Ahead of its December 8 board meeting, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) has issued draft “automated decisionmaking technology” (ADMT) regulations. The CPPA has yet to initiate the formal rulemaking process and has stated that it expects to begin formal rulemaking next year. Accordingly, the draft ADMT regulations are subject to change. Below are the key takeaways:
Continue Reading CPPA Releases Draft Automated Decisionmaking Technology Regulations
On April 25, 2023, four federal agencies — the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) — released a joint statement on the agencies’ efforts to address discrimination and bias in automated systems.
Continue Reading DOJ, FTC, CFPB, and EEOC Statement on Discrimination and AI
Many employers and employment agencies have turned to artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools to assist them in making better and faster employment decisions, including in the hiring and promotion processes. The use of AI for these purposes has been scrutinized and will now be regulated in New York City. The New York City Department of Consumer
The Federal Trade Commission will host a workshop on December 4, 2013 in Washington, DC to examine so-called “native advertising.” This term refers to the practice of blending advertisements with news, entertainment, and other content in digital media and is sometimes also referred to as “sponsored content.” As an FTC blog post explains, “[w]hatever the name, it’s for sure ads in digital media are starting to look a lot more like the surrounding content. What are the consumer protection implications now that those lines appear to be blurring?”
According to the Commission, the workshop builds on previous Commission initiatives, such as the Dot Com Disclosures guidance and the Endorsements and Testimonials guidance, to “help ensure that consumers can identify advertisements as advertising wherever they appear.” The FTC noted a number of questions and topics that may be covered at the workshop, including:
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance held a hearing entitled, “Stopping Fraudulent Robocall Scams: Can More Be Done?” The hearing takes place two weeks after the FTC celebrated the ten-year anniversary of the its implementation of the Do Not Call Registry and on the heels of the FTC’s recent announcement that Mortgage Investors Corporation has agreed to pay $7.5 million (the largest Do Not Call fine the FTC has ever collected) to resolve FTC allegations that it violated provisions of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The Federal Communications Commission, which has authority under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) to regulate prerecorded and auto-dialed calls, shares jurisdiction with the FTC over so-called robocallers.
Witnesses from both agencies participated in the hearing and highlighted their respective enforcement efforts. Lois Greisman, Associate Director, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC, noted that there have been 105 FTC enforcement actions since the Commission began enforcement of the Do Not Call provisions. Eric Bash, Associate Bureau Chief, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, noted that the FCC has issued more than 500 citations for robocall violations pursuant to its authority under the TCPA. Mr. Bash’s written testimony describes the FCC’s enforcement authority:
In this day and age of heavy mobile phone use, it may be worth repeating that the FCC’s rules flatly prohibit all autodialed or prerecorded calls to mobile phones made for a non-emergency purpose without the called party’s permission. It does not matter whether the call is to persuade the called party to buy some thing or to support some cause. And, despite common mischaracterizations of the law, it does not matter whether the called party is charged for the call, or whether the content of a message is blasted by text or voice. (The FCC has been clear that “autodialed” text messages fit within the restriction.)
The applicability of the FCC’s rules to text messages has been the source of a significant volume of litigation.
Mr. Bash urged Congress to give the FCC the authority to pursue robocall violators without having to issues citations, expand the statute of limitations from one year to two, extend robocall prohibitions outside of U.S. jurisdiction, and give the FCC authority over third-party spoofing providers.
Continue Reading FTC, FCC Testify Before Senate On Robocall Fraud
In response to recommendations by the mHealth Task Force, the Federal Communications Commission has launched a new website to serve as a central repository for the FCC’s health care-related work and is searching for a new position to coordinate the agency’s health care technology-related initiatives. Chairman Genachowski convened the FCC’s first mHealth Summit earlier this year to discuss the “promise of mobile devices to improve health care and lower costs. “ Participants in the summit formed an independent mHealth Task Force, which made a number of policy recommendations to the FCC, including the the appointment of a Director of Health Care Initiatives. The Commission is now seeking to fill that position, which it says is an important step in the FCC’s ongoing mission to expand access to health care applications through wired and wireless broadband. The mHealth Task Force report also recommended that the Commission comprehensively reform and modernize the Rural Health Care Program.
According to the FCC, the Director of Health Care Initiatives will spearhead the following health-related initiatives for the FCC:
Continue Reading FCC Begins Implementing mHealth Task Force Recommendations
The Federal Communications Commission yesterday released a Smartphone Security Checker, a tool designed to help consumers secure their smartphones against mobile security threats. The tool provides consumers with tips that are customized for four different mobile operating systems. Many of tips focus on security-related topics. For instance, the tool recommends that consumers set a
Earlier this week, Google Inc. and Rosetta Stone Inc. settled their dispute over whether the sale of Rosetta Stone’s name to third parties for search-engine advertising constitutes an infringing use of Rosetta Stone’s trademark. Google’s AdWords advertising platform permits third parties to purchase “sponsored links” that are shown to users whose online searches include certain keywords. Rosetta Stone filed suit in 2009, alleging both direct and secondary trademark infringement based on Google’s sale of its name as a keyword used for this purpose. Although the terms of the settlement have not been made public, Rosetta Stone announced that they will work together with Google to “meaningfully collaborate to combat online ads for counterfeit goods and prevent misuse and abuse of trademarks on the Internet.”
In 2010, the Eastern District of Virginia granted Google summary judgment in the dispute, but the Fourth Circuit vacated that decision earlier this year. In evaluating the direct infringement claim, the Court focused on the question of whether Google’s actions were likely to cause consumer confusion. Even though Google itself was not passing off any goods or services as Rosetta Stone’s, the Fourth Circuit concluded that a reasonable trier of fact could find that Google “intended to create confusion” based on “knowledge that confusion was very likely to result from its use of the marks.” The court also cited evidence that consumers had in fact purchased counterfeit Rosetta Stone software from sponsored links that they mistakenly believed were authorized by Rosetta Stone. The Fourth Circuit further held that evidence that Google allowed known infringers and counterfeiters to bid on Rosetta Stone’s marks as keywords was sufficient to withstand summary judgment on the contributory infringement claim.
Continue Reading Google Settles Search Engine Advertising Litigation With Rosetta Stone—But Sponsored Advertising Disputes Will Likely Persist
A recent study conducted by the Online Publishers Association and Frank N. Magid Associates, Inc. studied how consumers were accessing content, such as video and news information, and otherwise spending time on their smartphones. “A Portrait of Today’s Smartphone User” reached the following conclusions:
Cable operators are turning to federal courts of appeal to challenge Federal Communications Commission activity relating to Section 616 of the Communications Act, which — along with the FCC’s implementing rules — prohibits vertically integrated cable operators from discriminating against unaffiliated cable networks.
Comcast Appeals Carriage Decision to D.C. Circuit
Comcast has filed a petition for review to the D.C. Circuit in connection with its carriage dispute with the Tennis Channel. In a decision that marked the first time an independent cable network has prevailed under Section 616 since the statute was passed two decades ago, the Commission concluded earlier this year that Comcast discriminated against Tennis Channel in favor of its wholly-owned networks, Golf Channel and Versus (now re-named the NBC Sports Network), in violation of Section 616. The Commission ordered Comcast to carry Tennis Channel “on the same distribution tier, reaching the same number of subscribers, as it does Golf Channel and Versus.” It declined, however, to order Comcast to carry Tennis Channel on a channel position “very close” to Golf Channel and Versus. Comcast is now appealing the decision, and while the FCC denied a motion filed by Comcast to stay its order, a separate motion to stay is pending before the D.C. Circuit. Covington represented Tennis Channel in this proceeding.
Second Circuit To Consider Challenge To Program Carriage Rule Changes
Separately, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and Time Warner Cable, Inc. have filed reply briefs to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in their consolidated challenge to changes to the FCC made to its implementing rules (known as the “program carriage rules”) in 2011. The Second Circuit has tentatively scheduled oral argument in the case for the week of October 1.
Last year, the FCC changed its program carriage rules last year in several respects:
Continue Reading Cable Operators Challenge FCC On Program Carriage Decision And Rule Changes