The Federal Trade Commission released the final agenda for its annual PrivacyCon event, which will take place online on November 1, 2022. This year’s event will feature research presentations on commercial surveillance, automated decision making and a range of other topics.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan will provide opening remarks to kick off the event. Her remarks will be followed by seven panel discussions on research on such topics as:

• Commercial surveillance
• Automated decision-making systems
• Children’s privacy
• Devices that listen to users
• Augmented reality and virtual reality
• Interfaces and dark patterns, and
• Advertising technology

Information about the panelists and PrivacyCon can be found on the event page. The event will begin at 9 a.m. ET and be live streamed on the FTC’s website, FTC.gov. A link to watch the event will be posted the day of the event. Follow the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag: #PrivacyCon22.

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against the online alcohol marketplace Drizly and its CEO James Cory Rellas over allegations that the company’s security failures led to a data breach exposing the personal information of about 2.5 million consumers. Drizly and Rellas were alerted to security problems two years prior to the breach yet failed to take steps to protect consumers’ data from hackers. The FTC’s proposed order requires the company to destroy unnecessary data, restricts the data that the company can collect and retain, and binds Rellas to specific data security requirements for his role in presiding over unlawful business practices.

“Our proposed order against Drizly not only restricts what the company can retain and collect going forward but also ensures the CEO faces consequences for the company’s carelessness,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “CEOs who take shortcuts on security should take note.”

Boston-based Drizly, a subsidiary of Uber, operates an online marketplace where consumers of legal drinking age can place orders with retailers to buy beer, wine, and alcohol for delivery. The company collects and stores on Amazon Web Services cloud computing service a wide range of personal information from consumers such as email, postal addresses, phone numbers, unique device identifiers, geolocation information and data purchased from third parties.

According to the FTC’s complaint, Drizly and Rellas were alerted to problems with the company’s data security procedures following an earlier security incident. In 2018, a Drizly employee posted company cloud computing account login information on the software development and hosting platform GitHub. As a result of this security breakdown, hackers were able to use Drizly’s servers to mine cryptocurrency until the company changed its login information for its cloud computing account. Drizly failed to take steps to adequately address its security problems while publicly claiming to have appropriate security protections in place. Two years later, a hacker breached an employee account, got access to Drizly’s corporate GitHub login information, hacked into the company’s database, and then stole customers’ information.

In its complaint, the FTC alleges that Drizly and Rellas:

• Failed to implement basic security measures: The FTC alleged that despite statements claiming the company used appropriate security practices to protect consumer data, Drizly and Rellas failed to put in place reasonable safeguards to secure the personal information it collected and stored. It did not require employees to use two-factor authentication for GitHub, limit employee access to personal data, develop adequate written security policies, or train employees on those procedures.

• Stored critical database information on an unsecured platform: According to the FTC’s complaint, Drizly stored login credentials on GitHub contrary to the platform’s own guidance and well-publicized security incidents involving GitHub. For example, in its 2018 complaint against Uber, the FTC specifically publicized and described poor security practices involving the use of Uber’s GitHub account that contributed to a data breach involving the ridesharing app.

• Neglected to monitor network for security threats: The FTC alleged that Drizly did not put a senior executive in charge of ensuring that the company was keeping its data secure, nor did it monitor its network for unauthorized attempts to access or remove personal data.

• Exposed customers to hackers and identity thieves: Following the company’s data breach, personal information that Drizly had collected about consumers was offered for sale on two different publicly accessible sites on the dark web, where criminals post and sell data stolen by hackers. Identity thieves and other malicious actors can use such data to open fraudulent lines of credit or commit other fraud. When unauthorized accounts are opened in their name, consumers can suffer financial harm by incurring debt and damaging their credit, the FTC alleged.

Enforcement Action

The proposed order against Drizly and Rellas includes several requirements aimed at ensuring they take steps to address the problems outlined in the FTC’s complaint. Under the proposed FTC order, Drizly and Rellas are required to:

• Destroy unnecessary data: Drizly is required to destroy any personal data it collected that is not necessary for it to provide products or services to consumers. It must also document and report to the Commission what data it destroyed.

• Limit future data collection: Going forward, Drizly must refrain from collecting or storing personal information unless it is necessary for specific purposes outlined in a retention schedule. It must also must publicly detail on its website the information it collects and why such data collection is necessary.

• Implement an information security program: Drizly is required to implement a comprehensive information security program and establish security safeguards to protect against the security incidents outlined in the complaint. This includes measures such as providing security training for its employees; designating a high-level employee to oversee the information security program; implementing controls on who can access personal data; and requiring employees to use multi-factor authentication to access databases and other assets containing consumer data.

Notably, the order applies personally to Rellas, who presided over Drizly’s lax data security practices as CEO. In the modern economy, corporate executives frequently move from company to company, notwithstanding blemishes on their track record. Recognizing that reality, the Commission’s proposed order will follow Rellas even if he leaves Drizly. Specifically, Rellas will be required to implement an information security program at future companies if he moves to a business collecting consumer information from more than 25,000 individuals, and where he is a majority owner, CEO, or senior officer with information security responsibilities.

This action is part of the FTC’s aggressive efforts to ensure that companies are protecting consumers’ data and that careless CEOs learn from their data security failures. Last year, the Commission secured its first order requiring a firm to minimize data collection and has worked in subsequent orders to ensure companies only collect what they need to conduct their business. The Commission is also taking steps to bolster security market-wide, including by finalizing updates to the Safeguards Rule, issuing a policy statement on the Health Breach Notification Rule, and initiating an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on commercial surveillance and lax data security practices.

The FTC voted 4-0 to issue the proposed administrative complaint and to accept the consent agreement with Drizly and Rellas. Commissioner Christine Wilson voted yes but dissented in part as to the inclusion of Rellas as an individual defendant and issued a separate statement. Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya issued a joint concurring statement and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter issued a separate concurring statement.

The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

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. 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 $46,517.

The Federal Trade Commission announced today it is exploring a potential rule to combat deceptive or unfair review and endorsement practices, such as using fake reviews, suppressing negative reviews, and paying for positive reviews. Deceptive and manipulated reviews and endorsements cheat consumers looking for real feedback on a product or service and undercut honest businesses.The FTC’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeks public comment on potential harms stemming from deceptive or unfair review and endorsement practices and whether a rule would help consumers and level the playing field for honest marketers.

“Companies should know by now that fake reviews are illegal, but this scourge persists,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We’re exploring whether a rule that would trigger stiff civil penalties for violators would make the market fairer for consumers and honest businesses.”

Research shows that many consumers rely on reviews when they’re shopping for a product or service, and that fake reviews drive sales and tend to be associated with low-quality products. The rapid growth of online marketplaces and platforms has made it easier than ever for some companies to create and use fake reviews or endorsements to make themselves look better or their competitors look worse. It can be difficult for anyone—including consumers, competitors, platforms, and researchers—to distinguish real from fake, giving bad actors big incentives to break the law.

The ANPR seeks comment on the costs and benefits of a potential rule, as well as the pervasiveness and potential harms to consumers and competition from certain clearly deceptive or unfair practices involving reviews and endorsements including:

• Fake reviews: These include reviews and endorsements by people who do not exist or have not used the product or service or who lie about their experiences.
• Review reuse fraud: Some sellers hijack or repurpose reviews posted about another product or service.
• Paid reviews: Marketers may pay for positive reviews about their products or negative reviews about competitors’ products.
• Insider reviews: These include reviews written by a company’s executives or solicited from its employees that don’t mention their connections to the company.
• Review suppression: Companies might claim that their websites display all reviews submitted by customers when they suppress negative reviews or attempt to suppress reviews on other platforms by threatening the reviewers.
• Fake review websites: This is when a seller sets up a purportedly independent website or organization to review or endorse its own products.
• Buying followers: This involves buying or selling followers, subscribers, views, or other indicators of social media influence.

The FTC has worked to crack down on purveyors of deceptive reviews and endorsements and has provided guidance to businesses on acceptable practices through the agency’s Endorsements Guides and other public materials. In August 2022, the FTC charged the rental listing platform Roomster and its owners with duping consumers seeking affordable housing by paying for fake reviews. In January 2022, the FTC required online fashion retailer Fashion Nova to pay $4.2 million for suppressing negative customer reviews from being posted to its website.

Case-by-case enforcement without civil penalty authority may not be enough to stem the growth of deceptive reviews and endorsements. The Supreme Court’s decision in the AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC has hindered the FTC’s ability to seek monetary relief for consumers under the FTC Act. A potential rule that clearly spells out prohibited practices may strengthen deterrence by allowing the agency to impose civil penalties, while simplifying FTC enforcement.

The Commission voted 3-1 at an open meeting to publish the ANPR in the Federal Register. Commissioner Christine S. Wilson voted no and issued a dissenting statement. Chair Lina M. Khan issued a separate statement.

The ANPR will be published in the Federal Register shortly. The public will have 60 days to submit a comment after the notice is published. Information about how to submit a comment is included in the notice. Comments will be published on Regulations.gov after they are submitted.

The Federal Trade Commission is exploring possible steps to strengthen and modernize the Funeral Rule, which requires funeral providers to give in-person visitors price information to make informed decisions. The FTC also released a staff report that found that fewer than 40 percent of the funeral provider websites the agency reviewed provide any prices online.

“For decades, the Funeral Rule has provided crucial rights to grieving families seeking out burial and cremation services,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We look forward to hearing from the public about how we can modernize the rule to better protect consumers in today’s market.”

The Funeral Rule requires funeral providers to furnish consumers who visit funeral homes in-person with itemized price information. But, because the rule was first issued in the 1980s, it does not require them to provide price information online and via other electronic means like email or text messages.

The agency’s review of funeral providers’ websites – which took place during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when many people could not or did not feel comfortable visiting a funeral home in person to make arrangements for their loved ones – found that more than 60 percent of the websites reviewed provided little to no information about their prices.  

On February 14, 2020, the Commission initiated a routine review of the rule, which received 785 comments. Several commenters stated that many funeral providers do not provide price information online and asked the Commission to require that funeral providers make price information available on their websites and via other electronic means.

After carefully reviewing all the comments received, the staff report, and the FTC’s enforcement and outreach efforts in the area, the Commission has decided to retain the Funeral Rule and issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning potential amendments to the rule, including whether and how funeral providers should be required to display or distribute their price information online and through electronic means.

Information about how to submit comments on the FTC’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is included in the Federal Register notice. The deadline for submitting comments will be 60 days after the notice is published in the Federal Register in the coming days. Submitted comments will be posted to Regulations.gov.

The Commission voted 4-0 to publish the notice in the Federal Register and issue the staff report. Chair Lina M. Khan issued a separate statement.

The Federal Trade Commission announced today that it is exploring a rule to crack down on junk fees proliferating throughout the economy. Junk fees are unnecessary, unavoidable, or surprise charges that inflate costs while adding little to no value. Consumers can get hit with junk fees at any stage of the purchase or payment process. Companies often harvest junk fees by imposing them on captive consumers or by deploying digital dark patterns and other tricks to hide or mask them. The agency is seeking public comment on the harms caused by junk fees and the unfair or deceptive tactics companies use to impose them.

“It’s beyond frustrating to end up spending more than you budgeted because of random, arbitrary fees,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “No one has ever felt that a ‘convenience fee’ was convenient. Companies should compete to provide the best quality at the best price, not to see who can squeeze the most added expenses out of consumers. That’s especially true at a time when families are struggling with the effects of inflation.”

Companies charge junk fees in a wide range of contexts, including cramming in hidden fees to which consumers did not consent, misrepresenting optional services or upgrades as mandatory, and charging for products or services with little or no value. For example, consumers purchasing tickets or booking a hotel room may find a surprise junk fee tacked on at checkout. These junk fees – which add up to tens of billions of dollars each year – can drive up prices, make comparison shopping difficult, and leave consumers feeling powerless and cheated.

The FTC is concerned that junk fees are common in many sectors of the U.S. economy. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking announced today seeks public comment on the harms stemming from junk fees and associated junk fee practices and on whether a new rule would better protect consumers. The types of junk fees the FTC is seeking comment on include:

• Unnecessary charges for worthless, free, or fake products or services: Consumers may be slammed with charges for products or services that cost companies nothing to provide, are available for free, or should be included as part of the purchase price. Companies might also upsell consumers on fake products or services that either have no value or never materialize.
• Unavoidable charges imposed on captive consumers: Consumers may be forced to pay junk fees because they have no way to avoid or opt out of them. They might be dealing with a company with a monopoly or exclusive rights that can extract fees because there is no competing option. Or consumers might get hit with fees after they have already sunk costs into a product or service, and they can’t easily walk away.

• Surprise charges that secretly push up the purchase price: Consumers can experience junk fee shock when companies unexpectedly tack on mystery charges they did not know about, consent to, or factor into the purchase. Companies might hide these fees in the fine print, cram them on at the end of a purchase process, or use digital dark patterns or other deception to collect on them. Some companies might claim that they do not charge any fees and then add on fees after the purchase or sign up.

The FTC has a history of taking action on junk fee practices – they have been the subject of Commission investigations, enforcement actions, workshops, research, and consumer and business education outreach. While the agency has been active in addressing junk fees, it generally lacks the authority to seek penalties against first-time violators or the ability to obtain redress readily for consumers in instances in which fees violate the FTC’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices. The FTC can seek such remedies when a company violates a rule promulgated by the agency, which is why the agency is exploring a junk fee rule.

The Commission vote approving publication of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking was 3-1, with Commissioner Christine S. Wilson voting no. Chair Khan and Commissioner Wilson issued separate statements. Once the notice has been published in the Federal Register, consumers can submit comments electronically. Consumers also may submit comments in writing by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice.

The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against auto dealer Passport Automotive Group for deceiving consumers by tacking hundreds to thousands of dollars in illegal junk fees onto car prices and for discriminating against Black and Latino consumers with higher financing costs and fees. Passport, its president, Everett Hellmuth, and its vice president, Jay Klein, will pay more than $3.3 million  to settle the FTC’s lawsuit, which will be used to refund consumers harmed by Passport’s conduct.  

“With this action against Passport and its top executives, the Commission is continuing its crackdown on junk fees and discriminatory practices that harm Black and Latino consumers,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “As families struggle with rising prices, companies that think they can hit consumers with hidden fees should think again.”

Passport, based in Maryland, owns car dealerships around the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. In 2018, the FTC brought action against Passport, its president, and vice president, alleging the company mailed more than 21,000 fake “urgent recall” notices to consumers in 2015 and 2017, to lure them to visit dealerships.

In its complaint announced today, the FTC alleges that Passport regularly advertises certified, reconditioned, or inspected cars at specific prices, but then adds extra certification, reconditioning, or inspection fees that it falsely claims consumers are required to pay. The FTC also alleges that Passport charges Black and Latino consumers hundreds of dollars more in financing costs and fees, on average, than white consumers. In its complaint against Passport, the FTC alleges that the company has for years violated the FTC Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by:

• Charging illegal junk fees: Passport advertises cars as “certified,” “inspected,” or “reconditioned” at specific prices, but the FTC alleges that when customers try to pay the amount advertised for those vehicles, Passport adds hundreds or thousands of dollars in fees. These fees either increase the price over what was advertised or negate any discounts the consumers negotiated. The complaint cites one case in which a vehicle advertised for $24,050 was in fact sold for $26,440 due to illegal add-on fees. Passport frequently describes the extra fees it charges to customers for inspection, reconditioning, or certification as required when in many instances, auto manufacturers specifically prohibit dealers from charging separately for certification costs.

• Discriminating against Black and Latino customers: The complaint alleges that Passport regularly charges Black and Latino customers more in financing costs and fees than they charge non-Latino white customers. Although Passport claimed that it had a policy to prevent discrimination, the complaint alleges that Passport did not even enforce or monitor the policy.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that Black and Latino consumers paid on average about $291 and $235, respectively, more in interest than non-Latino white consumers did. It also alleges that Black and Latino consumers paid on average an extra fee 24 percent and 42 percent more often, respectively, than non-Latino White consumers.

Enforcement Action

Passport, its president, and its vice president have agreed to a proposed federal court order that would:

• Prohibit them from charging different groups different markups: The order would require Passport to establish a fair lending program to ensure it does not discriminate going forward, including a provision that will require each Passport dealership location to either charge no financing markup or charge the same markup rate to all consumers.

• Prohibit them from deceiving consumers about prices and fees: The order would prohibit Passport from misrepresenting the cost or terms to buy, lease, or finance a car, or whether a fee or charge is optional. It would also require them to only charge consumers fees with their express, informed consent.

• Require them to pay money to refund consumers: The order would require Passport to pay the FTC $3.38 million to refund consumers harmed by Passport’s unlawful actions.

The FTC has taken significant action to protect consumers across the automotive marketplace in recent years, most recently by announcing a proposed rule that would ban many of the junk add-on fees and bait-and-switch tactics plaguing car buyers. In the last ten years alone, the FTC has brought more than 50 law enforcement actions related to automobiles and helped lead two nationwide law enforcement sweeps that included 181 state-level enforcement actions in these areas.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 4-1. Then-Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips voted no on the motion to authorize staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order before he left the Commission. Chair Lina M. Khan, Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya issued a majority statement. Commissioner Christine S. Wilson issued a statement. Commissioner Phillips issued a dissenting statement.  The complaint and stipulated final order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued its latest report to Congress on protecting older adults, which highlights key trends based on fraud reports by older adults, and the FTC’s efforts to combat the problem through law enforcement actions, rulemaking, and outreach and education programs.

“Protecting older consumers from predatory practices is a top priority, and our report highlights the many steps we’ve been taking,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We’ll continue to bring aggressive cases, engage in proactive outreach and research, and work closely with others, including in our new Advisory Group formed under the Stop Senior Scams Act.”

The report, Protecting Older Consumers, 2021-2022, A Report of the Federal Trade Commission, finds that in 2021 older adults reported significantly higher losses to investment scams, business impersonation scams and government impersonation scams than they did in 2020:

• Investment scams: $147 million reported lost, up 213 percent from 2020.
• Business impersonation scams: $151 million reported lost, up 134 percent from 2020.
• Government impersonation scams: $122 million reported lost, up 109 percent from 2020.

As in prior years, the analysis of fraud reports received by the FTC in 2021 showed that adults aged 60 and over were substantially less likely to report losing money to fraud than adults aged 20-59. When they did report losing money, though, they tended to report losing substantially more than younger adults. Consumers 80 and older reported losing a median of $1,500 to fraud, while those in their seventies reported a median loss of $800.

The analysis included in the report to Congress also found that adults 60 and older were nearly five times as likely as adults aged 20 to 59 to report losing money to a tech support scam. Older adults were more than twice as likely to report a loss to a prize, lottery or sweepstakes scam, and 45 percent more likely to report losing money to a friend or family impersonation scam.

The report’s analysis shows that older adults filed the largest number of reports about online frauds—where consumers are contacted via social media, the web, or online ads. The largest median losses, however, were reported by older adults on fraud that started with a phone call. Scams where older adults were contacted on social media are on the rise; reported losses from this type of scam more than doubled to $164 million between 2020 and 2021.

The report focuses on key actions the FTC has taken to protect older consumers. In 2021, the Commission began three rulemakings that are highlighted in the report: one on government and business impersonation, one on deceptive or unfair earnings claims, and one on revisions to the Telemarketing Sales Rule. The report notes that each of these areas have significant impact on older adults.

In addition, the report notes a number of enforcement actions that had a particular impact on older consumers, including cases against a money transfer provider, a payment plan used by an investment training scheme, and scammers making false health claims, including some related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The report highlights a number of ongoing law enforcement partnerships in which the FTC works with other federal agencies, along with state and local authorities, to take actions to protect older consumers.

Finally, the report details the FTC’s outreach and education efforts through such programs as the Pass it On campaign, which focuses on providing fraud prevention resources to older adults so they can help protect their communities by sharing the information and materials with family and friends.

The Commission vote authorizing the report to Congress was 5-0.

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments on whether it should propose updates to its Energy Labeling Rule to modernize and expand the Rule’s coverage to reduce energy costs for consumers and require manufacturers to provide consumers with repair instructions.

“We look forward to hearing from the public on our initiative to reduce energy costs, promote competition, and strengthen repairability,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “As prices rise, the Commission will continue to take aggressive action to protect consumers’ pocketbooks and strengthen their right to repair their own products.”

The FTC’s Energy Labeling Rule requires manufacturers to attach labels to major home appliances and other consumer products to help consumers compare the energy usage and costs of competing models. The Rule prohibits retailers from removing or altering these labels, which help consumers anticipate their energy usage and avoid costly surprises after they have bought a product. The FTC also has authority to require manufacturers to provide consumers with instructions for the maintenance, use, or repair of covered products.

In an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announced today, the FTC is seeking public comment on whether it should propose amendments to the Rule, specifically addressing;

• Requiring Repair Instructions. In its May 2021 “Nixing the Fix Report” to Congress, the Commission found “scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justification for repair restrictions,” which result in limited access to repair information, consumer reliance on manufacturers’ repair networks, or consumer replacement of products before the end of their useful lives. Accordingly, the FTC is seeking comment on whether the Commission should require manufacturers to include information on how consumers can repair their products. Access to this information will strengthen consumers’ right to repair damaged products, without the need to go back to the manufacturer, providing them with potentially lower-cost repair options. It could also help ensure that independent repairers have a chance to compete with manufacturers and licensed dealers. Finally, it could help protect our environment by allowing consumers to repair rather than replace damaged appliances.

• Developing EnergyGuide Labels for Several New Product Categories. The FTC requires energy labels on products to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. As detailed in the Federal Register notice to be published shortly, the Commission seeks comment on potential new labels for: 1) clothes dryers, 2) air cleaners (also known as air purifiers), 3) miscellaneous refrigerator products including coolers (wine chillers) and combination cooler products, 4) additional light bulbs including low-brightness bulbs, 5) residential ice makers, 6) humidifiers, 7) miscellaneous gas products (also known as hearth products), 8) cooking tops, and 9) electric spas.

• Matching Label Format and Location to Consumer Shopping Patterns. The FTC is seeking comment on whether any rule changes are necessary to ensure labeling requirements are consistent with current shopping behavior. While the Rule currently requires that manufacturers affix labels on the units themselves, fewer products appear on display in stores as more and more consumers are shopping online. The Commission is seeking information on new ways label information can be provided to reduce the burden on manufacturers, while still ensuring it is readily available to consumers.

The FTC also seeks comment on whether it should consider changes to the content on, and format of, EnergyGuide labels currently in use.

The Commission vote approving publication of the notice in the Federal Register was 5-0, with Chair Lina M. Khan issuing a separate statement and Commissioner Christine S. Wilson issuing a separate concurring statement. Then-Commissioner Noah Phillips registered a vote in the affirmative to approve publication in the Federal Register before he left the Commission. Once it has been published in the Federal Register, consumers can submit comments electronically. Consumers also may submit comments in writing by following the instructions in the “Supplementary Information” section of the Federal Register notice.

The Federal Trade Commission announced it is extending the deadline by one month to submit comments on the agency’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on commercial surveillance and lax data security practices. The public will now have until November 21, 2022 to submit comments.

In August, the FTC launched the ANPR to seek public comment on whether new rules are needed to address potential harms stemming from commercial surveillance and lax data security practices. The agency is giving the public more time to respond to the questions and issues highlighted in the ANPR. Commercial surveillance is the business of collecting, analyzing, and profiting from information about people. Mass surveillance has heightened the risks and stakes of data breaches, deception, manipulation, discrimination, and other abuses.

More detail on the ANPR and information about how to submit a comment can be found in the notice published in the Federal Register. Comments will be posted to Regulations.gov after they are submitted.

The Commission voted 4-0-1 to extend the comment deadline on the commercial surveillance and data security ANPR. Commissioner Christine S. Wilson abstained from the vote.