Tag Archives: FTC

Amazon Settles FTC Lawsuits for $2.5 Billion Over Prime “Subscription Trap”

Posted on by
Reply

Amazon has consented to a $2.5 billion penalty and support for its Prime members to settle the case with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

According to the FTC, approximately $1.5 billion will be allocated to a fund for reimbursing qualifying subscribers, in addition to the billion-dollar civil fine.

The FTC, which oversees consumer protection in the United States, filed a lawsuit against Amazon in 2023 during the Biden administration, accusing the company of enrolling millions of customers in a subscription service without their consent and trapping them in a complicated cancellation process.

The case was heard in a federal court in Seattle earlier this week and is expected to continue for a month.

Andrew N. Ferguson, the Trump-appointed chair of the FTC, celebrated this as “a historic victory for countless Americans who are frustrated with deceptive subscription practices that are nearly impossible to cancel.”


“Evidence indicated that Amazon employed complex subscription tactics aimed at manipulating consumers into signing up for Prime, making it exceedingly difficult for them to cancel their subscriptions,” Ferguson stated. “Today, we are returning billions of dollars to Americans and ensuring that Amazon does not repeat these actions.”

As part of the settlement, Amazon is required to provide a “clear and prominent” option for customers to decline Prime subscriptions while shopping on the site, according to the FTC. The company has previously claimed that it has made improvements to its registration and cancellation processes, describing the FTC’s allegations as outdated.

“We are dedicated to ensuring our customers find it clear and straightforward to sign up or cancel significant memberships while providing valuable services to millions of loyal members globally,” stated the company.

Following the announcement, Amazon’s stock remained relatively stable in New York.

The company faces an additional case initiated by the FTC regarding its alleged maintenance of an illegal monopoly. This case is set to go to trial in 2027 and is presided over by the same judge as the Prime case.

This lawsuit is part of a broader legal action against a major U.S. tech corporation accused of abusing its market position to the detriment of smaller competitors. In subsequent legal maneuvers, Google was designated an illegal monopoly but avoided the government’s most severe penalty.

Quick Guide

Please contact Guardian Business about this story

show

The best public interest journalism relies on firsthand accounts from informed individuals.

If you have anything to share regarding this topic, you can contact the Business team confidentially using these methods:

Secure Messaging in the Guardian app

The Guardian app provides a feature for submitting story tips. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and seamlessly integrated into the app’s daily activity, keeping your communication with us confidential.

If you haven’t downloaded the Guardian app yet, you can obtain it for both (iOS/Android) and navigate to the menu. Scroll down and select Secure Messaging. When prompted, please choose the Guardian Business team.

SecureDrop, messaging apps, email, phone, and mail

If you can safely use the TOR network without being monitored, you can send messages and documents securely to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform.

Lastly, the guide at theguardian.com/tips offers various methods to contact us securely, including an analysis of the pros and cons of each.

Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins

Thank you for your feedback.


Source: www.theguardian.com

Democrats remove Trump-appointed FTC chair

Posted on by
Reply

President Trump is being sued by two former Democratic Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners for firing them, alleging it was an illegal executive overreach. Trump dismissed commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya on March 18, disrupting the bipartisan setup of the agency. In a U.S. District Court lawsuit, Slaughter’s and Bedoya’s lawyers claimed that their removal violated federal law. They referenced a 1935 Supreme Court precedent stating the president cannot fire members of an independent regulatory commission solely due to policy disagreements.

The White House did not respond immediately to requests for comment, previously asserting that Trump has the authority to manage administrative personnel. This lawsuit is part of a larger legal battle over Trump’s expansion of his powers, with over 50 court decisions temporarily halting his administration’s actions. The fight also extends to regulators who are meant to be independent of direct White House control.

Slaughter and Bedoya’s lawsuit named two Republican FTC commissioners and the agency’s executive director as defendants. They cited the 1914 law protecting commissioners from arbitrary removal, reinforced by Supreme Court rulings. Trump’s attempts to exert control over regulatory agencies have faced backlash from legal challenges.

Trump signed an executive order affecting several agencies, requiring proposed regulations to be submitted to the White House for review. This move tightens the White House’s grip on agency operations. Despite legal battles, Trump continues to assert his authority over regulatory bodies.

The FTC, involved in high-profile cases against tech giants like Meta and Amazon, faces ongoing disputes regarding corporate practices and antitrust issues. With a focus on online platforms, the FTC is navigating complex legal challenges under Ferguson’s leadership.

In a letter, the White House argued that the Supreme Court’s protections for FTC commissioners do not apply to current leaders. The lawsuit highlights the ongoing struggle between Trump’s administration and independent regulatory bodies.

The lawsuit alleges that Slaughter and Bedoya were abruptly removed from their positions at the FTC without justification. Their legal battle exemplifies the broader conflict over the administration’s attempts to exert control over regulatory agencies.

The lawsuit filed by Slaughter and Bedoya sheds light on the power struggles within the FTC and the broader implications of presidential authority over independent regulatory bodies.

The FTC’s battles with tech giants and corporate entities underscore the agency’s critical role in regulating antitrust practices and protecting consumers. Under heightened scrutiny, the agency’s actions reflect the evolving landscape of online platforms and corporate accountability.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Possible Scrutiny Awaits FTC Candidate Melissa Holyoake in the Wake of Google Settlement

Posted on by
Reply

Sources tell On The Money that critics have blasted the terms of Google’s $700 million settlement over anti-competitive Android app store practices as weak, leaving the Republican vacant seat at the Federal Trade Commission open. Melissa Holyoake’s bid to become the world’s most successful bidder could face new hurdles.

Holyoak, Utah’s Republican attorney general, said U.S. states have argued that Google’s monopolistic tactics, including charging major developers up to 30% fees in the Play Store, have led to price gouging and lowering prices. As a result, he played a key role in negotiating this deal. Choice for consumers.

The settlement, which Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney decried as “unfair to all Android users and developers,” requires FTC candidates to be “appropriately skeptical of Big Tech.” This could anger some Republicans who want to see more, and even cause some to reconsider their support. An industry source who requested anonymity to discuss the situation told the Post.

“If she was the tip of the spear in an embarrassing reconciliation, that’s not a good thing,” the source added.

As the Post previously reported in June, some Washington insiders were concerned that Mr. Holyoak did not have the antitrust integrity they expected from a new commissioner, and that certain information Sources quipped that FTC Commissioner Lina Khan would “run circles” around the Republican candidate. Regarding antitrust laws.

Utah’s Republican attorney general, Melissa Holyoake, played a key role in negotiating the deal after U.S. states alleged Google’s monopolistic tactics. Paola Morongello

The Republican-backed litigators will need to be approved by the Senate Commerce Committee in October, followed by a floor vote.

Another person said she “will be confirmed” even if some Republicans complain about the odor, but the process may not be a smooth one.

“if [Sen. Josh Hawley] Or she could delay if someone on the Republican side wants it,” another person said. “I think a scenario where she’s delayed is possible, but it’s unlikely that she won’t be confirmed. But it’s safe to say that her nomination is either delayed or in jeopardy.”

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney called the settlement “unfair to all Android users and developers.” Getty Images

Mr. Hawley’s office did not respond to a request for comment about Mr. Holyoak’s confirmation.

On Wednesday, Hawley sent a letter stating that he plans to block the confirmation of another Republican FTC commissioner nominee, Andrew Ferguson, by the end of the year and asking him “additional questions about his philosophy on Big Tech.” I made it possible.

The Missouri senator also opposes expedited confirmation of Todd Inman to a post on the National Transportation Safety Board. Both Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Inman are former aides to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Sen. Josh Hawley sent a letter indicating he plans to block efforts to confirm another Republican FTC candidate, Andrew Ferguson, by the end of the year. AP

Capitol Hill insiders blame Hawley’s move on a well-documented rift with McConnell. There was no mention of Holyoak in the letter.

Utah accounted for the highest amount of claims in the lawsuit targeting Google’s Android app store practices, and was one of the few states to spearhead the lawsuit, along with New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and California.Holyoak name appears Court documents detailing settlement terms.

In remarks prepared for the Sept. 20 FTC nomination hearing, Holyoak emphasized his efforts on behalf of Utah and said of the high-profile legal battle, “Our office’s led the work,” he told the Senate committee. Her testimony came just days after the Google settlement was first announced.

“This is a huge benefit for consumers.” Holyoak said at the time:.

The Utah Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The settlement with Google was first announced in September, but specific details were withheld pending the conclusion of Epic Games’ stunning legal victory against Google in a related case. Epic specifically rejected the possibility of a settlement.

In the U.S. state case, Google will pay consumers $630 million (just $6 per eligible U.S. user) to cover state fines and legal costs, according to court filings this week. agreed to pay an additional $70 million for

The company also agreed to a series of time-limited changes to its app store policies. This includes allowing developers to use other in-app purchases and dialing back the use of so-called “horror screens” when Android users try to use competing app stores. It will be.

Critics, including Mr. Sweeney, noted that the states’ previous lawsuits “made a strong case for $10.5 billion in damages.” Epic Games’ CEO called it a “disappointing result.”

Meanwhile, Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said the deal includes “many of the injunctive reliefs we sought that would change Google’s behavior,” adding that payments to consumers would be ” “It’s an added bonus.”

“Holyoak is still trying to understand what antitrust law is… She doesn’t have the ability to understand how to enforce the law,” said one longtime antitrust expert.

“What about her actually going after Big Tech?” added a source. “I’ll believe it when I see it.”

Source: nypost.com

FTC suggests fortifying COPPA and tightening restrictions on tech monitoring of children

Posted on by
Reply

The FTC proposed strengthening rules to protect children from the surveillance economy. The updated rules will require companies to get parental permission before sharing data with advertisers and prohibit them from retaining data for vague “internal operations,” among other things.

“The proposed changes to COPPA are much needed, especially in an era when online tools are essential to daily life and companies are deploying increasingly sophisticated digital tools to monitor children. Masu.” FTC Chair Lina Khan said: In a blog post. “Children need to be able to play and learn online without being endlessly tracked by companies looking to hoard and monetize their personal data.”

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) has been in place since 2000 and remains effective at preventing the most egregious data collection and abuse of children, but it was last updated in 2013 and now has a new coat. can do. of paint. The FTC asked for comments a long time ago on how the rules should change, and (as is often the case with Internet privacy issues) the response was overwhelming.

“We received more than 175,000 comments after the FTC announced it was considering revisions to the COPPA rule.” the agency mentioned in a news release.. “The proposed rule reflects what he has heard from parents, educators, industry members, researchers and others, and his 23 years of experience enforcing COPPA.”

The agency will soon issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), a draft of the new COPPA regulations, that the public will be able to comment on and criticize for the next 60 days. The exact timing will depend on when this document is published in the Federal Register, which is outside the FTC’s control, but could happen in the coming weeks. In the meantime, what you can do is Watch the draft here.

The updated rules require:

  • Parents will opt-in before sharing their child’s information with third parties, unless sharing is “essential” to the service. Expect many things to suddenly “integrate” next year.
  • Narrow the loophole in “support for internal operations.” For example, Amazon exploited this exception to retain children’s information indefinitely to improve its speech recognition models. Hopefully it will be less.
  • Better justify “nudges” like push notifications to get kids to open apps or stay online.
  • We do not force children to provide personal data to use our apps or features. For example, “Give me your birthday to get her 100 free crystals.”
  • Data is not retained beyond its original stated use. As in the Amazon example, you can use your child’s voice command to launch an app (its primary use), but then you can’t “reliably” launch anything else.
  • Schools and school districts may authorize educational technology providers to collect and use personal information about students for educational purposes only.
  • “Personal information” now includes biometrics.

There are a few other details about the NPRM itself (of interest primarily to those directly involved). If you would like to know more about why these things are necessary, or why he needs COPPA in the first place, please contact Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. We have released a helpful commentary on this topic.

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) approved the update, calling it “an encouraging step toward putting safeguards in place to protect the youngest users of social media from constant surveillance and manipulation.” .

But, he continued, “Rulemaking is not a substitute for law, and Congress needs to act. Create minimum age requirements for social media use and prohibit algorithmic targeting of children and teens. We urgently need to pass legislation to protect children online.”

Given the current state of Congress and (at least) the prospect of losing a controversial election in 2024, I doubt the senators’ urgency will translate into legislation any time soon. FTC rules will need to remain in place for some time to come.

Source: techcrunch.com

FTC warns of increasing QR code scams – Tips to safeguard against them

Posted on by
Reply

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, codes have grown in popularity and their use in the form of paperless menus and invoices has skyrocketed. But the convenience and efficiency of scannable codes comes with threats. Users can easily fall victim to fraud. According to a report by Check Point cybersecurity experts: 587% increase In phishing, or “kissing,” the Federal Trade Commission is also warning consumers who may be putting their personal information at risk. Cybercriminals send legitimate codes (also known as “quick response” codes, traditionally seen as a mix of white and black pixels that direct the scanner to a website) by sending the scanner to a fake site. It can be hidden with a unique code that steals personal and private information. Install malware. Fake codes can be found in public places, such as parking meters, or sent via texts or emails claiming there was suspicious activity on your account or there was a problem with your package delivery. There is also. The coronavirus pandemic has seen a surge in the use of codes, offering consumers a completely paperless way to view menus, pay bills, and fill out forms. adobe stock “We want you to scan a code and open a URL without thinking,” the FTC said. was warned about Wednesday’s blog post. To protect yourself, the FTC advised inspecting before opening them to make sure they haven’t been spoofed by misspellings or transposed characters. The agency also recommends not opening codes from unexpected communications (such as urgent messages indicating problems with your account), keeping your phone updated and enabling two-factor authentication. The FTC warned the public not to scan random codes and to be suspicious of unsolicited communications containing codes. adobe stock The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s September blog post also urged consumers to be skeptical and “suspicious” of codes that request login information after scanning, and further warned consumers not to scan codes that appear to have been “tampered with.” did.

Source: nypost.com