/ftc-fcc-sign-memorandum-understanding-continued-cooperation-consumer-protection-issues">similar MOU</a> related to telemarketing enforcement issues since 2015. The MOU announced today will go into effect when the FCC’s net neutrality goes into effect.</p></description> <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85248</guid> </item><item> <title>Razer, Inc. to Pay More Than $1.1 Million for Misrepresenting the Performance and Efficacy of Supposed “N95-Grade” Zephyr Face Masks </title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/razer-inc-pay-more-11-million-misrepresenting-performance-efficacy-supposed-n95-grade-zephyr-face</link> <description><p>The sellers of a supposed N95-grade face mask called the Zephyr will pay more than $1.1 million to provide full refunds to consumers nationwide, as well as a civil penalty, under a proposed settlement the Federal Trade Commission announced today.</p><p>The stipulated order settling the complaint also bars Razer, Inc., along with its affiliated entities involved in the development, marketing, and sale of the Zephyr, from making COVID-related health misrepresentations or unsubstantiated health claims about protective health equipment and requires them to pay a civil penalty of $100,000.</p><p>According to the FTC, while Razer advertised the Zephyr masks as N95-grade, they never even submitted them for testing to the FDA or National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the masks were never certified as N95. The complaint alleges that Razer only stopped the false advertising following negative press coverage and consumer outrage at the deceptive claims. The Department of Justice filed the case upon notification and referral from the FTC.</p><figure role="group"><article class="media media--type-image media--view-mode-md"><div class="media__content"> <div class="field field--name-field-media-image field--type-image field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label usa-sr-only">Image</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <img src="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/styles/ftc_scaled_medium_800_/private/ftc_gov/images/zephyr-mask.jpg?itok=LFx7fL-d" width="705" height="379" alt="image of Zephyr Razer mask used in advertisement" loading="lazy" typeof="foaf:Image" style="aspect-ratio: 705/379" /></div> </div> </div> </div> </article><figcaption><em>Advertisement featuring Razer's Zephyr mask</em></figcaption></figure><p>“These businesses falsely claimed, in the midst of a global pandemic, that their face mask was the equivalent of an N95 certified respirator,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will continue to hold accountable businesses that use false and unsubstantiated claims to target consumers who are making decisions about their health and safety.”</p><p>The complaint alleges the defendants deceptively advertised Razer’s Zephyr mask as an N95-equivalent, COVID-protective product. They offered the standard Razer Zephyr, consisting of one Zephyr mask and three sets of filters, for $99.99; the Razer Zephyr Starter Pack, consisting of one Zephyr mask and 33 sets of filters, for $149.99; and a Razer Zephyr Filter Pack, containing 10 sets of filters, for $29.99.</p><p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Razer-PACER-No1-Complaint.pdf">According to the complaint</a>, the defendants began selling the Razer Zephyr and the Razer Zephyr Filter Pack to U.S. consumers online and in three stores – in Seattle, San Francisco, and Las Vegas – in October 2021. Later that month, they started selling the Razer Zephyr Starter Pack to U.S. consumers online through limited “drops.”</p><p>In their advertisements, the defendants initially falsely marketed their Zephyr masks as an N95 or N95-equivalent mask that would protect consumers from contracting COVID-19. Most of these advertisements were on the Internet, including on the defendants’ own website and social media posts and videos on sites including TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Discord and YouTube.</p><p>The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the Razer Zephyr as an N95-equivalent mask that met standards established by NIOSH, the agency that approves N95 respirators. By definition, N95 respirators must filter at least 95 percent of ambient air particles between .1 and .3 micrometers in size, with even higher filtration levels for larger particles. While respirators and masks are designed for different purposes, N95 respirators are frequently referred to as N95 masks.</p><p>Despite the N95-related claims the defendants made in their ads, Razer never submitted a facemask to NIOSH for approval for any type of certification and NIOSH accordingly never certified any version of the Zephyr mask as an N95 respirator. The defendants also never sought or received permission from NIOSH to use the term N95 in marketing and selling its products. Accordingly, the defendants never had the required approval to advertise the Zephyr as an N95 facemask.</p><p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Razer-PACER-No3-1-ProposedStipulatedOrder.pdf">The proposed order</a> settling the complaint addresses each alleged violation of the FTC Act. First, it bans Razer from making, without prior FDA approval, any claims that any product prevents or reduces the likelihood of infection with, or transmission of, the COVID-19 virus; reduces the severity or duration of COVID-19; or otherwise cures, mitigates, or treats COVID-19.</p><p>The proposed order also prohibits the defendants from representing the health benefits, performance, efficacy, safety, or side effects of protective goods and services (as defined in the proposed order), unless they have competent and reliable scientific evidence to support the claims made. The proposed order also prohibits the Razer defendants from making certain marketing and advertising misrepresentations, including that any goods or services are affiliated with, endorsed, certified, cleared, authorized, approved by, registered, or otherwise connected to any government entity.</p><p>Next, the order prohibits them from the deceptive use of government logos or trademarks to imply such an affiliation, from falsely claiming that any product meets government-established standards when it has not, and from misrepresenting any other fact material to consumers such as total cost of the product and any aspect of its performance, efficacy, or other primary characteristics.</p><p>Finally, the order imposes a $100,000 civil penalty against the defendants and requires them to pay $1,071,254.33 to the United States, equal to Razer’s revenue from the masks, which the FTC expects to use to provide refunds to defrauded consumers. This amount will allow the FTC to provide full refunds to consumers who purchased the deceptively marketed products.</p><p><u></u></p><p></p><p>The Commission vote approving the complaint and proposed order was 3-0. It was filed by DOJ in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The proposed order settles the FTC case against: 1) Razer, Inc.; 2) Razer (Asia-Pacific) Pte., Ltd.; 3) Razer USA, Ltd.; 4) Razer Health Pte., Ltd.; and 5) Razer Online Pte., Ltd.</p><p>The staff attorneys on this case are Vikram Jagadish and Jordan Navarrette of the FTC’s Northeast Region.</p><p><strong>NOTE: </strong>The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final injunctions/orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.</p></description> <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>mkatz</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85230</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Finalizes Changes to the Health Breach Notification Rule</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-finalizes-changes-health-breach-notification-rule</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission today announced it has finalized changes to the Health Breach Notification Rule (HBNR) that will strengthen and modernize the rule by clarifying its applicability to health apps and other similar technologies and expanding the information that covered entities must provide to consumers when notifying them of a breach of their health data.</p><p>The HBNR requires vendors of personal health records (PHR) and related entities that are not covered by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to notify individuals, the FTC, and, in some cases, the media of a breach of unsecured personally identifiable health data. It also requires third party service providers to vendors of PHRs and PHR related entities to notify such vendors and PHR related entities following the discovery of a breach.</p><p>“Protecting consumers’ sensitive health data is a high priority for the FTC,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “With the increasing use of health apps and connected devices, the updated HBNR will ensure it keeps pace with changes in the health marketplace.”</p><p>In May 2023, the FTC <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-proposes-amendments-strengthen-modernize-health-breach-notification-rule">sought comment on proposed changes</a> to the HBNR. After receiving approximately 120 comments from a broad range of individuals and stakeholders, the Commission has finalized changes to the rule, including:</p><ul><li><strong>Revising definitions:</strong> The Commission revised several definitions to underscore the final rule’s application to health apps and similar technologies not covered by HIPAA. This includes modifying the definition of “PHR identifiable health information” and adding two new definitions for “covered health care provider” and “health care services or supplies”;</li><li><strong>Clarifying breach of security:</strong> It clarifies that a “breach of security” under the final rule includes an unauthorized acquisition of identifiable health information that occurs as a result of a data security breach or an unauthorized disclosure;</li><li><strong>Revising definition of PHR related entity:</strong> The definition of “PHR related entity” has been revised in two ways that pertain to the rule’s scope. The revised definition makes clear that the final rule covers entities that offer products and services through the online services, including mobile applications, of vendors of personal health records. It also makes clear that only entities that access or send unsecured PHR identifiable health information to a personal health record — rather than entities that access or send any information to a personal health record — qualify as PHR related entities;</li><li><strong>Clarifying multiple sources of PHR identifiable health information: </strong>The final rule clarifies what it means for a personal health record to draw PHR identifiable health information from multiple sources;</li><li><strong>Expanding use of electronic notification:</strong> The final rule authorizes the expanded use of email and other electronic means of providing clear and effective notice to consumers of a breach;</li><li><strong>Expanding consumer notice content:</strong> The final rule expands the required content that must be provided in the notice to consumers. For example, the notice would be required to include the name or identity (or, where providing the full name or identity would pose a risk to individuals or the entity providing notice, a description) of any third parties that acquired unsecured PHR identifiable health information as a result of a breach of security;</li><li><strong>Changing timing requirement:</strong> The final rule modifies when the FTC must be notified under the rule. For breaches involving 500 or more individuals, covered entities must notify the FTC at the same time they send notices to affected individuals, which must occur without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after the discovery of a breach of security; and</li><li><strong>Improving readability:</strong> The final rule also includes changes to improve the rule’s readability and promote compliance.</li></ul><p>The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/federal-register-notices/health-breach-notification-final-rule">final rule</a> will go into effect 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register.</p><p>In addition to amending the HBNR, the FTC has recently taken action against companies for violating the HBNR, including <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/02/ftc-enforcement-action-bar-goodrx-sharing-consumers-sensitive-health-info-advertising">GoodRx</a> and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ovulation-tracking-app-premom-will-be-barred-sharing-health-data-advertising-under-proposed-ftc">Easy Healthcare</a> (publisher of the Premom app).</p><p>The Commission voted 3-2<strong> </strong>to approve the publication of the final rule in the Federal Register with Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew N. Ferguson voting no. Chair Lina M. Khan<strong> </strong>along with Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya issued a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/public-statements/joint-statement-chair-khan-joined-commissioners-slaughter-bedoya-regarding-health-breach">separate statement</a>, while Commissioner Holyoak,<strong> </strong>joined by Commissioner Ferguson, issued a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/public-statements/statement-commissioner-holyoak-joined-commissioner-ferguson-regarding-health-breach-notification">dissenting statement</a>.</p><p>The lead staffers who worked on this rule include Ryan Mehm and Ronnie Solomon with the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.</p></description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85209</guid> </item><item> <title>Williams-Sonoma Will Pay Record $3.17 Million Civil Penalty for Violating FTC Made in USA Order</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/williams-sonoma-will-pay-record-317-million-civil-penalty-violating-ftc-made-usa-order</link> <description><p>Home products company Williams-Sonoma will be required to pay a record civil penalty of $3.175 million for violating a 2020 Federal Trade Commission order requiring the retailer to tell the truth about whether the products it sells are Made in USA.</p><p>In a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/WilliamsSonoma-Complaint-FILESTAMPED.pdf">complaint</a><strong> </strong>filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, the agency charges that Williams-Sonoma listed multiple products for sale as being “Made in USA” when in fact they were made in China and other countries. The company <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/OrderbyMagistrateJudgeLaurelBeelergranting.pdf">has agreed to a settlement</a><strong> </strong>that requires them to pay the civil penalty, which is the largest ever in a Made in USA case.</p><p>“Williams-Sonoma claimed its products were made in the United States even though they were made in China,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “Williams-Sonoma’s deception misled consumers and harmed honest American businesses. Today’s record-setting civil penalty makes clear that firms committing Made-in-USA fraud will not get a free pass.”</p><p>The FTC sued Williams-Sonoma in 2020, charging that the company advertised multiple product lines under its Goldtouch, Rejuvenation, Pottery Barn Teen and Pottery Barn Kids brands as being all or virtually all made in the USA when they were not. The company agreed to an FTC order that required them to stop their deceptive claims and follow Made in USA requirements.</p><p>The current complaint notes that the FTC became aware that the company was marketing mattress pads under its PBTeen brand as “Crafted in America from domestic and imported materials” when it was actually made in China. The FTC then investigated six other products the company advertised as Made in USA and found those claims were also deceptive in violation of the 2020 order.</p><p>In addition to the civil penalty, the federal court settlement also requires Williams-Sonoma to submit annual compliance certifications, and imposes a number of requirements about the claims the company makes, reinforcing requirements from the 2020 FTC order:</p><ul><li><strong>Restriction on unqualified claims: </strong>Williams-Sonoma will be prohibited from making <strong>unqualified</strong> U.S.-origin claims for any product, unless it can show that the product’s final assembly or processing—and all significant processing—takes place in the U.S., and that all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in them U.S.</li><li><strong>Requirement for qualified claims: </strong>The company is required to include in any <strong>qualified</strong> Made in USA claims a clear and conspicuous disclosure about the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients or components, or processing.</li><li><strong>Requirement for assembly claims: </strong>The company must also ensure, when claiming a product is<strong> assembled</strong> in the U.S., that it is last substantially transformed in the U.S., its principal assembly takes place in the U.S., and U.S. assembly operations are substantial.</li></ul><p>The FTC is committed to ensuring that “Made in USA” claims are truthful. The FTC’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1997/12/enforcement-policy-statement-us-origin-claims">Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims</a> provides guidance on making non-deceptive “Made in USA” claims. In addition, the FTC’s <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/07/14/2021-14610/made-in-usa-labeling-rule">Made in USA Labeling Rule</a> went into effect on Aug. 13, 2021. Companies that violate the Rule from that date forward may be subject to civil penalties.</p><p>The Commission vote to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the DOJ and to approve the proposed consent decree was 3-0. Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/public-statements/statement-commissioner-rebecca-kelly-slaughter-joined-chair-lina-m-khan-commissioner-alvaro-m-bedoya-3"> issued a statement</a>, joined by Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya. The DOJ filed the complaint and proposed consent decree in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The FTC thanks Truth In Advertising.org for their assistance in this matter.</p><p><strong>NOTE: </strong>The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Consent decrees have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.</p><p>The lead staff attorney on this matter was Julia Solomon Ensor in the Bureau of Consumer Protection.</p></description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jmayfield</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85219</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Takes Action Against Bill Payment Company Doxo for Misleading Consumers, Tacking on Millions in Junk Fees</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-takes-action-against-bill-payment-company-doxo-misleading-consumers-tacking-millions-junk-fees</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission is <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Doxo-Filed-Complaint.pdf">taking action<strong> </strong>against bill payment company Doxo and two of its co-founders</a>, charging that the company uses misleading search ads to impersonate consumers’ billers and deceptive design practices to mislead consumers about millions of dollars in junk fees they tacked on to consumers’ bills.</p><p>The complaint alleges that Doxo, its CEO and co-founder Steve Shivers, and its vice president and co-founder Roger Parks, have known from years of internal surveys and complaints from tens of thousands of consumers and hundreds of billers of the harms their business model caused consumers and have still failed to correct their unlawful actions.</p><p>The FTC’s complaint notes that, even though Doxo immediately charges a consumer for payment, in many instances, the company then prints a paper check that is mailed to the biller – arriving days or sometimes weeks after the customer believes their bill is paid. As a result, many consumers have had their utilities shut off, have had car and health insurance lapse, and have been charged fees and fines even though they paid their bills on time. </p><p>“Doxo intercepted consumers trying to reach their billers and tricked them into paying millions of dollars in junk fees,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will continue to take action when companies use deceptive design tricks to harm consumers.”</p><p>According to the FTC’s complaint, Doxo purchases search engine ads that appear when consumers search online for information about companies they owe bills to. These ads are created to mislead consumers into believing that Doxo is affiliated with those companies. The complaint cites as an example Doxo’s ads that are designed to trick consumers into believing they are affiliated with a prominent medical testing company. Doxo bought ads that appeared when consumers searched for the company’s name or website, and the ads included headlines that included the company’s name but not Doxo’s.</p><p>Doxo’s landing pages prominently feature the biller’s company name and sometimes even their logo, even though Doxo generally does not have a formal relationship with the biller. In fact, less than two percent of the companies in Doxo’s “network” authorize Doxo to accept payments on their behalf, according to the complaint.</p><p>Once consumers provide their billing details, Doxo then shows a final payment amount, onto which the company tacks an extra fee that is included only at the final payment step, and even then only in greyed-out fine print.</p><p>The complaint also outlines Doxo’s deceptive process to sign consumers up for its recurring subscription program, noting that, until February 2024, after learning of the FTC’s proposed complaint, the company would automatically check the box to sign consumers up when they clicked to read a terms of service document. In addition, while Doxo said consumers would save on the company’s “delivery” fees, consumers paying for the monthly plan are still often charged those fees.</p><p>Tens of thousands of consumers have complained about Doxo’s deceptive practices, according to the complaint, with many pointing to the fact that they paid more than their actual bill amount, even when the actual billers did not charge for online payments. The complaints were so numerous that, in 2021, employees of a major search engine declared Doxo’s ads to be “super misleading,” but the company still has not changed the fundamental structure of its ads. The complaint points to multiple instances in which the company’s top executives, Shivers and Parks, were personally made aware of complaints against Doxo.</p><p>The complaint alleges that Doxo violated the FTC Act, the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.</p><p>The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.</p><p><strong>NOTE: </strong>The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The case will be decided by the court.</p><p>The staff attorneys on this matter are James Doty and Edward Smith of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.</p></description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jmayfield</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85204</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Announces Appointment of Dania L. Ayoubi as New Administrative Law Judge</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-appointment-dania-l-ayoubi-new-administrative-law-judge</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission announced the appointment of Dania L. Ayoubi to serve as one of the agency’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/office-administrative-law-judges">Administrative Law Judges</a>, who are responsible for independent adjudicative fact-finding in the agency’s administrative litigation and rulemaking proceedings.</p><p>The Commission voted 3-0 in February 2024 to approve Ayoubi’s appointment as an Administrative Law Judge.</p><p>Administrative Law Judge Ayoubi joins Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell and Administrative Law Judge Jay L. Himes, who <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/ftc-announces-appointment-jay-l-himes-new-administrative-law-judge">came to the agency in March 2024</a>. The Commission is expanding the number of administrative law judges to help handle an increased workload stemming from FTC rulemakings and enforcement matters as well as reviews of final civil sanctions imposed by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, a private nonprofit that the FTC oversees. </p><p>Ayoubi most recently served as an administrative law judge for the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings, where she served with distinction. Ayoubi independently presided over hundreds of cases involving appeals of state administrative agency decisions, including complex matters in consumer protection and antitrust. Prior to that, she worked as senior counsel in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Office of Regulations and as an attorney advisor in the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau.</p><p>She also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Eric T. Washington of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and worked in the litigation practice group at Hughes Hubbard and Reed LLP. Ayoubi earned her undergraduate degree from Georgetown University and law degree from Georgetown University Law Center.</p></description> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85180</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Sends Refunds to Ring Customers Stemming from 2023 Settlement over Charges the Company Failed to Block Employees and Hackers from Accessing Consumer Videos </title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-sends-refunds-ring-customers-stemming-2023-settlement-over-charges-company-failed-block</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission is sending refunds totaling more than $5.6 million to consumers as the result of a settlement with Ring over charges the company allowed employees and contractors to access consumers’ private videos and failed to implement security protections, enabling hackers to take control of consumers’ accounts, cameras, and videos.</p><p>In a complaint <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-says-ring-employees-illegally-surveilled-customers-failed-stop-hackers-taking-control-users">first announced in May 2023</a>, the FTC says that Ring deceived its customers by failing to restrict employees’ and contractors’ access to its customers’ videos, using its customer videos to train algorithms without consent, and failing to implement security safeguards. These practices led to egregious violations of users’ privacy.</p><p>The FTC is sending 117,044 PayPal payments to consumers who had certain types of Ring devices, such as indoor cameras, during periods when the FTC alleges unauthorized users may have had access to customer videos. Consumers should redeem their PayPal payment within 30 days.<a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase"><img src="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/attachments/media-resources/badge-explore-data-ftc-refunds.jpg" alt="Explore Data with the FTC: Learn more about FTC refunds to consumers" width="300" height="188" align="right" hspace="5" vspace="5" /></a></p><p>Consumers who have questions about their payment should contact the refund administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc., at 1-833-637-4884, or visit the FTC website to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/recent-ftc-cases-resulting-refunds/refund-programs-frequently-asked-questions">view frequently asked questions</a> about the refund process. The Commission never requires people to pay money or provide account information to get a refund.</p><p>The Commission’s interactive dashboards for refund data provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2023, FTC actions led to $324 million in refunds to consumers across the country.</p></description> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85182</guid> </item><item> <title> FTC Approves Modifications to Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority’s Registration Rule</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-approves-modifications-horseracing-integrity-safety-authoritys-registration-rule</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission has<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P222100CommOrderHISARegistrationRuleMod.pdf"> issued an order</a><strong> </strong>approving modifications that the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority has proposed to its Registration Rule. The rule modifications aim to enhance the safety and welfare of horses the Authority oversees by enabling it to have accurate and timely information about covered horses and persons.</p><p>The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act requires the Authority to submit proposed rules (or rule modifications) to the FTC for approval. The act requires the FTC to approve submitted rules if it finds that they are “consistent with” the act and the FTC’s procedural rules governing the submission process.</p><p>On June 29, 2022, the FTC <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P222100CommissionOrderRegistrationRuleFinal.pdf">issued an order</a> approving the Authority’s initial Registration Rule<strong> </strong>after <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/17/2022-10709/hisa-registration-rule">a public comment period</a>. The rule requires covered persons, which includes trainers, breeders, jockeys and others involved in the horse racing industry, and covered horses to register with the Authority, which has a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/now-leaving?external_url=https%3A%2F%2Fportal.hisausapps.org%2Fregistration&back_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ftc.gov%2Fnews-events%2Fnews%2Fpress-releases%2F2022%2F06%2Fftc-approves-horseracing-integrity-safety-authoritys-proposed-registration-rule">registration portal</a> at its website, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/now-leaving?external_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hisaus.org&back_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ftc.gov%2Fnews-events%2Fnews%2Fpress-releases%2F2022%2F06%2Fftc-approves-horseracing-integrity-safety-authoritys-proposed-registration-rule">www.hisaus.org</a>. In February 2024, the FTC sought public comment on the Authority’s proposed modifications to the Registration Rule.</p><p>Under the act, the FTC has 60 days from the date of publication to approve or disapprove the proposed rule modifications. The Commission order announced today finds that the proposed modifications are consistent with the Act, and that the Authority complied with the FTC’s procedural requirements.</p><p>The Commission vote in favor of an order approving the Registration Rule modification was 5-0. The modified rule will take effect on July 1, 2024.</p></description> <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>mkatz</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85170</guid> </item><item> <title> FTC Action Leads to Industry Ban for Ringleader of Student Loan Debt Relief Scam</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-action-leads-industry-ban-ringleader-student-loan-debt-relief-scam</link> <description><p>The ringleader of a student loan debt relief scam will be permanently banned from the debt relief industry and is required to turn over assets as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/x230038apexordermanzi.pdf">settlement with Marco Manzi resolves FTC charges</a> involving the student loan debt relief scheme. The FTC charged that Manzi, Ivan Esquivel, and Robert Kissinger, operators of Express Enrollment LLC (also doing business as SLFD Processing) and Intercontinental Solutions LLC (also doing business as Apex Doc Processing LLC), pretended to be affiliated with the U.S. Department of Education and used “Biden Loan Forgiveness” or similar names to trick students into signing up for their student debt relief scheme. The FTC said that Apex operators pocketed approximately $8.8 million in junk fees by luring students with false promises of loan forgiveness.</p><p>The FTC <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-action-leads-permanent-ban-scammers-who-charged-students-seeking-debt-relief-junk-fees">announced a settlement in February 2024</a> with the other defendants in the case, Esquivel, Kissinger and the corporate defendants, which imposed similar requirements as the proposed order against Manzi.</p><p>The FTC has resources on how to avoid student loan debt relief scams at <a href="https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/how-student-loans-work-how-avoid-scams">ftc.gov/StudentLoans</a>. Consumers can get assistance with their student loans for free at <a href="https://studentaid.gov/">StudentAid.gov</a>.</p><p>The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the stipulated final order was 3-0. The FTC filed the final order<strong> </strong>in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Court approved the final order on March 15, 2024.</p><p>The staff attorneys for this matter are Carlton Mosley and Gregory Ashe of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.</p></description> <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>ndrayton</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85152</guid> </item><item> <title>Proposed FTC Order will Prohibit Telehealth Firm Cerebral from Using or Disclosing Sensitive Data for Advertising Purposes, and Require it to Pay $7 Million </title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/proposed-ftc-order-will-prohibit-telehealth-firm-cerebral-using-or-disclosing-sensitive-data</link> <description><p>Cerebral, Inc. has agreed to an order that will restrict how the company can use or disclose sensitive consumer data and require it to provide consumers with a simple way to cancel services to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the telehealth firm failed to secure and protect sensitive health data.</p><p>Under <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/cerebral_joint_stipulation_order_permanent_injunction.pdf">the proposed order</a>, filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, Cerebral will also be required to pay more than $7 million over charges that it disclosed consumers’ sensitive personal health information and other sensitive data to third parties for advertising purposes and failed to honor its easy cancellation promises. The order must be approved by the court before it can go into effect.</p><p>“As the Commission’s complaint lays out, Cerebral violated its customers’ privacy by revealing their most sensitive mental health conditions across the Internet and in the mail,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “To address this betrayal, the Commission is ordering a first-of-its-kind prohibition that bans Cerebral from using any health information for most advertising purposes."</p><p>Cerebral provides online mental health and related services on a negative option basis, which means consumers are automatically charged unless they cancel those services. Consumers who sign up and use the company’s services provide detailed personal data including their home and email addresses, birthdates, medical and prescription histories, payment account or driver license numbers, as well as information about their treatment plans, pharmacy and health insurance plans, and other personal data, such as their religious or political beliefs, or sexual orientation.</p><p>The <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2223087cerebralcomplaint.pdf">complaint</a> charges that Cerebral and its former CEO, Kyle Robertson, repeatedly broke their privacy promises to consumers and misled them about the company’s cancellation policies. The complaint also charges that Cerebral and Robertson violated the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act of 2018 (OARFPA) by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices with respect to substance use disorder treatment services.</p><p>To get consumers to sign up for the company’s services and provide detailed personal data, the company claimed it offered “safe, secure, and discreet” services and that users’ data would be kept confidential, according to the complaint. The complaint charges that Cerebral failed to clearly disclose that it would be sharing consumers’ sensitive data with third parties for advertising and buried disclaimers about its data sharing practices in dense privacy policies. In fact, according to the complaint, the company claimed in many instances that it would not share users’ data for marketing purposes without obtaining consumers’ consent. The complaint alleges that these practices originated under the direction of its former CEO, Robertson, and continued after his tenure.</p><p>Specifically, the complaint charges that Cerebral provided sensitive information of nearly 3.2 million consumers to third parties such as LinkedIn, Snapchat and TikTok by using or integrating tracking tools on its website or apps. These tracking tools collect and send data to third parties so they can provide advertising, data analytics, or other services to the owner of the websites or apps. Through the use of tracking tools, Cerebral gave third parties personal data about its users including names; medical and prescription histories; home and email addresses; phone numbers; birthdates; demographic information; IP addresses; pharmacy and health insurance information; and other health information, according to the complaint.</p><p>The complaint says that Cerebral, and Robertson, while he was CEO, also failed to deploy adequate safeguards for the sensitive data collected from consumers and engaged in sloppy security practices. As described in the complaint, Cerebral’s practices included:</p><ul><li><strong>Engaging in Careless Marketing: </strong>Cerebral sent out promotional postcards, which were not in envelopes, to over 6,000 patients that included their names and language that appeared to reveal their diagnosis and treatment to anyone who saw the postcards;</li><li><strong>Allowing Former Employees to Access User Data: </strong>From May to December 2021, the company failed to block former employees from accessing confidential electronic medical records of Cerebral patients. It also failed to ensure providers only accessed their patients’ records;</li><li><strong>Using Insecure Access Methods: </strong>The company used a single sign-on method for accessing its patient portal that in numerous instances exposed confidential medical files and patient information such as diagnoses, medications, email addresses, and phone numbers, to other patients when those users signed onto the portal at the same time; and</li><li><strong>Failing to Implement Adequate Policies and Training:</strong> The company failed to restrict access to consumer data to only those employees who needed it, implement proper procedures and training related to the handling of sensitive data, and develop and implement adequate information security standards, policies, and procedures.</li></ul><p>In addition to its privacy and data security failures, the complaint alleges that Cerebral also violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) by failing to clearly disclose all material terms of Cerebral’s cancellation policies before charging consumers. Despite promising that consumers could “cancel anytime,” Cerebral required its clients to navigate a complex, multi-step, and often multi-day process to cancel. The complaint alleges that the company continued to charge consumers while it slow-walked consumers’ cancellation requests, which cost consumers millions in additional charges. When it first implemented an easier cancellation button in April 2020, the company removed it after only two weeks at Robertson’s direction after seeing cancellations rise, according to the complaint.</p><p>The proposed order, which must be approved by a federal court before it can go into effect, only applies to Cerebral. Robertson has not agreed to a settlement, and the charges against him will be decided by the court.</p><p>Under the proposed order, Cerebral will pay nearly $5.1 million, which will be used to provide partial refunds to consumers impacted by its deceptive cancellation practices, as well as a $10 million civil penalty, which will be suspended after a $2 million penalty payment due to the company’s inability to pay the full amount. The proposed order also will:</p><ul><li>Permanently ban Cerebral from using or disclosing consumers’ personal and health information to third parties for most marketing or advertising purposes, and generally require the company to obtain consumers’ consent before disclosing such information to outside parties;</li><li>Prohibit the company from misrepresenting its privacy and data security practices;</li><li>Require the company to implement a comprehensive privacy and data security program that, among other things, addresses the specific problems outlined in the complaint;</li><li>Require the company to post a notice on its website alerting users to the allegations outlined in the complaint and detail the steps it is required to take under the order;</li><li>Require the company to implement a data retention schedule and to delete most consumer data not used for treatment, payment, or health care operations unless consumers consent to its retention, and provide consumers with a clear mechanism to request that their data be deleted; and</li><li>Prohibit the company from misrepresenting any negative option and cancellation policies or practices and also require it to provide consumers with an easy method to cancel services.</li></ul><p>The Commission voted 3-0 to refer the complaint against Cerebral and Robertson and a stipulated final order with Cerebral to the Department of Justice for filing. The DOJ filed the complaint and stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.</p><p><strong>NOTE: </strong>The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendant is violating or is about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.</p><p>FTC’s lead attorneys on this matter are Joshua Millard and Christopher Erickson in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.</p></description> <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85135</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Finalizes Order with X-Mode and Successor Outlogic Prohibiting it from Sharing or Selling Sensitive Location Data</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-finalizes-order-x-mode-successor-outlogic-prohibiting-it-sharing-or-selling-sensitive-location</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission has finalized an order prohibiting data broker X-Mode and its successor Outlogic from sharing or selling any sensitive location data to settle allegations that the company sold precise location data that could be used to track people’s visits to sensitive locations such as medical and reproductive health clinics and places of worship.</p><p>In a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/X-ModeSocialComplaint.pdf">complaint</a> first <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/01/ftc-order-prohibits-data-broker-x-mode-social-outlogic-selling-sensitive-location-data">announced in January 2024</a>, the FTC charged that X-Mode/Outlogic failed until May 2023 to remove sensitive locations from the raw location data it sold and did not implement reasonable or appropriate safeguards against downstream use of the precise location data it sold, putting consumers’ sensitive personal information at risk.</p><p>In addition to the ban on selling or sharing sensitive location data, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/X-ModeSocialDecisionandOrder.pdf">the order</a> also imposes several other requirements on X-Mode/Outlogic including mandating that it create a program to ensure it develops and maintains a comprehensive list of sensitive locations, and ensure it is not sharing, selling or transferring location data about such locations.</p><p>It also must delete or destroy all the location data it previously collected and any products developed from this data unless it obtains consumer consent or ensures the data has been deidentified or rendered non-sensitive; develop a supplier assessment program to ensure that companies that provide location data to X-Mode/Outlogic are obtaining informed consent from consumers for the collection, use and sale of the data or stop using such information; implement procedures to ensure that recipients of its location data do not associate the data with locations that provide services to LGBTQ+ people, with locations of public gatherings of individuals at political or social demonstrations or protests, or use location data to determine the identity or location of a specific individual; and establish and implement a comprehensive privacy program that protects the privacy of consumers’ personal information and also create a data retention schedule.</p><p>After receiving three comments on the proposed settlement, the Commission voted 3-0-2 to give final approval of the settlement with X-Mode/Outlogic. Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew N. Ferguson did not participate.</p></description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85133</guid> </item><item> <title>Alcohol Addiction Treatment Firm will be Banned from Disclosing Health Data for Advertising to Settle FTC Charges that It Shared Data Without Consent</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/alcohol-addiction-treatment-firm-will-be-banned-disclosing-health-data-advertising-settle-ftc</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against an alcohol addiction treatment service for allegedly disclosing users’ personal health data to third-party advertising platforms, including Meta and Google, for advertising without consumer consent, after promising to keep such information confidential.</p><p>As part of a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/MonumentOrderFiled.pdf">proposed order</a><strong> </strong>settling the FTC allegations, New York-based Monument, Inc. will be banned from disclosing health information for advertising and must obtain users’ affirmative consent before sharing health information with third parties for any other purpose.</p><p>Despite Monument’s promises to keep users’ personal information private, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/MonumentComplaintFiled.pdf">complaint</a>, filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral from the FTC, alleges that Monument failed to ensure it was complying with its promises and in fact disclosed users’ health information to third-party advertising platforms, including highly sensitive data that revealed that its customers were receiving help to recover from their addiction to alcohol.</p><p>“This action continues the FTC’s work to ensure strict limits on how firms handle sensitive health data, rather than putting the onus on consumers to protect themselves,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Following on the heels of actions against GoodRx, BetterHelp, and Premom, the market should be getting the message that consumer health data should be handled with extreme caution.”</p><p>New York-based Monument offers users, depending on membership levels that cost from $14.99 to $249 a month, access to online support groups, community forums, online therapy, and access to physicians who can prescribe medications that assist in treating alcohol addiction. The company collects personal information from consumers when they sign up for the service including their name, email addresses, date of birth, phone numbers, addresses, copies of their government issued IDs, and information about their alcohol consumption and medical history, as well as their IP addresses and device IDs when they start using the service.</p><p>The complaint says that from 2020-2022, Monument claimed on its website and/or in other communications with consumers that users’ personal information would be “100% confidential” and that the company would not disclose such data to third parties without users’ consent. The company also claimed it complied with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which protects health information held by entities covered by HIPAA and their business associates, when in fact an outside assessor hired by the company found that it had not fully complied with HIPAA’s requirements.</p><p>According to the complaint, the company contradicted its privacy promises. From 2020-2022, the company allegedly disclosed users’ personal information, including their health information, to numerous third-party advertising platforms via tracking technologies, known as pixels and application programming interfaces (APIs), which Monument integrated into its website. Monument used the information to target ads for its services to both current users who subscribe to the lowest cost memberships and to target new consumers, according to the complaint.</p><p>Monument used these pixels and APIs to track “standard” and “custom events,” meaning instances in which consumers interacted with Monument’s website. The FTC says that Monument gave the custom events descriptive titles that revealed details about its users such as “Paid: Weekly Therapy” or “Paid: Med Management,” when a user signed up for a service. Monument disclosed this custom events information to advertising platforms along with users’ email addresses, IP addresses, and other identifiers, which enabled third parties to identify the users and associate the custom events with specific individuals, according to the complaint.</p><p>Monument disclosed information of as many as 84,000 users, though it did not have a precise number because it did not adequately track or inventory the personal information it collected and disclosed to third-party advertising platforms like Meta, according to the complaint.</p><p>The complaint alleges that these practices violated the FTC Act’s prohibition against unfair and deceptive practices and the Opioid Addiction Recovery Fraud Prevention Act of 2018 (OARFPA), which prohibits deceptive acts or practices with respect to any substance use disorder treatment service or substance use disorder treatment product.</p><p>In addition to the ban on sharing data with third parties for advertising, the proposed order with Monument, which must be approved by a federal court before it can go into effect, also prohibits the company from misrepresenting its data collection and disclosure practices and imposes a $2.5 million civil penalty for violating OARFPA, which will be suspended due to the company’s inability to pay. If the company is found to have misrepresented its finances, it will be required to pay the full amount. Other provisions of the proposed order require Monument to:</p><ul type="disc"><li><strong>Seek deletion of data: </strong>Monument must identify all the user data it shared with third parties and direct those third parties to delete the personal data that was shared with them.</li><li><strong>Inform Consumers:</strong> Monument must inform consumers who have yet to be notified by the company about the disclosure of their health information to third parties for advertising.</li><li><strong>Implement Mandated Privacy Program: </strong>Monument must put in place a comprehensive privacy program that includes strong safeguards to protect consumer data and address the issues the FTC identified in its complaint. The program must include limits on how long Monument can retain personal and health information according to a data retention schedule.</li></ul><p>The Commission voted 3-0 to refer the complaint and stipulated final order to the Department of Justice for filing. The DOJ filed the complaint and stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.</p><p><strong>NOTE: </strong>The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendant is violating or is about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.</p><p>The lead staffers on this matter were Elisa Jillson and Robin Rosen Spector in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.</p></description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85126</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Sends Refunds to Former AT&T Wireless Customers Who Were Subject to Data Throttling </title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-sends-refunds-former-att-wireless-customers-who-were-subject-data-throttling</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission is sending partial refunds to consumers totaling nearly $6.3 million stemming from the FTC’s lawsuit against AT&T Mobility LLC for misleading customers about its unlimited data plans.</p><a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase"><article class="align-right media media--type-image media--view-mode-_3-width"><div class="media__content"> <div class="field field--name-field-media-image field--type-image field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label usa-sr-only">Image</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <img src="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/styles/ftc_scaled_extra_small_350_/public/u97525/explore_data_refunds_20.gif?itok=eligfPgF" width="350" height="219" loading="lazy" typeof="foaf:Image" style="aspect-ratio: 350/219" /></div> </div> </div> </div> </article></a><p>The FTC’s $60 million settlement with AT&T, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2019/11/att-pay-60-million-resolve-ftc-allegations-it-misled-consumers-unlimited-data-promises">announced in 2019</a>, resolved allegations that the wireless provider failed to adequately disclose to its unlimited data plan customers that, if they reach a certain amount of data use in a given billing cycle, AT&T would reduce—or “throttle”—their data speeds to the point that many common mobile phone applications, such as web browsing and video streaming, became difficult or nearly impossible to use. In 2020, as a result of the settlement, the company gave a bill credit to current AT&T customers and sent refund checks to former customers, which resulted in $52 million returned to consumers.</p><p>The latest refunds are going to consumers who had not yet received a refund and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/wireless-customers-who-were-subject-data-throttling-att-can-apply-payment-ftc">filed a valid claim</a> with the FTC.</p><p>The FTC is sending 212,893 checks and 54,841 PayPal payments. Recipients should cash their checks within 90 days, as indicated on the check. Consumers who receive a PayPal payment should redeem their payment within 30 days.</p><p>Consumers who have questions about their payment should contact the refund administrator, JND Legal Administration, at 877-654-1982, or visit the FTC website to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/recent-ftc-cases-resulting-refunds/refund-programs-frequently-asked-questions">view frequently asked questions</a> about the refund process. The Commission never requires people to pay money or provide account information to get a refund.</p><p>The Commission’s interactive dashboards for refund data provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2023, FTC actions led to $324 million in refunds to consumers across the country.</p></description> <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85123</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Issues Report to Congress on Collaboration with State Attorneys General</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-issues-report-congress-collaboration-state-attorneys-general</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission today issued a report to Congress detailing the FTC’s law enforcement cooperation with state attorneys general (AGs) nationwide and presenting best practices to ensure continued effective collaboration.</p><p>The report, directed by the FTC Collaboration Act of 2021, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/reports/collaboration-act-report-congress" data-entity-type="node" data-entity-uuid="37fe2927-8443-4dbf-8471-198a2cf8cbe7" data-entity-substitution="canonical">“Working Together to Protect Consumers: A Study and Recommendations on FTC Collaboration with the State Attorneys General”</a><strong> </strong>makes legislative recommendations that would enhance these efforts, including reinstating the Commission’s authority to seek money for defrauded consumers and providing it with the independent authority to seek civil penalties.</p><p>“Today’s consumer protection challenges require an all-hands-on-deck response, and our report details how the FTC is working closely with state enforcers to share information, stop fraud, and ensure fairness in the marketplace,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We look forward to seeking new opportunities to strengthen these ties and confront the challenges of the future.”</p><p>In June 2023, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/commission-seeks-public-comment-collaboration-state-attorneys-general">Commission announced</a> a request for public information (RFI) seeking public comments and suggestions on ways it can work more effectively with state AGs to help educate consumers about, and protect them from, potential fraud. After reviewing and analyzing the comments received, the agency developed the report to Congress issued today.</p><p>The report is divided into three sections: 1) The FTC’s Existing Collaborative Efforts with State Attorneys General to Prevent, Publicize, and Penalize Frauds and Scams; 2) Recommended Best Practices to Enhance Collaboration; and 3) Legislative Recommendations to Enhance Collaboration Efforts.</p><p>The first section lays out the roles and responsibilities of the FTC and state AGs in protecting consumers from frauds and scams, provides an overview of their respective law enforcement authority, and discusses how federal and state enforcers share their information and expertise to facilitate effective communication and cooperation. It also provides a breakdown of the FTC’s structure and a description of the Consumer Sentinel consumer complaint database, the largest such information-sharing network in the United States.</p><p>The second section details best practices used to enhance strong information-sharing between the FTC and its state law enforcement partners, discusses how the Commission coordinates joint and parallel enforcement actions with state AGs and other state consumer protection agencies, and presents ideas on expanding the sharing of expertise and technical resources between agencies.</p><p>Finally, the third section stresses the legislative need to restore the FTC’s Section 13(b) authority to seek equitable monetary refunds for injured consumers, presents ways to enhance collaboration and conserve resources by providing the Commission with the independent authority to seek civil penalties, and describes the agency’s need for clear authority to pursue legal actions against those who assist and facilitate unfair or deceptive acts or practices.</p><p>The Commission vote approving the report to Congress was 3-0-2, with Commissioners Melissa Holyoak and Andrew N. Ferguson not participating. Chair Lina M. Khan <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/public-statements/statement-chair-khan-joined-commissioners-slaughter-bedoya-regarding-ftc-collaboration-act-report">issued a separate statement</a>,<strong> </strong>in which she was joined by Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro M. Bedoya. Commissioner Slaughter also <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/public-statements/statement-commissioner-rebecca-kelly-slaughter-regarding-collaboration-act-report">issued a separate statement</a>.</p><p>The lead staff attorneys on this matter are Robert Quigley and Miles Freeman in the FTC’s Western Region Los Angeles. </p></description> <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>mkatz</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85118</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Sends $1.2 Million in Refunds to Consumers Harmed by Deceptive Investment Claims</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-sends-12-million-refunds-consumers-harmed-deceptive-investment-claims</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission is sending $1.2 million in refunds to consumers who paid for the advice of supposed experts based on deceptive claims of substantial investment profits.</p><a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase"><article class="align-right media media--type-image media--view-mode-_3-width"><div class="media__content"> <div class="field field--name-field-media-image field--type-image field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label usa-sr-only">Image</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <img src="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/styles/ftc_scaled_extra_small_350_/public/u97525/explore_data_refunds_20.gif?itok=eligfPgF" width="350" height="219" loading="lazy" typeof="foaf:Image" style="aspect-ratio: 350/219" /></div> </div> </div> </div> </article></a><p>The FTC <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-suit-requires-investment-advice-company-wealthpress-pay-17-million-deceiving-consumers">sued Wealthpress in January 2023</a> along with two of its owners, Roger Scott and Conor Lynch, alleging that the company used deceptive claims of likely profits to sell consumers investment advising services—often touting that the services’ recommendations were based on a specific “algorithm” or “strategy” created by a purported expert. The company charged consumers hundreds or even thousands of dollars for access to these services but could not show that services they offered purchasers were likely to reap substantial profits. Indeed, many consumers lost substantial amounts of money in attempting to follow the services’ advice.</p><p>The defendants in the case agreed to a settlement that required them to pay more than $1.2 million in monetary relief along with $500,000 in civil penalties. The settlement also prohibits them from making any claims about earnings without having written evidence to back those claims up.</p><p>The FTC is sending payments to 19,857 consumers. Most consumers will get a check in the mail. Recipients should cash their checks within 90 days, as indicated on the check. Eligible consumers who did not have an address on file will receive a PayPal payment, which should be redeemed within 30 days.</p><p>Consumers who have questions about their payment should contact the refund administrator, JND Legal Administration, at 877-231-0641 or visit the FTC website to <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/recent-ftc-cases-resulting-refunds/refund-programs-frequently-asked-questions">view frequently asked questions</a> about the refund process. The Commission never requires people to pay money or provide account information to get a refund.</p><p>The Commission’s interactive dashboards for refund data provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2023, FTC actions led to $324 million in refunds to consumers across the country.</p></description> <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>mkatz</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85108</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Announces Winners of Voice Cloning Challenge</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-winners-voice-cloning-challenge</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission has chosen four winning submissions for its <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/contests/ftc-voice-cloning-challenge">Voice Cloning Challenge</a> to promote the development of ideas to protect consumers from the misuse of artificial intelligence-enabled voice cloning for fraud and other harms.</p><p>“Tapping American ingenuity is critical to solving big abuses like deceptive voice cloning,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “When it comes to AI-driven fraud, the FTC will continue using every tool to deter harmful practices, shut down bad actors, and spur innovative proposals to help protect consumers."</p><p>“We’re recognizing people who are pushing science forward and proposing different options to ensure a robust landscape of solutions,” said Stephanie T. Nguyen, the FTC’s Chief Technologist. “These exciting solutions show that a multi-disciplinary approach is necessary to prevent the harms posed by voice cloning.”</p><p>The panel of judges—Princeton Computer Science Professor Arvind Narayanan, Britt Paris, assistant professor at Rutgers University’s School of Communication & Information, and Beau Woods, CEO of Stratigos Security and a Cyber Safety Innovation Fellow with the Atlantic Council—chose three top submissions from individuals and small organizations, who will split a total of $35,000 in prize money. They are:</p><ul><li><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/AI%20Detect-Abstract.pdf"><strong>AI Detect</strong></a><strong>:</strong> The submission from David Przygoda and Dr. Carol Espy-Wilson from the small organization OmniSpeech is aimed at consumer and enterprise apps and devices and would use AI to detect AI. It utilizes AI algorithms to distinguish the subtle differences between genuine and synthetic voice patterns.</li><li><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/DeFake-Abstract.pdf"><strong>DeFake</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Submitted by Dr. Ning Zhang, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at Washington University in St. Louis, this proposal uses a form of watermarking. Given that voice cloning relies on the use of pre-existing speech samples to clone a voice, which are generally collected from social media and other platforms, the proposal calls for adding carefully crafted distortions to voice samples that are imperceptible to the human ear, but that make it more difficult to accurately clone.</li><li><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/OriginStory-Abstract.pdf"><strong>OriginStory</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Submitted by Dr. Visar Berisha, Drena Kusari, Dr. Daniel W. Bliss, and Dr. Julie M. Liss of the small organization OriginStory, this technology aims to authenticate the human origin of voice recordings at the point of creation. It uses off-the-shelf sensors already integrated into many devices to simultaneously measure speech acoustics and the co-occurring biosignals in the throat and mouth that a person uses when speaking to validate the human origin and embed this authentication as a type of watermark into the audio stream.</li></ul><p>The fourth winning submission is from a large organization, Pindrop Security, which received the Recognition Award. The Pindrop team was comprised of Dr. Elie Khoury, Anthony Stankus, Ketuman Sardesai, and Amanda Braun. Pindrop’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/VoiceCloneDetection-Abstract.pdf"><strong>Voice Cloning Detection technology</strong></a><strong> </strong>detects voice clones and audio deepfakes in real time. The technology evaluates each incoming phone call or digital audio in two-second chunks and flags those that are potential deep fakes. (Large organizations were not eligible for monetary prizes.)</p><p>The four winning submissions demonstrate the potential for cutting edge technology to help mitigate risks of voice cloning in the marketplace. They promote innovative approaches on which key consumer protections can be built. At the same time, the results of the challenge highlight that there is no single solution to this problem. Given this, in addition to the Voice Cloning Challenge, the FTC also has proposed a comprehensive ban <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-proposes-new-protections-combat-ai-impersonation-individuals">on impersonation fraud</a>, and has affirmed that the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/03/ftc-implements-new-protections-businesses-against-telemarketing-fraud-affirms-protections-against-ai">Telemarketing Sales Rule</a> applies to AI-enabled scam calls. </p><p>This is the sixth challenge the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/11/ftc-announces-exploratory-challenge-prevent-harms-ai-enabled-voice-cloning">FTC has launched</a> under the America COMPETES Act aimed at spurring the development of innovative solutions to complex consumer protection issues. Voice cloning technology offers potential benefits by, for example, providing new ways for those who have impaired speech to communicate in their own voice with the help of technology. But it also poses significant risks to consumers and has been utilized by scammers to impersonate others. For example, scammers have used voice cloning technology to impersonate business executives in order to fraudulently obtain money or valuable information.</p><p>The lead FTC staffers on this matter are James Evans and Christine Barker from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection and Amritha Jayanti and Ben Swartz from the FTC’s Office of Technology.</p></description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jhenderson2</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85101</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Sends Nearly $62 Million in Refunds to Sellers Deceived by Online Real Estate Listing Service Opendoor Labs</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-sends-nearly-62-million-refunds-sellers-deceived-online-real-estate-listing-service-opendoor</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission is sending nearly $62 million in refunds to sellers deceived by advertising and marketing claims made by online real estate business Opendoor Labs, Inc.</p><p>According to the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/08/ftc-takes-action-stop-online-home-buying-firm-opendoor-labs-inc-cheating-potential-sellers">FTC’s August 2022 complaint</a>, Opendoor cheated home sellers by tricking them into thinking that they could make more money selling their home to Opendoor than on the open market using the traditional sales process while saving them money on costs.</p><p>The FTC alleged that Opendoor pitched potential sellers using misleading and deceptive information. In reality, most people who sold to Opendoor made thousands of dollars less than they would have made selling their homes using the traditional process and many paid more in costs than what sellers typically pay. Under a <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/10/ftc-approves-final-order-against-opendoor-labs-preventing-company-misleading-consumers-about-cost">final administrative order</a>, Opendoor agreed to pay monetary relief and stop its deceptive tactics.</p><p>The FTC is sending checks to 54,689 consumers. Recipients should cash their checks within 90 days, as indicated on the check. Consumers who have questions about their payment should contact the refund administrator, Epiq Systems, at 1-888-546-2054 or visit the FTC website to view <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/recent-ftc-cases-resulting-refunds/refund-programs-frequently-asked-questions">frequently asked questions about the refund process.</a> The Commission never requires people to pay money or provide account information to get a refund.</p><p>The Commission’s <a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase">interactive dashboards for refund data</a> provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2023, FTC actions led to more than $324 million in refunds to consumers across the country. </p></description> <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>mkatz</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85071</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Issues Third Report on E-Cigarette Advertising and Sales in the U.S.</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-issues-third-report-e-cigarette-advertising-sales-us</link> <description><p>The Federal Trade Commission today <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/reports/e-cigarette-report-2021">issued its third report on e-cigarette sales and advertising nationwide</a>,<strong> </strong>which shows that the combined sales of cartridge-based and disposable e-cigarette products to U.S. consumers by nine leading manufacturers increased by approximately $370 million between 2020 and 2021, while the total topped $2.67 billion. E-cigarette companies also spent $90.6 million more advertising and promoting their products in 2021 than in 2020.</p><p><u><p></p></u></p><p>It examines two main types of e-cigarettes. Some have rechargeable batteries and changeable prefilled cartridges; others are disposable after running out of charge or e-liquid. Reported sales of cartridge products increased from $2.133 billion in 2020 to $2.496 billion in 2021; sales of disposable, non-refillable e-cigarette products increased from $261.9 million in 2020 to $267.1 million in 2021.</p><p>The 2021 report also provides details on some characteristics of e-cigarette products, including flavors and nicotine concentration, as well as the bundling of the components in cartridge systems. The data shows that in 2021, 69.2 percent of e-cigarette cartridges either sold or given away contained menthol-flavored e-liquids, and the rest were tobacco-flavored.</p><p>Disposable e-cigarettes are not covered by the flavor restrictions imposed by the Food and Drug Administration. In 2021 “other” flavored devices made up 71 percent of all disposable devices sold or given away, with the most-popular subcategories being fruit-flavored and fruit & menthol/mint flavored products. These two subcategories alone made up more than half of all disposable e-cigarette devices sold or given away in 2021.</p><p>According to the report, expenditures for the advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes increased from $768.8 million in 2020 to $859.4 million in 2021, with the three largest spending categories being price discounts, promotional allowances paid to wholesalers, and point-of-sale advertising. Together, these three categories accounted for almost two thirds of expenditures in 2021.</p><p>Finally, the report discusses steps that e-cigarette companies took in 2021 to deter or prevent underage consumers from visiting their websites, signing up for mailing lists and loyalty programs, or buying e-cigarette products online. These steps include the use of online self-certification to verify users were at least 21 years old and following state laws requiring an adult signature upon delivery of e-cigarette products.</p><p>The Commission vote approving the FTC’s E-Cigarette Report and <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/documents/CopyofE-Cigarettedataforpublicrelease.xlsx">related data tables</a> for 2021 was 3-0.</p></description> <pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>mkatz</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85078</guid> </item><item> <title> FTC To Convene Advisory Group to Fight Scams Against Older Adults April 2</title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-convene-advisory-group-fight-scams-against-older-adults-april-2</link> <description><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>WHAT:</strong></td><td>The Federal Trade Commission will <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2024/04/second-scams-against-older-adults-advisory-group-meeting">host an online meeting</a> of the Scams Against Older Adults Advisory Group on April 2, 2024. The meeting will include reports from the committees formed at the group’s <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2022/09/scams-against-older-adults-advisory-group-meeting">inaugural meeting</a> under the Stop Senior Scams Act of 2022.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>WHEN:</strong></td><td>Tuesday, April 2, 2024 from 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET</td></tr><tr><td><strong>WHERE:</strong></td><td>The event will be held online. A link to view the event will be posted to www.FTC.gov the day of the event.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>WHO:</strong></td><td>The event will begin with opening remarks by FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine followed by reports from four committees addressing separate areas of interest: expanding consumer education and outreach efforts; improving industry training on scam prevention; reviewing research on effective consumer messaging to prevent scams; and identifying innovative or high-tech methods to detect and stop scams.</td></tr></tbody></table></description> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jmayfield</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85066</guid> </item><item> <title>FTC Announces Impersonation Rule Goes into Effect Today </title> <link>https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/ftc-announces-impersonation-rule-goes-effect-today</link> <description><p>As the Federal Trade Commission’s new rule on government and business impersonation goes into effect today, the agency is <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/data-visualizations/data-spotlight/2024/04/impersonation-scams-not-what-they-used-be" data-entity-type="node" data-entity-uuid="fbe6092f-04c3-46c3-a6ec-668bc00e31ab" data-entity-substitution="canonical">highlighting new data</a><strong> </strong>on the most common ways consumers are targeted by these treacherous scams. Combined, reported losses to these impersonation scams topped $1.1 billion for the year, more than three times what consumers reported in 2020.</p><p>The new data spotlight reveals the five most commonly reported ways that government and business impersonators convince consumers to turn over their hard-earned money: copycat account security alerts; phony subscription renewals; fake giveaways, discounts, or money to claim; bogus problems with the law; and made-up package delivery issues.</p><p>In addition, the spotlight highlights two key trends since 2020 when it comes to government and business impersonation scams: how consumers are contacted by scammers and how they pay scammers. Reports of text messages and email are trending up as phone calls decline. When it comes to payment methods, reported losses by bank transfers and cryptocurrency outrank every other payment method used to pay these scammers. Bank transfers account for about 40 percent of reported losses to government and business impersonators in 2023, followed by cryptocurrency at 21 percent of reported losses. Reported losses using both payment methods have increased many times over since 2020.</p><p>Today marks the effective date of the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-proposes-new-protections-combat-ai-impersonation-individuals">FTC’s new rule on government and business impersonation</a>, which was finalized last month. 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.</p><p>The FTC is also accepting public comments until April 30, 2024, on a <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0030-0031">supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking</a> that would prohibit the impersonation of individuals and prohibit providing scammers with the means and instruments to execute such scams.</p></description> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:00:00 -0400</pubDate> <dc:creator>jmayfield</dc:creator> <guid isPermaLink="false">85062</guid> </item> </channel></rss> If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:
Download the "valid RSS" banner.
Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)
Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):
If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:
