3 ms·
> According to the FTC's analysis of the order on its site, X-Mode violated the FTC Act by "unfairly selling sensitive data, unfairly failing to honor consumers
by trinsic2 3y ago
> According to the FTC's analysis of the order on its site, X-Mode violated the FTC Act by "unfairly selling sensitive data, unfairly failing to honor consumers' privacy choices, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data, unfairly collecting and using consumer location data without consent verification, unfairly categorizing consumers based on sensitive characteristics for marketing purposes, deceptively failing to disclose use of location data, and providing the means and instrumentalities to engage in deceptive acts or practices."
I wonder why is the term "Unfair" being used instead of the world "Illegal"?
- hn_acker 3y agoBecause the US doesn't have a federal privacy statute which requires companies to obey privacy choices, is my guess. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the FTC's authority, which includes competition and fraud, doesn't extend to privacy. Privacy violations (such as non-consensual data collection) by non-government businesses are not per se illegal in the US as a whole, but the FTC could argue that specific privacy violations were unfair trade practices. Not only is the understaffed, overburdened FTC practically unable to enforce a hypothetical future privacy law (which is one reason privacy laws need to have private rights of action), the FTC's legal authority to fit privacy violations into the unfair trade mold is dubious. It's not sustainable to rely on the FTC to handle the majority of privacy violations. In short, the US doesn't have a federal privacy that would make privacy violations illegal.
- trinsic2 3y agoYea thats a good interpretation. Ok I see what you are saying. I dont have much experience with what authority these institutions have.