ReportWire

Tag: Federal Trade Commission

  • Appeals court rejects FTC’s request to pause Microsoft-Activision deal

    Appeals court rejects FTC’s request to pause Microsoft-Activision deal

    [ad_1]

    A U.S. appeals court on Friday rejected a bid by federal regulators to block Microsoft from closing its $68.7 billion deal to buy video game maker Activision Blizzard, paving the way for the completion of the biggest acquisition in tech history after a legal battle over whether it will undermine competition.

    In a brief ruling, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded there were no grounds for issuing an order that would have prevented Microsoft from completing its nearly 18-month-old deal to take over the maker of popular video games such as “Call of Duty.”

    The Redmond, Washington, software maker is facing a $3 billion termination fee if the deal isn’t completed by Tuesday.

    “This brings us another step closer to the finish line in this marathon of global regulatory reviews,” Microsoft President Brad Smith said in a statement.

    The appeal filed by the Federal Trade Commission was a last-ditch effort from antitrust enforcers to halt the merger after another federal judge earlier this week ruled against the agency’s attempt to block it. The FTC was seeking an injunction to prevent Microsoft from moving to close the deal as early as this weekend.

    The FTC declined to comment on the ruling.

    The two companies first announced the deal back in January 2022. The FTC said in December it was suing to block the sale, saying at the time that such a deal would “enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business.”  

    U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley’s ruling, published Tuesday, said the FTC hadn’t shown that the deal would cause substantial harm. She focused, in part, on Microsoft’s promises and economic incentive to keep “Call of Duty” available on rivals to its own Xbox gaming system, such as Sony’s PlayStation and Nintendo’s Switch.

    Corley wrote that “the FTC has not raised serious questions regarding whether the proposed merger is likely to substantially lessen competition in the console, library subscription services, or cloud gaming markets.”

    In its appeal, the FTC argued Corley made “fundamental errors.”

    “This case is about more than a single video game and the console hardware to play it,” the FTC said. “It is about the future of the gaming industry. At stake is how future gamers will play and whether the emerging subscription and cloud markets will calcify into concentrated, walled gardens or evolve into open, competitive landscapes.” 

    Corley on Thursday also denied a request from the FTC to put Microsoft’s purchase on hold while it awaited the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

    The case has been a difficult test for the FTC’s stepped-up scrutiny of the tech industry’s business practices under its chairperson, Lina Khan, appointed in 2021 by President Biden. Standing legal doctrine has favored mergers between companies that don’t directly compete with one another.

    The FTC said Corley, herself a Biden nominee, applied the wrong legal standard by effectively requiring its attorneys to prove their full case now rather than in a trial due to start in August before the FTC’s in-house judge.

    It was the FTC, however, that had asked Corley for an urgent hearing on its request to block Microsoft and Activision Blizzard from rushing to close the deal. The agency’s argument was that if the deal closed now, it would be harder to reverse the merger if it was later found to violate antitrust laws.

    In its response to the appeal, Microsoft countered that it could easily divest Activision Blizzard later if it had to. It has long defended the deal as good for gaming.

    The deal still faces an obstacle in the United Kingdom, though one it now appears closer to surmounting.

    British antitrust regulators on Friday extended their deadline to issue a final order on the proposed merger, allowing them to consider Microsoft’s “detailed and complex submission” pleading its case.

    The Competition and Markets Authority had rejected the deal over fears it would stifle competition for popular game titles in the fast-growing cloud gaming market. But the U.K. watchdog appears to have softened its position after Corley thwarted U.S. regulators’ efforts to block the deal.

    The authority says it has pushed its original deadline back six weeks to Aug. 29 so it could go through Microsoft’s response, which details “material changes in circumstance and special reasons” why regulators shouldn’t issue an order to reject the deal.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Publishers Clearing House to pay $18.5 million settlement for deceptive sweepstakes practices

    Publishers Clearing House to pay $18.5 million settlement for deceptive sweepstakes practices

    [ad_1]

    Publishers Clearing House agreed to pay out $18.5 million for “deceptive and unfair” sweepstakes practices and change several of its business tactics, the Federal Trade Commission said in a news release on Tuesday.  

    A proposed court order filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York stipulates that the publishing company needs to make substantial changes to how it conducts its sweepstake drawings and entries online. Mostly older and lower-income consumers are lured to the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes by catchy language on the company’s website such as: “WIN IT!,” or “Win for Life!,” an FTC complaint said. 

    Some are lucky: one Pennsylvania-based woman won a $1 million dollar sweepstake prize. Others hope to win money in the sweepstakes and keep purchasing products or paying fees to increase their limited chances, court documents said. 

    After hopeful customers click on sweepstakes registration links emailed to them by the company, they are directed to several web pages of advertisements for products, including magazine subscriptions, the complaint said. These pages say messages like “$1,000 per week for life AT STAKE!” and “JUST ONE ORDER IS ALL IT TAKES,” the news release said.

    Consumers interested in entering sweepstakes contests are led to believe “they must order products before they can enter a sweepstake” or that “ordering products increases their odds of winning a sweepstake,” the complaint said. One California based-woman thought she won a $5,000 prize, but the company blamed a “technical malfunction” and said that under “official rules” she didn’t win and they weren’t responsible.

    “Today’s action builds on previous efforts to crack down on companies that use illegal dark patterns to fuel digital deception and harm consumers,” FTC Chair Lina Khan and commissioners said in a statement.

    Once consumers enter their email addresses they continue to receive alerts from the company saying that they must take another step to be eligible for sweepstakes prizes, the complaint said. In addition to these misleading practices, Publishers Clearing House hid shipping and handling costs from consumers until there was a financial obligation. While the company also maintained they didn’t sell or rent consumer data, the FTC alleges they did as such until around January 2019, when Publishers Clearing House learned they were being investigated, according to court documents.

    The $18.5 million dollar fund will be used to refund consumers and implement promised changes to Publishers Clearing House’s business practices. These changes include making clear disclosures on their sweepstake entry web pages, stopping surprise fees and shipping charges and stopping deceptive emails, court documents said. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTC sues Amazon, claiming it deceived customers into signing up for Prime

    FTC sues Amazon, claiming it deceived customers into signing up for Prime

    [ad_1]

    FTC sues Amazon, claiming it deceived customers into signing up for Prime – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Federal Trade Commission sues tech giant Amazon for allegedly manipulating customers into buying Prime memberships and making it difficult to cancel once enrolled. Anna Werner reports.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon sued for allegedly signing customers up for Prime without consent

    Amazon sued for allegedly signing customers up for Prime without consent

    [ad_1]

    The Federal Trade Commission is suing Amazon for what it called a years-long effort to enroll consumers into Prime without their consent and making it difficult for them to cancel the subscription.

    In its complaint, filed in Washington state, the FTC accused Amazon of using deceptive designs to trick “millions” of consumers into enrolling in the program. The agency also said the option to purchase items on Amazon without subscribing to Prime was more difficult in many cases. Consumers were sometimes presented with a button to complete their transactions — but the button didn’t clearly state it would also enroll them into Prime.

    Company leaders slowed or rejected changes that made canceling the subscription easier, the complaint said. The agency also argued those patterns were in violation of the FTC Act and another law called the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act.

    Internally, Amazon called the process “Iliad,” a reference to the ancient Greek poem about the lengthy siege of Troy during the Trojan war.

    “Amazon tricked and trapped people into recurring subscriptions without their consent, not only frustrating users but also costing them significant money,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in a statement. “These manipulative tactics harm consumers and law-abiding businesses alike.”

    Prime is Amazon’s membership program, in which customers pay $139 a year, or $14.99 a month, for faster shipping and the streaming service Prime Video. In the first three months of this year, Amazon reported it made $9.6 billion from the subscription, a 17% jump from the same period last year.

    An Amazon spokesperson called the FTC’s claims “false on the facts and the law.”

    “The truth is that customers love Prime, and by design we make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up for or cancel their Prime membership,” the spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday. “As with all our products and services, we continually listen to customer feedback and look for ways to improve the customer experience and we look forward to the facts becoming clear as this case plays out.” 

    NetChoice, a tech lobbying group that counts Amazon as a member, also released a statement accusing the FTC of overstepping.

    “The complaint is that Amazon encourages people to use Amazon Prime — this is like going after Kroger for promoting its rewards program or Costco for its membership club,” Carl Szabo, the group’s vice president and general counsel, said.

    Amazon has faced heightened regulatory scrutiny in recent years as it moved to expand its e-commerce dominance and dip its toes into other markets, including groceries and health care.

    The tech giant has faced other lawsuits accusing its Prime cancellation process of being too complicated. Under scrutiny from the agency, the company in March provided consumers with instructions on how to cancel their Prime memberships in a blog post.

    “Set on canceling? We’ll be sad to see you go, but we’ll be here when you’re ready to return,” the blog post reads. “Below are instructions on how to cancel your Prime membership.”

    The lawsuit follows another Amazon-related win by the agency just a few weeks ago. Earlier this month, Amazon agreed to pay a $25 million civil penalty to settle allegations it violated a child privacy law by storing kids’ voice and location data recorded by its popular Alexa voice assistant. It also agreed to pay $5.8 million in customer refunds for alleged privacy violations involving its doorbell camera, Ring.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Microsoft Fined $20 Million For ‘Illegally’ Collecting Children’s Information On Xbox

    Microsoft Fined $20 Million For ‘Illegally’ Collecting Children’s Information On Xbox

    [ad_1]

    The Federal Trade Commission just announced that Microsoft has been fined $20 million “over charges it illegally collected personal information from children who signed up for its Xbox gaming system without their parents’ consent”.

    The ruling follows a larger one from December 2022, when Epic Games, developers of Fortnite, were hit with a $550 million fine for using “privacy-invasive default settings and deceptive interfaces that tricked Fortnite users, including teenagers and children”.

    In this instance, the FTC says the issue centred around the creation of children’s accounts on an Xbox console, a process that until late 2021 would allow a child to enter a certain amount of personal information before requiring a parent’s assistance and permission. Microsoft had been keeping that data (sometimes for “years”), even if the account wasn’t created, which is a violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA).

    Microsoft have already responded to the ruling with a post on the official Xbox blog, with Dave McCarthy, CVP Xbox Player Services, saying the violation was a result of a “glitch”, and that Microsoft will “continue improving” going forwards:

    We recently entered into a settlement with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to update our account creation process and resolve a data retention glitch found in our system. Regrettably, we did not meet customer expectations and are committed to complying with the order to continue improving upon our safety measures. We believe that we can and should do more, and we’ll remain steadfast in our commitment to safety, privacy, and security for our community.

    McCarthy goes on to explain the details of this “glitch”, and how it led to retention of children’s data despite this being “inconsistent with our policy to save that information for only 14 days”:

    During the investigation, we identified a technical glitch where our systems did not delete account creation data for child accounts where the account creation process was started but not completed. This was inconsistent with our policy to save that information for only 14 days to make it easier for gamers to pick up where they left off to complete the process. Our engineering team took immediate action: we fixed the glitch, deleted the data, and implemented practices to prevent the error from recurring. The data was never used, shared, or monetized.

    The FTC’s statement, meanwhile, says:

    Microsoft will pay $20 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting personal information from children who signed up to its Xbox gaming system without notifying their parents or obtaining their parents’ consent, and by illegally retaining children’s personal information.

    “Our proposed order makes it easier for parents to protect their children’s privacy on Xbox, and limits what information Microsoft can collect and retain about kids,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “This action should also make it abundantly clear that kids’ avatars, biometric data, and health information are not exempt from COPPA.”

    As part of a proposed order filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, Microsoft will be required to take several steps to bolster privacy protections for child users of its Xbox system. For example, the order will extend COPPA protections to third-party gaming publishers with whom Microsoft shares children’s data. In addition, the order makes clear that avatars generated from a child’s image, and biometric and health information, are covered by the COPPA Rule when collected with other personal data. The order must be approved by a federal court before it can go into effect.

    [ad_2]

    Luke Plunkett

    Source link

  • Amazon’s Ring gave employees “unfettered” access to customer videos, FTC alleges

    Amazon’s Ring gave employees “unfettered” access to customer videos, FTC alleges

    [ad_1]

    Amazon’s Ring camera is marketed as a safety device, but a new government lawsuit claims the company gave its employees and contractors “unfettered” access to personal videos and failed to protect customer security, leading to hackers threatening or sexually propositioning Ring owners.

    In one case, a Ring employee “viewed thousands of video recordings belonging to at least 81 unique female users,” according to the lawsuit filed Wednesday by the Federal Trade Commission. That same worker searched for cameras located in “intimate” spaces, such as “Master Bedroom,” and spied for months, the FTC claims. 

    Amazon settled with the FTC for $5.8 million, according to a separate filing Wednesday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That money will be used for consumer refunds, the FTC said. 

    The agency claims Ring prioritized fast product growth while disregarding consumer privacy and security. Aside from employees’ access to customer videos, Ring allegedly also failed to provide adequate security measures to protect its users from hackers, the FTC alleged.

    The latter issue led to hackers gaining access to Ring customers’ cameras, with some of them using the device’s two-way communication feature to “harass, threaten and insult individuals,” the lawsuit claims. Those cases involved hackers swearing at women, hurling racist insults at children and sexually propositioning an 87-year-old woman in an assisted living facility, the FTC said.

    “Ring’s disregard for privacy and security exposed consumers to spying and harassment,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement.

    In a statement to CBS News, Amazon said its Ring division “promptly addressed these issues on its own years ago, well before the FTC began its inquiry.” 

    “While we disagree with the FTC’s allegations and deny violating the law, this settlement resolves this matter so we can focus on innovating on behalf of our customers,” the ecommerce company said. 

    Spying on “pretty girls”

    Some of the allegations outlined by the lawsuit occurred prior to Amazon’s acquisition of Ring in 2018. For instance, the alleged incident with the employee who viewed videos belonging to 81 women occurred in 2017. 

    His actions were discovered by a female co-worker, who reported him to her supervisor, according to the FTC’s complaint. The supervisor initially discounted her report, saying it was “normal” for an engineer to look at many accounts, but later the supervisor noticed the male engineer was only looking at videos of “pretty girls,” the FTC alleges. 

    “Only at that point did Ring review a portion of the employee’s activity and, ultimately, terminate his employment,” the lawsuit claims.

    Other privacy issues were also “disturbing,” the FTC said in a blog post. For instance, a male worker in January 2018 used a female co-worker’s email address to look up her videos, then watched her stored video recordings without her permission, the agency’s suit claims. 

    Ring discovered such incidents through “the good fortune of employee reporting, despite having given employees zero security training and no responsibility to engage in such reporting,” the lawsuit alleges. “It is highly likely that numerous other incidents of spying, prurient behavior, and other inappropriate access occurred entirely undetected.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How to avoid this common social media shopping scam

    How to avoid this common social media shopping scam

    [ad_1]

    Social media apps aren’t just a place for people to share photos and connect with friends. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram are rife with scam artists looking to prey on young people who are susceptible to buying things they see advertised on the apps. 

    In 2022, online shopping scams were the second-most reported type of fraud to the Federal Trade Commission, behind investment scams. Not all of the cases reported took place on social media apps, but fraudsters are increasingly targeting the platforms to take advantage of unsuspecting users.

    Scammers pose as businesses selling products like clothing, home goods and jewelry but in some cases, never deliver the goods, and steal individuals’ credit card information 

    The products in question are ones “that either don’t show up at all or that show up not being quite what people ordered,” Wall Street Journal reporter Julie Jargon told CBS News.  

    How to avoid social media shopping scams

    If you’re shown a targeted shopping ad on a social media feed, don’t make a purchase directly through the app. Click through to the seller’s website and try to verify its legitimacy. 

    “It’s best to open a new browser and go to the product or company’s website and check that out first to see if it’s legitimate,” Jargon said. “The other thing to do is just to Google the company or product.”

    Often times, people who have been targeted by bad actors will call them out in reviews or online forums like Reddit. 

    Additionally, some sellers hawk low-quality products but mislead consumers in ads.

    “The old adage that if it looks too good to be true then it probably is, is one of those key things to remember,” Jargon warned. 

    This typically applies to articles of clothing that aren’t as advertised. 

    There have also been instances of consumers handing over their credit card details only to receive empty boxes or plastic bags instead of home-organizing containers. 

    “There are things that are complete scams,” Jargon said. She spoke to a woman who purchased what were advertised as plastic shoe containers on TikTok.

    What did she receive instead? A plastic bag, Jargon said. 

    “Numerous other people had the same experience,” Jargon said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Carl Icahn calls Illumina Q1 results ‘very disappointing,’ slams cost-cutting plan

    Carl Icahn calls Illumina Q1 results ‘very disappointing,’ slams cost-cutting plan

    [ad_1]

    Carl Icahn speaking at Delivering Alpha in New York on Sept. 13, 2016.

    David A. Grogan | CNBC

    Carl Icahn on Friday called Illumina’s first-quarter results “very disappointing” and slammed the DNA sequencing company’s new plans to cut costs. 

    The activist investor, who owns a 1.4% stake in Illumina, is in a heated proxy fight with the company over its 2021 acquisition of cancer test developer Grail.

    Icahn and Illumina have been trading jabs for more than a month. 

    Icahn is seeking seats on Illumina’s board of directors and pushing the company to unwind the Grail acquisition. He is also calling for the San Diego-based company to oust CEO Francis deSouza “immediately.”

    Illumina on Tuesday reported quarterly revenue and earnings that topped Wall Street’s expectations.

    But the company also posted net income of $3 million for the quarter, which was down more than 96% from the $86 million it raked in during the same period a year ago. 

    In an open letter Friday to Illumina shareholders, Icahn accused deSouza of “desperately, hilariously and, most of all, unsuccessfully” trying to spin the “decidedly mediocre” quarterly results during a press tour this week.

    Icahn pointed to deSouza’s interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday, when the CEO touted strong demand for Illumina’s diagnostic testing services.  

    “Illumina CEO Francis deSouza seems to believe that he can fool all of the people all of the time,” Icahn wrote. 

    “Those not skilled in deciphering doublespeak might actually get the impression that Illumina was doing well!” he added.

    Icahn also said that the price of Illumina shares fell the more its CEO during this week, “clearly signaling dissatisfaction with the earnings report and dissatisfaction with Mr. deSouza’s transparent attempt to put lipstick on a pig.” 

    Illumina’s stock is down more than 10% since the company reported earnings. Shares closed largely flat Friday after Icahn released his letter.

    In that missive, Icahn also took shots at cost-cutting plans Illumina unveiled to improve its shrinking margins. He called those measures “vague” and “extraordinarily unambitious.”

    The company on Tuesday said it will enable unnamed “activities” in more cost-effective areas of the world and will use its new NovaSeq X sequencing system to accelerate genomic discoveries, among other efforts. 

    Those plans will help Illumina reach its adjusted operating margin goals of 24% in 2024 and 27% in 2025, the company said in its earnings release. 

    Icahn called those margin targets “less than modest.” And he argued that they will “take years to realize, if they are achieved at all.” 

    The company has projected an estimated 22% operating margin for 2023, down from the 23.8% it reported in 2022.

    Illumina reported a negative operating margin of 5.7% for the quarter, down from 15% during the same period a year ago. The company’s gross margins for the period fell to 60.3%, down from 66.6% in the first quarter of 2022.

    Illumina did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Icahn’s letter.

    Criticism of Grail deal

    Elsewhere in his letter, Icahn slammed deSouza’s positive remarks this week about Illumina’s $7.1 billion acquisition of Grail.

    DeSouza had told CNBC the deal “makes sense” because Illumina can significantly expand the market for Grail’s early screening test for different types of cancer.

    The CEO also touted Grail’s 100% revenue growth during the quarter compared with the same period a year ago. 

    But Icahn said the deSouza failed to tell the public about an opinion issued earlier this month by the Federal Trade Commission, which said that the deal would stifle competition and innovation. 

    The FTC also ordered Illumina to divest itself of the acquisition over those concerns. 

    The European Commission, the executive body of the European Union, also blocked the deal last year over similar concerns.   

    Illumina is appealing both orders and expects final decisions in late 2023 or early 2024.

    Last week, a U.S. federal appeals court said that it will fast-track its review of Illumina’s challenge of the FTC order.

    Icahn’s resistance to the acquisition stems from Illumina’s decision to close the deal without getting approval from those antitrust regulators.

    Earlier this month he strongly criticized Illumina and its management for finalizing the “reckless deal,” calling it “a new low in corporate governance.” 

    Illumina has urged shareholders to reject Icahn’s three board nominees during its annual shareholder meeting scheduled for May 25. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTC wants to make it easier for consumers to cancel free trials and subscriptions | CNN Business

    FTC wants to make it easier for consumers to cancel free trials and subscriptions | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New rules from the US government could soon let Americans more easily cancel free trials and subscriptions they no longer want, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

    The proposed rule change announced Thursday would apply to vast swaths of the US economy, covering both digital and physical subscriptions. Products subject to the new rule would include gym memberships, digital streaming and e-commerce, cable TV service, traditional print media and more.

    The FTC regulation could hit some of America’s biggest retailers and online platforms and a huge range of smaller businesses. It would affect millions of consumers in virtually every aspect of their lives, as subscription-based goods and services have become commonplace in industries as varied as music distribution, video gaming and pet care.

    Americans should not have to jump through hoops or be hounded by unwanted retention offers just to cancel their subscriptions, FTC Chair Lina Khan told reporters on a conference call Wednesday.

    “The idea here is pretty simple,” Khan said. “Companies should not be able to manipulate consumers into paying for subscriptions that they don’t want.”

    Broadly speaking, the rule change would prohibit companies from trying to retain customers through deceptive or burdensome tactics intended to stymie or delay them from quitting a subscription, such as by making customers mail in paperwork to cancel a subscription they initially signed up for online. For each violation of the rule, companies would be on the hook for potentially tens of thousands of dollars a day in fines — not to mention the consumer refunds the FTC could seek under the rule. While the FTC can currently pursue those types of remedies in specific sectors where cancellation rules exist, such as telemarketing, there is no such rule covering the economy as a whole, Khan said.

    The FTC voted 3-1 to introduce the proposal to amend the agency’s so-called Negative Option Rule, with the commission’s lone Republican, Christine Wilson, opposing the measure. The rules have not yet been finalized, the FTC said, and the public will have an opportunity to comment on the proposal. The agency also said it was not claiming any new legal authority, but that the rule would allow regulators to enforce against deceptive practices related to subscription cancellations without having to litigate each violation in a court.

    “We get countless complaints about this in our complaint database,” Khan said, “and we’re now putting an end to it.”

    Under the proposed change, companies would have to offer consumers the option to cancel a subscription using at least the same method they used to sign up; if a customer signed up for a service online or by phone, he or she would have to be able to cancel online or by phone.

    The proposed regulations include an array of other specific dos and don’ts. For example, companies would be required to first ask consumers who are requesting to cancel whether they would be open to retention offers, before the company could try to entice them back with discounts or deals. At the outset, all companies would be required to provide detailed information to consumers about a subscription’s terms before they could ask for billing details. Currently, the FTC said, there is no uniformity in how businesses present details such as how long a free trial period may last, the final date a customer can cancel a trial without charge, or the frequency of charges.

    The proposed FTC rule, which the agency calls “click to cancel,” comes as regulators have increasingly criticized the use of subtle techniques to steer consumers toward decisions that benefit a company’s bottom line.

    In the digital space, regulators have increasingly focused on so-called “dark patterns,” or the use of digital design interfaces that, for example, may use brightly colored buttons to encourage consumers to give up their personal information while simultaneously making opt-out buttons harder to see. More recently, Justice Department officials have argued that, depending on the context, the use of dark patterns could be considered an antitrust violation. On Wednesday, Khan adopted a similar view, telling reporters that the FTC’s consumer protection efforts — in this case, on deceptive cancellation practices — have antitrust implications because unchallenged deception tilts markets in favor of dishonest businesses that compete unfairly.

    The FTC in 2021 warned companies against deploying illegal dark patterns that trick or trap consumers into subscription services.

    The agency said at the time it was ramping up its enforcement in response to a rising number of complaints about deceptive sign-up tactics, including unauthorized charges or ongoing billing that is impossible to cancel. The FTC receives thousands of such complaints a year, it said.

    Since 2021, the FTC has been investigating Amazon

    (AMZN)
    over allegations the company uses deceptive sign-up and cancelation practices in its Amazon

    (AMZN)
    Prime product. The probe, whose sprawling scope now covers nearly a half-dozen Amazon

    (AMZN)
    services, was publicly disclosed in an Amazon

    (AMZN)
    filing accusing the FTC of harassing founder Jeff Bezos and CEO Andy Jassy; the FTC has said both men must personally testify in connection with the investigation.

    Thursday’s announcement underscores how the FTC’s scrutiny of user experience design extends to the enormous range of real-world commercial activity it oversees.

    The FTC has said it would pursue action against companies that did not provide easy and simple cancellations.

    Gyms, newspapers, phone companies and other businesses have faced lawsuits for imposing obstacles on consumers who try to cancel their services.

    In 2022, the FTC announced it reached a settlement with internet phone service provider Vonage over its cancellation policies. Vonage was required to pay $100 million in refunds to consumers harmed by the company’s actions, make its cancellation process simple and transparent, and stop charging consumers without their consent.

    Online children’s education company ABCmouse agreed in 2020 to pay $10 million to settle FTC allegations that it failed to disclose membership terms that led to consumers being charged without their consent.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cybercriminals are using AI voice cloning tools to dupe victims

    Cybercriminals are using AI voice cloning tools to dupe victims

    [ad_1]

    If you answer a phone call from an unknown number, let the caller speak first. Whoever is on the other end of the line could be recording snippets of your voice — and later using it to impersonate you in a very convincing manner. 

    That’s according to the Federal Trade Commission, which is warning consumers to beware of scam artists who are secretly recording people’s voices in order to later pose as them and ask victims’ relatives for money. 

    The FTC described such a scenario amid the rise of AI-powered tools like ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Vall-E, a tool the software company demonstrated in January that converts text to speech. Vall-E is not yet available to the public, but other companies, like Resemble AI and ElevenLabs, make similar tools that are. Using a short sample of anyone’s voice, this technology can accurately convert written sentences into convincing sounding audio.

    “You get a call. There’s a panicked voice on the line. It’s your grandson. He says he’s in deep trouble — he wrecked the car and landed in jail. But you can help by sending money. You take a deep breath and think. You’ve heard about grandparent scams. But darn, it sounds just like him,” FTC consumer education specialist Alvaro Puig wrote on the agency’s site.

    All you need is 3 seconds

    Criminals are employing widely available “voice cloning” tools to dupe victims into believing their loved ones are in trouble and need cash fast, experts say. All it requires is a short clip of someone’s voice, which is sometimes available on the internet — or if it isn’t, can be collected by recording a spam call — plus a voice-cloning app such as ElevenLabs’ AI speech software, VoiceLab. 

    “If you made a TikTok video with your voice on it, that’s enough,” Hany Farid, a digital forensics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, told CBS MoneyWatch. Even a voice mailbox recording would suffice, for example. 

    He’s not surprised such scams are proliferating. “This is part of a continuum. We started with the spam calls, then email phishing scams, then text message phishing scams. So this is the natural evolution of these scams,” Farid said.

    “Don’t trust the voice”

    What this means in practice, according to the FTC, is that you can no longer trust voices that sound identical to those of your friends and family members.

    “Don’t trust the voice,” the FTC warns. “Call the person who supposedly contacted you and verify the story. Use a phone number you know is theirs. If you can’t reach your loved one, try to get in touch with them through another family member or their friends.”

    Vall-E maker Microsoft alluded to this problem, including a disclaimer in a paper demonstrating the technology that “it may carry potential risks in misuse of the model, such as spoofing voice identification or impersonating a specific speaker.” The paper noted that if the tool is rolled out to the general public, it “should include a protocol to ensure that the speaker approves the use of their voice.”

    In January, ElevenLabs tweeted, “We also see an increasing number of voice cloning misuse cases.”

    For this reason, the company said that identity verification is essential to weed out malicious content and that the tech will only be available for a fee.


    ChatGPT: Artificial Intelligence, chatbots and a world of unknowns | 60 Minutes

    13:22

    How to protect yourself

    With bad actors using voice cloning software to mimic voices and commit crimes, it’s important to be vigilant. First, if you answer a call from an unknown number, let the caller speak first. If you say as much as “Hello? Who is this?” they could use that audio sample to impersonate you. 

    Farid said he no longer answers his phone unless he’s expecting a call. And when he receives calls from supposed family members, like his wife, that seem “off,” he asks her for a code word that they’ve agreed upon.

    “Now we even mispronounce it, too, if we suspect someone else knows it,” he told CBS MoneyWatch. “It’s like a password you don’t share with anybody. It’s a pretty easy way to circumvent this, as long as you have wherewithal to ask and not panic.”

    It’s a low-tech way to combat a high-tech issue. The FTC also warns consumers not to trust incoming calls from unknown parties and advises people to verify calls claiming to be from friends or family members in another way — such as by calling the person on a known number or reaching out to mutual friends.

    Additionally, when someone asks for payment via money wire, gift card or in cryptocurrency, those can also be red flags. 

    “Scammers ask you to pay or send money in ways that make it hard to get your money back,” the FTC said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rent control policies are gaining support nationwide. Here’s why economists still think it’s a bad idea.

    Rent control policies are gaining support nationwide. Here’s why economists still think it’s a bad idea.

    [ad_1]

    In December 2022, $1,981 was the typical monthly rent in the United States — a 7.4% increase from the year prior. But while rent has begun to stabilize nationwide, rent affordability remains difficult for many Americans. 

    “There’s literally nowhere in the country where a tenant is not burdened by their rent,” according to Leah Simon-Weisberg, an adjunct professor of law at UC San Francisco.

    In response, support for rent control policies has gained traction.

    But this isn’t the first time such policies have had widespread support. After the massive economic disruption caused by World War II, the federal government imposed rent control on roughly 80% of rental housing between 1941 and 1964.

    Over time, it was abandoned because prominent economists unanimously argued against the policy. That sentiment mostly continues today.

    “There are various surveys of economists. One done by IMG showed that only 2% thought that rent controls in places like New York and San Francisco were having a positive impact on affordable housing,” said Jay Parsons, chief economist at RealPage.

    Economists argue that rent control would deter developers from building more homes, which would only worsen the housing supply crisis in the United States.

    America already suffers from a deficit of 3.8 million homes, especially at low-income price points, according to Habitat for Humanity.

    “We have not invested as a nation in building the supply of housing in a variety of communities, in a variety of different price points. We’ve instead relied on the private sector to do so,” said Sharon Wilson Géno, president of the National Multifamily Housing Council. “But unless that money comes into the market and investors see that as a better investment than some other kind of equity or some other kind of investment, they’re not going to come.”

    Watch the video to find out why so many economists are against the idea of widespread rent control.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Everyone hates switching the clocks for Daylight Saving Time. So why is it so hard to get rid of?  | CNN Business

    Everyone hates switching the clocks for Daylight Saving Time. So why is it so hard to get rid of? | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    Everyone hates switching the clocks for Daylight Saving Time. So why is it so hard to get rid of?

    CNN’s Harry Enten tells “Nightcap’s” Jon Sarlin why Americans switch the clocks back and forth twice a year, even though the time change is pretty universally hated. Plus, Los Angeles Times columnist LZ Granderson on how legal sports betting has changed March Madness. And CNN’s Clare Duffy explains why the FTC’s investigation of Twitter could be a real problem for Elon Musk. To get the day’s business headlines sent directly to your inbox, sign up for the Nightcap newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Common password mistakes you’re making that could get you hacked

    Common password mistakes you’re making that could get you hacked

    [ad_1]

    It’s hard to memorize passwords as you juggle dozens of apps — whether you’re logging in to stream your favorite show, view your medical records, check your savings account balance or more, you’ll want to avoid unwanted prying eyes. 

    You may be tempted to create the same easy password for every site, but that could leave you vulnerable to potential hacks which could end up draining your bank account.

    In 2022, consumers reported being cheated out of around $8.8 billion due to fraud — a 30% increase from 2021, according to newly released Federal Trade Commission data. Roughly 2.4 million consumers reported cases of fraud to the FTC, with investment and imposter scams topping their list of complaints. The agency recently shared the top scams of 2022.

    3 password mistakes to avoid

    Creating strong passwords is one of the best ways to protect your accounts and keep hackers at bay. The first step toward protecting your digital footprint: reevaluating your passwords. Here are some common mistakes you may be making.

    1. Setting simple passwords

    Easy number password note stick on smartphone, keyboard.
    The password “123456” topped a recent list of most common passwords in 2022.

    Getty Images/iStockphoto


    When it comes to keeping your online accounts safe, simplicity isn’t key. 

    “There are several common mistakes people make with their passwords. For example, using a simple or short password such as a word or name, a sequence of numbers, or combination of these, can be easily guessed by malicious attackers,” David Bader, distinguished professor and director of the Institute for Data Science at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, told CBS News.

    Bader said one of the most common passwords is “abc123,” which is a prime example of a password you should never use. While it may be easy to remember, it’s also easy to guess.

    That’s even more sophisticated compared to what password manager NordPass has found. In 2022, NordPass released its top 200 most common passwords list, crowning “password” as the top used. Numerical lists “123456” and “123456789” followed, along with “guest” and “qwerty.” 

    “This is why many sites now require setting passwords longer than a certain length such as eight or more characters, and using a combination of letters, numbers and special characters such as ‘!@#$%^&*()?,’” Bader explained.

    2. Repeating passwords

    Password Box in Internet Browser
    Cybersecurity experts warn users from inserting the same password across multiple accounts, especially if it’s been flagged in a security breach.

    Getty Images/iStockphoto


    Repeatedly using a simple password is bad, but regurgitating that same simple password across multiple apps and sites is even worse.

    “This is like putting the same lock on every door in your neighborhood. If one is compromised, then the entire group is compromised,” Bader cautioned.

    An estimated 64% of people have reused a password that had been compromised in a breach, computer security service SpyCloud stated in its 2022 annual identity exposure report.

    “If a site has you change to a new password, do not reuse any previous passwords as they may have already been stolen,” Bader said, encouraging people to update their passwords at least every 90 days.

    3. Sharing passwords


    Netflix is cracking down on password sharing. What does that mean for users?

    05:10

    Password sharing has become increasingly popular among streamers. Netflix estimates more than 100 million households are sharing Netflix passwords. By the end of March, Netflix will start to use a customer’s geographic location — based on their connected IP address and other signals — to determine the primary household and help curb outside use.

    While it may seem harmless to swap passwords with friends and family, it’s risky.

    “Never email or share your passwords with anyone. No legitimate organization will ever call you up and ask for your password either. So if you receive a call from tech support claiming to need this information for one of your accounts, simply hang up the phone,” Bader said.

    How to keep your passwords secure

    Diversifying passwords, creating more sophisticated combinations and keeping them private are solid ways to keep your accounts secure. Additionally, you can enable backup security measures like two-factor authentication, prompting you to enter a second code and your password before gaining access to an app.

    “Two-factor authentication for Apple ID is a must, the second factor should be a separate trusted device (like an iPad, a Mac, or an Apple Watch),” Vitaly Shmatikov, a professor of computer science at Cornell University and Cornell Tech, told CBS News.

    Just don’t use SMS text messages as your backup, Shmatikov suggested. “Instead, use an authenticator app (like Google Authenticator, Microsoft Authenticator, Duo, Okta Verify, etc.) and turn on biometric protection — require Face ID or Touch ID — in the authenticator app. Then a thief who steals your phone won’t be able to get authentication codes and log into financial sites as you.”

    You may also want to consider using a password manager or password vault, which can recommend and store passwords for you, though even those tools occasionally flag security incidents.

    “I recommend using a secure password vault to store potentially hundreds of passwords for the sites you use, and many password vaults available today will also suggest strong passwords that would be hard for an attacker to guess,” Bader said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Amazon closes its acquisition of One Medical, but scrutiny of the deal is not over | CNN Business

    Amazon closes its acquisition of One Medical, but scrutiny of the deal is not over | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    Amazon closed its acquisition of health care provider One Medical and its parent in a $3.9 billion deal on Wednesday, hours after the Federal Trade Commission said it would not challenge the purchase but that regulators were still investigating potential competitive and consumer harms of the transaction.

    The landmark deal will turn the e-commerce giant into a provider of primary medical care with access to more than 200 brick-and-mortar doctors’ offices, along with roughly 815,000 One Medical members, according to that company’s latest financial statement.

    The One Medical deal would also allow Amazon to expand its telehealth services and acquire valuable relationships with hospital systems, industry analysts have said.

    On Wednesday, Amazon said One Medical will offer new customers a $55 discount on annual memberships for a limited time.

    “We’re on a mission to make it dramatically easier for people to find, choose, afford, and engage with the services, products, and professionals they need to get and stay healthy, and coming together with One Medical is a big step on that journey,” said Neil Lindsay, senior vice president of Amazon Health Services, in a release. “One Medical has set the bar for what a quality, convenient, and affordable primary care experience should be like. We’re inspired by their human-centered, technology-forward approach and excited to help them continue to grow and serve more patients.”

    But while Amazon can consummate the deal without the immediate threat of an FTC antitrust suit, the agency is still investigating the acquisition and can still challenge the deal after the fact.

    “The FTC’s investigation of Amazon’s acquisition of One Medical continues,” said FTC spokesman Douglas Farrar. “The commission will continue to look at possible harms to competition created by this merger, as well as possible harms to consumers that may result from Amazon’s control and use of sensitive consumer health information held by One Medical.”

    The FTC plans to warn Amazon it may close the deal at its own risk, an agency official said. Known as a “pre-consummation warning,” the FTC began sending such letters to merging companies in 2021 in response to a surge in proposed deals that threatened to overwhelm regulators’ investigative capacity.

    The warning highlights the continued legal risk for Amazon and the potential concerns driving the FTC probe. Worries include not only the potential for Amazon to entrench its economic dominance but also fears that its acquisition of valuable health data could lead to the misuse of that information for other purposes, such as targeted advertising or e-commerce, the agency official said.

    Amazon’s deal to acquire One Medical follows its 2018 purchase of the online pharmacy service PillPack, which later became Amazon Pharmacy. Separately, Amazon partnered with JPMorgan Chase and Berkshire Hathaway on an effort to provide better health care services and insurance at a lower cost to workers and families at the three companies, and possibly other businesses, too. That effort, called Haven, shut down in 2021.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abbott faces SEC investigation over infant formula debacle

    Abbott faces SEC investigation over infant formula debacle

    [ad_1]

    Abbott Laboratories is facing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in connection with its formula business, the company revealed in a recent SEC filing

    The developments are the latest in a series of inquiries into the factors that precipitated the company’s Michigan factory shutdown and kickstarted a nationwide formula shortage

    Abbott received a subpoena from the SEC’s Enforcement Division soliciting “information relating to Abbott’s powder infant-formula business and related public disclosures” last December, the company said.  

    Then, in January, the FTC issued the manufacturer a civil investigative demand connected with an investigation into companies that bid for infant formula contracts with federal nutritional programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, program. That same month, Abbott also confirmed the U.S. Justice Department is investigating operations at its Michigan plant. 

    Abbott Laboratories made headlines in February 2022 after the FDA sent inspectors to Abbott’s infant formula manufacturing facility in Sturgis, Michigan, to investigate a whistleblower report alleging the company had engaged in activities to cover up substandard cleaning practices at its facilities and had shipped untested and potentially contaminated formula to retailers. 

    Abbott recalled select Similac, EleCare and Alimentum as well as powdered infant formulas manufactured at the Sturgis plant, and closed down the factory later that month when investigators found evidence of cronobacter sakazakii bacteria at the facility. The recall came shortly after four infants drank Abbott’s formula and contracted cronobacter infections; two of the infants died. 

    At least two dozen families are now suing Abbott over the allegedly contaminated formula. Abbott’s representatives say there’s no conclusive evidence linking its formula to the infants’ illnesses, as none of the cronobacter strains found at their plant matched samples genetically sequenced from the sick infants.

    Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf said his agency’s inspections found conditions at Abbott’s Sturgis, Michigan plant “shocking” and “egregiously unsanitary.”

    The Michigan plant closure took a massive toll on families nationwide, forcing parents and caregivers to turn to local food pantries to procure formula and spurring collection initiatives at breast milk banks.

    Abbott Nutrition, a subdivision of multinational health conglomerate Abbott Laboratories that oversees the conglomerate’s formula business, controlled 40% of the baby-formula market in the U.S. at the time of its Michigan plant shutdown last year.

    Public health organizations have for decades criticized formula makers for aggressively marketing their products to the detriment of breastfeeding. The World Health Organization last year detailed how big formula companies use aggressive marketing practices to promote the use of infant formula over breast milk, leaving many families dependent on commercial products and vulnerable to formula shortages. A series of papers published in the medical journal The Lancet this month describes what its authors call the commercial milk industry’s “underhand marketing strategies, designed to prey on parents’ fears and concerns, to turn the feeding of infants and young children into a multibillion-dollar business.” 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge reportedly allows Meta to move forward with VR startup acquisition, in blow to FTC | CNN Business

    Judge reportedly allows Meta to move forward with VR startup acquisition, in blow to FTC | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge will not block Meta from buying a virtual reality tech startup, according to multiple reports, in a setback for the US government, which had alleged the deal would threaten competition in a nascent market.

    Tuesday’s decision, issued by the US District Court for the Northern District of California, is sealed. But according to The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, the contents of the decision dealt Meta a victory by denying the US government’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the acquisition from closing. The New York Times cited two people with knowledge of the matter and the Wall Street Journal cited one person familiar with the ruling.

    CNN has not independently confirmed the contents of the court’s decision. The Federal Trade Commission, which had sued to block the deal last summer, declined to comment. Meta declined to comment, and several outside attorneys for the company didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

    The closely watched case involves Meta’s purchase of Within Unlimited, a virtual reality company and maker of a VR fitness app called “Supernatural.” The FTC’s suit had been seen as a major test for Chair Lina Khan, a critic of large tech platforms, as well as of the FTC’s unusual legal theory alleging that Meta’s deal would harm future competition in a rapidly evolving industry.

    According to the reports, the judge in the case also issued a separate order that delays Meta’s ability to close its deal for another week to allow the FTC to decide whether to appeal the ruling.

    A separate challenge to Meta’s deal is ongoing before an in-house administrative law judge at the FTC. That proceeding could continue despite Tuesday’s ruling, but whether agency officials intend to press ahead is unclear.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GoodRx shared consumer health data with Facebook and Google, FTC says

    GoodRx shared consumer health data with Facebook and Google, FTC says

    [ad_1]

    Digital health service GoodRx repeatedly shared sensitive customer information with Facebook, Google and other advertising platforms without its users’ knowledge or consent, the Federal Trade Commission alleged on Wednesday. In doing so, GoodRx allowed those services to tap into sensitive health details about those consumers, according to the complaint.

    In one case, GoodRx allegedly designed campaigns based on its users’ health information to run targeted ads on Facebook, relying on the social media network’s ad-targeting platform and making the information visible to Facebook, the complaint alleges. In that case, the campaigns featured ads focused on specific medications such as Viagra or conditions like erectile dysfunction that then ran on Facebook, the complaint claims.

    GoodRx shared sensitive user information such as personal health conditions and prescription medications with third-party advertisers without notifying its users or seeking their consent, the FTC said. The medication service also exploited its information to provide Facebook with its customers’ personal and health data over a four-year period, the agency claims. 


    Privacy advocates warn about smart toys, urge FTC to do more

    04:45

    Such information could be used to infer or link people to “chronic physical or mental health conditions, medical treatments and treatment choices, life expectancy, disability status, information relating to parental status, substance addiction, sexual and reproductive health, sexual orientation, and other highly sensitive and personal information,” the FTC said in the complaint. 

    Move to protect user privacy

    The Department of Justice, on behalf of the FTC, issued an order that prohibits GoodRx from sharing user health data for advertising purposes, although the order must be approved by the federal court to become effective. GoodRx will also pay a $1.5 million civic penalty, the FTC said in a statement.

    GoodRx said it doesn’t agree with the allegations. 

    “[W]e admit no wrongdoing,” it said in a statement. It added that the settlement “focuses on an old issue that was proactively addressed almost three years ago, before the FTC inquiry began.”

    GoodRx said it resolved the issue three years ago, when it made updates to its service to protect users’ privacy. 

    In a statement emailed to CBS MoneyWatch, Google said it prohibits personalized advertising based on “sensitive data like health conditions or prescription medications.” 

    Meta, Facebook’s parent company, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    GoodRx, which offers a digital service for prescription drug discounts and telehealth appointments, collects personal and health information from consumers and from pharmacy benefit managers when a consumer purchases a prescription through GoodRx. 


    Privacy advocates warn about smart toys, urge FTC to do more

    04:45

    The FTC said the enforcement action represents the first time it has taken such a step under its Health Breach Notification Rule, which requires vendors of personal health records to alert consumers after their data has been breached. The agency claims that GoodRx failed to notify its customers about the unauthorized disclosure of their data to Facebook, Google and others. 

    “Digital health companies and mobile apps should not cash in on consumer’s extremely sensitive and personally identifiable health information,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in the statement. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTC calls on federal court to hold ‘pharma bro’ Martin Shkreli in contempt | CNN Business

    FTC calls on federal court to hold ‘pharma bro’ Martin Shkreli in contempt | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Federal Trade Commission on Friday called for a federal court to hold “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli in contempt after Shkreli allegedly flouted a recent FTC investigation into his business dealings and failed to make a $64.6 million payment he owed for his prior wrongdoings.

    The FTC’s contempt motion follows what the agency described as its an unsuccessful attempt to verify whether Shkreli has violated a court order barring him from ever working in the pharmaceutical industry again.

    Brianne Murphy, an attorney for Shkreli, called the issue with the FTC a misunderstanding that “can get resolved relatively quickly once we get additional information and context to them.” Murphy added that Shkreli’s new business does not run afoul of the court order because the new company “is a software company, rather than a drug company.”

    Shkreli was released from federal prison last year after serving a shortened sentence. He was convicted of securities fraud in 2017 for mismanaging two investments funds.

    Shkreli also infamously raised prices for the life-saving medication Daraprim by 4,000% while he was head of Turing Pharmaceuticals. His conduct earned him the title of “most hated man in America” by multiple publications. More recently, he was the subject a 134-page ruling in 2022 by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York that banned him for life from participating in the pharmaceutical industry, as part of a separate FTC antitrust case against him.

    That legally binding order triggered a new investigation into Shkreli’s activities in October, when public reports indicated he had co-founded a new “Web3 drug discovery software platform” known as Druglike, Inc.

    When the FTC emailed Shkreli to get documents from him and to schedule an interview about the matter, Shkreli repeatedly missed deadlines and allegedly slow-walked his responses, according to an FTC court filing Friday.

    “Shkreli has not attempted—much less ‘diligently,’ as Second Circuit law requires—to comply with the Order in a reasonable manner,” the filing said.

    The FTC also said Shkreli had been ordered to make his multimillion-dollar payment — representing a refund of his ill-gotten Daraprim gains — by March 6, 2022. But in fact, the FTC said, “to date he has paid nothing toward the judgment, and has made no efforts to comply with this provision of the Order.”

    As far as his involvement with Druglike, the FTC added: “Shkreli’s noncompliance is also clear and unambiguous: Shkreli has not submitted a supplemental Compliance Report, provided access to relevant documents, or made himself available for an interview.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FTC says pharma no to

    FTC says pharma no to

    [ad_1]

    Martin Shkreli charged with price-fixing


    FTC charges “Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli with fixing price of life-saving drug

    01:16

    The Federal Trade Commission on Friday said convicted fraudster Martin Shkreli should be held in contempt of court for launching a new drug company after he was banned from the pharmaceutical industry for life. 

    An earlier court order prohibited Shkreli “from directly or indirectly participating in any manner in the pharmaceutical industry” and ordered him to pay up to $65 million in monetary relief. Shkreli in 2018 was sentenced to seven years in prison for securities fraud. He served four years and was released from Pennsylvania’s Allenwood Low Federal Correctional Institution in May of 2022.

    The FTC asked the United District Court for the Southern District of New York to find Shkreli in civil contempt for failing to satisfy the monetary judgment and for forming a new company, called Druglike, described as “a platform for democratizing the access, costs and rewards of early-stage drug discovery.”

    The agency also said Shkreli has not complied with requests to turn over information and make himself available for interviews related to its probe into Druglike. 

    “We hope to resolve this misunderstanding with the FTC quickly,” Brianne Murphy, an attorney for Shkreli, told CBS MoneyWatch. “We believe Druglike does not violate Judge Cote’s order as it is a software company rather than a drug company.”

    Martin Shkreli
    Former pharmaceutical executive Martin Shkreli seen August 4, 2017, in the Brooklyn borough of New York City.

    Drew Angerer / Getty Images


    Shkreli, once dubbed the “Pharma Bro,” described Druglike in a July 25, 2022, press release as a “Web3 drug discovery software platform.” The technology will speed the development of new drugs and benefit “underserved” communities with rare diseases or in developing markets, he said. 

    Shkreli drew a barrage of criticism in 2015 when he hiked the cost of AIDS drug Daraprim by 5,000% during his tenure as chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals. But his legal woes stemmed from a 2018 conviction for defrauding investors in two hedge funds.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Oops: Microsoft Called FTC Unconstitutional, Regrets The Error

    Oops: Microsoft Called FTC Unconstitutional, Regrets The Error

    [ad_1]

    A photo shows two people as they walk by a Microsoft logo on a grey wall.

    Photo: Zed Jameson/Bloomberg (Getty Images)

    Today, Microsoft filed a revised response to the United States Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit intended to stop the tech giant from buying up Call of Duty publisher Activision. The initial filing contained multiple arguments claiming the FTC itself and its court system were unconstitutional. But now Microsoft has yanked that language out of the doc and claimed it was all a mistake. Y’know, just your average oopsie of calling a large government agency unconstitutional.

    Last year, Microsoft announced its plans to consume Call of Duty and World of Warcraft publisher Activision Blizzard for a whopping $69 billion. Since then, Microsoft and Activision Blizzard have faced pushback and legal roadblocks around the world as various government agencies and regulatory committees investigate if the massive deal would give Microsoft an unfair advantage against its competitors. As you would expect, Microsoft and Activision Blizzard have fought back and spent 2022, filing responses, docs, and court paperwork in an effort to make its deal happen.

    In a press release put out by the FTC last month, the agency announced a lawsuit against the merger and reasoned that Microsoft would be able to stifle its competitors by making games Xbox exclusives and manipulating prices, should the deal go through. Microsoft fought back via a response that contained a lot of arguments, including the assertion that the FTC itself was actually unconstitutional.

    However, as reported by Axios, today Microsoft refiled its response to the lawsuit and has omitted the section arguing that the FTC’s lawsuit was “invalid because the structure of the Commission as an independent agency that wields significant executive power” violates Article II of the US Constitution. In that same section of the original filing, Microsoft also argued that the lawsuit and legal proceedings being carried out by the FTC were “invalid” because the FTC’s official complaint violated Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Oh, and Microsoft’s legal team also claimed that the FTC’s “procedures” violated the company’s “right to Equal Protection under the Fifth Amendment.”

    Read More: Gamers Are Suing Microsoft To Thwart Its Merger With Activision

    Now all of that is gone and Microsoft tells Axios that it probably shouldn’t have been in that initial doc in the first place.

    “The FTC has an important mission to protect competition and consumers, and we quickly updated our response to omit language suggesting otherwise based on the constitution,” Microsoft public affairs spokesperson David Cuddy told Axios. “We initially put all potential arguments on the table internally and should have dropped these defenses before we filed.”

    Microsoft says it appreciates all the “feedback” it received about its arguments claiming the FTC itself was unconstitutional and are “engaging directly with those who expressed concerns” to make the company’s position on the matter “clear.” In other words, the FTC probably didn’t take too kindly to be called unconstitutional and you probably shouldn’t anger the people suing you and trying to stop your whole big merger from happening.

    Axios reports that Activision is also dropping similar allegations it had included in its own, separate response to the same FTC lawsuit. 

    [ad_2]

    Zack Zwiezen

    Source link