By Kevin Spak 
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Home
Tag Archives: FTC
FTC: Explosion Of Tax Identity Theft Swamps Growth In Other Consumer Complaints
A new report from the Federal Trade Commission shows that the explosion in tax fraud related identity theft eclipsed the growth in all other consumer gripes during 2012. Last year, total complaints logged by the FTC’s “Sentinel Network” about everything other than identity theft—meaning everything from debt collection to cell phone companies to counterfeit check scams– rose less than 5%, to 1.69 million. But tax related identity theft complaints more than doubled to 160,000. Fraudsters use stolen Social Security numbers and phony W-2s and 1099s to apply for—and often get—big refunds from the Internal Revenue Service. Meanwhile, the real taxpayers are left waiting months for their refunds and wasting untold hours trying to sort the mess out. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
HTC settles with FTC over security issues in tablets, smartphones
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with HTC America over security holes in the company's smartphone and tablet software that left millions of users' personal information at risk. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Computerworld Latest
Herbalife: The New York Post Is Wrong. There's No FTC Investigation Pending
By Abram Brown, Forbes Staff Herbalife says it is not being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission, and the embattled direct-marketing company is demanding a correction from The New York Post, which this morning reported that a FTC probe would soon begin.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
FTC fines maker of Path app $800,000 for privacy violations
The maker of the Path social networking app will pay a US$800,000 civil penalty to settle U.S. Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally collected personal information from children without parental consent, the agency said Friday.
Path has also settled FTC charges that it collected personal information from users’ mobile address books without their knowledge and consent, the FTC said. The settlement requires Path to establish a comprehensive privacy program and to obtain independent privacy assessments every other year for 20 years, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said during a press conference.
Sharing not specified
Path’s social-networking service allows users to keep journals and share them with a network of up to 150 friends. Users can store and share photos, journal entries, their location, and the names of songs they are listening to.
The FTC, in its complaint, charged that the user interface in Path’s iOS app was misleading and provided users no meaningful choice about the collection of their personal information. Path’s version 2.0 provided users with three options for inviting friends, through their contacts, through Facebook or by inviting them to join Path by email or SMS. However, Path automatically collected and stored personal information from the user’s mobile device address book even if the user had not selected the “find friends from your contacts” option, the FTC said.
To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld
FTC offers privacy guidelines for mobile industry
The Federal Trade Commission is offering recommendations for companies in the expanding mobile industry like Amazon.com and Apple Inc. on how to protect users’ privacy.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Phys.org
FTC report suggests ways to improve mobile privacy
Under the recommendations laid out in a report released Friday by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), consumers would gain a much better understanding of how their data is gathered and used by key players in the mobile universe.
The FTC report, which is based on a series of privacy workshops held last year by the commission, recommends “best practices” for mobile platform providers, application developers, and advertising networks.
“Do Not Track” and dashboards for mobile OSes
The FTC‘s recommendations include a number of calls to action for platform developers. In defining the term “platform provider,” the report mentions Google, Apple, BlackBerry, Microsoft, and Amazon by name.
To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld
FTC reaches privacy settlement with Path app
The maker of the Path social networking app will pay a US$800,000 civil penalty to settle U.S. Federal Trade Commission charges that it illegally collected personal information from children without parental consent, the agency said Friday.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Computerworld Latest
App developers, stores should update privacy policies, FTC says
Mobile app developers should provide real-time disclosures to users on the personal information they collect and get permission to collect sensitive information, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has recommended.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Computerworld Latest
European Commission weighs Google antitrust settlement
The European Commission has received Google’s proposal to settle an antitrust investigation into the search engine’s practices, a Commission spokesman said on Friday. But one industry organization said it has filed another antitrust complaint against Google with the Commission.
“We have received proposals by Google which we are now analyzing,” said Antoine Colombani, spokesman for the European Union’s Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia, in an email. “This is all we can say for the moment,” Colombani added.
Google would only say: “We continue to work cooperatively with the European Commission.”
Although neither party would confirm details of the proposal, media reports on Thursday said it is similar to what Google has already agreed to in a case with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. The FTC settlement involved Google sharing more information through its advertising APIs (application programming interfaces) and agreeing not to scrape Web content from rivals. In contrast with the FTC deal, the European agreement won’t address patents and it will probably require better labeling in search, a report by All Things D said Thursday, citing unnamed sources.
To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld
Family in Montana reportedly tacks on $70M in bogus phone charges nationwide
A Montana family and their accountant are accused of tacking $70 million in bogus charges onto customer phone bills nationwide, then funneling some of that money through a religious organization to buy land and pay for the husband’s legal bills.
Steven Sann, his wife Terry, son Nathan and accountant Robert Braach run a maze of nine companies engaged in “cramming, ” or adding unauthorized charges to a customer’s phone bill, according to a civil complaint filed this month by the Federal Trade Commission.
When customers complained or phone companies grew suspicious about one of the Sanns’ companies charging phone bills, they would switch over to another company, the complaint says.
The FTC is asking a judge to issue a preliminary injunction that will force the Sanns to stop operating the companies and freeze their assets. In a court filing Friday, Sann’s attorney, Sarah Rhoades, asked U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen for a stay in FTC civil action, saying there is a criminal investigation already under way.
Allowing the government to pursue both criminal and civil cases against Sann and his companies is improper, Rhoades said in the filing. The civil case would let the government examine company information that it is not entitled to under criminal procedure rules, she wrote.
Some of the money went to buy 94 acres in western Montana where Steven Sann runs a youth camp, the FTC alleges. Some went to pay for Sann’s defense in an unrelated medical marijuana case. In those instances, the money first was deposited in the bank account of Bibliologic, a religious organization set up by Sann and Braach.
Bibliologic Ltd was incorporated in 2009 as a charitable religious organization without any members, according to Montana Secretary of State registration records. The organization has no physical address.
Steven Sann recently reached a plea agreement with federal prosecutors investigating large medical marijuana operations. According to a federal affidavit, he was an investor in two medical marijuana dispensaries.
Sann struck a deal with prosecutors in September to plead guilty to conspiracy to maintain a drug-involved premises. He had been scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday, but his attorney in that case has asked for a delay because of illness.
The Sanns’ nine companies are voice mail and electronic fax services that charge a customer’s phone bill through an intermediary called a bill aggregator. The companies are American eVoice, Emerica Media Corp., FoneRight, Global Voice Mail, HearYou2, Network Assurance, SecuratDat, Techmax Solutions and Voice Mail Professionals.
The charge is typically $14.95 and appears near the end of the phone bill month after month until the customer notices and challenges it.
Hundreds of complaints have been filed against the Sanns’ businesses with the FTC, the Better Business Bureau and with phone companies, the FTC complaint says.
Of the $70 million billed since 2008, the Sanns’ companies have returned more than $40 million after customer challenges, according to the FTC complaint. But data collected by the federal agency show many more don’t know that they’re being charged.
Last April, the Sanns’ companies had 119,810 voice mail accounts open, but only 12 customers actually accessed their accounts. From March 2010 to April 2012, fewer than 1 percent of the people purportedly with voice mail accounts through the companies actually accessed them.
“These abysmally low usage rates strongly suggest that consumers neither ordered the services nor knew they were being billed for them,” the FTC complaint says.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News
FTC says seller of 9/11 coins to pay $750,000
A company that sold Sept. 11 commemorative coins supposedly containing silver from ground zero has agreed to pay $750,000 to settle charges that it deceived consumers.
The Federal Trade Commission says Port Chester, N.Y.-based National Collector’s Mint charged customers for items they never ordered and failed to identify its wares as imitations.
A law passed in 2010 created an official Sept. 11 medal to benefit the museum being built at the World Trade Center site.
New York Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Jerrold Nadler complained the National Collector’s Mint’s coins could deprive the museum of funds.
The FTC said in a release Thursday the agreement bars National Mint from misrepresenting its products. It’s subject to court approval.
Schumer said Saturday that the nation will not tolerate a “despicable scam.”
The company couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News
Links 11 Jan: The European Union Seems To Have It In For Google
By Tim Worstall, Contributor It doesn’t look like Google is going to have the same sort of success with the European Union that it did with the FTC. The Europeans are much more agitated about the company’s search practices than the Americans were:
While saying he’s “still investigating,” the head of the European […]
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
FTC's Google Settlement a "Third Way" Approach for Antitrust Enforcement
By Ed Black, Contributor The Federal Trade Commission’s decision not to proceed with an antitrust case over Google’s search practices was the right call. Over the course of its far-reaching, nearly two year investigation, the FTC thoroughly reviewed the facts and applicable law to ultimately make a prudent decision that benefits consumers. As FTC Chairman […]
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
Microsoft expects Motorola to withdraw Xbox complaint after FTC settlement
Microsoft told the U.S. International Trade Commission that it expects Motorola Mobility to withdraw claims relating to two patents it says are essential to the H.264 standard in its complaint against the Xbox, in view of a settlement last week between the Federal Trade Commission and Google.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Computerworld Latest
Four ways to compete against Google in the wake of the FTC ruling
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) has spent the past year investigating allegations that Google abused its power as the dominant search engine to block smaller rivals and promote its own sites and services. On Friday, the FTC announced that it would not pursue the action any further, nor will it impose any penalties on Google, and that may be cause for concern for smaller companies trying to compete against Google.
One of the primary focuses of the FTC investigation was Google’s Universal Search—a search option that prominently displays relevant Google products and services in response to related searches. The main question is whether Google altered its algorithm and doctored the results in any way to intentionally demote rival products and services, and unfairly eliminate competition. In the end, the FTC ruled that any changes Google might have made to its algorithms could be justified as innovations to improve the search experience for users—regardless of any adverse impact on individual competitors.
Google search is an arcane, dark magic. There are companies and individuals out there dedicated to mastering SEO (search engine optimization), but the truth is that SEO is more of an art than a science. Even if you succeed in clawing your way to the top of Google search results, the algorithm can change without warning and you can quickly disappear into oblivion.
It’s also possible that Google’s self-promotion is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy as well. The point of the search algorithms is to find the best, most relevant results for a given query—and those results may be determined by the overall traffic and credibility of the linked domain. By virtue of being Google, Google’s own products are very popular and widely used, so it seems reasonable to think that even if Google did nothing but launch a product or service, the algorithm would quickly bump Google to the top of the results without any subversive intent on Google’s part. And, once the Google product is at the top of the search results, more people will find and use it, which will ensure it stays at the top of the search results.
To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld
FTC: 'OK Google, You Get A Hall Pass' (And Other Quotes Of The Week)
By David Wismer, Contributor The market rallied hard off the fiscal cliff deal to kick-off 2013 and Google’s FTC settlement was but one of many major storylines.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
Google pact with FTC could affect other patent disputes
While the focus of last week’s agreement between the Federal Trade Commission and Google Inc was search, the deal’s restrictions on how Google uses its patents could have a broader impact on the technology industry.
2013 Smart ForTwo “Tough” Commercial: What You See Is What You Get, Sort Of [The Ad Section]
By Don Klein
![2013 Smart ForTwo “Tough” Commercial: What You See Is What You Get, Sort Of [The Ad Section]](http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Smart-Fortwo-Spot.jpg "2013 Smart ForTwo “Tough” Commercial: What You See Is What You Get, Sort Of [The Ad Section]")
Award-winning ad man-cum-auto journalist Don Klein knows a good (or bad) car commercial when he sees one; the Ad Section is his space to tell you what he thinks of the latest spots. The ad’s rating is depicted via the shift pattern at the bottom, but everyone has an opinion when it comes to advertising, so hit Backfires below and tell us what you think, too.
Welcome to the strange and wonderful world of TV commercial demos, wherein advertisers use impressive “visual proof” to dramatically showcase their products’ superiority. But be forewarned—what you see isn’t always exactly what you get. Because even though product demos are subject to FTC approval, what happens under contrived conditions doesn’t always replicate the real world, which might explain why demos are so often used in infomercials.
Against that background, let’s look at Smart’s new ForTwo commercial. We open on what appears to be a parked ForTwo with a giant Ford Excursion on its roof. But when the little car drives away, we see that in fact the multi-ton SUV is perched atop a Smart Tridion safety cell, which, we are told, “can withstand over three and a half tons.” Even with the sound turned off we would get the message: Smart is small in size, big on safety.
So what’s misleading about that? Strictly speaking, nothing. They really did lower an Excursion onto a Tridion cell. True, it was a specially rigged Tridion cell, but it points that out in type across the bottom. You noticed that, right? Of course, the demo doesn’t prove that Smarts are safe, but it certainly does leave that impression, just as a four-pound brick spanning a 12-ounce drinking tumbler might leave the impression that the glass is strong. But drop the brick on the tumbler—or the Excursion on the Smart—and the result likely will be different, especially if you don’t use a weight distribution platform like the one in the commercial and factor in things that happen in real accidents, like speed and motion. Although I’m not a physicist, I’ve got to believe that three-plus tons of mass randomly plunked down on suspension and tires designed to support an 1800-pound car is going to cause some serious damage, even if the cute little critter is parked at the time of impact. And if I’m wrong, at least it would be a demo to remember, right?
But like most TV commercial demos, this one is more about general perception than strict reality. Will anyone seeing this commercial think you can really tote a giant SUV around town on a Smart’s roof? Of course not. All Smart wants us to get from this spot is that its cars are safe. So are they? In the IIHS’s 2013 ratings, Smart earned top marks in every test it was subjected to, and the body’s construction probably had a lot to do with that, although in fairness, the 2013 versions of the Fiat 500, Ford Fiesta, Hyundai Accent, Honda Fit, Mazda 2, Nissan Versa sedan, and Toyota Yaris hatchback all earned the same top rollover rating (the test that measures roof strength) without having “the world’s only Tridion safety cell.” But that still doesn’t make the ForTwo spot misleading: It never said Smart is making the only safe microcar.
Given the rules of engagement that apply to demos, I think this commercial does a good job. The FTC doesn’t require safety demos to literally replicate real-world accidents, and unlike the infamous Volvo “Bigfoot” commercial of 1990 where the roof of a 240 wagon was bolstered to avoid being crushed, this commercial didn’t cheat to make the honest point that Smarts have strong bodies. It’s merely a dramatic presentation of a true product attribute. It’s up to you to decide its relevance.
- Instrumented Test: 2011 Smart ForTwo Electric Drive
- Comparison Test: Honda Fit vs. Sonic, Accent, Rio5, Versa, and Yaris
- Instrumented Test: 2012 Scion iQ
Another thing this commercial demonstrates is that it’s possible to effectively make a point in just 15 seconds (most commercials run for 30), and that will give Smart a lot more mileage from its ad budget. That said, I have to wonder about the tagline, which includes the term “uncar.” Smart’s not the first advertiser to use that concept to imply that its products are different. For years, 7-Up billed itself as the “Uncola” in an attempt to position the brand as an attractive alternative to Coke and Pepsi, and while that had some logic to it, I can’t imagine what “uncar” is supposed to mean. Are we to think of it as a four-wheeled motorcycle? A road-worthy golf cart or ATV? Even Smart’s website refers to its vehicles as “cars.” So why go to all the trouble to convince people that Smarts are strong, safe cars only to confuse them with a mysterious misnomer at the end? I’m not sure what that particular line of thinking is supposed to demonstrate.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Car & Driver
Google's FTC antitrust deal: Top takeaways and challenges
Google executives are breathing a sigh of relief after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission recently decided not to pursue an antitrust case against the search giant. But Google did not get off free; the company made some concessions about how it deals with its search index, advertising programs, and smartphone patents.
For consumers, the agreement means you can expect to see more Google products at the top of Google search results. But the search giant won’t be able to use its search index as a means to pressure other companies for their data.
Google also has to play nice when it comes to licensing some of its patents, which could be bad news for Samsung, according to one patent expert.
Here’s a look at three major takeaways from Google’s settlement with the FTC.
To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here
Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld