What are you looking for?
Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45 [“Section 5”], is a consumer protection statute, not a data security rule...This fundamental point has been lost in the Commission’s approach to data security.
Petitioners base their First Amendment argument on two premises: first, that surcharges are “more effective” than discounts at altering consumer behavior; and second, that surcharges and discounts are economically equivalent except for their labels.
"Dear Ms. Dortch: I write to express my concerns regarding the consumer welfare effects of the revised broadband privacy proposal summarized in a Fact Sheet by Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Chairman Tom Wheeler earlier this month..."
This week, the International Center for Law & Economics filed comments on the proposed revision to the joint U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) – U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust-IP Licensing Guidelines.
The proposed guidelines are founded on a commendable set of underlying assumptions: that intellectual property (“IP”) is, for antitrust purposes, amenable to the same sort of analysis that applies to other forms of property...
The NPRM and many of the comments supporting it reflect an ill-considered approach to privacy regulation for ISPs.
The Commission’s interest in protecting the privacy of its citizens is commendable.
The Commission’s NPRM would shoehorn the business models of a subset of new economy firms into a regime modelled on thirty-year-old CPNI rules designed to address fundamentally different concerns about a fundamentally different market.
"The Commission undertakes this rulemaking with the commendable goal of enhancing competition. But even the noblest of goals cannot be pursued by plainly illegal means. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what these proposed rules would do..."