The FTC’s Magnuson-Moss Rulemaking Process – Still an Uphill ClimbWe’ve been hearing a lot lately about the FTC’s rulemaking procedures under Section 18 of the FTC Act (also known as “Mag-Moss” rulemaking). Long decried as too burdensome and difficult to use on a regular basis, this tool is now being celebrated for its enormous, untapped potential to establish industry-wide standards and enable the FTC to get monetary relief in its cases, post-AMG. (AMG didn’t affect the FTC authority to obtain monetary relief when it’s enforcing a rule.)

Is the old view or the new one correct? Is Mag-Moss rulemaking really so cumbersome, as many FTC staff and observers have long claimed? Have those burdens been overstated, warranting the enthusiasm we’re now seeing among FTC Commissioners, consumer groups, and Congress? Did the FTC’s changes to its internal rules last July (see below) really “streamline” the process as the FTC claimed?

As suggested by the title to this blogpost, I have an opinion: Mag-Moss is still an uphill climb. However, to enable readers to decide for themselves, I detail below the Mag-Moss process as laid out in the law. Although the FTC’s July changes stripped away some extra steps it had previously imposed under its rules, the hurdles in the law remain formidable.  Continue Reading The FTC’s Magnuson-Moss Rulemaking Process – Still an Uphill Climb

The FTC is focused on ensuring that consumers have options when it comes to repairing products. In 2019, they held a workshop to discuss manufacturer restrictions on repair rights. In a 2021 report, they concluded there was “scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions.” After that, they issued a Policy Statement calling for more aggressive enforcement against manufacturers that impose these restrictions. Two weeks ago, we posted about settlements with Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse. Last week, the FTC announced a third settlement, this one involving Weber.

According to the FTC, Weber’s warranty included terms that conveyed that the warranty is void if customers use or install third-party parts on their grill products. For example, the warranty on certain Summit grills stated: “[t]he use and/or installation of parts on your WEBER products that are not genuine WEBER parts will void this warranty, and any damages that result hereby are not covered by this warranty.”

As we noted in our previous post, these types of restrictions violate the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, which broadly prohibits companies from conditioning a consumer product warranty on the consumer’s use of any article or service which is identified by brand name unless it is provided for free. Companies can, however, exclude warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by unauthorized parts or service.

As with the Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse settlements, Weber is prohibited from telling consumers that their warranties will be void if they use third-party parts, or that they should only use Weber-brand parts. Weber will be required to add specific language to its warranty saying, “Using third-party parts will not void this warranty.” If the company violates these terms, the FTC will be able to seek civil penalties of up to $46,517 per violation in federal court.

Companies that offer product warranties should take a close look at their warranty terms and related communications to ensure that they comply with the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and developing federal and state laws specific to right to repair. We’re likely to see more of these actions on the federal and state levels.

The FTC is focused on ensuring that consumers have options when it comes to repairing products. In 2019, they held a workshop to discuss manufacturer restrictions on repair rights. In a 2021 report, they concluded there was “scant evidence to support manufacturers’ justifications for repair restrictions.” After that, they issued a Policy Statement calling for more aggressive enforcement against manufacturers that impose these restrictions. Last week, we may have seen the start of that enforcement.

According to the FTC, Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse both included illegal terms that voided warranties if customers used anyone other than the companies and their authorized dealers to get parts or repairs for their products. For example, a Harley warranty encouraged consumers to “insist that your authorized Harley-Davidson dealer uses only genuine Harley-Davidson replacement parts and accessories to keep your Harley-Davidson motorcycle and its limited warranty intact.”

These types of restrictions violate the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, which broadly prohibits companies from conditioning a consumer product warranty on the consumer’s use of any article or service which is identified by brand name unless it is provided for free. Companies can, however, exclude warranty coverage for defects or damage caused by unauthorized parts or service.

Under the terms of the settlements, the companies are prohibited from telling consumers that their warranties will be void if they use third-party services or parts, or that they should only use branded parts or authorized service providers. Moreover, the companies both agreed to affirmatively inform consumers of their rights. For example, warranties must disclose that “taking your product to be serviced by a repair shop that is not affiliated with or an authorized dealer of [Company] will not void this warranty. Also, using third-party parts will not void this warranty.”

While the FTC took action under existing law, federal and state legislatures continue efforts to pass legislation specific to right to repair. For example, earlier this month New York passed the first “right to repair” bill that requires all manufacturers of “digital electronic equipment” to make available to consumers and repair shops the information, tools, and spare parts needed to fix covered devices.

Companies that offer product warranties should take a close look at their warranty terms and related communications to ensure that they comply with the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and developing federal and state laws specific to right to repair. We’re likely to see more of these actions on the federal and state levels.

Last week, we wrote about FTC Chair Khan’s memo describing her plans to transform the FTC’s approach to its work. This week, she followed up with a no-less-ambitious statement laying out her vision for data privacy and security, which she appended to an agency Report to Congress on Privacy and Security (“report”). Together, these documents outline a remarkably far-reaching plan to tackle today’s data privacy and security challenges. As noted in the dissents, however, some of the stated goals may exceed the bounds of the FTC’s current legal authority.

Continue Reading FTC Chair Khan’s Vision for Privacy – and Some Dissents

For those not following every detail regarding the progress of the “three corners” federal privacy bill, here’s a summary of where things stand.

In brief, on June 23, the House E&C Consumer Protection Subcommittee held a markup during which it considered a substitute version of the bill (HR 8152), approved it by voice vote, and forwarded it to the full E&C Committee for consideration. The amended bill contains a host of changes, many of which push it in a more business-friendly direction. Senate Commerce Chair Cantwell is more critical of the bill than ever, and has told the media that she won’t take it up in the Senate without substantial improvements. Meanwhile, the FTC, not to be forgotten, released another notice stating that it intends to launch its “commercial surveillance” rule in June 2022. (Yeah, this month.)

That may be all that many of our readers need to know. However, for more details, read on!

The Amended Bill

As noted above, the amended bill contains lots of changes – some small, some big, and some just moving text around.  A few of the changes enhance protections for consumers, but most create more flexibility for businesses. Here are some of the changes that jumped out at us:

  • The amended bill completely revamps its approach to service providers and third parties. Instead of imposing multiple obligations on these entities directly, the bill moves closer to the GDPR-style approach of characterizing these entities as “processors” whose obligations flow primarily from the contracts with, and/or disclosures of, the first parties from whom they receive data. These changes appear in the service provider/third party provisions (§302) and elsewhere, too. For example, each provision in the bill now specifies whether it applies to service providers and/or third parties (most don’t), and the bill now defines “covered entity” as an entity or person that “alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of collecting, processing, or transferring covered data…” §2(9)
  • The new bill provides more leeway to engage in marketing and advertising. Of note, it adds exceptions for first party marketing and targeted advertising to the data minimization provisions (§101(b)(11) & (12)); deletes “online activities” from the sensitive data category (§2(24)); and allows the collection and processing of sensitive data, without opt in, to provide a product or service requested by an individual and for a range of other permissible purposes. §102(a)(2) (Transfers still require opt in, subject to limited exceptions. §102(a)(3)). Other provisions remain somewhat confusing in this regard. For example, the bill now excludes first party marketing from the opt out of data transfers (§204(b)(2)) but not targeted advertising. §204(c) Further, even as the bill deletes online activities from the sensitive data category, it now requires opt in for, not just the transfer, but also the collection and processing of aggregated internet search or browsing history. §102(a)(4)
  • The bill also exempts from coverage government agencies and their service providers (§2(9)(C)); broadens the exceptions for small businesses (§209); expands the provisions allowing loyalty programs (§104(b)(2)); and limits the PRA to actual damages (vs. compensatory damages). §403(a)(2) On the other hand, it expands the restrictions on “dark patterns” (§§203(b) & 204(d)); requires the FTC to develop a Unified Opt Out (i.e., no study needed) (§210); authorizes enforcement by not just state AGs, but also other “State Privacy Authorities” (§402); and settles on a “knowledge” standard (in lieu of “actual knowledge”) for determining who is a minor, with some important caveats. §205

The Markup

The markup was fairly quick and uneventful. Members on both sides of the aisle noted their support for the bipartisan effort and stressed that the bill is not the final product. Two Republicans offered amendments – Rep. Lesko to address political bias by the platforms, and Rep. Armstrong to address concerns about the enforcement, preemption, and PRA schemes – but both agreed to withdraw them in the interest of getting the bill to the full Committee. The full Committee could mark up the bill – likely, another substitute amendment – after the House’s July 4th recess.

The Challenges Ahead    

Despite quick action by the Subcommittee, the bill still faces daunting challenges with little time to resolve them. It’s late June in an election year. Some of the issues raised in response to the “discussion draft” haven’t been addressed – including, as Chairman Pallone noted at the hearing, concerns about preemption and the PRA. In addition, the changes in the amended bill create additional questions that will need to be resolved.

Perhaps the darkest cloud over the bill is the lack of support from Senator Cantwell (and her Democratic colleagues Sens. Wyden, Blumenthal, and Schatz, too.). While Cantwell was critical of the “discussion draft,” she has excoriated the revised bill, telling the Washington Post and other news outlets that it has “enforcement loopholes,” that it’s “too weak” to justify preempting state privacy laws, and that Schumer backs her decision not to even bring up the bill in the Senate. (In comments to a reporter last week, her staff also cited concerns about women’s privacy in light of the then-likely, now official, reversal of Roe v. Wade.) Meanwhile, the frustration among the bill’s sponsors is palpable, with Rep. Schakowsky snapping back at Cantwell in the press, and all of the sponsors urging Cantwell to come the table. Without Cantwell’s support, the bill has little or no chance of becoming law.

FTC Privacy Rulemaking Imminent       

Meanwhile, in an updated filing with OMB, the FTC just announced that it will launch its “commercial surveillance” rulemaking this month by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with a 60-day comment period. As a reminder for our readers, the rulemaking would follow Mag-Moss rulemaking procedures, and would be designed to “curb lax security practices, limit privacy abuses, and ensure that algorithmic decision-making does not result in unlawful discrimination.” Per Mag-Moss procedures, the ANPR will seek public comment but will not yet propose rule text.

If the FTC keeps to this schedule, that means that we will see the ANPR this week. So, for folks who are already whipsawing between privacy developments in California, Colorado, Europe, and Congress (with big news often announced on Friday nights), add this to your late-night reading list. The FTC announcement also confirms that, even if HR 8152 falters, the FTC plans to run with the ball on privacy, perhaps emboldened by the bipartisan efforts and shared concerns that propelled HR 8152 forward.

We’ll continue to track privacy developments at the federal and state level here.

*  *  *  *

Join us June 30 for State Attorneys General 102 which answers  a number of questions regarding:

  • Pre-suit/investigation notice requirements for Attorneys General
  • Additional information on the scope of Attorneys General investigative authority and how to challenge an investigation
  • Consumer Complaints: differences among the AGs on handling and use

Register here

Amidst the rising focus on privacy issues affecting children and teens (which we’ve highlighted here, here, here, and here), the FTC just released a new Policy Statement on COPPA, its signature rule protecting the privacy of kids under 13. The Policy Statement, which the FTC unveiled at its May 19 Open Meeting, focuses in particular on COPPA’s application to education technologies used in and by schools to support learning (including remote learning during the pandemic). All five Commissioners voted for the Statement, including newly sworn-in Commissioner Bedoya, and four issued their own written statements. After the meeting, a bipartisan group of Senators, as well as President Biden, released statements praising the FTC’s actions.

While the FTC’s Republican Commissioners questioned whether there was anything really new in the Policy Statement (which was based on longstanding COPPA provisions, as well as FAQs posted on the FTC’s website), all seemed to agree that it elevates the issues highlighted and shows that COPPA is a top FTC priority.

And of course it is! Protecting kids and their data is one privacy issue that most people, regardless of professional or political affiliation, support. Further, under COPPA, the FTC can seek monetary relief (even post-AMG) and conduct rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act, as opposed to under the more cumbersome Mag-Moss process. So it’s not surprising that this issue would be high on the FTC’s agenda during this dynamic and volatile time for privacy.

What does the Policy Statement Say?

The Policy Statement emphasizes that COPPA includes substantive limits on the collection and use of children’s data (not just notice and consent requirements), and says that the FTC intends to fully enforce these provisions, including in school and learning settings where “parents may feel they lack alternatives.”

The Statement focuses in particular on the use of ed tech tools and devices, which have become integral to a range of school activities (especially during the pandemic) but which, per the Statement, raise concerns about data collection, use, and sharing beyond what’s necessary for these activities.

The statement describes COPPA’s substantive limits as follows:

  • Prohibitions Against Mandatory Collection: Covered entities can’t condition participation in an activity on collecting more information from a child than is necessary for that activity. (This prohibition comes right out of the COPPA statute and is echoed in the rule.)
  • Use Prohibitions: Covered entities, including ed tech providers, are “strictly limited” in how they can use data collected from children; for example, ed tech providers that collect kids’ data pursuant to a school’s authorization may use it only for the authorized educational purpose. (This isn’t in the COPPA statute or rule but builds on COPPA guidance and FERPA.)
  • Retention Prohibitions: Covered entities can’t retain personal information from a child longer than reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected. (This isn’t in the COPPA statute, but was added to the rule as part of the 2013 amendments.)
  • Security Requirements: Covered entities must have reasonable procedures to maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of kids’ data. (This comes from the COPPA statute, and the FTC expanded these duties in the 2013 amendments. See Section 312.8)

What are some key takeaways? 

  • Kids’ privacy (and advertising) will be a major focus in the coming year. Yeah, this one is obvious, especially since the FTC released the Policy Statement alongside (1) a press release announcing an October 19 workshop on “stealth advertising” directed to children, and (2) proposed updates to the Endorsement Guides, with a new section addressing child-directed endorsements. (The May 23 announcement for Privacy Con also calls for research on privacy risks for kids and teens.) However, it’s worth noting that while the FTC has significant authority to address these issues (under COPPA and the FTC Act), that authority isn’t limitless. By law, COPPA is confined to children under 13, so the FTC can’t use it to address teens – currently a big concern. Further, Congress barred the FTC (long ago) from using its unfairness authority to regulate kids’ advertising. See FTC Act Section 18(h).
  • The provisions highlighted in the Policy Statement aren’t limited to ed tech (for the most part). I say “for the most part” because one of the limits discussed (use limitations) is narrower than the Statement suggests. In particular, the Statement implies that COPPA contains “strict” use limitations that extend to all covered entities. In fact, the COPPA law and rule don’t contain broad use limitations (other than the limits created by notice and consent) – ed tech is a special case, woven together from COPPA guidance and FERPA.
  • Ed tech and other covered entities should assess their compliance now. The FTC is unlikely to be sympathetic to any company caught violating the highlighted provisions. All five Commissioners voted for the Policy Statement; it reiterates longstanding COPPA requirements (mostly – see above); and it has bipartisan support in Congress. Although we may not see the big “crack down” promised in the FTC’s press release (indeed, the FTC has announced a lot of “crack downs” and it has a lot on its plate), the FTC is likely to conduct investigations and bring some cases here.
  • The status of the COPPA regulatory review remains a mystery. A formal review of the COPPA rule has been pending since 2019, and Commissioners Wilson and Philips (among others) queried why the FTC would issue a policy statement instead of completing that review. Where’s the rule? Neither the Policy Statement nor discussions at the Open Meeting answered that question.
  • The announcement provides clues about the FTC’s future plans. Clearly, the FTC is moving forward to impose more substantive limits on business conduct, as Khan has said it would. That’s evident here, as well as in FTC cases requiring, for example, deletion of data and algorithms as a remedy. Khan and her colleagues have also stated that they want to use unfairness more aggressively (for example, to stop “surveillance” and discrimination) – a strategy that could apply to cases and rulemakings across the FTC’s many program areas. In the coming months, we should expect to see stricter conduct limits imposed (or proposed) in multiple contexts, including in the FTC’s anticipated “surveillance” rulemaking.
  • The Commissioners are worried about staff morale. In the face of crushing reports about the steep drop in staff morale at the agency, all of the Commissioners (in their oral and written remarks) thanked staff profusely for their work in developing the Policy Statement and related announcements. (As well they should.)

We’ll keep the news coming on kids and privacy!


Lina Khan’s Privacy Priorities – Time for a RecapRumors suggest that Senator Schumer is maneuvering to confirm Alvaro Bedoya as FTC Commissioner sooner rather than later, which would give FTC Chair Khan the majority she needs to move forward on multiple fronts. One of those fronts is consumer privacy, for which  Khan has announced ambitious plans (discussed here and here) that have stalled for lack of Commissioner votes. With Bedoya potentially on deck, now seems like a good time to recap those plans, as they might provide clues about what’s in the pipeline awaiting Bedoya’s vote. We focus here on three priorities Khan has emphasized in statements and interviews since becoming Chair. Continue Reading Lina Khan’s Privacy Priorities – Time for a Recap

The FTC Seeks Comments and Signals Changes to Come in New Rulemaking on Earnings ClaimsAs we previewed last week here, the FTC released an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on earnings claims as it embarked on a mission to adopt a rule that would give the FTC, in its own words, “an important new tool to return money to consumers injured by deceptive income claims, and to hold bad actors accountable with civil penalties.”  Importantly, the ANPR also suggests that the rule could do more than just change the FTC’s enforcement tools and also seek to substantively change the standard that has long been applied in analyzing earnings and lifestyle claims.  Interested parties will have 60 days from publication in the Federal Register to submit comments and respond to the FTC’s questions and requests for evidence.

As an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and not a proposed rule, the ANPR does not offer specific regulations for consideration at this point.  Notably, however, the FTC solicited information on a number of specific issues that shed light on possible new areas for regulation.  The FTC stated that it is “interested in exploring disclaimers” and posited that “[i]n the Commission’s experience, we have not seen probative evidence that disclaimers effectively cure atypical earnings claims.”  The ANPR also questioned “whether some or all entities and individuals making earnings claims should be required to give recipients specific earnings information,” and analogized to existing disclosure documents required under the Franchise and Business Opportunity Rules.

In addition to disclosure issues and atypical claims, the ANPR also seeks input on lifestyle claims and specifically (a) whether and what lifestyle claims are deceptive; (b) the benefits to businesses and consumers from receiving guidance on this topic; and (c) what evidence a company must have before making a lifestyle claim to substantiate it.

The ANPR is the first in a series of required steps to promulgate a rule under the FTC’s Magnuson-Moss rulemaking authority.  As previously discussed here, while Chair Lina Khan has sought to streamline the rulemaking process by doing away with the requirement for a written staff report and a neutral presiding officer, there are still plenty of hurdles and opportunities for engagement along the way.

One final note: the ANPR was approved 4-0 with Commissioner Wilson issuing a concurring statement that she “remain[s] skeptical of unleashing a tsunami of rulemakings to address common unfair or deceptive acts and practices” and stating that she would likely ask the Commission to terminate the rulemaking process if legislation was enacted to allow the FTC to obtain monetary redress under Section 13(b) in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in AMG Capital Management.  With no recent significant movement on 13(b) legislation, at least for now it appears the Commission is united in moving forward on a rule that could have far-reaching effects for direct sellers and others in the gig economy making earnings and lifestyle claims.

Kick-Off Time for FTC Rulemaking on Earnings ClaimsLast Thursday (February 10), the FTC announced that it “will vote” at its February 17 open meeting to issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on “deceptive earnings claims for business ventures, gig or other work opportunities, or educational, coaching or training offerings.” Here’s our take on what we can glean from this announcement and what we might expect as the rulemaking process moves forward:

  • Issuing an ANPR requires a majority vote of the Commission, which is currently comprised of two Democrats and two Republicans. In announcing that it “will vote” to issue the ANPR, the FTC is expressing confidence that it has the votes to do so – i.e., at least one Republican plans to approve the ANPR.
  • The announcement references a wide array of earnings claims and makes no mention of the Business Opportunity Rule, which was scheduled for its periodic regulatory review this year. This suggests that the FTC plans to issue a brand new rule regulating earnings claims across the marketplace, in addition to whatever it is planning for the Business Opportunity Rule. We will learn next week whether this is indeed the case.
  • The announcement follows last October’s penalty offense notices concerning earnings claims for the gig economy. As we discuss here, the FTC put 1,100 companies offering “money-making opportunities” on notice that it intends to pursue civil penalties of up to $43,792 per violation for misrepresentations as to potential earnings and related claims. While the ANPR and the penalty offense notices may seem redundant, it is more likely a belt-and-suspenders approach, which will provide the FTC some flexibility if its use of its penalty offense authority is successfully challenged or if the rulemaking extends into 2023 or beyond.
  • A key purpose of this rulemaking is to enable the FTC to obtain monetary relief for law violations involving earnings claims following the Supreme Court’s AMG While AMG held that the FTC cannot obtain monetary relief under Section 13(b), the ruling does not affect the FTC’s ability to obtain such relief when it is enforcing a rule.
  • This is just the first step in what will be a very long process. As an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the announcement will not propose specific regulations at this time, but instead seek information and input on areas for potential regulation. Also, the FTC is proceeding here under its so-called “Magnuson-Moss” rulemaking authority which, as we describe here, requires many more steps and hurdles than a typical rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Among other things, the FTC must conduct hearings and allow interested parties to present views and cross examine each other. It also must develop a record showing that each practice it seeks to regulate is unfair or deceptive and prevalent.”  Even the standard for court review is more demanding than under the APA.
  • As we move forward, there will be many opportunities for companies to ensure that their voices are heard. Effective advocacy will require familiarity with the Magnuson-Moss process and its many opportunities for providing input, as well as a thorough understanding of the deception and unfairness standards. Above all, advocacy will be most persuasive if supported by arguments based on facts and evidence, rather than generalities or exaggeration.
  • Expect the FTC to stake out an aggressive position regarding disclosure of atypical earnings, asserting that nearly all earnings that exceed “supplemental income” are extraordinary and incapable of being adequately qualified with an appropriate disclosure to convey a non-misleading net impression. This position would contradict the FTC Endorsement & Testimonial Guides which state: “If the advertiser does not have substantiation that the endorser’s experience is representative of what consumers will generally achieve, the ad should clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected performance in the depicted circumstances, and the advertiser must possess and rely on adequate substantiation for that representation.” The rulemaking also is likely to address important issues such as how to substantiate earnings claims, prohibited lifestyle claims, and requirements around generally expected results disclosures. Consumer understanding will be a critical issue throughout the rulemaking process, with extrinsic evidence likely to play a significant role.

* * * *

To receive a weekly digest of Ad Law Access posts and more, sign up for our Ad Law News and Views newsletter here.

FTC Continues to Focus on Incentivized ReviewsPlease join us for a webinar on February 24, 2022 at 4 p.m. on recent and upcoming FTC developments. The webinar will feature Kelley Drye’s Jessica Rich and Aaron Burstein, both former FTC officials, and will be moderated by the newest addition to our privacy team, Jayson Lewis. Here’s a taste of what we’ll be discussing, building on the commentary we have posted in this blog over the past few months:

All eyes are on the FTC this year, given its recent actions, setbacks, and ambitious plans for 2022.

As we’ve reported here, Chair Lina Khan has announced an aggressive privacy agenda, that includes new regulations; emphasis on the large platforms and other “gatekeepers” in the marketplace; stringent enforcement remedies (such as data deletion, bans on conduct, strict consent requirements, and individual liability); and significant monetary relief based on a range of creative theories.

Khan has already taken steps in this direction, including by issuing a policy statement and guidance reinterpreting the Health Breach Notification Rule; announcing a ramp-up against subscription services that use “dark patterns” to trick consumers into signing up; tightening requirements under the Gramm-Leach Bliley Safeguards Rule; and making strong demands in consent negotiations. In addition, she has announced plans to initiate privacy rulemakings under the FTC’s so-called “Magnuson-Moss” authority, including a rulemaking to limit “surveillance” in the commercial marketplace.

All of this takes place against the backdrop of recent setbacks and ongoing challenges faced by the agency. Last year, the Supreme Court’s ruled in AMG that the FTC cannot obtain monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, it’s chief law enforcement tool. For years, Congress has declined to pass a federal privacy law to strengthen the FTC’s authority in this area. The FTC has limited resources to fulfill its broad mission. And it cannot obtain civil penalties for most first-time law violations.

We will dive into these issues and more in our upcoming webinar, focusing on the practical impact for companies subject to FTC’s jurisdiction. Please join us on Thursday, February 24 at 4:00 pm EST for this second installment of Kelley Drye’s 2022 practical privacy series. Register here.

Upcoming webinar on recent FTC privacy developments and predictions for 2022