ftc
Latest
FTC and DOJ monitoring Apple's new subscription policy
Both the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are aware of the new policy Apple implemented for media companies with applications in the App Store. The new terms state "that if an app offers customers the ability to purchase books outside of the app, the same option is also available to customers from within the app with in-app purchase." A prime example is the Sony Reader app which was reportedly rejected from the App Store because its iOS app linked to its own digital store and did not use Apple's in-app purchase system to sell its eBooks. This new policy takes effect June 30 and will drive many purchases through the App Store, giving Apple a 30% cut. U.S. regulators are taking a closer look at this policy to determine if it runs afoul of any federal antitrust laws. This interest is preliminary and may not turn into a formal investigation or sanctions against the company. The European Union is also closely monitoring this situation, but is currently not taking any action either. Apple was under the microscope last year following its decision to ban iOS applications developed using third-party tools such as Adobe Flash. Both the FTC and the European Commission launched an investigation, but Apple reversed this policy before a decision could be made by either regulatory body.
US Justice Department and FTC looking into Apple's new subscription policy
Apple unveiled its new app store subscriptions earlier this week with a decent amount of controversy and even an official statement from Rhapsody saying it would not comply with the new regulations. The new policy requires any company offering subscription services to offer the same service, at the same price (or less) through Apple, with Apple skimming 30 percent off the top. It also no longer allows apps to have links to external sites where purchases can be made. Now, reports the Wall Street Journal, antitrust enforcers in the US are having a preliminary look into the new arrangement. So, what does that mean? Well, these kinds of pre-investigations are pretty common, so it could mean nothing at all. Or, it could lead to a more formal investigation into if the policy violates antitrust laws. When asked for comment on the story, unsurprisingly, no one at Apple, the FTC, or the Justice Department would comment. We'll keep our eyes on this one and let you know if anything more exciting happens.
Net neutrality expert Tim Wu named senior advisor to the FTC
The Federal Trade Commission just appointed outspoken anti-DRM advocate Ed Felten as its first Chief Technologist a few months ago, and it's now made another fairly bold move with the appointment of Tim Wu as a senior advisor. As any Engadget Show viewer is no doubt well aware, Wu is not only a noted net neutrality expert, he actually coined the term, and he's not exactly shy to make his opinions on the matter known. He won't strictly be dealing with net neutrality at the FTC, though -- Chairman Jon Leibowitz says that he will instead be "working on issues at the nexus of consumer protection, competition, law and technology." For his part, Wu will be taking a leave from his position at Columbia Law School to take on the new job (which he'll begin February 14th), and it seems like he'll also be a bit less outspoken on Twitter -- his most recent tweet noted that there would be "no more policy tweets" starting next week. Head on past the break to watch our full interview with Wu from last fall.
Chrome and Firefox adding new opt-out features to prevent third-party advertisers from tracking you
Ever been freaked out by an online ad that seemed to know you that little bit too well? It's the result of good old advertisers tracking your net-navigating habits and delivering targeted commercials to your eyeballs, but it can be prevented. Both Google and Mozilla have stepped up (or perhaps been pushed by the FTC) to try and tackle this issue of pernicious tracking cookies, but they've gone about it in different ways. The Chrome solution is a Keep My Opt-Outs browser extension that remembers the sites you don't want personalized information from, while Firefox will start beaming out a Do Not Track HTTP header that should be respected by advertisers and result in you receiving generic, repetitive ads. The important commonality between the two is that they don't rely on you preparing a cookie file with all your anti-advertiser bile contained within it (which was the FTC's original, somewhat impractical idea). Google intends to open-source its extension and bring it to other browsers as well, though obviously it's taking care of Chrome first, which can benefit from the add-on right now.
Internet Explorer 9 privacy measures to include Tracking Protection
In a nod to future FTC mandates regarding web privacy, Microsoft has announced that among its many charms, Internet Explorer 9 will introduce something called a Tracking Protective List. In essence, the TPL looks at third party elements of whichever page you may be viewing (for instance, when you're at msnbc.com and it contains elements that are hosted by another domain) and allows you to block those which track your movements. This is done by domain, and there is both a whitelist and a blacklist -- ensuring that while elements that are required for full functionality will be allowed, those which are a nuisance will be blocked. Of course, this isn't the answer to all of your security needs, but between this and properly managing your cookies it is a decent first step. IE9 will come around sometime in early 2011 -- in the meantime, check out the video after the break for more info.
FTC says it's talking to Adobe about the problem with 'Flash cookies'
We've already heard that the Federal Trade Commission is pushing for a "do not track" button of sorts to stop cookies from watching your every move, but it looks like it isn't stopping at the usual, non-edible definition of a "cookie." Speaking at a press conference on Friday, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz also dropped the rather interesting tidbit that it's been talking with Adobe about what it describes as "the Flash problem." As Paid Content reports, newly-appointed FTC Chief Technologist Ed Felten later clarified that the problem in question is actually so-called "Flash cookies," or what Adobe describes as "local shared objects." As Felten explained, those can also be used for tracking purposes, but they usually aren't affected by the privacy controls in web browsers -- Chrome is one notable exception. For it's part, Adobe says that Flash's local shared objects were never designed for tracking purposes, and that it has repeatedly condemned such practices -- the company also added that it would support "any industry initiative to foster clear, meaningful and persistent choice regarding online tracking." [Image courtesy dopefly dot com]
FTC wants to fight tracking cookies with other cookies, create delicious sugary warfare
We're not sure that fighting fire with fire actually works outside of the metaphorical realm, but don't let us tell the FTC how to do its thing. The federal body, which recently told Google "it's all good" after the company apologized for stealing people's private infos, is now asking for social networking sites and browser developers to create a sort of "do not track" cookie system. If this cookie was present the sites would not capture a user's browsing habits and not deliver customized ads, a cookie that would be created and enabled by a simple browser button. As of now the FTC is not mandating anything, but did deliver this passive-aggressive threat: With respect to 'do not track,' we are giving companies a little time, but we'd like to see them work a lot faster in making consumer choice a lot easier. So there you have it: start playing nice, companies, or the FTC might possibly do something. Meanwhile, we might possibly eat the cute looking gingerbread man in the middle up there. He sure looks tasty. [Image courtesy of Fagles]
The true story of a hacker's brief tenure as a fed at the FTC
The Federal Trade Commission managed to turn a few heads by hiring anti-DRM advocate Ed Felten as it's first Chief Technologist earlier this month, but it turns out the agency made an even more surprising hire last year -- one that didn't last very long. As Forbes reports, the FTC hired 29-year-old hacker Chris Soghoian in 2009, along with a handful of other technologists tasked with investigating corporations suspected of violating consumers' privacy. While that name might not ring a bell, Soghoian did gain some notoriety in 2006 by building a tool that was able to print out fake boarding passes for Northwest Airlines (in an effort to expose a security flaw), and he's since engaged in number of other activities that could either be considered hacks or pranks depending on your point of view. So how did his tenure at the FTC work out? Well, he nearly quit after being forced to submit to a fingerprint scan on his first day, and last December he sparked a controversy by posting audio he secretly recorded at an industry-only security conference on his personal blog -- although that did seemingly end up influencing a Justice Department report on phone record searches. Perhaps not surprisingly, that didn't exactly lead to a long career as a fed, and the FTC chose not to renew Soghoian's contract this year, stating only that he "provided valuable service to the agency."
FTC appoints Ed Felten as agency's first Chief Technologist
It may come as a bit of a surprise to some considering that seemingly every company and government agency has one these days, but the Federal Trade Commission has never had a Chief Technologist. It's now finally filled that gap, however, and has appointed Edward W. Felten to the post. As you may be aware, Felten's a professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton and the founding director of the university's Center for Information Technology, but he's probably best known for his efforts to expose problems with electronic voting machines, and for his vocal advocacy against DRM -- he also uses his Mii for his profile image on the Freedom to Tinker blog, so you know you're not exactly dealing with your usual government bureaucrat. Felten has actually already been serving as a part-time adviser to the FTC, and it seems like he'll now basically be continuing that role in a full-time capacity, with the FTC only saying that he will "advise the agency on evolving technology and policy issues."
FTC approves Intel settlement change, will let it ship Oak Trail without PCIe support
Well, it looks like Intel's settlement with the FTC isn't quite a done deal just yet -- the FTC has now announced that it's approved a change to one key measure of the settlement following a public comment period on the matter. That specifically involves Intel's Atom-based Oak Trail platform, which Intel will now be allowed to ship without PCI Express support -- as opposed to the earlier stipulation that it be required to support PCIe in order to "not limit the performance of graphics processing chips." In the short term, that basically means that Oak Trail devices (mainly tablets) likely won't have non-Intel GPUs, and that Intel will be able to continue to ship such products until June 2013. After that, the original settlement requirements will go into effect, and Intel says it is, in fact, already working on an Oak Trail successor that supports PCIe.
FTC accepts Google's privacy apology, lets Street View off the hook
When Google admitted its Street View cars had collected sensitive data after all, it sparked a new formal inquiry in the UK, but the very same apology was just what the Federal Trade Commission needed to drop an investigation in the USA. The FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection wrote Google a formal letter today noting "concerns about the internal policies and procedures that gave rise to this data collection," but satisfaction that the company's agreed to change all that and appoint a director of privacy. "Because of these commitments, we are ending our inquiry into this matter at this time," the document reads. Does that mean we can stop using this picture of Ross' old apartment in our posts? Only time will tell.
EU plans to end Apple antitrust investigation in light of relaxed iPhone rules
It seems like Apple's legal team is constantly embroiled in a pitched battle of some sort, but this weekend they might get to relax -- citing recent iPhone policy changes, the European Commission's decided to stop breathing down their necks. Though the EU originally joined the US Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission in investigating why Cupertino chose to block third-party dev tools and ads earlier this year, the fact that Apple recently relaxed both restrictions (and created a repair program for iPhones purchased abroad) satisfied European regulators. "The Commission intends to close the investigations into these matters," it wrote earlier today. There's no guarantee that the US powers-that-be will exercise similar leniency, of course, but we wouldn't be surprised -- even inside Apple, the DoJ's got other fish to fry.
FTC makes ruling in iTunes review case
The Federal Trade Commission, of all things, has laid down a ruling in the strange case of Reverb Communications' iTunes reviews. We didn't get to this story the first time around, but a PR firm named Reverb Communications (disclaimer: I've attended their press events here in LA) was accused a while back of asking its staff to leave positive iTunes reviews on some of their clients' App Store titles. This wasn't just a request to have the staff try out and review client games -- they had an "internal user reviews" process, in which employees of the firm were paid specifically to leave positive reviews -- "not over the top" were their words -- on iTunes and online message boards. Now, the Federal Trade Commission, ruling under the recent regulations for endorsements online, has decided to settle the case. No money is changing hands, but Reverb and its executive have been asked to remove all of the reviews posted. You can read more about the agreement on the FTC's website. The FTC says that anyone endorsing a product online "should disclose the material connection the reviewer shares with the seller of the product or service," and that Reverb didn't do that. For its part, Reverb and executive Tracy Snitker would like to brush the accusations off. "Rather than continuing to spend time and money arguing, and laying off employees to fight what we believed was a frivolous matter, we settled this case and ended the discussion," she told the New York Times. But this ruling seems more important than that -- it's the FTC's first enforcement of the Internet review guidelines, and so we'll have to see what kinds of precedents this case sets.
FTC denies request for documents on Adobe complaint, confirms investigation of Apple's SDK rules?
Sure, Apple and Adobe aren't the best of friends, but their disagreement goes a little further than mild distaste. Apple moved to ban iOS apps not written through its own developer framework (SDK), which more or less killed off Adobe's iPhone Flash developer tools. Adobe in turn issued a complaint to the FTC, a complaint that Wired requested a copy of under the Freedom of Information Act. The release of that complaint was denied on the grounds that "disclosure of that material could reasonably be expected to interfere with the conduct of the Commission's law enforcement activities." That is another strong indication that the FTC is currently investigating Apple and deciding whether the company is acting properly by preventing third-party access to its iOS devices. What's next? We likely won't hear anything until the FTC makes up its mind, and even then only if it decides Apple isn't playing as nice as it should be.
Intel and FTC settle charges of anticompetitive conduct
It's been quite a stretch since the Federal Trade Commission first investigated and then ultimately sued Intel for alleged anticompetitive conduct, but the saga has now come to a close -- the two parties today announced a settlement of the charges. While that's no doubt better than some of the alternatives for Intel, it's hardly getting off easy -- the settlement prohibits Intel from paying computer makers to buy its chips exclusively or to refuse to buy chips from others, and bans it from retaliating against other computer makers if they do business with non-Intel suppliers. What's more, the settlement also requires Intel to modify its intellectual property agreements with AMD, NVIDIA, and VIA to give those companies "more freedom to consider mergers or joint ventures with other companies, without the threat of being sued by Intel for patent infringement," and it requires that Intel maintain the PCI Express Bus interface "in a way that will not limit the performance of graphics processing chips" for at least six years, among some other stipulations. For Intel's part, it notes that it hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, and says that the move allows it "to put an end to the expense and distraction of the FTC litigation." Head on past the break for the full FTC press release.
How nutritious is your light bulb? (in lumens, of course)
No joke -- starting mid-2011, US light bulbs will have nutrition facts of their own. Backed by Congress, the FTC has mandated that light bulbs carry the label at top, allowing buyers to clearly compare brightness, life expectancy and energy cost. Of course, many manufacturers call out these facts already, but hopefully this will keep the rest from confusing potency with power -- by advertising that a mid-range LED unit that slowly sips energy, for instance, is "equivalent to 40 watts."
FTC approves Google's AdMob buy, cites Apple's iAd competition
Google's attempt to swoop in and buy AdMob out from under Apple was looking like a Pyrrhic victory for a second there, as Federal Trade Commission approval of the deal hung in the balance based on concerns that El Goog would control far too much of the online advertising market. It's ironic, then, that Apple's acquisition of Quattro Wireless and the introduction of the iAd platform in iPhone OS 4 is what convinced the feds to let Google's acquisition go through -- the FTC says that Apple's entry into the market will provide significant competition to AdMob, regardless of whether or not it's owned by Google. That means Google's free to pursue all the ad-based initiatives in Froyo it announced yesterday at I/O, and it means we should see the already-heated rhetoric between Mountain View and Cupertino get another notch hotter. It's going to be a wild summer, folks -- get ready. Update: Here's a statement from AdMob founder and CEO Omar Hamoui on the deal -- he's got a fuller piece on his blog, linked below. "We are extremely pleased with today's decision from the Federal Trade Commission to clear Google's acquisition of AdMob. Over the past six months we've received a great deal of support from across the mobile industry – and we deeply appreciate it. Our focus is now on working with the team at Google team to quickly close the deal."
Apple under preliminary antitrust investigation over iPhone, triggered by complaint from Adobe
We'd heard a somewhat sketchy report from the New York Post yesterday that the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission were considering launching an antitrust inquiry into Apple and its various iPhone-related practices, and now it's being confirmed by Reuters and the Wall Street Journal, who say the inquiry was triggered by complaints from Apple's competitors and app developers -- specifically Adobe, according to Bloomberg. The DOJ and FTC are currently deciding which agency will take the lead in any inquiry, but if and when it gets underway there are a few issues at play: the first is obviously Apple's decision to block Flash and other middleware from app development, and the second is Apple's new iAd platform, which comes with its own changes to the iPhone developer agreement that could potentially lock out third-party ad and analytics services like AdMob -- itself under regulatory scrutiny due to the Google acquisition -- and Flurry. We'd also imagine regulators will take a close look at Apple's App Store policies in general, but from a distance looks like the focus is on mobile advertising: both Apple and Google have made aggressive moves into the space in recent months, and both have come under regulatory scrutiny. We'll just have to wait and see how this one plays out -- there's still no official word from either agency on what's happening, and the timeline of any potential investigation and lawsuit will be measured in months and years.
Apple to face antitrust inquiry over iPhone coding restrictions?
Apple's decision to block third-party toolkits and middleware -- particularly Flash -- from being used to develop iPhone and iPad apps has certainly prompted a fair amount of debate around the web, and now it sounds like Steve and the gang might face some even harsher scrutiny: a single-sourced piece in the New York Post reports that the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice are currently tussling over which agency should be tasked with a potential antitrust inquiry into the matter. That would certainly make some noise in the industry, but it doesn't mean much for those of us here in reality quite yet: assuming the report is true, an inquiry would still just be the very first step -- whichever agency is ultimately put in charge would then have to launch a formal investigation and then finally file and win a lawsuit for any changes to occur. That's a timeframe measured in months, if not years. All that said, we can see why the feds are interested: Apple's slowly moving into an ever-more dominant position in the mobile market, and forcing developers to make a hard choice about which platforms to target certainly puts the squeeze on competitors. We'll be following this one closely -- stay tuned.
FTC won't ask Intel to break up
The Federal Trade Commission may have a pretty big beef with Intel, but it looks like won't be going as far as to seek a breakup of the company. That word comes straight from the director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, Richard Feinstein, who flatly told reporters yesterday that the FTC has "no goal of breaking up Intel." In case you missed it, this follows a lawsuit that the FTC filed against Intel earlier in the day yesterday, which alleges that the company has engaged in "anticompetitive tactics." As you can see above, NVIDIA has already responded to that development in its usual manner. [Image courtesy Intel's Insides / NVIDIA]
