Many competition agencies are considering data portability mandates to increase competition. These would require companies to make customers’ data available to move to other services, or to make their services interoperable with others so that users could share their data between different services on an ongoing basis.
In this comment, we address the first question presented by the Commission (“Is there a continuing need for the Rule as currently promulgated? Why or why not?”). This comment answers that question in the negative, arguing the FTC should return to the pre-2013 version of the COPPA Rule.
Despite its tone and ominous presentation style, The Great Hack fails to muster any support for its extreme claims. The truth is much more mundane: the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal was neither a “hack” nor was it “great” in historical importance.
Despite the simplistic narrative tying President Trump’s vision of the world to conservatism, there is nothing conservative about his views on the First Amendment and how it applies to social media companies.
Last year, real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart spent nearly $3.5 million to put a privacy law on the ballot in California’s November election. He then negotiated a deal with state lawmakers to withdraw the ballot initiative if they passed their own privacy bill. That law — the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) — was enacted after only seven days of drafting and amending.
This response argues that in his efforts to locate a clear duty in existing data security law he has identified a standard that, in all meaningful ways, is one of subjective (not objective) reasonableness – and therefore offers no clarity at all.
The analysis in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Preliminary Report for the Digital Platforms Inquiry is inadequate in several ways. There is a real danger that if the policy recommendations outlined in the preliminary report were to be adopted, Australian consumers would be severely harmed.