joeross.me Profile Photo

joeross.me

Civil litigation lawyer. Interested in the collision of law & tech policy. Prone to geekery.

FTC

    ∞

    Can the FTC ban digital goods?

    Can the FTC ban digital goods?

    Brent Kendall, writing at The Wall Street Journal:

    The current case is about patents, but the ITC also can take action against goods that infringe copyrights, an issue important to Hollywood and other rights holders. They are eyeing the ITC as a new venue for combating foreign websites that trade in pirated digital material and the ability of U.S. consumers to access them.

    If the court hearing this case on August 11th upholds the FTC’s decision to exercise its import ban authority in the digital realm the ramifications will be far-reaching and almost immediate. Music and movies, 3D printing, and perhaps even digitally transmitted and executed software code would be among the items open to FTC authority. The Federal Trade Commission has very little expertise in the digital space, so making the arbiters of what digital imports are okay and which are not may not be an intelligent approach.

    Do we need a Digital Transmission Commission? If the FTC is to get digital ban authority it will need strong oversight.

    Photo by Uberpenguin at Wikipedia

    ∞

    Apple under federal anti-competition scrutiny, again

    Apple under federal anti-competition scrutiny, again

    Micah Singleton writes for The Verge:

    Sources also indicated that Apple offered to pay YouTube’s music licensing fee to Universal Music Group if the label stopped allowing its songs on YouTube. Apple is seemingly trying to clear a path before its streaming service launches, which is expected to debut at WWDC in June. If Apple convinces the labels to stop licensing freemium services from Spotify and YouTube, it could take out a significant portion of business from its two largest music competitors.

    I dislike hyperbole, but the fact that Apple would even engage in behavior that is capable of misperception as anti-competitive is shocking.

    Image credit: “Apple Headquarters in Cupertino” by Joe Ravi. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

    ∞

    Another blow to deceptively marketed "unlimited" data plans

    Another blow to deceptively marketed “unlimited” data plans

    Jon Brodkin at Ars Technica:

    The FCC's new rules ban throttling except in cases of "reasonable network management." AT&T could argue that the throttling is necessary to keep its network running smoothly, but FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has objected to throttling of plans that are supposed to be unlimited and forced Verizon Wireless to back down from a throttling plan last year.

    I have no problem with good-faith network management, but if a plan is subject to throttling, it can’t be marketed and sold as “unlimited.” The FTC is sending the right signal here in choosing to pursue this case, and Judge Edward Chen of the US District Court in Northern California has demonstrated that he understands the issue.

    The network that can provide real unlimited data at usable speeds with no fine print has an opportunity to significantly increase its user base, but I haven’t found one yet. Let me know if you have.

    ∞

    Federal Trade Commission to data brokers: Show us your data

    Federal Trade Commission to data brokers: Show us your data

    Jessica Guynn of the LA Times:

    The FTC wants to know what the brokers do with the information. It also wants to know if the data brokers let consumers review and correct their personal information or opt out from having their personal information sold.

    I can guess that they sell it as “background check” data to both reputable and shady services of that kind, and almost certainly none of them allow correction or opt-out.

    It’s one thing to consent to tracking efforts by Amazon, Google, and Facebook, whose labyrinthine Terms of Service are at least publicly-available. It’s another thing to be tracked without consent, without even agreeing to a TOS we didn’t really read, by companies who profit by selling that information to still other companies.

    We need legislation on this, as in most other areas of consumer privacy, and especially on the internet, mandating opt-in only participation in data collection like this.

    ∞

    $22.5M FTC fine against Google for Safari tracking

    $22.5M FTC fine against Google for Safari tracking

    Michael Liedtke, writing for Associated Press:

    In the Safari case, Consumer Watchdog argued that the fine amounts to loose change for a company like Google, which generates about $22.5 million in revenue every four hours.

    It’s a very good deal for Google, especially because they don’t need to admit liability. It’s a decent deal from the FTC’s perspective, as well, because it’s (sadly) the largest fine they’ve ever levied in this context. I’m not sure how effective it’s going to be, but if you’re unnerved by Google’s privacy issues, there’s always DuckDuckGo.

    ∞

    Supreme Court Will Address Antitrust State Action Exemption

    Supreme Court Will Address Antitrust State Action Exemption

    Steve Semeraro at the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog:

    Government actors are charged with a duty to act in the public interest and thus can generally be trusted to restrain trade only when the public will benefit. Private actors, by contrast, are driven by the desire to maximize profit and will thus restrain trade when it is privately beneficial but harms the public interest. On 26 November, the Supreme Court will reenter the fray, hearing oral argument in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System.

    This is an interesting part of antitrust law: the exemption from antitrust liability for state actors and, in very limited circumstances, private actors acting under the supervision of the state. These issues are more relevant than you may think if you’re not a law student/lawyer/professor/large-scale businessperson.

    Consider my recent Amazon prediction, or the reach of international competition law.

    Find more information about FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System at SCOTUSblog, or read the 11th Circuit’s opinion at Google Scholar.

    ∞

    FTC Publishes Facial Recognition Guidelines

    FTC Publishes Facial Recognition Guidelines

    Carl Franzen, of TPM Idea Lab:

    There are two cases where the FTC believes that companies need to get a consumer’s “affirmative express consent,” that is, an “opt-in,” before using information captured via facial recognition: When identifying anonymous individuals to third parties that wouldn’t otherwise know who they were, and when using any data or imagery captured via facial recognition for purposes outside of what was initially stated by the company.

    This is good news because it signals awareness on the part of the FTC that this is an issue. Mr. Franzen provides some good context in his article, so if this stuff interests or worries you, click through to read his analysis. You can also find the FTC’s press release on the issue here, the report itself, in PDF format, here, and the dissenting statement of Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch, also in PDF format, here.