The Federal Trade Commission will require background report providers TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate to pay $5.8 million to settle charges that they deceived consumers about whether consumers had criminal records and that the companies violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by operating as consumer reporting agencies while, among other things, failing to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of their consumer reports.

“Companies that compile personal information and sell background reports are on notice: Don’t make false claims about the contents of your reports,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection. “And, if you market your reports to be used to screen tenants or employees, you are a consumer reporting agency and you must follow the requirements of the FCRA.”

California-based Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder market people-search services, allowing users to search unlimited background reports on individuals, and charge monthly subscription fees to view the full reports. In 2014, Instant Checkmate agreed to settle FTC charges that the company previously violated the FCRA by failing to take reasonable steps to make sure that its background reports were accurate and that its users had a permissible reason to have them.

In a complaint, the FTC says Instant Checkmate and TruthFinder made millions from their monthly subscriptions using push notifications and marketing emails that claimed that the subject of a background report had a criminal or arrest record, when the record was merely a traffic ticket. All the while, the companies touted the accuracy of their reports in online ads and other promotional materials, claiming that their reports contain “the MOST ACCURATE information available to the public.” The FTC says, however, that all the information used in their background reports is obtained from third parties that expressly disclaim that the information is accurate and that Truth Finder and Instant Checkmate take no steps to verify the accuracy of the information.

The companies also deceived customers by providing “Remove” and “Flag as Inaccurate” buttons that did not work as advertised, according to the complaint. The “Remove” button removed the disputed information only from the report as displayed to that customer; however, the same item of information remained visible to other customers who searched for the same person. In addition, the FTC also says that, when a customer flagged an item in the background report as inaccurate, the companies never took any steps to investigate items flagged by consumers as inaccurate, to modify the reports, or to flag to other customers that the information had been disputed.

Despite disclaimers on their websites, according to the complaint, TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate have operated as consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) because they have assembled and evaluated information on consumers into background reports and have marketed and sold those reports for employment and tenant screening purposes. And, as CRAs, they were required to comply with the FCRA. For example, the complaint charges that the companies used search engine advertising keywords that relate to employment and tenant screening, such as “best background check for landlords” and “pre-employment screening.” The FTC noted that Instant Checkmate was already under an FTC order for engaging in similar conduct, which implicated it as a CRA, and therefore was aware that it was required to comply with the FCRA.

The FTC says that, in addition to failing to ensure the accuracy of their reports, the companies violated the FCRA by providing background reports to people who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them and failing to implement reasonable procedures to limit who could obtain their background reports. The FTC also says the companies failed to investigate and respond to consumer complaints about inaccuracies in their reports, as required by the FCRA.

TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate tried to increase the number of positive user reviews, and decrease the prominence of negative user reviews, by offering customers one free premium background report in exchange for posting a review of their products on the review site HighYa, which warns that such practices violate the site’s terms and conditions, according to the FTC. TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate, however, failed to advise customers to disclose that they were being compensated for their review.

Under the proposed order, which must be approved by a federal judge before it can go into effect, TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate and their affiliated companies will be required to pay a $5.8 million penalty. Other provisions of the order:

• require the companies to establish and implement a comprehensive monitoring program to regularly review, assess, and determine the extent to which each of the companies are operating in whole or in part as a CRA and to ensure that they are complying with the requirements of the FCRA;
• permanently prohibit them from failing to comply with the FCRA when they are operating as a CRAs;
• permanently prohibit them from misrepresenting the accuracy of their reports or making similar misrepresentations as outlined in the complaint; and
• require them to mandate that endorsers disclose any material connections and to monitor any endorsers who have a material connection to the company to ensure they are disclosing such connections.

The Commission voted 3-0 to refer the complaint and stipulated order to the Department of Justice for filing, as is required by statute. The Department of Justice returned the matter to the FTC for filing. The FTC filed the complaint and proposed stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

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

The lead staff attorneys on this matter are Katherine McCarron and Robin Wetherill from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Online shoe retailer Hey Dude, Inc. (Hey Dude) agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that the company misled consumers by suppressing negative reviews, including more than 80 percent of reviews that failed to provide four or more stars out of a possible five. The FTC also contends the company violated the Commission’s Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule in several ways between 2020 and 2022 and will pay $1.95 million to the FTC.

“As this case makes clear, when retailers publish consumer reviews online, they cannot suppress negative reviews to paint a deceptive picture of the consumer experience. And when retailers don’t ship merchandise on time, they must give buyers the option to cancel their orders and promptly get their money back,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We will continue to hold online retailers accountable for violations of the FTC Act and other laws we enforce.”

Hey Dude, which was acquired by Crocs, Inc. in February 2022, advertises, markets, and sells shoes to consumers nationwide on the Internet, using its own website and by soliciting orders via social media advertisements. The FTC’s complaint charges that Hey Dude, formerly known as Happy One, LLC, violated the FTC’s Mail Order Rule in several ways, including: 1) failing to issue shipping delay notices when it could not timely fulfill consumers’ orders; 2) failing to cancel consumers’ orders and issue prompt refunds after failing to issue such notices; and 3) issuing consumers gift cards instead of sending prompt refunds of the original payment for merchandise ordered but not shipped, as required by the rule.

Hey Dude violated the FTC Act by suppressing negative consumer reviews of its merchandise, according to the complaint. From January 2020 to June 2022, the company, which uses a third-party online management review interface, chose to have all five-star reviews (the best rating) posted on its website with little scrutiny. In many instances, however, it rejected and did not publish less-favorable reviews.

Before June 2022, the complaint alleges Hey Dude’s written policies and procedures instructed staff to publish certain types of reviews only if they were positive. According to the FTC, Hey Dude started publishing all consumer reviews only after finding out it was under investigation by the Commission.

The proposed court order announced today, if approved by the court, will require Hey Dude to change its conduct going forward. First, the proposed court order will bar Hey Dude from future violations of the Mail Order Rule. Next, it will prohibit the company from making misrepresentations about consumer reviews by requiring it to publish all reviews it receives, including reviews previously withheld from publication, with limited exceptions related to moderation of inappropriate content.

Finally, the proposed order also will require Hey Dude to pay the FTC $1.95 million, which the FTC expects to use to provide refunds to consumers harmed by Hey Dude’s unlawful conduct.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order was 3-0. The FTC filed the complaint and proposed final order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

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 injunctions/orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The staff attorneys on this matter are Delilah Vinzon and Robert Quigley of the FTC’s Western Region Los Angeles office.

A new Federal Trade Commission staff paper recommends that businesses, social media influencers and others who market or promote products online to children should avoid blurring advertising by clearly separating advertising and entertainment, educational, and other content to help limit potential harms to children. The paper further warns that for younger children in particular, disclosures are unlikely to be effective.

In the document, FTC staff detailed some of the main takeaways from an October 2022 workshop, Protecting Kids from Stealth Advertising in Digital Media, the agency held that examined how blurred advertising online and in digital spaces makes it difficult for children to distinguish between advertising and other content.

“We now live in a world where kids spend many hours a day online, often in immersive environments where advertising and content are deliberately difficult to distinguish,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The serious concerns highlighted through our workshop make clear that the best way to protect children from the harms of blurred advertising is to not blur advertising.”

Participants at the workshop and public comments discussed research showing that many young consumers do not have the skills or cognitive defenses to identify or sufficiently evaluate blurred advertising, potentially leading to deception, as well as physical, psychological, financial, privacy, and other harms. Workshop participants noted that children spend a significant amount of time on gaming platforms, video channels, and social media, where they encounter advertisements that blend into the surrounding content. For example, children may see marketing messages in an influencer’s video on social media, as they travel through a virtual environment, or while playing a mobile game.

Blurred advertising allows marketers to disguise advertising, and younger consumers may not be able to avoid it or evaluate it sufficiently given their focus on the content, the staff paper noted. In addition, children may be more likely to trust such messaging, particularly if it comes from a trusted source such as a social media influencer or an avatar they have befriended in a game. Other potential harms to kids from blurred advertising include promotion of harmful products and services such as tobacco or unhealthy foods; financial harms from advertising prompts that lead to accidental or emotional purchases without parental approval; and increased susceptibility to blurred advertising that is targeted to children based on information collected about them or their interests.

The workshop and comments made clear that there is no single approach that is sufficient to address the likelihood that children will be harmed or deceived from blurred advertising. Moreover, it is unreasonable to place the burden entirely on parents to constantly monitor their children’s online interactions. To the extent that entities engage in blurred advertising in spite of the inherent risks, staff recommends five practices to mitigate potential harm.

• Do not blur advertising. The best way to prevent harms stemming from blurred advertising is to not blur advertising. There should be a clear separation between kids’ entertainment and educational content and advertising, using formatting techniques and visual and verbal cues to signal to kids that they are about to see an ad.
• Provide prominent just-in-time disclosures. Such disclosures should be provided when the product is introduced and should be provided verbally and in writing and explain the commercial nature and intent of the message. Marketers, however, should not rely on disclosures alone.
• Create icons to flag advertising. Stakeholders should work together to create and use an easy-to-understand and easy-to-see icon to signal to kids that money or free things were provided to the content creator to advertise the product.
• Educate kids, parents, and teachers. All stakeholders should look for ways to educate kids, parents, and educators about how digital advertising works and help kids recognize and evaluate it wherever it appears. Education could also play an important role in helping promote and support the use of an icon to help kids identify ads.
• Platforms should consider policies, tools, and controls to address blurred advertising. Platforms should consider requiring content creators to self-identify content that includes advertising through policies and tools while also offering parental controls that allow parents to limit or block their children from seeing such content.

Importantly, none of these practices alone is necessarily sufficient, and companies that engage in blurred advertising can be held liable under the FTC Act if their conduct is deceptive or unfair to children.

The Commission voted 3-0 at an open Commission meeting to approve the staff perspective and the staff’s recommendations.

The lead FTC staffers on this matter are Michelle Rosenthal, Elizabeth Nach, and Michael Ostheimer from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The Federal Trade Commission is warning five tax preparation companies that they could face civil penalties if they use or disclose confidential data collected from consumers for the purpose of preparing their taxes for other unrelated purposes, such as advertising, without first obtaining consumers’ consent.

“Consumers trust tax preparers with sensitive information about their finances, marital status, children, and health,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Companies that violate American’s privacy by seeking to monetize personal data without consent can face significant financial consequences.”

The FTC is using its penalty offense authority to remind tax preparation companies of the law and deter them from breaking it. By sending a Notice of Penalty Offenses, the agency is warning recipients they could incur civil penalties of up to $50,120 per violation if they misuse personal data in ways that run counter to the original purpose for which this information was collected. The penalty offense authority allows the agency to seek civil penalties against a company that engages in conduct that it knows is unlawful, and that has been found unlawful in a previous FTC administrative order, other than a consent order.

The notices sent to the tax preparation companies detail the acts and practices that were found to be a violation of the FTC Act in a previous administrative case against Beneficial Corp.  In that case, the FTC found that the company engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the FTC Act by using information collected for tax preparation services for unrelated loan solicitation purposes and ordered the company to halt such practices.

In the notices sent to the tax preparation companies, the FTC warned that the following practices may be deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act if companies fail to first obtain affirmative express consent from consumers:

• using information collected in a context where an individual reasonably expects that such information will remain confidential for purposes not explicitly requested by the individual;
• using such information to obtain a financial benefit that is separate from the benefit generated from providing the product or service requested by the individual; and
• using such information to advertise, sell, or promote products or services.

The notices further warn that it is unlawful to make false, misleading, or deceptive representations concerning the use or confidentiality of such information. The Commission specifically warned the companies that it considers it an unfair or deceptive practice to use tracking technologies such as pixels, cookies, APIs, or SDKs to amass, analyze, infer, or transfer personal information in the ways outlined above without first obtaining consumers’ express consent.

The Commission vote to authorize the notice and its distribution was 3-0.

The lead staffers on this matter are Michael Sherling and Manmeet Dhindsa from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The Federal Trade Commission has begun notifying people who may be entitled to compensation stemming from a settlement finalized in March 2023 with Epic Games over allegations that the Fortnite video game maker used dark patterns and other deceptive practices to trick players into making unwanted purchases.

In a complaint first announced in December 2022, the FTC alleged that Epic games deployed a variety of design tricks aimed at getting consumers of all ages to make unintended in-game purchases. The company also made it easy for children to rack up charges without parental consent and locked the accounts of consumers who disputed unauthorized charges with their credit card companies.

The money provided as part of the $245 million settlement with Epic Games will go to provide refunds to consumers. The FTC has begun the process of notifying more than 37 million people by email that they may be eligible for compensation, a process that will take one month to complete. Consumers will have until January 17, 2024 to submit a claim.

Information about how to file a claim can be found at www.ftc.gov/Fortnite. Consumers who have questions about the claims process can contact the administrator by phone at 1-833-915-0880 or by email at admin@fortniterefund.com.

The Commission’s interactive dashboards for refund data provide a state-by-state breakdown of refunds in FTC cases. In 2022, Commission actions led to more than $392 million in refunds to consumers across the country.

The Federal Trade Commission has named three senior Amazon executives in an amended complaint in its case against the company for its years-long effort to enroll consumers into its Prime program without their consent while knowingly making it difficult for consumers to cancel their Prime subscriptions.

Named in the amended complaint are Neil Lindsay, who served as senior vice president overseeing Prime and now serves on the company’s overall leadership team; Russell Grandinetti, who also serves as a senior vice president overseeing Prime; and Jamil Ghani, a company vice president who oversees the Prime subscription program.

In addition to naming these individuals, the amended complaint includes significant new details of Amazon’s alleged misconduct that were redacted in the original complaint, including the contents of internal company emails and messages that show the extent to which the company and its management team were aware of the misconduct.

The FTC’s amended complaint charges that Lindsay, Grandinetti, and Ghani were fully aware of the issues surrounding consumers being subscribed to Prime without their consent and then facing significant hurdles when trying to cancel. The executives were informed by other Amazon employees in emails, meetings, and presentations about these issues and encouraged to make changes to stop Amazon from tricking its customers, but the executives chose not to act, according to the complaint.

The complaint alleges that the company and its executives instead slowed, avoided, and even reversed user experience changes that they knew would reduce nonconsensual enrollment because those changes would also negatively affect Amazon’s bottom line. As one draft internal memo stated, Amazon decided “clarifying” the enrollment process was not the “right approach” because it would cause a “shock” to business performance.

Amazon also created an allegedly labyrinthine cancellation process for Prime that the company called “Iliad,” the name of Homer’s epic about the long, arduous Trojan War. While Amazon—under pressure from the FTC—made some changes to its processes just before the agency’s initial complaint was filed, the Iliad cancellation flow was in place for years. The complaint alleges that Amazon and its leadership—including Lindsay, Grandinetti, and Ghani—slowed or rejected user experience changes that would have made Iliad simpler for consumers because those changes would hurt Amazon’s profits.

Newly Unredacted Information

The unredacted complaint’s allegations also revealed:

• Excerpts from an Amazon document that uses the term “misdirection” to refer to the company’s practice of forcing consumers to find a small blue text link to make a purchase without joining Prime, while using a far more prominent button saying “Get FREE Two-Day Shipping” that actually enrolls consumers in Prime.
• Information about tactics used by the company to force consumers into the complex Iliad cancellation flow, such as a company policy that required Amazon customer service employees to direct consumers who called to cancel Prime to the Iliad flow online, even though customer service agents had the ability to process the cancellation.  
• Findings highlighted in a company newsletter that said, “The issue of accidental Prime-sign ups is well documented” and acknowledging that Prime customers “sign[] up accidentally and/or [don’t] see auto-renewal terms.”
• Statements from Amazon employees acknowledging the company’s use of user flows “designed to mislead or trick users to make them do something they don’t want to do, like signing up for a recurring bill.”  Amazon employees began raising this issue for company leaders, who refused to take action, as early as 2016.
• Details about Amazon’s attempts to delay and hinder the FTC’s investigation of these issues, including attempting to apply legal privilege to documents that were not privileged and concealing the existence of other relevant, damaging documents.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint was 3-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

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. The case will be decided by the court.

The staff attorneys on this matter are Evan Mendelson, Olivia Jerjian, and Max Nardini of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The Federal Trade Commission announced today that its enforcement action against the University of Phoenix continues to help students deceived by the for-profit university, as the U.S. Department of Education will forgive nearly $37 million in federal loans  for more than 1,200 students affected by the school’s deceptive practices, based in part on the FTC’s 2019 case.

“Students deceived by the University of Phoenix deserve strong relief, and today’s action is an important step forward,” said Samuel Levine, Director of FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “We will continue to work with our state and federal partners to protect students.”

“The University of Phoenix brazenly deceived prospective students with false ads to get them to enroll,” said Federal Student Aid Chief Operating Officer Richard Cordray. “Students who trusted the school and wanted to better their lives through education ended up with mounds of debt and useless degrees. Today’s announcement builds on the FTC’s work to provide relief to those affected by Phoenix’s misconduct and delivers on the Biden-Harris Administration’s mission to support student loan borrowers.”

According to the 2019 FTC complaint, University of Phoenix, and its parent company, Apollo Education Group, Inc., falsely claimed that their relationships with top companies created job opportunities specifically for University of Phoenix students and that they worked with these companies to develop their curriculum. The FTC charged that the companies used a multimedia ad campaign to attract students, including ads specifically targeted to military and Latino consumers. The companies’ “Let’s Get to Work” campaign featured several high-profile employers, including Microsoft, Twitter, Adobe, and Yahoo!, giving the false impression that University of Phoenix worked with those companies to create job opportunities for its students.

Today’s announcement by the U.S. Department of Education builds on the FTC’s prior federal court order against the University of Phoenix. As part of the record $191 million action, the school was ordered to pay $50 million to the FTC to make payments to former students and cancel $141 million in private student debt owed directly to the school. The order also prohibits the companies from further deceptive business practices.  In March 2021, the FTC sent payments to eligible University of Phoenix students, which resulted in more than $45.6 million in relief. The FTC sent additional payments totaling more than $3.6 million to 130,652 people who cashed their first payment.

The U.S. Department of Education announced that it will approve federal student loan forgiveness for people who attended the University of Phoenix, were deceived by the school’s job placement claims, and submitted a valid application for borrower defense. The agency is continuing to process new and existing applications. All borrowers with approved claims will receive full loan forgiveness. People interested in submitting a claim for loan forgiveness, should visit the Department of Education’s Borrower Defense Loan Discharge informational page.

The Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) signed a new agreement that will bolster the FTC’s efforts to protect workers by promoting competitive U.S. labor markets and putting an end to unfair, deceptive, and other unlawful acts and practices, as well as unfair methods of competition, that harm workers. The new memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the two agencies outlines ways in which the FTC and DOL will work together on key issues such as labor market concentration, one-sided contract terms, and labor developments in the “gig economy.”

The MOU builds on the FTC’s recent efforts to increase collaboration on issues facing workers, including the FTC’s recent MOU with the National Labor Relations Board as well as the FTC’s enforcement policy statement related to gig work.

“This agreement with the Department of Labor is part of our whole-of-government effort to protect workers from unlawful business practices,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “Deepening our partnership with DOL will ensure that we can work collectively to tackle illegal conduct that suppresses wages, reduces access to good benefits and working conditions, and stifles economic liberty for workers across the economy.”

“Protecting workers on the job and promoting fair markets requires a level playing field,” said Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda. “What’s unfair for workers is also unfair for law-abiding employers, and this partnership will help both of our agencies combat unlawful behavior, such as misclassification and contract provisions that restrict accessible opportunities to our growing workforce. The Department of Labor is committed to ensuring equity and improving job quality for all workers, and we will not hesitate to enforce the laws that protect workers’ rights. We look forward to working with the Federal Trade Commission to hold employers accountable and empower workers.”

The new agreement enables the FTC and DOL to closely collaborate by sharing information, conducting cross-training for staff at each agency, and partnering on investigative efforts within each agency’s authority. This MOU is in line with the President’s Executive Order on Competition, which affirms the importance of enforcing antitrust laws to combat abuses of market power, including in labor markets.

The MOU identifies areas of mutual interest for the two agencies: collusive behavior; the use of business models designed to evade legal accountability, such as the misclassification of employees; illegal claims and disclosures about earnings and costs associated with work; the imposition of one-sided and restrictive contract provisions, such as non-compete and training repayment agreement provisions; the extent and impact of labor market concentration; and the impact of algorithmic decision-making on workers.

The agreement is part of a broader FTC initiative to use the agency’s full authority, including enforcement actions and Commission rulemaking, to protect workers. The FTC has made it a priority to scrutinize mergers that may harm competition in U.S. labor markets. Research shows that these markets are already highly concentrated, and less competitive labor markets can enable firms to harm workers by lowering wages, reducing benefits, and perpetuating precarious or exploitative working conditions.

The FTC has also prioritized cracking down on anticompetitive contract terms that put workers at a disadvantage. The Commission is considering a proposed rule that would ban noncompete clauses in employment contracts, and has taken action to protect workers in several Commission orders. These include actions against Anchor Glass, Ardagh Group, Prudential Security, I-O Glass, 7-Eleven, and DaVita.

In addition, the agency will continue to take action to stop deceptive and unfair acts and practices aimed at workers, particularly those in the “gig economy” who often don’t enjoy the full protections of traditional employment relationships. The FTC’s actions in this area include: cases against Amazon, Uber, HomeAdvisor, and Burgerim; an ongoing rulemaking to challenge bogus money-making claims; and a notice of penalty offenses sent to more than 1,100 businesses that pitch money-making ventures.

The memorandum of understanding was signed by FTC Chair Lina M. Khan and Acting Secretary of Labor Julie A. Su.

The Federal Trade Commission has joined the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in signing a renewed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between public authorities who are members of the Unsolicited Communications Enforcement Network (UCENet). The MOU aims to promote cross-border collaboration to combat unsolicited communications, including email and text spam, scams, and illegal telemarketing.

“The FTC is committed to using all of its tools to fight robocalls and other unsolicited communications that try to prey on consumers,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “This scourge does not respect borders, and our recommitment to this MOU underscores the importance of international communication and cooperation to combat this problem.”

Given the success of the collaboration under the original document, UCENet members agreed to renew and make evergreen the MOU, a non-binding instrument which the FTC and its partners signed in 2016. The 2016 MOU was aimed at facilitating information sharing, capacity building, and enforcement assistance among the partners. For the past seven years, it also has facilitated communication about emerging threats and complaint trends related to spam, scams, and illegal telemarketing.

The UCENET MOU is part of the FTC’s continuing to work to fight harms that can arise from unwanted messages. Unsolicited communications in the form of illegal and spoofed robocalls, text messages, and emails are often the source of scams that harm millions of consumers in the United States each year. The revised MOU also has been signed by UCENet partners in Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

The FTC’s work in this area includes its recent Operation Stop Scam Calls initiative, which united federal and state law enforcement partners from across the United States in their fight against illegal telemarketing operations and the companies that facilitate their scams via lead generation and telecommunications services.

The effort also targeted Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) service providers who facilitate illegal robocalls every year, which often originate overseas. The collaboration, information-sharing, and intelligence-sharing by UCENet MOU signatories serves to strengthen, enhance, and complement the work of the FTC and other domestic agencies fighting the scourge of unwanted and illegal telemarketing calls.

The lead staffer on this matter was Kristina Mulligan in the Commission’s Office of International Affairs.

The Federal Trade Commission staff will be hosting a virtual roundtable discussion on October 4, 2023 to better understand the impact of the use of generative artificial intelligence on music, filmmaking, and other creative fields.

FTC staff are seeking to better understand how the development and deployment of AI tools that can generate text, images, and audio—often referred to as generative artificial intelligence—may impact open and fair competition or enable unlawful business practices across markets, including in creative industries. The listening session will focus on different issues posed by generative AI, including concerns raised by musicians, actors, and other content creators about the use of AI to create entertainment and other content.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan will provide opening remarks to kick off the event and will then hear from representatives from a variety of creative fields. They will explore the ways emerging AI tools are reshaping each of the participants’ respective industries and how they are responding to these changes. The listening session, which is being led by the FTC’s Office of Technology, is part of the agency’s efforts to keep up with the latest developments in emerging technologies such as AI.

The event will begin at 3 p.m. ET and be webcast on the FTC’s website at FTC.gov. Additional information, including a list of panelists will be posted in the coming days to the event page.

The lead staffer on this matter is Madeleine Varner from the FTC’s Office of Technology.