FTC Regulating Lawyers – Really?

I know when a topic is hot by the fact that writers find ways to make a story where one may not exist.  This article on how the FTC is now regulating attorney testimonials is a case in point.

The article cites a federal register notice that is specifically about product endorsements or testimonials provided on blogs.  The issue is whether a blogger is truly independent from the product’s advertiser.

Not the Issue with Testimonials for Attorneys

Typically, attorneys are faced with a problem of different kind which is how to handle LinkedIn and related recommendations of their services which make it difficult to provide a disclaimer stating that this recommendation doesn’t predict success for the reader in his case.  I can’t see that the FTC has lawyers in mind in this regulation – besides Bar Associations are tackling this issue much more specifically in their regulations.

Lawyers – on the hook for identity theft rules?

The FTC is arguing that attorneys should not be exempted as “creditors” under the identity theft act known as “FACTA.”  The American Bar Association is arguing that attorneys shouldn’t be lumped into the category of  “creditors” because that’s too broadly defined and lawyers are generally exempted from federal regulatory agencies without explicit authority.

Not so says the FTC

The agency argues that attorneys who don’t require immediate payment for their services, are creditors under FACTA and will be required to adhere to “red flag” rules when it comes to identity theft.

FTC’s brief is here

More on privacy

After Senator Schumer and others requested the FTC step into the debate over Internet privacy what with the ongoing Facebook defaults for sharing private information, the agency has said it will be developing Internet privacy “framework.” 

Will it have any teeth?

Top ten FTC complaints – Internet is prominent

This listing of the top FTC consumer complaints contains at least three categories of Internet-related issues.  The first and by far most common is identity theft which could happen without the Internet but is certainly aided and abetted by it.  Not only by all the activity that happens publicly but also that which happens behind firewalls that get breached all too easily.  The other two Internet related complaints are Internet services and Internet auctions.

Facebook privacy issues: FTC is interested

Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a complaint against Facebook’s new privacy rules and it appears this got the attention of the FTC which responded, “”Your most recent complaint raises issues of particular interest for us at this time.”

Article here.

FTC: expect Internet privacy report this summer

In the wake of Facebook’s Mark Zuckerman’s conclusion that consumers are less concerned about privacy these days, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz and the Agency’s head of the Bureau of Consumer Protection went on the record about Internet privacy with the New York Times.  They expressed concern that since consumers aren’t reading website privacy statements, the FTC will be looking at having a opt-in model for consumers using websites rather letting them merely opt-out.  The FTC plans to issue report in June or July of this year on the subject.

What about a plain English disclosure to consumers about what they can expect the website to do with their personal information?

FTC says supplements don’t cure cancer

Shocking!

“The FTC ordered the makers of two diet supplements – “Supreme Greens” and “Coral Calcium” – and telemarketers to pay nearly $70 million for claiming that the stuff can cure cancer, Parkinson’s, heart disease, and other ailments. It also froze assets of some of the defendants.”

Article:

FTC settles with shady telemarketers

“Four deceptive telemarketing operations targeted by the Federal Trade Commission have agreed to abandon the illegal tactics they allegedly used to scam consumers – such as charging for products that were never ordered, making bogus claims about their products, and harassing consumers with unwanted phone calls – under settlements with the FTC announced today.

Defendants responsible for the four telemarketing operations, which were sued by the FTC last year as part of the largest telemarketing fraud sweep ever coordinated by the agency, have signed court orders barring them from these and other illegal practices. The law enforcement sweep, “Operation Tele-PHONEY,” included 13 FTC complaints against unscrupulous telemarketers who allegedly defrauded more than 500,000 consumers, resulting in losses of more than $100 million.”

Article:

FTC passing new rules for debt relief advertisers

“The Federal Trade Commission plans to combat telemarketers who advertise “debt relief services” that make deceptive representations to consumers. The agency’s new regulation under the Telemarketing Sales Rule would prohibit misrepresentation and requires certain disclosures for consumer protection.”

Article:

FTC busts apparel sellers:not bamboo but rayon

“The Federal Trade Commission has charged four sellers of clothing and other textile products with deceptively labeling and advertising these items as made of bamboo fiber, when they are made of rayon. The complaints also charge the companies with making false and unsubstantiated “green” claims that their clothing and textile products are manufactured using an environmentally friendly process, that they retain the natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant, and that they are biodegradable.”

Three of the companies – Sami Designs, LLC, doing business as (d/b/a) Jonäno; CSE, Inc., d/b/a Mad Mod; and Pure Bamboo, LLC – have settled the FTC’s complaints, agreeing to stop making the false claims and to abide by the Commission’s Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Act) and Rules. Litigation continues against The M Group, Inc., d/b/a Bamboosa, and its principals.

Article: