The FTC Says It's Totally Cool With Anti-Competitive Internet Fast Lanes

from the with-friends-like-these dept

As we've noted for a while, the FCC's attack on net neutrality did much more than just kill net neutrality. It also gutted much of the FCC's authority over broadband providers entirely, making it harder than ever for the agency to police the behavior of historically anti-competitive giants like Comcast NBC Universal and AT&T Time Warner. What authority the government now has to oversee one of the more broken sectors in American industry got shoveled instead to the FTC, an agency critics say lacks the authority or resources to police broadband. That's the entire reason ISP lobbyists pushed for the plan.

Yet throughout the repeal, broadband providers and FCC head Ajit Pai stated that people didn't need to worry because if ISPs did anything wrong, the FTC and antitrust enforcement would stand as a last line of defense. But any expectations that modern, eroded antitrust authority would protect consumers and competitors were quickly ruined by the recent AT&T and Time Warner legal face plant, widely mocked as one of the more clueless rulings in tech policy history.

And last week, Trump FTC boss Joseph Simons made it abundantly clear that the FTC isn't likely going to be helping much either. Again throughout the repeal efforts, folks like FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr penned editorials like this one, insisting that post net neutrality, agencies like the FTC would be quick to crack down on anti-competitive ISP actions like "paid prioritization," which lets a company buy an competitive advantage from an ISP:

"Reversing the FCC’s Title II decision will return the FTC to its role as a steady cop on the beat and empower it to take enforcement action against any ISP that engages in unfair or deceptive practices,” Carr wrote. “Federal antitrust laws will apply.” Carr added that if ISPs “reached agreements to act in a non-neutral manner by unfairly blocking, throttling, or discriminating against traffic, those agreements would be per se unlawful."

Again, the argument being made is that you didn't need net neutrality or strong FCC oversight of ISPs, because antitrust and the FTC would thwart any anti-competitive shenanigans. But in a speech at the National Press Club last week, FTC boss Simons clearly stated that blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization would not be per se antitrust violations. He also said he sees such anticompetitive arrangements the same way as he sees... happy hour:

"Paid prioritization is a type of price discrimination, which is ubiquitous in the economy. For example, think about when you walk into grocery store. Some customers get lower prices because they cut out coupons. Others might get a seniors discount. Others might get 2% off with their credit card. Yet others get discounts because they have a loyalty card with that supermarket. Those of us who go to the afternoon movie matinees will generally pay less, and those of us willing to show up at a restaurant before 6 pm might get the benefit of a lower priced menu. And of course, let’s not forget Happy Hour discounts."

Except none of these examples are remotely the same thing as paid prioritization. Under paid prioritization, ESPN could buy a network latency and speed advantage over an up and coming streaming sports outfit, ensuring that ESPN traffic reached users more quickly and more efficiently. Given the lack of competition in broadband, neither users or impacted companies have a way (choice) to route around that behavior. Nobody has ever argued against discounts, in broadband, they've argued against incumbent ISPs erecting arbitrary tolls and tilting the playing field, something a truly objective FTC would actually care about.

Of course I've been noting how this is the telecom industry's plan all along, something that has been overlooked during the myopic focus on net neutrality alone. The telecom lobby convinced the FCC to effectively self-immolate, driving any remaining authority to an FTC that lacks either the willpower or authority to actually do the job. As a result, oversight and accountability is going to fall into the cracks, which was the industry's entire goal all along.

For now ISPs are trying (though occasionally failing) to avoid anti-competitive behavior so they don't add any ammunition to the giant lawsuit against the FTC, a ruling for which should arrive any day now. But if that lawsuit goes the industry's way, you can expect significantly more anti-competitive behavior moving forward, given they know (by design) that the government has been effectively defanged. And while that's great news if you're an AT&T or Comcast executive, that's not going to be good news if you're a consumer or one of countless small and mid-sized businesses that rely on some degree of internet neutrality to compete.

Filed Under: broadband, fcc, ftc, net neutrality, title ii, zero rating

FTC Launches Probe Into Telecom Privacy Issues. But Whether They'll Act Is Another Matter Entirely

from the words-are-but-wind dept

This week the FTC announced that it would be launching a broad privacy investigation into a sector that's somehow been forgotten during our collective, justified obsession with Facebook: telecom. According to the full FTC announcement, the agency will be collecting data from all manner of broadband providers and wireless carriers to take a look at how these companies "collect, retain, use, and disclose information about consumers and their devices." From the announcement:

"The FTC is initiating this study to better understand Internet service providers’ privacy practices in light of the evolution of telecommunications companies into vertically integrated platforms that also provide advertising-supported content. Under current law, the FTC has the ability to enforce against unfair and deceptive practices involving Internet service providers."

The problem, of course, is that an inquiry doesn't necessarily mean the agency will actually do anything about the problems. The FTC's authority over telecom is limited, and is historically confined to whether something can clearly be proven to be "unfair and deceptive" under the FTC Act. That was the entire reason that telecom lobbyists convinced the Trump administration to effectively obliterate tailored FCC authority over telecom, and shovel it to an FTC that critics (like former FCC boss Tom Wheeler) say is already over-extended and lacks the authority to adequately police broadband.

When it comes to telecom, the FTC's "unfair and deceptive" standard usually falls short.

In the field of net neutrality, for example, telecom operators have long hidden their unfair, anti-competitive behavior behind claims that it was essential for the "health and integrity of the network." Like when AT&T blocked Facetime on iPhones just because it wanted to force folks on to more expensive wireless plans. Or when Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon began implementing arbitrary and unnecessary usage caps and overage fees to "manage congestion" they were later forced to admit didn't exist. Restrictions that don't apply to their own services, but apply to customers if they use competing services like Netflix.

Unlike Facebook, telecom has spent decades lobbying DC and tailoring its most deceptive and anti-competitive ideas to carefully skirt the line on regulatory scrutiny. And the FTC, tightly constrained by its mandate over telecom, hasn't done a particularly good job policing it. Hopefully this inquiry signals a shift in that tendency, but an inquiry shouldn't be conflated with substantive action -- until there's actual, substantive action. That said, there's so much we don't know about what your ISP and wireless carrier is doing with your data that shining a brighter spotlight on the problem should prove beneficial.

While Facebook has received well deserved heat for its bottomless privacy scandals, the recent fixation on "big tech" has obscured the behavior of telecom companies and their own legendarily bad behavior on the privacy front.

This is a sector that has charged users more for privacy, pondered giving worse customer service to users with lower credit scores, sold private user location data to any nitwit they could find, and have even been busted covertly modifying user data packets to track user behavior online -- without disclosing it or providing opt out tools. Telecom's bad behavior is every bit as terrible as the Facebook scandals that have justly captured nationwide attention.

Yet despite being pioneers in the field of terrible privacy practices and monopoly power, telecom is often somehow excluded in conversations about "fixing big tech," privacy, and even monopoly power. Some of that's by design. As we've noted previously, telecom lobbyists have been spending the last few years piling on the vilification of big tech, urging the government to regulate the Silicon Valley giants telecom wants to compete with in the online ad space, while hoping you'll ignore that the sector just got done obliterating government oversight of its own, equally problematic business practices.

Not only did the telecom sector convince the FCC to effectively neuter itself, it convinced Congress to kill off modest FCC privacy rules before they could take effect in March of 2017. Those rules simply required that ISPs be transparent about the kind of data they're collecting and selling and provide an easy way to opt out of more sensitive (financial, location) data collection. Those rules would have gone a long way in protecting consumers from the ugly location data scandals that have plagued wireless carriers in recent years.

Some FTC Commissioners seem aware that to police telecom, you'll need both the FTC and FCC working in functional concert:

Yet somehow, there's still widespread belief that blind deregulation of predatory telecom monopolies leads to Utopian outcomes. But absent of government oversight or competition, companies like Comcast and AT&T don't magically begin innovating or behaving nicely. They instead double down on even worse behavior. That's been proven time and time again by telecom history and Comcast's very existence, yet it's a lesson we culturally refuse to learn as we approve merger after merger, gut government oversight, then stand around dumbfounded as to why the broadband sector is such a monumental shitshow.

In the conversations about "big tech," much of this reality has been lost. Even among the well-intentioned like Elizabeth Warren, you'll notice that telecom receives nary a mention. But with the FCC's authority over ISPs demolished by lobbyists, antitrust enforcement constantly falling flat on its face, and limited competition, telecom's domination of both the content and the conduit (AT&T/Time Warner, Comcast/NBC Universal) poses unique problems that shouldn't be forgotten in the quest to protect competition, the open internet, and consumer privacy.

Telecom's privacy dysfunction and anti-competitive tendencies touch every layer of the internet, and these companies have every intention of following Facebook and Google's lead in the online ad space. If you're really interested in "fixing tech" and shoring up consumer privacy, forgetting about the natural monopolies at the heart of the internet is a monumental mistake.

Filed Under: fcc, ftc, privacy, telcos
Companies: at&t, verizon

The FTC Probably Doesn't Need A New 'Big Tech' Task Force. It Just Needs To Do Its Job

from the dog-and-pony-show dept

This week the FTC turned a few heads by announcing that the agency would be creating a new "task force" designed specifically to monitor large technology companies. According to the agency's announcement, this new task force will feature approximately 17 staff attorneys whose mandate will be to more closely examine the competitive tech landscape, and take action if necessary. According to the FTC, this includes taking a closer look at both pending mergers, and large technology mergers that have already happened.

"In addition to examining industry practices and conducting law enforcement investigations, the Technology Task Force will, among other things, coordinate and consult with staff throughout the FTC on technology-related matters, including prospective merger reviews in the technology sector and reviews of consummated technology mergers."

Some, like former Chief FTC technologist Ashkan Soltani, took the announcement to mean that the FTC might just start taking antitrust more seriously in the wake of numerous embarrassing enforcement face plants on this front (like the government's comedic inability to address the glaringly obvious anticompetitive impact of AT&T's latest merger):

Others were justly more skeptical. After all, examining the health of the tech market, contemplating the impact of mergers, and taking actions to address market imbalance and fraud is the FTC's entire job to begin with. And, given the FTC often fails utterly to do that job (especially in the telecom sector), a lot of folks were quick to wonder if this task force was a bit of a show pony:

"I’m scornful of the new seating arrangements, because the FTC has consistently proven they do not want to wield power,” says Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute, an antimonopoly think tank that has called for a breakup of Facebook. “They want to hold hearings. They want to get their friend economists and antitrust lawyers to fly into DC and talk to each other. They don’t want to do their No. 1 job, which is to police markets for unfair and anticompetitive behavior.”

While I'm not sold on the need to break up Facebook, it's a solid point that the FTC should maybe focus on doing the job it already has, and layering additional bureaucracy on a broken apparatus may not be the best path forward. The FTC routinely does nothing to address problematic sectors like telecom, where anti-competitive megamergers and ripping off customers is an almost daily occurrence. For example, the FTC could easily crack down on the bogus fees companies like Comcast use to jack up your advertised rate using its power under the FTC Act, yet I've never seen the agency so much as fart in the direction of the problem when bigger companies are involved.

While there's certainly a lot of solid complaints to be made about "big tech" giants like Facebook and Google (especially on the privacy front), it's also pretty obvious that a lot of the recent criticisms of "big tech" aren't being made in good faith. Claims of "censorship" of conservatives, for example, usually don't hold up under scrutiny, and are often driven by folks who wouldn't be facing these problems if they didn't behave like legendary assholes on the internet in the first place.

Similarly a lot of the recent criticism of big tech is coming from telecom giants eager to saddle Silicon Valley giants with unnecessary regulation in a bid to hoover up a bigger slice of the online advertising pie. On the one hand, telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon just got done convincing the FCC to effectively neuter itself, leaving any remaining oversight in the lap of an FTC they know won't (and often can't) hold them accountable. At the same time, telecom lobbyists like Mike Powell have spent the last few years drumming up frothy calls to regulate "big tech," intentionally ignoring their own anticompetitive ambitions:

"Our governmental authorities need to get a handle on what kind of market power and harm flow from companies that have an unassailable hold on large pools of big data, which serve as barriers to entry, allowing them to dominate industries throughout the economy. For years, big tech companies have been extinguishing competitive threats by buying or crushing promising new technologies just as they were emerging. They dominate their core business, and rarely have to foreclose competition by buying their peers. Competition policy must scrutinize more rigorously deals that allow dominant platforms to kill competitive technologies in the cradle."

You're to ignore that telecom monopolies engage in all of this exact behavior, yet government regulators from both parties routinely turn a blind eye to it. And while Comcast desperately wants to be seen as in line with tech giants like Apple, you'll notice that here, telecom has somehow mystically excused itself from the table of accountability, despite being arguably the most problematic sectors in all of "tech" thanks to their actual, growing monopoly over internet access.

Yes, if the task force genuinely results in the FTC finally taking its mandate seriously, enforcing antitrust, and policing terrible behavior, all the better. But given the recent climate, it's probably wise to be wary of this effort being little more than a show pony scripted by sectors and individuals not entirely arguing in good faith.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, consumer protection, ftc, monopolies, oversight, tech, telcos

Minnesota AG Just The Latest To Ding Comcast For Shady Fees

from the transparency! dept

How many lawsuits does it take to get Comcast to back off of shady fees designed to falsely inflate the company's advertised prices? Good question.

For several years now cable and broadband providers have been using hidden fees to covertly jack up their advertised rates. These fees, which utilize a rotating crop of bullshit names, help these companies falsely advertise one rate, then sock the consumer with a significantly higher-rate post sale (often when locked into a long-term contract). The practice also allows the company to falsely claim they're not raising rates on consumers. They omit that they're talking about the above-the-line rate being charged, implying that anything below the line (where real fees like taxes are levied) is outside of their control.

Back in 2014, Comcast introduced a new $1.50 per month surcharge it called its "Broadcast TV Fee." Said fee was really just a portion of the cost of doing business for Comcast (programming), busted out of the full bill and hidden below the line -- again to help the company falsely advertise a lower price. Over the last four years Comcast has quietly but quickly pushed this fee skyward, this week informing customers that -- alongside numerous other rate hikes like its "Regional Sports Network" fees -- the company's Broadcast TV fee would now be up to $10 per month for some cable TV customers.

While the federal government (FTC, FCC) routinely turned a blind eye to this practice (regardless of which party was in control), Comcast and other cable ops have been hit by a rotating crop of investigations and lawsuits for the practice. Just before Christmas, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson joined the festivities, announcing that her office had filed suit against Comcast for "charging customers more than it promised for cable television packages, charging for unordered equipment and services, and not delivering prepaid Visa cards promised in its promotions."

The AG's office is quick to point out that Comcast enjoys falsely telling complaining customers that the bogus fees it uses to covertly raise rates are the fault of the federal government:

"Comcast/Xfinity falsely told some consumers who questioned these extra fees that the fees were out of the company’s control. For example, it told one customer that “those fees are actually local fees and correspond to the FCC and we don’t manage those okay? Those aren’t up to Comcast.” It told another customer that “we have no control over the fees.” Comcast is not, however, required by any state or federal law to collect such fees, and does so simply to generate revenue.

When criticized, Comcast has routinely tried to claim that adding these sneaky fees then lying about what they're for is just the company's way of being "transparent" with its customers. Denial appears to be the company's response to these allegations as well, despite the fact the practice has now been well illustrated by countless settlements and lawsuits.

In the streaming video wars to come, Comcast could differentiate itself by being clear with customers about how much its services actually cost, using "zero hidden fees" as a marketing point of pride. This being Comcast, the company is likely to instead move in the opposite direction, and just double down on the practice of misleading and confusing its customers in its relentless quest to nickel and dime the lion's share of America.

Filed Under: broadcast tv fee, fake fees, false advertising, fcc, fees, ftc, lori swanson, minnesota
Companies: comcast

Qualcomm's Patent Nuclear War Turning Into Nuclear Winter

from the none-of-this-is-good dept

We haven't written much about Qualcomm and Apple's all out nuclear war over patents, but a few recent developments suggest it's worth digging in and discussing. In some ways it sweeps in other companies (mainly Intel) and also involves the FTC and the ITC. I won't go through the entire history here because I'd still be writing this post into next year. Qualcomm is a pretty massive company and while it does produce some actual stuff, it has long acted quite similar to a patent troll. It has also vigorously opposed basically all patent reform efforts, while at the same time quietly funding a bunch of "think tanks" that go after anyone advocating for patent reform (I expect some fun comments to show up below).

The reason Qualcomm acts this way is that it has long abused the patent system to jack up prices to ridiculous rates. And it's finally facing something of a reckoning on that. In early 2017, the FTC went after Qualcomm for abusing its patents -- notably: "using anticompetitive tactics to maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device used in cell phones and other consumer products." Specifically, the FTC alleged that Qualcomm, despite promises to the contrary to get its patents into important standards, was not following the FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) licensing of its patents, as required to have its inventions be a part of the standard. Just days later, Apple sued Qualcomm, also regarding Qualcomm's patent shakedown, claiming that Qualcomm had been massively overcharging Apple for the use of its patents, rather than licensing them on a FRAND basis.

A few months later, Qualcomm sued Apple, claiming that it had been sharing Qualcomm's proprietary code with Intel. Apple had been using chips from both Qualcomm and Intel, but was in the process of dropping Qualcomm entirely. Qualcomm also launched multiple parallel proceedings at the ITC. As we've discussed for over a decade now, patent holders ridiculously get two shots at anyone they accuse of patent infringement (so long as the accused manufacturers its goods outside the US). The International Trade Commission (for reasons that make no sense) feels that it can judge on its own if patents have been infringed, and if so, it can block the further importation of the "infringing" good. That's the only remedy at the ITC, but it can have quite an impact, obviously, in blocking a product out of the US market. Incredibly, the ITC need not follow the same rules as a regular court and it can do its own analysis while a case is in federal court (which might rule entirely differently).

So that's the history. Basically, Apple and Qualcomm are in an all out patent nuclear war, with the FTC and ITC involved around the edges. In the last few weeks, however, pretty much everything has been looking pretty bad for Qualcomm. While an administrative law judge at the ITC did find some infringement, he (somewhat surprisingly) announced that he would not recommend an import ban (again, this is the only remedy the ITC can offer). The full ITC needs to review this recommendation and make a final call. Tons of patent maximalists are screaming their heads off about how the ITC must start blocking iPhones, but as Judge Thomas Pender recognized, banning an entire product because it may have infringed on a single patent is ridiculous. In the language of the judge "the statutory public interest factors weigh against issuing a limited exclusion order as to products found to infringe patents asserted in this investigation." In other words, "grow up Qualcomm, this isn't such a big deal that you get to completely ban the product."

And, now, the latest is that the FTC's case against Qualcomm went in the FTC's direction, with Judge Lucy Koh granting the FTC's motion for partial summary judgment and saying that Qualcomm was violating its FRAND promises. This isn't everything to do with the case, but does involve questions around whether or not Qualcomm can limit its licensing to just device makers, or if it also has to license its patents to other chipmakers, like Intel. And Koh points out that basically everyone recognizes that the FRAND agreement it made applies to everyone -- not just a limited subset of companies. Koh repeatedly highlights Qualcomm's own previous statements that support this.

Furthermore, Koh points out that allowing Qualcomm to discriminate against chipmakers would hand the company a total monopoly, and that clearly goes against the concept behind the FRAND agreement to put the technology into the standard:

If a SEP holder could discriminate against modem chip suppliers, a SEP holder could embed its technology into a cellular standard and then prevent other modem chip suppliers from selling modem chips to cellular handset producers. See Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights, 90 Calif. L. Rev. at 1902 (stating that a company with a SEP “will effectively control the standard; its patent gives it the right to enjoin anyone else from using the standard”). Such discrimination would enable the SEP holder to achieve a monopoly in the modem chip market and limit competing implementations of those components, which directly contradicts the TIA IPR policy’s stated purpose to “enable competing implementations that benefit manufacturers and ultimately consumers.” TIA IPR at 6. See Borg v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 47 Cal. App. 4th 448, 456 (1996) (holding that a court may not interpret a contract in a way that contradicts the contract’s plain meaning). Qualcomm never attempts to explain how discrimination against modem chip suppliers is consistent with the stated purposes of the IPR policies.

I know there's a lot of jargon in there, but it's basically saying that the whole point of the standardization process, as everyone agreed, was to create standardization across multiple competitors (while still allowing a reasonable license for patent holders). But if Qualcomm can reinterpret this agreement to say that FRAND only applies to downstream users, then that completely overturns the entire intention of the standards making process and just gives Qualcomm a total monopoly on the chips (going well beyond its patents). Qualcomm will undoubtedly appeal, but it's not a good start for the company.

Oh, and speaking of not a good start, the post-Apple world for Qualcomm isn't looking great either. Its latest earnings projections going forward were below what Wall St. was expecting and some are noticing a $5-billion-ish Apple-shaped hole in the books.

While I've been equally critical of Apple in the past when it's abused the patent system, in this situation it seems pretty clear that Qualcomm completely overplayed its hand with its patents in ways that were abusive, and that drove up costs in an unfair manner, against its own agreements. And so far, the various courts and administrative bodies are not buying into Qualcomm's desperate attempts to keep up its monopolizing.

It all goes back to the point we've been making for decades: if you have a good product, compete in the marketplace. Don't abuse the patent system to try to block competitors or to artificially inflate the price. That just telegraphs that you're bad at innovating and you know that competitors can do a better job than you. Qualcomm is now learning how that plays out in the long run.

Filed Under: antitrust, ftc, itc, monopoly, patents, phones, sep, standards, standards essential patents
Companies: apple, intel, qualcomm

New Acting Attorney General Part Of A Patent Scam Company Recently Shut Down By The FTC And Fined Millions

from the grifters-everywhere dept

As you've certainly heard by now, yesterday President Trump forced out Attorney General Jeff Sessions and, at least for now, installed Sessions' Chief of Staff Matthew Whitaker to be the acting Attorney General. So who the hell is Matthew Whitaker? Well, Eric Boehlert summed up his history succinctly on Twitter:

Fascinating. But, getting even closer to the usual stuff that we cover on Techdirt, it also appears that Whitaker played a key role in a patent promotion scam company that was recently fined millions of dollars by the FTC. And, Whitaker apparently used his former job as an Assistant US Attorney to try to intimidate an unhappy "customer" of this firm away from filing a Better Business Bureau complaint. In other words, not only is Whitaker associated with a scammy patent marketing company, he also abused his former title in an effort to create a chilling effect on someone's speech.

The Miami New Times had a big article last year about the scam that was World Patent Marketing, which (of course) was based in Florida (why are so many of these scams based in Florida?). There are a bunch of these kinds of firms out there, that prey on unsophisticated individuals who were able to patent something or (more frequently) think they have something worth patenting. In this case, the Miami New Times describes WPM's way of working:

Thousands of would-be inventors like Masti were ripped off in the scheme, the feds allege. Padded, posterior-enhancing jeans; fruit crossbred with marijuana; a urinal shield to catch splatter — each one was sure to be a best seller, the company promised inventors, if they just paid for the firm's expertise in bringing ideas to market.

In reality, the firm's illustrious board — which included big names such as time-travel scientist Ronald Mallett and Florida International University professor Aileen Marti— simply took cash without ever meeting or reviewing any pitches. Some of the supposed innovations the company green-lit already existed, so patent applications were regularly denied. And despite the many "success stories" featured on its website, virtually none of the firm's clients ever made money.

As millions poured in, the firm's tough-talking CEO, Scott J. Cooper, boasted about trips to remote islands on his yacht and lashed out in expletive-laden tirades at inventors who complained. In screeds posted online and emailed to customers, the company bragged about its security team composed of ex-Israeli special forces trained in Krav Maga and threatened critics with lawsuits — or worse.

As the article notes, the FTC has gone after a ton of similar companies over the past couple decades, but new ones keep popping up. And apparently World Patent Marketing dove in with gusto:

In the long history of invention scammers, though, experts say few exceeded Cooper at wringing so much money out of individual victims. With a unique combination of New York bluster and salesmanship — and a fighter's willingness to scrap with naysayers — Cooper charmed hopefuls into sending thousands of dollars before scaring away anyone who thought about blowing the whistle, burned inventors say.

Despite only starting in 2014, the company raked in millions. The Miami New Times article is incredibly detailed in how Cooper ran such a scam. But it also talks about how he would angrily go after dissatisfied "customers." And apparently some of that included using "advisory board member" Matthew Whitaker. The company revealed in the evidence in the case the FTC filed against the firm, including sending an email to an unhappy customer "A Rudsky" who had threatened to report WPM to the Better Business Bureau. It appears that Cooper passed on this threat to Whitaker, who sent the following email in August of 2015:

If you can't see that, it says the following ("Scott" is Scott Cooper, who was the CEO/founder of World Patent Marketing):

Mr. Rudsky:

Scott forwarded me your emails and I am concerned about what you are trying to communicate to Scott Cooper and WPM.

I am a former United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa and I also serve on World Patent Marketing's Advisory Board.

Your emails and messages from today seem to be an apparent attempt at possible blackmail or extortion. You also mentioned filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau and to smear World Patent Marketing's reputation online. I am assuming you understand that there could be serious civil and criminal consequences for you if that is in fact what you and your "group" are doing.

I am familiar with your background and your history with Scott. Understand that we take threats like this seriously. Perhaps you can email me and specifically explain to me exactly what your intentions are with regards to World Patent Marketing so I can respond accordingly.
I can be reached at this email address.

Please conduct yourself accordingly.

Why is it that dubious threat letters from sketchy lawyers always seem to end with some variation on "govern yourself accordingly"?

Anyway, in March of 2017, the FTC filed a complaint concerning Cooper and World Patent Marketing. In May of this year, the case was closed out with the court granting a permanent injunction and monetary judgment against Cooper and World Patent Marketing. The court ordered a $26 million payment from the defendants, but also required Cooper specifically to hand over nearly $1 million from the sale of his $3.5 million home, and the rest of the judgment was suspended. There are a bunch of other stipulations in the order, requiring Cooper to accurately submit details of his business activities for many years into the future, and he is "permanently restrained and enjoined from advertising, marketing, promoting or offering for sale, or assisting in the advertising, marketing, promoting or offering for sale of any Invention Promotion Service."

Whitaker, it seems, was a bit player in this invention promotion scheme, but clearly was closely enough involved that he acted as a legal threat bully in at least that one case. That should certainly raise significant questions about how just a couple years later that same guy is suddenly the country's acting Attorney General.

Filed Under: attorney general, free speech, ftc, intimidation, matthew whitaker, patent marketing, patent promotion, patents, scam, scott cooper, threats
Companies: world patent marketing

Senator Wyden Releases Draft Of Privacy Rules That Silicon Valley Probably Won't Like Very Much

from the but-will-it-help? dept

As I've pointed out repeatedly, we're really really bad at regulating "privacy" in large part because most people don't understand privacy -- and it means different things to different people. And, so far, most attempts at regulating privacy have created massive negative consequences, while doing very little to actually protect privacy. The ones most making the news are the GDPR in the EU (though reaching well outside of the EU), which is a total mess and California's unmitigated disaster of a privacy bill that was passed in an insane rush to stop an even worse privacy law from being on the ballot. And, of course, all of this comes against the backdrop of various companies doing a horrifically bad job of protecting the public's private information.

Given all of that, it is inevitable that Congress will, at some point, attempt to pass some sort of privacy bill. And, it seems likely that it will be a disaster. In the last year or so, Senator Ron Wyden, who historically has been seen (unfairly and inaccurately) as an "ally" of Silicon Valley companies is now the first to throw his hat into the ring, releasing a discussion draft of the bill (you can also see a one pager about the bill and a section by section breakdown -- all also embedded below).

Above, I mentioned that it's been unfair to argue that Wyden was a booster of Silicon Valley companies. If you look at his history, he has always been focused mainly on being an ally of the users of the internet. Many times, those two things align, but when they do not, Wyden has repeatedly taken the side of the users, not the companies. And that is the case here, for the most part. Over the last year, Wyden has been on a bit of a rampage in basically telling the companies that they've had decades to do the right thing in regards to protecting their own users, and they have failed to do so.

Reading the new bill in that context puts things into perspective. The key parts of the bill, as described in the one-pager are as follows:

1. Establish minimum privacy and cybersecurity standards.
2. Issue steep fines (up to 4% of annual revenue), on the first offense for companies and 10-20 year criminal penalties for senior executives.
3. Create a national Do Not Track system that lets consumers stop third-party companies from tracking them on the web by sharing data, selling data, or targeting advertisements based on their personal information. It permits companies to charge consumers who want to use their products and services, but don’t want their information monetized.
4. Give consumers a way to review what personal information a company has about them, learn with whom it has been shared or sold, and to challenge inaccuracies in it.
5. Hire 175 more staff to police the largely unregulated market for private data.
6. Require companies to assess the algorithms that process consumer data to examine their impact on accuracy, fairness, bias, discrimination, privacy, and security.

A lot of the bill is really in giving the FTC more resources and power to go after companies for failing to protect the privacy of users. And, I think putting some level of pressure on companies to take these issues more seriously could really help.

I think there's a lot in the bill that is carefully thought out and worthwhile, but I still have a number of significant concerns. The headlines around this bill have focused on the fact that it includes potential jail time of 10 to 20 years for senior execs who sign off on annual "data protection reports" to the FTC, in which those reports "knowingly" misrepresent information (it also includes GDPR-esque fines of 4% of gross revenue, even for first time offenders). I do think there's value in creating real punishment for company execs that knowingly misrepresent information concerning the privacy of their users, but I do worry how much this might impact the willingness of good people -- especially potential chief privacy and chief information security officers -- to agree to take these jobs with large companies. While the "knowingly" part of the requirement is important, I can envision quite intense legal battles over the level of knowledge such execs had in signing off on these documents. Yes, this would get them to take those issues seriously and go over such documents carefully. But, I do worry that this could scare off many good people from taking these jobs.

Similarly, the fact that these massive fines apply to the very first offense could be seen as problematic as well. It's great to say that even one mistake is one too many, but is that realistic? It is not easy to seal off every possible vector of attack. There are always new attacks. And, as it stands right now, there are only a few companies who have the resources and ability to really harden their systems to this level -- and this bill could lock in those providers and leave out the ability of smaller companies to challenge them in the market (there is a limited safe harbor for smaller companies, but as soon as a company reaches a reasonable size, the rules apply to them).

I also do wonder about the "minimum privacy and cybersecurity standards" that the FTC will be authorized to detail. Again, on its face, this sounds like an okay idea, but there are a lot of devils in those details. Too often "standards" like this, if not properly constructed, could limit potential innovations or business models that wouldn't actually negatively impact people's privacy, but won't be allowed out of a fear for violating these standards.

While I am supportive of bringing back the concept of a Do Not Track system, I find the requirement for companies to "offer a paid version of their product or service, for which they can charge no more than they would have made by sharing the user's data" potentially a complete mess (the bill has a lot of conditions on this that might limit the problems, but it's not clear why this is necessary in the bill). Again, that's something that sounds nice in theory, but would require a pretty big shift for many companies -- which would mean a lot of new costs that it's unclear they can even attempt to recoup. It also has the potential of cutting off a number of new business models, as there are potential businesses where such a setup wouldn't even make any sense. Again, conceptually, this idea could make sense for companies, but requiring it could have significant consequences.

A final major concern: it does not appear that this bill would pre-empt state efforts, like California's giant mess of a privacy bill (and any other attempts by other states). That also seems like something any federal bill should include to avoid a patchwork of impossible to follow laws in every single state.

That's not to say there aren't parts of the bill that are worthwhile -- and the intent behind it is well meaning. Companies do need to clean up their act and recognize what a mess they've caused. I do like the idea of standardizing APIs to allow users to use other apps to access and process the information and data that companies hold on them. That could be tremendously useful in moving to a world where individuals can take back more control over their data. I also appreciate the specific point that the rules do not apply to media organizations, as we've already been dealing with the fallout from the GDPR where people are claiming the data protection rules there can prevent media organizations from even reporting on certain people.

But, in the end, I'd prefer that be done more by the companies themselves in recognizing that they're better off pushing control of the data out to the end users, rather than feeling the need to hoard it all themselves. I recognize that Wyden's view on this is basically "they had their chance, and they failed" and perhaps that's true. But I still worry about the unintended consequences from locking in some of these ideas.

At this point, the bill is still a "discussion draft" and it's not at all clear if it has any chance of moving forward. Hopefully, if it does, there can be significant changes made to the bill so that it is still designed to punish truly bad behavior (and incentive good behavior), but without making it difficult to impossible for good people to hold key positions, and without cutting off potentially useful innovations for end users. At this point, I'm not sure this bill does so, even if it's well-intentioned.

Filed Under: apis, cdpa, consumer data protection act, cybersecurity, data protection, ftc, privacy, ron wyden, transparency

Years Later, FTC Wins Case Against Roca Labs For Its Bogus Non-Disparagement Clause

from the not-to-mention-junk-weight-loss-claims dept

Remember Roca Labs? A few years back we wrote about them extensively. The company (along with Don Juravin, who ran it), had cooked up quite a scheme. They were selling what they claimed was a "weight loss" product, which involved ingesting something that one doctor summarized as "consist[ing] primarily of industrial food thickening agents." If that wasn't already sketchy enough, the company more or less required purchasers to agree to a non-disparagement contract in order to order the stuff. Roca claimed that you were just getting a "discount" if you agreed to the non-disaparagement clause, but it was unclear if there was any other way to order. Roca had a "doctor" vouching for its product, but it turned out it was a doctor who had lost his medical license. The company came to our attention when it sued Pissedconsumer because some of its many unhappy customers had ignored the non-disparagement clause and complained about Roca Labs on that site.

The company then trotted out nearly every sketchy trick in the book -- including threatening legal action against us, actually suing PissedConsumer's lawyer, Marc Randazza (over something that we had written on Techdirt), and filing bogus DMCA notices to try to delete negative reviews -- before the FTC finally went after the company in September of 2015.

That case has continued for years (during which PissedConsumer won its case against Roca) and now the FTC has finally prevailed against Roca and Juravin as well. Eric Goldman has a good write-up on the ruling as well.

Roca lost on basically every point. The key one is that its anti-disparagement clause was considered an "unfair" practice by the FTC. Roca tried to argue that this clause was legal because it was a clickwrap contract, and clickwrap contracts have been found to be legal. The court points out hat that's not even the issue here at all. It's a question of whether or not what's in that contract is an "unfair practice." And here it's pretty clearly established First, the FTC clearly showed the harm of suppressing critical reviews:

Because Defendants admittedly suppressed negative information about the products and because Dr. Pavlou testified that the absence of negative information could make a consumer more inclined to purchase Roca Labs products, the Court finds that Defendants’ practices have caused or were likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. The record demonstrates that some consumers paid hundreds of dollars for the Roca Labs products and unsuccessfully sought refunds because of Defendants’ practice of issuing threats under the guise of enforcing the gag clause. Thus, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of fact on this basis that would preclude summary judgment in favor of the FTC.

The court is not impressed by the argument that potential purchasers should have just read the terms and used a different weight loss program if they didn't like Roca Labs' nonsense:

Defendants offer no evidence that their practices did not prohibit the availability of negative reviews or that their practices were reasonably avoidable by the prospective consumer. Rather, Defendants argue that prospective customers could have reasonably avoided any injury by reading the contract that contained the gag clause or joining another weight loss program. (Dkt. 212 at 17–18) Defendants’ argument misses the mark. Under this prong of the FTC Act, the FTC alleges that Defendants’ practices relating to the gag clause, not the gag clause itself, were unfair. Further, because Defendants offer no facts to support a claim that prospective customers could reasonably avoid a dearth of negative reviews, which the Defendants assiduously prevented from being available, there is no genuine issue of a material fact in dispute on this issue.

Roca also tried to argue that the gag clause was okay because (get this) losing weight makes people feel good, and that's a benefit. But, as the court notes, this was in response to questions about the gag clause, not the product itself:

Defendants’ recitation of the benefits they claim consumers received from using the products ignores the issue presented in this claim, which is whether Defendants’ gag clause practices, not their products and services, presented a countervailing benefit.

Roca also gets in trouble for claiming that the price everyone got was "discounted," but only if they agreed to the non-disparagement clause. As the court points out, Roca advertised the "discounted" price all over the place as if it were the actual price, and only put in the fine print that you had to pay a lot more if you didn't want to be gagged:

Defendants created an overall net impression that the price of the product was $480 without reference to a discount or any concessions as to publishing negative comments. Defendants advertised that the basic package of Roca Labs products costs $480 for purchasers with a “valid health insurance.”... In multiple online advertisements, including those that appeared on Google, Bing, and Facebook, Defendants advertised the cost as simply $480, at least for a basic package of Roca Labs products.... At the top of the “Roca Labs Procedure Cost” page of Defendants’ Websites, Defendants state “Only $480 and NO surgery to gastric bypass cost of $8,000 + health insurance payments. Save yourself from surgery that can cost your life. Save 90%.” ... Farther down on that page, in smaller print, Defendants state that the “Roca Labs Formula is available for as low as $480” and display a chart showing the various packages, from the basic package for $480 to the customized package for $1,080.... The price differences in the packages reflect the quantity of products ordered and the level of customer service provided.... Several of the banner ads that appear online typically have five words: “GASTRIC BYPASS NO SURGERY $480.”... Scores of search advertisements also convey the price as $480, stating, for example, “Mini Gastric Bypass $480” followed by “Official Site: No Surgery Solution! Reduce Stomach Size & Lose Weight.” ... The advertisements did not contain any disclaimers that the price was discounted or subsidized in exchange for a customer’s agreement to refrain from publishing negative comments. As such, Defendants created an overall net impression that the price was $480, with no exceptions or limitations.

And, thus, it's a deceptive practice to make people think they could pay $480 and still criticize the product, when the terms of the deal were quite different:

Defendants’ misrepresentation is material and deceptive because it is an express claim that involves important information to customers: the price of the product and limitations on what customers could say about the products or Defendants. A customer would likely be misled to believe that he or she had the option to purchase the product at “full” price and maintain the ability to post negative but truthful comments. Customers also would likely to be misled to believe that they had actually agreed to refrain from posting negative comments, when they had not agreed to do so, by paying the purportedly discounted price.

The court also takes on a bunch of issues regarding Roca Labs' products, and agrees (surprise surprise) that Roca Labs' claims about weight loss from its products were unfair and deceptive:

The FTC has established that Defendants’ claims are false in that they were material and likely to mislead consumers. As discussed above, Defendants made express claims regarding weight loss. Those express claims, which significantly involve health, are inherently material... Defendants disseminated their claims online—through the Roca Labs Websites and online advertisements—to direct consumers to the Roca Labs Websites to purchase the products. The ads intentionally contained medical images and terminology to bolster the credibility of Defendants’ claims and induce customers to believe that the claims were scientifically validated by the medical community. Thus, the Court concludes that the claims were likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.

The FTC also has established that Defendants had no reasonable basis to assert the claims because they lack competent and reliable scientific evidence. For healthrelated claims, including weight-loss claims, an advertiser must demonstrate that it has competent and reliable scientific evidence to support any claimed reasonable basis to assert that the claims are true.... Additionally, the FTC’s expert, Dr. Steven Heymsfield (“Dr. Heymsfield”), a medical doctor at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Louisiana State University and an expert in obesity treatment and weight loss, opined that no competent and reliable scientific evidence for Defendants’ claims existed.... To prove a weight-loss claim, “experts in the field of obesity treatment and weight loss would require well-designed and properly conducted clinical trials.” ... Dr. Heymsfield explained that a trial should be doubleblind and placebo-controlled so that the testers and participants are unaware of who is assigned to a particular group.... Dr. Heymsfield also explained that a valid clinical trial would have at least eighty participants and last at least three months.... He stated that a clinical trial should test the substance, not the individual ingredients, for which the claims are made because it is well established in the scientific community that the efficacy of individual ingredients is insufficient to establish the efficacy of those ingredients combined.

Not surprisingly, Roca Labs did none of that. Ridiculously, Roca Labs' defense was to say that a randomized controlled test wasn't necessary after completely misreading a different case, involving Bayer, in which Bayer was accused of violating a consent decree, whereas the court ruled that the consent decree did not require a randomized controlled test. But, that's got nothing to do with this case, as there was no consent decree at issue. But, even beyond that, the court notes that Roca Labs' offering certainly appears to be snake oil:

Defendants failed to produce any competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate their claims. In September 2015, the same month that the FTC filed this Complaint, Defendants’ products were studied by the Center for Applied Health Sciences, which issued a report after a clinical trial on the Roca Labs products.... Dr. Heymsfield reviewed the study, which Defendants provided to the FTC.... The study tested thirty-one overweight adults, including seventeen adults who used the Roca Labs products for twenty-eight days.... The results showed that the participants did not lose weight after taking the Roca Labs products and that there was a “slight but statistically insignificant ‘trend’ that active users reported feeling less hungry three hours after taking the product.” ... He noted the study reflected that there was no “lasting reduction in gastric capacity.” ... Dr. Heymsfield determined that the trial did not provide any competent or reliable scientific evidence because the trial design was flawed....

Additionally, Dr. Heymsfield opined that the scientific articles on weight loss and individual dietary fibers, the specific articles posted on Roca Labs Websites, and other materials provided by Roca Labs do not offer any competent and reliable scientific evidence in support of Defendants’ claims.

In a footnote, it also points out that one of the articles on Roca's site supporting its claims for weight loss was... authored by Don Juravin himself "who has not been identified as an expert."

The court further notes that Roca's claim on its website of a "ninety-percent success rate" is, shall we say... a problem:

the FTC also has demonstrated that Defendants’ claim that the use of Formula and Anti-Cravings is scientifically proven to have a ninety-percent success rate in forcing users to eat half their usual food intake and cause substantial weight loss is false. This representation of success is an establishment claim because the claim purports to be supported by scientific evidence. By law, an establishment claim is required to have a certain level of scientific proof to support of the claim.... The advertiser must have sufficient evidence to satisfy the relevant scientific community of the claim’s truth.... Defendants have advertised the “scientifically proven” claim online, but they have not produced any evidence to support the claim.... As discussed above, Defendants have failed to provide any evidence of a valid clinical study on the Roca Labs products. Hence, the unsubstantiated claim is false and likely to mislead consumers into believing that it was supported when it was not.

Roca also gets in trouble for running a related site that pretended to be independent and paying people for testimonials about Roca on this supposedly independent third party website. As you can imagine, that's not an acceptable way to market a product.

Material misrepresentations or omissions on which a consumer would likely rely to decide whether to make a purchase constitute deceptive advertising... Juravin testified that he created Gastricbypass.me to “educate and scare people about” gastric bypass surgery.... Only Roca Labs products were discussed favorably on the site, although there was no disclosure of the affiliation with Defendants.... Juravin stated that Gastricbypass.me was controlled by Roca Labs and that he was responsible for the content, but he did not see any value in letting consumers know “[h]ey we are Roca Labs.”

Oh, it gets worse:

Purportedly satisfied customers—“Carla” and “Roxie”—depicted in the videos posted on RocaLabs.com were actually Defendants’ employees.... Defendants directed their employees to create blogs or fictitious posts. For example, Roca Labs General Manager Sharon King (“King”) testified that she wrote a Roca Labs product review under the name of “Fran,” which was a fictitious name, and that Juravin edited the review.... Juravin also directed King to instruct “the Customer Service people” to write posts or reviews and comment on Roca Labs Facebook advertisements.... Defendants did not instruct the employees to disclose their affiliation with Defendants... Roca Labs employee Sharon Hensley (“Hensley”), who appeared on video as “Roxie,” testified that she was asked to post positive comments monthly on Facebook about Roca Labs monthly and did not state her association with Defendants.

Amusingly, Roca Labs tried to defend some of their employees' posts saying that they really did lose weight using the product. As the court points out, this argument "misses the point." It's not the weight loss that's the issue. It's failing to disclose the relationship with the company.

So, if you're keeping score at home: the company posted a ton of fake reviews, pretending they were from satisfied customers, selling a product that promoted weight loss with no scientific basis, and barred actual customers from posting any negative reviews. And, let's not forget they threatened to sue us for reporting all of that originally.

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that Roca Labs didn't keep its customers private health information secret (despite promising to do so). Roca's defense on that one is even worse: it claims that the health info was public (it was not) and that it needed to share the info in response to customers breaching the contract...

What does this all mean for Roca and Juravin? The court agrees to a permanent injunction, and notes that while Juravin has dropped the Roca name, he's still playing the same game:

Juravin testified that he has moved away from using the Roca Labs brand and is now using “gastric.care,” but “[t]he formula is the same formula.”... Juravin also stated that he is marketing the products on Facebook, a “Lost 100” Website, and online videos and chat.... In his deposition, Juravin also said he told his Facebook boot camp customers: “I’m allowed to tell you anything I want; to do anything I want with you that would lead you to a healthy weight . . .” ... He also testified that he will show the customers “any images I want. I will do anything I want for them for as long as I lead them to achieve a healthy weight.” ... Based on Defendants’ extended history of deceptive and unfair practices and Defendants’ continued promotion of their products and comparisons to gastric bypass surgery, the FTC has proven that a cognizable danger of recurrent violation exists. Thus, a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants’ deceptive and unfair practices is justified.

Then there's how much money Juravin needs to pay for all of this. The FTC asked the court to make Juravin hand over the net revenue earned in selling all this junk, while Juravin attempted a sillier formula, saying that he should only have to pay back $350 for each Better Business Bureau complaint there was, as those were the only dissatisfied customers. It takes quite a lot of guts to make such a claim, considering the bullshit contract he used barred customers from complaining to the BBB. The FTC showed that Juravin made an astounding $26 million from this scam, but because he failed to accurately document how much Roca had to pay back in refunds, the court asks him to provide some more info -- but it certainly appears that Juravin is going to be facing a hefty invoice from the US government before long.

Incredibly, so much attention was driven in the direction of Roca because it first sued PissedConsumer. It is entirely possible that the FTC would have cracked down on Roca and Juravin eventually no matter what, but it certainly appears that getting aggressive and suing others helped bring about Roca's and Juravin's downfall.

Filed Under: deceptive, don juravin, ftc, unfair
Companies: roca labs

Don't Hold Your Breath Waiting For The FCC, FTC To Punish Verizon For Screwing Firefighters

from the nothing-to-see-here dept

We've noted how the telecom industry been having great success in the Trump era eliminating FCC, FTC, and state authority over telecom monopolies. The underlying industry justification is that gutting consumer protections will somehow magically improve competition and spur investment by regional telecom monopolies, a decades-old claim that has never been true, and yet somehow never dies. In reality, when you kill regulatory oversight of natural monopolies (without shoring up the underlying competition issues beneath), the problem only tends to get worse. It's something you probably noticed if you've had any interactions with Comcast lately.

Last week the perils in this particular course of action were laid bare when Verizon was busted first throttling and then trying to upsell first responders while they were trying to combat wildfires in California. Gigi Sohn, one of the ex-FCC staffers that helped craft the rules, did a good job pointing out how the FCC's "Restoring Internet Freedom" order didn't just kill net neutrality, it punted the FCC's ability to hold ISPs like Verizon accountable for issues just like this one:

"...Even assuming that Verizon’s actions were not technically a violation of the 2015 net neutrality rules’ express prohibition against throttling internet traffic, the company’s actions may still have violated the 2015 rules.

Those rules permitted complaints to be filed pursuant to what was called the “general conduct rule,” which prohibited broadband providers from unreasonably interfering or disadvantaging “end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband internet access service or the lawful internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice.” Certainly, the FPD could have made a persuasive case that Verizon was unreasonably interfering with its ability to use broadband internet access service. But, since the repeal of net neutrality, that avenue was not available."

Telecom monopolies have claimed that killing the FCC's oversight authority of ISPs is no big deal because the FTC will quickly rush in and fill the void. But as we've noted repeatedly, this argument was not made in good faith; whereas the FCC was perfectly-crafted for telecom oversight, the FTC lacks the authority and bandwidth to police ISPs, meaning most meaningful punishment never happens (check out the FTC's half-decade long effort to hold AT&T accountable for lying to customers about throttling as just one example, or the total failure to police bogus fees).

In the wake of last week's scandal, you'll notice Ajit Pai's FCC hasn't so much as issued a peep about Verizon's face plant. Undaunted, a group of eighteen Senators have fired off a letter to the FTC (pdf) urging it to, you know, maybe investigate Verizon:

"We believe the Federal Communications Commission, as the expert regulatory agency, should be responsible for the oversight of public safety networks and communications networks as a whole. Unfortunately, with its repeal of the 2015 Open Internet Order, the FCC has abdicated its jurisdiction over broadband communications and walked away from protecting consumers, including public safety agencies. We, therefore, call on the FTC to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices stemming from this incident."

Good luck with that. Companies like Verizon have been spending millions of dollars to erode FCC, FTC, and state authority over ISPs. In Verizon's preferred regulatory paradigm, both state and federal regulators could be powerless to hold Verizon accountable for wrongdoing, even in screw ups of this magnitude. And if any federal "investigation" happens it will be superficial at best--thanks to a neutered FCC, an over-extended FTC, and states handcuffed by Ajit Pai's historically-unpopular Restoring Internet Freedom order.

That's because in the Trump administration (like countless past administrations before it), telecom monopolies like AT&T and Comcast are quite literally directing policy. After all, nobody wants to risk angering deep-pocketed campaign contributors. And these companies' central, puerile tech policy thesis is that when you let telecom monopolies (with thirty-years of anti-competitive behavior under their belt) run amok without meaningful oversight or competition, miracles happen.

Filed Under: fcc, fire fighters, ftc, net neutrality, public safety, throttling
Companies: verizon