Markets Wired - Page 1095 of 1420 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC to Host Telephone Press Conference to Respond to Questions About the FTCs $22.5 million Settlement with Google

MEDIA ADVISORY MEDIA ADVISORY MEDIA ADVISORY

Media Advisory

August 9, 2012

WHAT:	Telephone Press Conference to respond to questions about the FTC’s $22.5 million settlement with Google.
WHO:	David Vladeck, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection James Kohm, Associate Director for Enforcement Federal Trade Commission
WHEN:	Thursday, August 9, 2012; 11:30 a.m. Reporters who wish to participate can dial 1-800-230-1766 The Confirmation Number is 256547 and the Host is Bruce Jennings
SOCIAL CHATS:	Twitter Chat with FTC Staff 1:00 pm ET Follow @FTC on Twitter Hashtag: #FTCpriv Facebook Chat with FTC Staff 1:00 pm ET FTC Facebook Page

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:

Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

FTC Sends Refunds to Consumers Allegedly Deceived by First Universal Lending Mortgage Loan Modification Scheme

The Federal Trade Commission mailed more than 13,000 refund checks to consumers who were allegedly deceived by a company that claimed it would negotiate with lenders to modify the consumers’ mortgages and make them more affordable. To resolve FTC charges, First Universal Lending and its owners agreed to an order banning them from the mortgage relief services business.

The FTC alleged that the operators of First Universal Lending encouraged homeowners to stop making mortgage payments. The defendants charged consumers up-front fees, but then did little or nothing to help them, the agency charged.

The checks were mailed by an administrator working for the FTC. More than $723,000 was returned to consumers. The amount varied based upon the amount of each consumer’s loss. Those who receive checks from the FTC’s refund administrator should cash them on or before October 6, 2012. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information before redress checks can be cashed. Consumers with questions should call the refund administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC, at 1-888-251-6825, or visit www.FTC.gov/refunds.

To learn how to avoid mortgage assistance relief scams, read the FTC’s Mortgage Assistance Relief Scams: Another Potential Stress for Homeowners in Distress and Mortgage Payments Sending You Reeling? Here’s What to Do.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

(First Universal Lending redress)

Google Will Pay $22.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges it Misrepresented Privacy Assurances to Users of Apple’s Safari Internet Browser

Google Inc. has agreed to pay a record $22.5 million civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misrepresented to users of Apple Inc.’s Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking “cookies” or serve targeted ads to those users, violating an earlier privacy settlement between the company and the FTC.

The settlement is part of the FTC’s ongoing efforts make sure companies live up to the privacy promises they make to consumers, and is the largest penalty the agency has ever obtained for a violation of a Commission order. In addition to the civil penalty, the order also requires Google to disable all the tracking cookies it had said it would not place on consumers’ computers.

“The record setting penalty in this matter sends a clear message to all companies under an FTC privacy order,” said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC. “No matter how big or small, all companies must abide by FTC orders against them and keep their privacy promises to consumers, or they will end up paying many times what it would have cost to comply in the first place.”

Google, the developer of the world’s most popular Internet search engine, generates billions of dollars in revenues annually from selling online advertising services, including the delivery of targeted ads online. Cookies are small pieces of computer text that are used to collect information from computers and can be used to serve targeted ads to consumers. By placing a tracking cookie on a user’s computer, an advertising network can collect information about the user’s web-browsing activities and use that information to serve online ads targeted to the user’s interests or for other purposes.

In its complaint, the FTC charged that for several months in 2011 and 2012, Google placed a certain advertising tracking cookie on the computers of Safari users who visited sites within Google’s DoubleClick advertising network, although Google had previously told these users they would automatically be opted out of such tracking, as a result of the default settings of the Safari browser used in Macs, iPhones and iPads.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Google specifically told Safari users that because the Safari browser is set by default to block third-party cookies, as long as users do not change their browser settings, this setting “effectively accomplishes the same thing as [opting out of this particular Google advertising tracking cookie].” In addition, Google represented that it is a member of an industry group called the Network Advertising Initiative, which requires members to adhere to its self-regulatory code of conduct, including disclosure of their data collection and use practices.

Despite these promises, the FTC charged that Google placed advertising tracking cookies on consumers’ computers, in many cases by circumventing the Safari browser’s default cookie-blocking setting. Google exploited an exception to the browser’s default setting to place a temporary cookie from the DoubleClick domain. Because of the particular operation of the Safari browser, that initial temporary cookie opened the door to all cookies from the DoubleClick domain, including the Google advertising tracking cookie that Google had represented would be blocked from Safari browsers.

The FTC charged that Google’s misrepresentations violated a settlement it reached with the agency in October 2011, which barred Google from – among other things – misrepresenting the extent to which consumers can exercise control over the collection of their information. The earlier settlement resolved FTC charges that Google used deceptive tactics and violated its privacy promises when it launched its social network, Google Buzz.

More information about the FTC case can be found at the Tech@FTC blog.

The Commission vote to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice, and to approve the proposed consent decree, was 4-1 with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissenting. The Commission issued a statement authored by Chairman Jon Leibowitz and Commissioners Edith Ramirez, Julie Brill, and Maureen Ohlhausen. In its statement, the Commission affirmed that the settlement is in the public interest because, based on staff’s investigative work, there is strong reason to believe that Google violated the prior order, and the $22.5 million fine is an appropriate remedy for the charge that Google misrepresented to Safari browser users how to avoid targeted advertising by Google. In his dissenting statement, Commissioner Rosch stated that it arguably cannot be concluded that the consent decree is in the public interest if it contains a denial of liability.

This case was filed with the invaluable assistance of the DOJ, which filed the complaint and proposed consent decree on behalf of the Commission in U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California in San Jose August 8, 2012. The proposed consent decree is subject to court approval.

NOTE: The Commission refers a complaint to the DOJ for filing when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. This consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant that the law has been violated. Consent orders have the force of law when signed by the District Court judge.

Employment Background Screening Company to Pay $2.6 Million Penalty for Multiple Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

An employment background screening company that provides consumer reports to companies nationwide will pay $2.6 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to use reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of information it provided, failing to give consumers copies of their reports, and failing to reinvestigate consumer disputes, as required by law.

The case against HireRight Solutions, Inc. represents the first time the FTC has charged an employment background screening firm with violating the FCRA, and is the second-largest civil penalty that the FTC has obtained under the Act. Only the 2006 $10 million civil penalty against consumer data broker ChoicePoint, Inc. was larger. The Department of Justice filed the complaint and proposed order against HireRight Solutions on the FTC’s behalf. Under the settlement, the company also is barred from continuing its alleged illegal practices.

In its capacity as a consumer reporting agency, HireRight Solutions, provides background reports that contain information about prospective and current employees to help thousands of employers make decisions about hiring and other employment-related issues. Under the FCRA, the company’s reports qualify as “consumer reports.” They contain public-record information, including the individuals’ criminal history.

The FTC alleges that in many cases, when it provided consumer reports to employers, HireRight Solutions failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information in the reports was current and reflected updates, such as the expungement of criminal records. Because of this, the FTC charged, employers sometimes received information that incorrectly listed criminal convictions on individuals’ records.

In addition, according to the FTC’s complaint, HireRight Solutions failed to follow reasonable procedures to prevent the same criminal offense information from being included in a consumer report multiple times, failed to follow reasonable procedures to prevent obviously inaccurate consumer report information from being provided to employers, and in numerous cases even included the records of the wrong person. The FTC alleged that these failures led to consumers being denied employment or other employment-related benefits.

Under the FCRA, consumer reporting agencies must allow consumers to access their own information and dispute any inaccuracies. To do this, the consumer reporting agency must clearly and adequately disclose information in their file to a consumer who requests it. Next, within 30 days of being notified that a consumer wants to dispute the information in his or her report, the consumer reporting agency must conduct a reasonable investigation to determine whether the information is inaccurate, record the status of the information, or delete it from the file. Finally, the consumer reporting agency must notify consumers in writing of the results of this reinvestigation of their file within five days of when it’s completed.

In numerous instances, HireRight Solutions failed to comply with these FCRA requirements, the FTC alleges. This includes failing to conduct investigations of disputed items in a consumer’s file after being notified of a dispute, requiring consumers who wanted to dispute information in their file to have a copy of the report before the company would start a reinvestigation, and telling consumers who did not have a copy of their report to request one before they would reinvestigate, delaying the dispute process and making it more difficult. In addition, according to the FTC, HireRight Solutions closed complaint investigations without providing written notice of the results to consumers, as required.

Finally, the complaint alleges that HireRight Solutions failed to provide consumers with written notification that it had reported public record information about them to employers when it was being reported, as the FCRA requires.

In addition to the $2.6 million civil penalty, the settlement prohibits HireRight Solutions from:

failing to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure that its consumer report information is as accurate as possible;
failing to provide consumers with information in their files in a timely manner;
requiring consumers to obtain a copy of their report before the company will conduct a dispute reinvestigation;
failing to provide consumers with the results of a dispute reinvestigation; and
failing to comply with the requirements for consumer reporting agencies that use public record information.

Consumer Education

The FTC has a variety of resources available for consumers seeking information about employment background checks. They included a business blog post, “Where HireRight Solutions Went Wrong,” the consumer education publications, “What to Know When You Look for a Job” and “Employment Background Checks and Credit Reports,” and a new video, “What to Know When Looking for a Job.”

The Commission vote to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice, and to approve the proposed consent decree, was 5-0. The DOJ filed the complaint and proposed consent decree on behalf of the Commission in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 8, 2012. The proposed consent decree is subject to court approval.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. This consent judgment is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the District Court judge.

(FTC File No. 102-3130)

FTC Sends Refunds to Consumers Who Paid to Collect Bogus Prize Money, Tricked by Scammers Posing as Government Agencies

The Federal Trade Commission mailed 503 refund checks to consumers who were allegedly tricked into paying a fee to collect a fake multi-million-dollar sweepstakes prize. The FTC alleged that operators of the scam, collectively known as Prize Information Bureau, sent personalized mailers, some with fictitious government agency names and official-looking seals, to hundreds of thousands of consumers.

The refund checks were mailed by an administrator working for the FTC. More than $183,000 was returned to consumers. The amount varied based upon the amount of each consumer’s loss. Those who receive the checks from the FTC’s refund administrator should cash them within 60 days of the date they were issued. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information before redress checks can be cashed. Consumers with questions should call the refund administrator, Gilardi & Co., LLC, at 1-888-251-6826, or visit www.FTC.gov/refunds.

To learn how to avoid these kinds of scams, read the FTC’s Prize Offers: You Don’t Have to Pay to Play.

(Prize Information Bureau redress)

FTC Approves Final Order Settling Charges that Johnson & Johnson’s Proposed Acquisition of Synthes, Inc. was Anticompetitive in Market for Treating Traumatic Wrist Injuries

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges that Johnson & Johnson’s proposed acquisition of Synthes, Inc. would have been anticompetitive in the market for surgical systems used to treat traumatic distal radius wrist fractures. The final FTC order resolving the charges requires Johnson & Johnson to sell its system for surgically treating serious wrist fractures.

The Commission vote approving the final order was 5-0. (FTC File No. 111-0160; Docket No. C-4363; the staff contact is Mark D. Seidman, Bureau of Competition, 202-326-3296; see press release dated June 11, 2012.)

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition works with the Bureau of Economics to investigate alleged anticompetitive business practices and, when appropriate, recommends that the Commission take law enforcement action. To inform the Bureau about particular business practices, call 202-326-3300, send an e-mail to [email protected], or write to the Office of Policy and Coordination, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 601 New Jersey Ave., Room 7117, Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read Competition Counts. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

(FYI 24.2012.wpd)

Refunds Stemming From Reebok’s Settlement With FTC Mailed to Consumers Who Bought EasyTone and RunTone Shoes and EasyTone Apparel

In connection with the Federal Trade Commission’s settlement with Reebok International Ltd, a settlement administrator is mailing approximately 315,000 checks to consumers who bought allegedly deceptively advertised toning shoes and apparel from the company.

Ads for Reebok’s toning shoes claimed that sole technology featuring pockets of moving air creates “micro instability” that tones and strengthens muscles as you walk or run.

As part of its efforts to stem overhyped health claims, the FTC last year alleged that Reebok deceptively advertised its “toning shoes” by claiming that consumers wearing the shoes would strengthen and tone leg and buttock muscles more than by wearing regular shoes. Reebok paid $25 million for refunds as part of its settlement agreement with the agency.

The amount each consumer gets back is based on the amount the consumer claimed to have spent on the products. Consumers will receive approximately 87 percent of the amount on their claim forms that was submitted and approved. The deadline for filing a refund request has expired.

Under the terms of the FTC settlement, the funds were made available through a court-approved class action lawsuit. Rust Consulting, Inc., the court approved settlement administrator, will begin mailing the checks on August 8, 2012 to eligible consumers who submitted a valid claim for a refund. The checks must be cashed on or before November 6, 2012. Consumers who have questions should call 1-888-398-5389. The FTC never requires consumers to pay money or provide information before redress checks can be cashed.

Consumers should carefully evaluate advertising claims for work-out gear and exercise equipment. For more information see: How’s that Work-out Working Out? Tips on Buying Fitness Gear.

(FTC File No. 1023070; Civ. Action No. 1:11-cv-02046-DCN)(Reebok NR)

FTC Order Will Restore Competition for Adult Cardiology Services in Reno, Nevada

Renown Health, the largest provider of acute care hospital services in northern Nevada, will release its staff cardiologists from “non-compete” contract clauses, allowing up to 10 of them to join competing cardiology practices. Renown Health has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its recent acquisitions of two local cardiology groups reduced competition for the provision of adult cardiology services in the Reno area.

Renown Health, based in Reno, Nevada, operates general acute care hospitals and commercial health plans serving the Reno area. Before the recent acquisitions, virtually all of the cardiologists in the Reno area were affiliated with two medical groups – Sierra Nevada Cardiology Associates (SNCA) and Reno Heart Physicians (RHP).

In late 2010, Renown Health agreed to acquire SNCA’s medical practice and hire its 15 cardiologists practicing in the Reno area. Before this, Renown Health did not employ any cardiologists, and the acquisition positioned it as a direct competitor of RHP. In March 2011, Renown Health acquired RHP and hired its 16 Reno-area cardiologists. According to the FTC’s complaint, other than the physicians associated with SNCA and RHP, there are very few cardiologists practicing in the Reno area. Accordingly, the FTC alleged, competition for adult cardiology services was effectively eliminated.

In addition, the contracts between Renown Health and the newly hired cardiologists included “non-compete” provisions, which effectively prevented them from joining medical practices that competed with Renown Health. As a result of the acquisitions and non-compete clauses, the FTC contends, Renown Health currently employs 88 percent of the cardiologists in the Reno area.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Renown Health’s acquisitions of SNCA’s and RHP’s medical practices created a highly concentrated market for the provision of adult cardiology services in the Reno area, in violation of federal law. The complaint alleges that the consolidation of the competing practices into a single cardiology group controlled by Renown Health led to the elimination of competition based on price, quality, and other terms. In addition, according to the complaint, the consolidation increased the bargaining power that Renown Health has with insurers, and this may lead to higher prices for adult cardiology services in the Reno area.

The proposed order settling the FTC’s charges is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects of Renown Health’s acquisitions of SNCA and RHP, and to restore competition for cardiology services in the Reno area. Renown Health has agreed to an order temporarily suspending the non-compete provisions currently in place with its cardiologists. During this time, the former SNCA and RHP cardiologists now working for Renown Health will be able to seek other employment, including positions with other hospitals in the Reno area.

Under the proposed order, the non-compete provisions will be suspended for at least 30 days while the FTC considers public comments it receives on the order. During this time, former SNCA and RHP cardiologists may contact other employers about leaving Renown Health, and will notify a special monitor appointed by the FTC to ensure they are included in a group of up to 10 cardiologists that will be allowed to join competing groups. After the FTC finalizes the consent order, another 30-day release period will begin, during which other cardiologists may leave Renown Health, provided certain conditions are met, including the requirement that they intend to continue to practice in the Reno area for at least one year.

At any time during this period, Renown Health can ask the FTC to end the release order if 10 of its cardiologists have left for competing practices. If fewer than six cardiologists have decided to leave Renown Health after the end of this release period, Renown Health will continue to suspend the non-compete provisions until at least six cardiologists have accepted offers with competing practices in the Reno area.

The State of Nevada, through its Attorney General, worked with FTC staff to investigate and resolve this matter. The Attorney General has filed a complaint similar to the FTC’s and has entered into an agreement with Renown Health similar to the FTC’s proposed settlement. The state agreement is subject to court approval.

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreement package containing the proposed consent order for public comment was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through September 5, 2012, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final.

Interested parties can submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the “Invitation To Comment” part of the “Supplementary Information” section. Comments can be submitted electronically by clicking here. Comments in paper form should be mailed or delivered to: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex D), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security precautions.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has actually violated the law. A consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondent that the law has been violated. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

(FTC File No. 111-0101)
(C-4366)
(Renown Health.final)

Scammers Exploit the FTC’s Good Name, Promise Phony Sweepstakes Prizes

Someone who claims to work for the Federal Trade Commission calls to inform you that you have won a lottery or sweepstakes. To receive the prize, all you have to do is pay the taxes and insurance. The caller asks you to wire money or send a check for an amount between $1,000 and $10,000. What should you do? Don’t send money or account information, and immediately report the incident to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov.

The FTC is the nation’s consumer protection agency. It investigates fraud and provides free information, but it never collects money directly from consumers. FTC employees don’t have any involvement with this sweepstakes scam, and they want you to avoid it.

The caller might suggest that the FTC is supervising the giveaway. He or she might even use the name of a real FTC employee. Your Caller ID might display the Federal Trade Commission’s name or a Washington, DC area code. Don’t be surprised if you receive repeated calls and follow-up faxes.

No matter how convincing the impersonation, never send money to claim a prize. No FTC employee will ever call to ask you to send money. Legitimate sweepstakes companies won’t either. Nevertheless, many consumers and their families have sent money and lost it before realizing and reporting that they were scammed.

Taking a few precautions can help you minimize your risk of falling for the lure of sweepstakes scams:

Don’t pay to collect sweepstakes winnings. If you have to pay to collect your winnings, you haven’t won. Legitimate sweepstakes don’t require you to pay “insurance,” “taxes,” or “shipping and handling charges” to collect your prize.

Hold on to your money. Scammers pressure people to wire money through commercial money transfer companies like Western Union because wiring money is the same as sending cash. If you discover you’ve been scammed, the money’s gone, and there’s very little chance of recovery. Don’t send a check or money order by overnight delivery or courier, either. Con artists recommend these services so they can get your money before you realize you’ve been cheated.

Look-alikes aren’t the real thing. It’s illegal for any promoter to lie about an affiliation with — or an endorsement by — a government agency or any other well-known organization. Disreputable companies sometimes use a variation of an official or nationally recognized name to try to confuse you and give you confidence in their offers. Insurance companies, including Lloyd’s of London, do not insure delivery of sweepstakes winnings.

Phone numbers can deceive. Some con artists call using Internet technology that allows them to disguise their area code: although it may look like they’re calling from Washington, DC, or your local area, they could be calling from anywhere in the world.

File a complaint with the FTC. If you receive a call from someone who claims to be a representative of the government trying to arrange for you to collect supposed sweepstakes winnings, file a complaint at ftc.gov or call 1-877-FTC-HELP. Your complaint will be most useful to enforcement officials if you include the date and time of the call, the name or phone number of the organization that called you, the FTC employee name that was used, the prize amount, the amount of money requested, the payment method, and any other details.

FTC Seeks Comments on Additional Proposed Revisions to Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule

The Federal Trade Commission is publishing a Federal Register Notice seeking public comments on additional proposed modifications to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule.

In updating the Rule to keep current with technology advances, in September 2011, the FTC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on proposed changes to the Commission’s COPPA Rule. The Commission received 350 comments. In response to those comments and informed by its experience in enforcing and administrating the Rule, the FTC now proposes to modify certain definitions to clarify the scope of the Rule and strengthen its protections for the online collection, use, or disclosure of children’s personal information.

The proposed modifications to the definitions of “operator” and “website or online service directed to children” would allocate and clarify the responsibilities under COPPA when third parties such as advertising networks or downloadable software kits (“plug-ins”) collect personal information from users through child-directed websites or services. The Commission proposes to state within the definition of “operator” that personal information is “collected or maintained on behalf of” an operator where it is collected in the interest of, as a representative of, or for the benefit of, the operator. This change would make clear that an operator of a child-directed site or service that chooses to integrate the services of others that collect personal information from its visitors should itself be considered a covered “operator” under the Rule.

The Commission also proposes to modify the definition of “website or online service directed to children” to:

Clarify that a plug-in or ad network is covered by the Rule when it knows or has reason to know that it is collecting personal information through a child-directed website or online service;
Address the reality that some websites that contain child-oriented content are appealing to both young children and others, including parents. Under the current Rule, these sites must treat all visitors as under 13 years of age. The proposed definition would allow these mixed audience websites to age-screen all visitors in order to provide COPPA’s protections only to users under age 13; and,
Clarify that those child-directed sites or services that knowingly target children under 13 as their primary audience or whose overall content is likely to attract children under age 13 as their primary audience must still treat all users as children.

Finally, the Commission proposes to modify the Rule’s definition of “personal information” to make clear that a persistent identifier will be considered personal information where it can be used to recognize a user over time, or across different sites or services, where it is used for purposes other than support for internal operations. In connection with this change, the Commission proposes to modify the definition of “support for internal operations” in order to explicitly state that activities such as: site maintenance and analysis, performing network communications, use of persistent identifiers for authenticating users, maintaining user preferences, serving contextual advertisements, and protecting against fraud and theft will not be considered collection of “personal information” as long as the information collected is not used or disclosed to contact a specific individual, including through the use of behaviorally-targeted advertising, or for any other purpose.

Because these changes diverge from those proposed in the September 2011 proposal, the Commission has determined they warrant additional public comment prior to finalizing the Rule.

Public comments on the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be accepted until September 10, 2012. Instructions for submitting comments are found in the Notice. Comments can be submitted electronically by clicking here. The Commission vote approving the Federal Register Notice was 5-0.

(COPPA supplemental)

MEDIA ADVISORY MEDIA ADVISORY MEDIA ADVISORY

Contact Information

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts: