Markets Wired - Page 1166 of 1418 - Global Financial Market News and Press Releases

FTC Urges Consumers to Watch Out for Scams Related to Gulf Oil Spill

As the nation follows news of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, so do scammers. The Federal Trade Commission issued an alert urging consumers and businesses to watch out for con artists trying to take advantage of the oil spill in the gulf and to report their experiences to federal and state authorities.

In a new consumer alert, FTC Warns of Oil Spill Scams, the agency said scammers will likely use e-mails, websites, door-to-door collections, flyers, mailings and telephone calls to solicit money by claiming they’re raising money for environmental causes or offering fraudulent services related to the oil spill. In reality, many could be trying to get inside consumers’ homes or get access to their personal information. The consumer alert advises consumers to check with the Better Business Bureau to get information on businesses and charities, and offers tips on how to avoid these scams.

(FYI OilSpillAlert)

U-Haul and its Parent Company Settle FTC Charges That They Invited Competitors to Fix Prices on Truck Rentals

U-Haul International, Inc. and its parent company today settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated the FTC Act by inviting U-Haul’s closest competitor, Avis Budget Group, Inc., to collude on prices for truck rentals. U-Haul and Budget control more than 70 percent of the “do-it-yourself” one-way truck rental business in the United States. If U-Haul had succeeded in its price-fixing plan, the two companies could have imposed higher prices on truck-rental consumers, according to the FTC.

“It’s a bedrock principle that you can’t conspire with your competitors to fix prices – and shouldn’t even try. Consumers deserve better. The order announced today will ensure that U-Haul will not try it again,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that on several occasions between 2006 and 2008, U-Haul tried to increase rates for one-way truck rentals by privately and publicly communicating with Budget, the second-largest truck rental company in the United States. However, the complaint does not allege that U-Haul and Budget actually reached an agreement.

As alleged in the complaint, the problems started after U-Haul’s CEO and Chairman Edward J. Shoen discovered in 2006 that competition from Budget was forcing U-Haul to lower prices on its one-way truck rentals. In two company-wide memos in 2006, Shoen acknowledged the problem and provided a solution. For example, Shoen wrote:

“Budget continues in some markets to undercut us on One-Way rates. Either get below them or go up to a fair rate. Whatever you do, LET BUDGET KNOW. Contact a large Budget Dealer and tell them. Contact their company store and let the manager know.”

At the same time, the FTC charges, Shoen told local U-Haul dealers to talk to their counterparts at both Budget and Penske – another truck rental competitor – and tell them that
U-Haul had raised its one-way rates, and that they should now match U-Haul’s higher rates.

The complaint alleges that Shoen invited Budget to collude again in 2008 after Budget declined to match U-Haul’s price increases – this time, during a conference call with industry analysts. During the call, Shoen made statements suggesting that U-Haul would raise its rates, and would maintain the new rates so long as Budget did not respond by price cutting in a way that took market share from U-Haul. He added that Budget need not match the U-Haul prices exactly, but could lag behind by three to five percent.

The proposed settlement order against U-Haul and its parent company AMERCO bars them from colluding or inviting collusion. Specifically, the companies are prohibited from inviting a competitor to divide markets, allocate customers, or fix prices, as well as participating in, maintaining, organizing, implementing, enforcing, offering, or soliciting any other company to engage in such conduct. The order also includes monitoring and compliance provisions to ensure U-Haul and AMERCO comply with its terms. It will expire in 20 years.

The FTC vote approving the complaint and proposed settlement order was 5-0. Commissioners William E. Kovacic, J. Thomas Rosch, and Chairman Leibowitz issued a joint separate statement that can be found at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0810157/100609uhaulstatement.pdf. The statement noted that Congress gave the FTC authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to stop unfair methods of competition beyond the antitrust laws, but it is not itself an antitrust law and does not on its own terms create treble damages liability.

The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until July 9, 2010, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To submit a comment electronically, please click on the following link: https//public.commentworks.com/ftc/U-HaulAmerco.

NOTE: The Commission issues 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 issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the respondent has violated the law. A consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission of a law violation. 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.

Copies of the complaint, consent order, and an analysis to aid in public comment can be found on the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. 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, Room 383, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. To learn more about the Bureau of Competition, read “Competition Counts” at http://www.ftc.gov/competitioncounts.

(FTC File No. 081-0157)
(U-Haul.final)

FTC Testifies Before Senate Antitrust Subcommittee on Commission’s Work to Promote Competition and Benefit Consumers in a Dynamic Economy

In testimony today before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, the Federal Trade Commission detailed its work to promote competition and benefit consumers, such as ending “pay-for-delay” pharmaceutical agreements, preventing anticompetitive mergers, revising the guidelines that the FTC and the Justice Department use to assess horizontal mergers, and using its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to combat unfair methods of competition and protect consumers.

Testifying on behalf of the Commission, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz told the Subcommittee that the FTC’s aggressive antitrust enforcement agenda is designed to protect consumers by removing obstacles to competition.

“Years of experience have proven that competitive markets work better than anything else to bring consumers lower prices, greater innovation, and more choices among products and services,” Leibowitz said.

With broad jurisdiction over the U.S. economy, the agency maximizes its impact by focusing on areas that directly affect consumers and businesses, such as health care, energy, emerging technologies, real estate, and retail. The FTC’s competition work falls into three broad categories: merger review, investigations of anticompetitive conduct, and competition policy analysis.

According to the testimony, one of the FTC’s top competition priorities is stopping pay-for-delay agreements between brand-named drug companies and their generic competitors. These anticompetitive agreements keep low-cost generic drugs off the market and cost consumers $3.5 billion a year.

The testimony also outlines the FTC’s recent work to stop anticompetitive mergers. The number of mergers requiring FTC review increased over the past year, and the agency continues to review transactions for potential anticompetitive effects, challenging mergers when appropriate. In fiscal year 2009, the FTC challenged 19 mergers, and during the first half of 2010 the FTC has brought 11 enforcement actions, in markets including pharmaceuticals, funeral services, fertilizer, and chemicals.

The testimony also describes a joint FTC/Department of Justice effort to update the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, to increase transparency and clarify to courts, businesses and antitrust lawyers how the agency analyzes transactions and makes enforcement decisions.

In addition, the testimony focuses on how the agency could strengthen antitrust enforcement by making greater use of Section 5 of the FTC Act, which empowers the agency to prevent unfair methods of competition beyond the federal antitrust laws.

“We are confident that Section 5 will prove to be an effective mechanism to block anticompetitive behavior, and will allow the Commission to aggressively protect consumers without sparking concerns in the courts,” Leibowitz said in the testimony.

The testimony concluded by describing the FTC’s work in the energy sector and outlining the Commission’s efforts to protect consumers in financial distress and to protect consumer privacy.

The FTC vote approving the testimony and its inclusion in the formal record was 5-0.

Copies of the Commission’s testimony are available from the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC works for the consumer 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, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

(FTC File No. P859910)
(Antitrust Testimony.final.wpd)

FTC Approves Final Settlement Order with Dave & Busters; FTC Rejects COPPA Safe Harbor Application

FTC Approves Final Settlement Order with Dave & Busters

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved a final settlement order with entertainment operation Dave & Busters. The final order settles charges that the company failed to secure customers’ sensitive credit and debit card information, resulting in several hundred thousand dollars in fraudulent charges.

The FTC vote approving the final order was 4-0, with Commissioner Edith Ramirez not participating. (FTC File No. 0823153; the staff contact is Katrina Blodgett, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-3158. See press release dated March 25, 2010 at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/03/davebusters.shtm.)

FTC Rejects COPPA Safe Harbor Application

The Commission has rejected the application of iSAFE, Inc. to operate as a Safe Harbor program under the FTC Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA) Rule. The application was submitted to the FTC under a provision of the COPPA Rule that allows entities to request FTC approval of proposed guidelines that govern compliance with the Rule.

The vote denying iSafe’s application to operate a Safe Harbor Program under COPPA was 5-0. (FTC File No. P094504; the staff contacts are Mamie Kresses and Phyllis Marcus, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 202-326-2070 or 202-326-2854. See press release dated
January 6, 2010 at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/01/isafe.shtm.)

The Federal Trade Commission works for the consumer 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, click http://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

The Heat is On: Settlement Bars Firm and its President from Exaggerating the Properties of Their Insulation Additive

The manufacturer of a home insulation chemical additive and the firm’s president have agreed to stop exaggerating the capabilities of their product as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, the latest action the FTC has taken to make sure consumers get accurate information to help them save energy and lower their utility bills.

The FTC’s settlement with Working Chemical Solutions and its president, Robert C. Smith, bars them from misrepresenting the capabilities of their cellulose insulation additive or any insulation to which it has been applied. This case marks the fourth complaint, and third settlement, the FTC has filed in the past 15 months against sellers who have allegedly inflated claims about their products’ insulating capabilities. One case remains in litigation. The FTC continues to monitor the market for companies who are exaggerating their R-value claims, in violation of the FTC’s R-value Rule and the FTC Act.

The R-value Rule rates the effectiveness of home insulation products according to their R-value – a measure of insulation’s resistance to heat flow. The higher the R-value, the greater a product’s insulating power. Home insulation manufacturers must provide R-value information based on the results of standard tests. Using the required R-value information, consumers can improve the energy efficiency of their homes by buying the appropriate amount of insulation for their needs. Misleading advertising about R-values hurts consumers’ ability to make informed purchasing decisions.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that Working Chemical Solutions and Smith violated the FTC Act because of the way they promoted both PolyCell Chemical Additive, a product that supposedly increased the effectiveness of insulation, and the insulation product to which it was added. The complaint also alleges that they violated the agency’s R-value Rule because they did not possess test results to back up the claims they made.

Specifically, according to the FTC’s complaint, Working Chemical Solutions made, distributed, and sold PolyCell Chemical Additive by claiming it would double the R-value of cellulose insulation – the home insulation with which most people are familiar – to at least R-7.1 per inch, and up to R-8 per inch. Standard cellulose insulation has an R-value of approximately R-4 per inch. The company allegedly overstated the effectiveness of PolyCell Chemical Additive and the insulation to which it was subsequently added and sold by another company. The FTC settled similar charges against that company, called Enviromate – as well as another company – in 2009 (see press release at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/03/rvalue.shtm).

The settlement order with Working Chemical Solutions and its owner Robert C. Smith prohibits them from making claims about insulation’s resistance to heat flow – or any other claims related to energy efficiency – for insulation products and components unless they are true and backed by scientific evidence. It also bars the defendants from helping anyone else make false or misleading claims related to a product’s energy efficiency, and from violating the FTC’s R-value Rule in the future.

The Commission vote approving the complaint and settlement order was 5-0. The complaint was filed on May 12, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The agreed-upon court order settles the FTC’s charges against Working Chemical Solutions, Inc., and its president, Robert C. Smith, and was entered by the court on June 1, 2010.

NOTE: The Commission issues 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 issuance of a complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have violated the law. Stipulated final judgments and orders are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the judge.

Copies of the complaint and final order are available from the FTC’s Web site at http://www.ftc.gov and from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer 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, click: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/complaint.shtm or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.

(FTC File No. 082-3125; Civil No. 10-1037)
(Enviromate.final.wpd)

Federal Trade Commission to Announce Major Robocall Enforcement Cases

The Federal Trade Commission’s Midwest Region will hold a press conference on Thursday, June 10, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. (Central) in Chicago, Illinois, to announce major law enforcement actions against companies that made millions of illegal pre-recorded telemarketing calls, or robocalls, to consumers nationwide. The actions are part of the FTC’s campaign to stop illegal robocalls deceptively pitching extended auto warranties and other products to consumers. Audio files of the robocalls will be available on CD and on the FTC’s website when the event begins.

WHO:	FTC Midwest Region Director, C. Steven Baker
WHERE:	FTC Midwest Region Office 55 W. Monroe, Suite 1825 Chicago, Illinois
WHEN:	Thursday, June 10, 2010; 10:00 a.m. Central (11:00 Eastern) Doors will open at 9:30 a.m. Central
PRESS CONTACT:	FTC Office of Public Affairs 202-326-2161

Call-in Information

Reporters interested in this event, but who are unable to attend, can call-in
using the following information:

Call-in Number: 1-866-363-9013
Conference ID: 80664014
Chairperson: Michele Smith

The call-in lines, which are for press only, open at 9:45 a.m. Central

Countrywide Will Pay $108 Million for Overcharging Struggling Homeowners; Loan Servicer Inflated Fees, Mishandled Loans of Borrowers in Bankruptcy

Two Countrywide mortgage servicing companies will pay $108 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they collected excessive fees from cash-strapped borrowers who were struggling to keep their homes. The $108 million represents one of the largest judgments imposed in an FTC case, and the largest mortgage servicing case. It will be used to reimburse overcharged homeowners whose loans were serviced by Countrywide before it was acquired by Bank of America in July 2008.

“Life is hard enough for homeowners who are having trouble paying their mortgage. To have a major loan servicer like Countrywide piling on illegal and excessive fees is indefensible,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We’re very pleased that homeowners will be reimbursed as a result of our settlement.”

According to the complaint filed by the FTC, Countrywide’s loan-servicing operation deceived homeowners who were behind on their mortgage payments into paying inflated fees – fees that could add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Many of the homeowners had taken out loans originated or funded by Countrywide’s lending arm, including subprime or “nontraditional” mortgages such as payment option adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only mortgages, and loans made with little or no income or asset documentation, the complaint states.

Mortgage servicers are responsible for the day-to-day management of homeowners’ mortgage loans, including collecting and crediting monthly loan payments. Homeowners cannot choose their mortgage servicer. In March 2008, before being acquired by Bank of America, Countrywide was ranked as the top mortgage servicer in the United States, with a balance of more than $1.4 trillion in its servicing portfolio.

When homeowners fell behind on their payments and were in default on their loans, Countrywide ordered property inspections, lawn mowing, and other services meant to protect the lender’s interest in the property, according to the FTC complaint. But rather than simply hire third-party vendors to perform the services, Countrywide created subsidiaries to hire the vendors. The subsidiaries marked up the price of the services charged by the vendors – often by 100% or more – and Countrywide then charged the homeowners the marked-up fees. The complaint alleges that the company’s strategy was to increase profits from default-related service fees in bad economic times. As a result, even as the mortgage market collapsed and more homeowners fell into delinquency, Countrywide earned substantial profits by funneling default-related services through subsidiaries that it created solely to generate revenue.

According to the FTC, under most mortgage contracts, homeowners must pay for necessary default-related services, but mortgage servicers may not mark up the cost to make a profit or charge homeowners for services that are not reasonable or appropriate to protect the mortgage holder’s interest in the property. Homeowners do not have any choice in who performs default-related services or the cost of those services, and they have no option to shop for those services.

In addition, in servicing loans for borrowers trying to save their homes in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the complaint charges that Countrywide made false or unsupported claims to borrowers about amounts owed or the status of their loans. Countrywide also failed to tell borrowers in bankruptcy when new fees and escrow charges were being added to their loan accounts. The FTC alleges that after the bankruptcy case closed and borrowers no longer had bankruptcy court protection, Countrywide unfairly tried to collect those amounts, including in some cases via foreclosure.

Settlement Terms

The FTC’s complaint and settlement order name two mortgage servicers as defendants: Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, formerly doing business as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP. The settlement requires Countrywide to pay $108 million, which will be refunded to homeowners who Countrywide overcharged before July 2008.

In addition, the settlement order prohibits Countrywide from taking advantage of borrowers who have fallen behind on their payments. The defendants continue to service millions of mortgage loans, including tens of thousands of loans involving borrowers in bankruptcy and foreclosure. In the servicing of loans, the defendants are permanently barred from:

Making false or unsubstantiated representations about loan accounts, such as amounts owed.
Charging any fee for a service unless it is authorized by the loan instruments, by law, or by the consumer for a specific service requested by the consumer.
Charging any fee for a default-related service unless it is a reasonable fee charged by a third party for work actually performed. If the service is provided by an affiliate of a defendant, the fee must be within limits set by state law, investor guidelines, and market rates. Defendants must obtain annual, independent market reviews of their affiliates’ fees to ensure that they are not excessive.

In addition, Countrywide must advise consumers if it intends to use affiliates for default-related services and, if so, provide a fee schedule of the amounts charged by the affiliates.

The settlement also requires Countrywide to make significant changes to its bankruptcy servicing practices. For example, Countrywide must send borrowers in Chapter 13 bankruptcy a monthly notice with information about what amounts the borrower owes – including any fees assessed during the prior month. The defendants also must implement a data integrity program to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data they use to service loans in Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

This case was brought with the invaluable assistance of the United States Trustee Program, the component of the Department of Justice that oversees the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees. This action represents the FTC’s continuing work to help consumers who have been hurt by the economic downturn.

For more information about the case and the FTC’s refund program, see www.ftc.gov/countrywide.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and settlement was 5-0. The complaint and settlement were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Federal Trade Commission is a member of the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. For more information on the Task Force, visit www.stopfraud.gov.

NOTE: The Commission files 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 defendants have actually violated the law. Stipulated court orders are for settlement purposes only and do not necessarily constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated orders have the full force of law when signed by the judge.

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 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

(FTC File No. 0823205)

FTC Distributes Refunds to Consumers Who Bought Unproven Cold and Flu Remedies from Rite Aid Corporation

The Federal Trade Commission distributed more than 2,335 refund checks today to consumers who purchased “Rite Aid Germ Defense” tablets and lozenges believing that they would prevent and treat colds and the flu or reduce the severity and duration of these illnesses. The FTC charged Rite Aid and its supplier with false and deceptive advertising as part of its crackdown on companies making unproven claims about cold and flu remedies.

The refund checks were mailed on June 7, 2010. Under the settlement with Rite Aid, consumers could submit refund requests for up to six packages of Germ Defense, either electronically or by mail, by January 30, 2010. All claims submitted by the deadline are being paid, with the average check totaling about $20.44. This was the first FTC case in which consumers had the option of submitting electronic claims. These are legitimate checks, and the FTC urges consumers to cash them.

The refunds stem from a July 2009 FTC complaint against Rite Aid. According to the complaint, Rite Aid marketed several flavors of Germ Defense lozenges and tablets and claimed they could: reduce the risk of, or prevent, colds and flu; protect against or fight germs; reduce the severity or duration of a cold; protect against colds and flu in crowded places; and boost the immune system. The FTC charged that there was inadequate evidence to support these claims.

The Rite Aid refund checks are valid for 60 days from the date they are issued. A special phone line has been set up to handle questions about the refunds. Consumers should call 1-877-341-4602 for further information.

For more information about the case, see the court documents and news release regarding the settlement at: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/riteaide.shtm.

(Rite Aid refunds NR.wpd)
(FTC File No. 072-3236)

Nationwide Mortgage Company That Overcharged Homeowners Settles FTC Charges

Media Advisory

June 4, 2010

The Federal Trade Commission will host a press conference in Washington, DC, on Monday, June 7, 2010, at 11 a.m. to announce a major law enforcement action against a nationwide mortgage company that misled and overcharged homeowners in financial distress. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz and U.S. Trustee Program Director Cliff White will be available to answer reporters’ questions.

Members of the public and press who cannot attend can view a live webcast of the press conference on the FTC’s website.

WHO:	Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission Cliff White, Director of Executive Office for U.S. Trustees A homeowner who was unfairly charged excessive fees
WHEN:	Monday, June 7, 2010 11 a.m.
WHERE:	Federal Trade Commission Room 432, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC
CALL-IN:	Reporters unable to attend the event can call in. The phone number is 866-363-9013, the confirmation number is 80070475. The lines, which are for media only, will open at 10:45 a.m. The conference leader is Gail Kingsland.
WEBCAST:	The event will be webcast live.

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:

Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180

FTC Corrects Misinformation on Journalism Workshops and “Discussion Draft”: Ideas are Compilation, not Recommendations from Agency

The Federal Trade Commission has hosted a series of workshops on the Future of Journalism: “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” Panelists have represented a wide range of views from bloggers such as Search Engine Land and BlogHer to online publishers like ProPublica and the New Haven Independent and traditional media companies such as News Corp. and The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

On May 24, the FTC released a staff discussion draft in advance of the next workshop on June 15. The discussion draft collects proposals and public comments articulated during previous panel conversations and in reports and articles about the future of journalism. The staff discussion draft states:

“[T]hrough this document, we seek to prompt discussion of whether to recommend policy changes to support the ongoing reinvention of journalism, and, if so, which specific proposals appear most useful, feasible, platform-neutral, resistant to bias, and unlikely to cause unintended consequences in addressing emerging gaps in news coverage.”

The FTC has not endorsed the idea of making any policy recommendation or recommended any of the proposals in the discussion draft.

Recent press reports have erroneously stated that the FTC is supporting and proposing some of the public comments (for example, taxes on electronic devices, favoring one medium over another).

The discussion draft and workshop info can be found at the FTC website: http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/index.shtml.

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Related posts:

Contact Information

Related posts:

Related posts: