17 ms·

>> Preserve records: To help prevent further use of deceptive dark patterns, the order requires Credit Karma to preserve records of any market, behavioral, or p

>> Preserve records: To help prevent further use of deceptive dark patterns, the order requires Credit Karma to preserve records of any market, behavioral, or psychological research, or user, customer, or usability testing, including any A/B or multivariate testing, copy testing, surveys, focus groups, interviews, clickstream analysis, eye or mouse tracking studies, heat maps, or session replays or recordings. That’s quite interesting. Presumably they tried to use this as some excuse, or didn’t have the data available to enable the FTC to make a strong assessment as to how many people were presented with a deceptive offer.

refurb 4y ago
I worked in an industry where we were required to use a bunch of euphemisms throughout our internal documents for just this reason - if we were investigated by the government, all of those documents would be evidence and using words like “war room” would be used as proof of (channeling the DOJ press release team) “anti-competitive actions akin to a war where the enemy would be destroyed, and the defendant would have a monopoly”. So instead we used “team room”. The work never changed, just what we called it.
- tpxl 4y ago
  Wouldn't any judge see right through such bullshit?
  - refurb 4y ago
    Antitrust is notoriously hard to prove. It often comes down to intent. Internal documents and how the company talks about business decisions can be enough to sway minds in a situation where you’re trying to convince a judge/jury what the company was thinking. Clearly if you’re trying to put a competitor out of business then calling it a “team room” won’t matter one bit.
    - svnt 4y ago
      Is this true? Given monopolistic consequences are structural and inevitable, it seems the law should be enforced on structure and function and not require deliberate intent.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Anti-trust isn’t black and white. The government encourage competition, but when you compete to become the only company, then it’s anti-trust. The line is very fuzzy.
drc500free 4y ago
That is VERY interesting. Complying with this is probably a bigger headache than the fine.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  The pattern continues onwards. Compliance orders usually have an expiration date, and companies usually go back to the same behavior after the compliance order expires. It's similar to catch me if you can except it's billions of dollars of staff and equipment and transactions.
ipsum2 4y ago
Doesn't this conflict with California Consumer Privacy Act?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Doesn't this conflict with California Consumer Privacy Act? The FTC was created by the Federal Trade Commission Act [1], a federal law. That gives it supremacy over California law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o...

refurb 4y ago

I worked in an industry where we were required to use a bunch of euphemisms throughout our internal documents for just this reason - if we were investigated by the government, all of those documents would be evidence and using words like “war room” would be used as proof of (channeling the DOJ press release team) “anti-competitive actions akin to a war where the enemy would be destroyed, and the defendant would have a monopoly”. So instead we used “team room”. The work never changed, just what we called it.

tpxl 4y ago
Wouldn't any judge see right through such bullshit?
- refurb 4y ago
  Antitrust is notoriously hard to prove. It often comes down to intent. Internal documents and how the company talks about business decisions can be enough to sway minds in a situation where you’re trying to convince a judge/jury what the company was thinking. Clearly if you’re trying to put a competitor out of business then calling it a “team room” won’t matter one bit.
  - svnt 4y ago
    Is this true? Given monopolistic consequences are structural and inevitable, it seems the law should be enforced on structure and function and not require deliberate intent.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Anti-trust isn’t black and white. The government encourage competition, but when you compete to become the only company, then it’s anti-trust. The line is very fuzzy.

drc500free 4y ago

That is VERY interesting. Complying with this is probably a bigger headache than the fine.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
The pattern continues onwards. Compliance orders usually have an expiration date, and companies usually go back to the same behavior after the compliance order expires. It's similar to catch me if you can except it's billions of dollars of staff and equipment and transactions.

ipsum2 4y ago

Doesn't this conflict with California Consumer Privacy Act?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Doesn't this conflict with California Consumer Privacy Act? The FTC was created by the Federal Trade Commission Act [1], a federal law. That gives it supremacy over California law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_o...