Policy

The FTC is losing power just when Congress wants it to rein in tech

After a brutal loss for the FTC in the Supreme Court, lawmakers have big decisions ahead about the agency that's supposed to police tech.

The FTC is losing power just when Congress wants it to rein in tech

Congress wants the FTC to police big tech, but following a Supreme Court loss for the agency, lawmakers are struggling to decide what powers it should have.

Photo: Darren Halstead/Unsplash

In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has gone after COVID-19 scams, deceitful payday lenders, sham drug patent litigation and of course Facebook's acquisitions — all under the same legal authority that the Supreme Court gutted last week.

The high court issued a unanimous ruling Thursday in AMG Capital Management v. FTC, finding that the agency had spent four decades vastly overstating its legal ability to quickly secure money for consumers, particularly from fraud and scams.

The rebuke will force Congress to weigh in on one of the main tools the FTC uses to police ever-broader swaths of the U.S. economy, with partisan splits already emerging. As if relying on lawmakers' ability to compromise wasn't enough to put question marks around the agency's mission, the debate over what the agency actually can do comes just as the commission is increasingly called upon to beef up its oversight of the tech industry.

"They're asked to regulate or at least oversee incredibly sophisticated companies that increasingly dominate the landscape," said Justin Brookman, a former FTC official who is now director of consumer privacy and technology policy at Consumer Reports. "You're seeing a bipartisan recognition that the FTC hasn't done a good enough job on privacy, on competition, on consumer protection more broadly."

Despite a 40-year trend of decreasing staff, the FTC tends to be asked to absorb responsibilities such as watching over new sectors of the economy, considered part of its broad mandate to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices. That's how cybersecurity breaches, children's online privacy and fake COVID-19 cure websites ended up the responsibility of an agency that began in 1914 to "bust the trusts" and now also oversees mergers and monopoly enforcement.

To cope with the increase in responsibility since the 1980s, the commission more frequently turned to its powers to seek injunctions in federal court under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. The agency asserted that the provision also allowed it to go to court to try to force bad actors to make consumers whole monetarily, circumventing a more laborious internal process for retrieving ill-gotten gains.

Courts backed this interpretation often enough that the agency made its supposed powers under 13(b) into a key tool for getting money back from fraudsters, many of whom now operate online, sometimes through large platforms. Over the years, the agency also turned the provision into an important way to police a range of consumer protection concerns, and occasionally to claw back the gains of anticompetitive abuse. The FTC says it's secured more than $11 billion in consumer refunds over the last five years, and a top agency official testified Tuesday that the decision could put roughly 24 ongoing consumer protection and competition cases seeking billions at risk. The ability to seek injunctions under 13(b) is even at the heart of the FTC's competition case against Facebook, although the commission is not seeking monetary redress in that instance.

"It's a 13(b) machine," Stephen Calkins, a former FTC general counsel who now teaches at Wayne State University's law school, said of the agency. "That's what they do for a living." He called the Supreme Court decision "a gut punch."

Yet the backlash against that machine has been rising from corporate America. In AMG, the Court struck down the FTC's ability to get money under 13(b), forcing the commission to use its own infamously bureaucratic internal court and potentially putting its consumer protection program months or years behind. Even when money isn't on the table, though, companies including Facebook are now challenging the FTC's ability to curb years-old conduct. And corporate groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are pushing to limit any bill updating the FTC's authority only to cover egregious, ongoing conduct such as scams, and to exclude competition.

"The Chamber will continue to oppose changes to 13(b) that would dramatically expand FTC authority beyond the purported reason being given to justify the legislation," the business lobby said in a recent letter to Congress. It's been working since last year with Republican lawmakers in an effort to have them unveil a bill with a narrow vision of the agency's enforcement tools focused on fraud, and to push back against Democratic hopes for something wider, according to a person familiar with the Chamber's efforts.

The FTC's top consumer protection official, Daniel Kaufman, told a Senate hearing on Tuesday that such a limited bill would result in "bad policy," and said he "could not disagree more with so many of the propositions in the chamber's letter."

Wanting it both ways

Skepticism about granting the FTC broad powers has also popped up with some Republican lawmakers, who are often caught between their dislike of government power and their hopes to curb tech in particular.

"There is a history of regulatory overreach we must consider and how that impacts our business sectors as we rebound from the COVID-19 pandemic," Rep. Gus Bilirakis, the top Republican on a House Consumer Protection panel, said Tuesday, calling for "targeted, transparent" measures. One of the FTC's own Republican commissioners, Noah Phillips, also testified to Congress last week that any bill giving the FTC the ability to recover money should limit how much the agency can seek outside of cases of pure fraud, including potential limits for data breaches where customers still got the use of the goods or services despite having their data stolen.

Democrats, meanwhile, would like to replace the authority that the FTC just lost. The lack of agreement could signal that any future additions to the FTC's toolbox would be slow to come, with "fixes" for 13(b) potentially putting off other debates. While both sides in a recent Senate hearing did suggest they want to move quickly — there is some overlap in the current House Democratic proposal on the provision and a Senate Republican effort from last year — even non-controversial legislation can take months or years to make its way through Capitol Hill. Neither reform bill received endorsement from across the aisle, and the half dozen FTC bills that House Republicans also introduced this month say little about 13(b).

Delays could threaten the hopes of many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, who increasingly demand that the FTC tackle the digital economy even when they can't agree on how. That includes policing not just consumers' and children's privacy but also big tech mergers and anticompetitive behavior, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and "dark patterns" that nudge consumers to grant permissions or choose more expensive goods than they might otherwise prefer.

In order to oversee the digital sector, lawmakers are discussing granting the FTC more explicit powers over privacy (because the agency can only enforce businesses' own promises on the topic right now). Both the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee unveiled partisan privacy bills in the last Congress, for instance, while lawmakers tried to keep a House effort bipartisan. Congress is also debating giving the FTC an easier path to issuing regulations that would govern tech, the ability to issue fines as a punishment and of course, more money.

"They're going to need a lot more than 13(b)," said Consumer Reports's Brookman. "The zeitgeist definitely seems to be arguing for a more empowered and a more aggressive Federal Trade Commission."

Policy

Musk’s texts reveal what tech’s most powerful people really want

From Jack Dorsey to Joe Rogan, Musk’s texts are chock-full of überpowerful people, bending a knee to Twitter’s once and (still maybe?) future king.

“Maybe Oprah would be interested in joining the Twitter board if my bid succeeds,” one text reads.

Photo illustration: Patrick Pleul/picture alliance via Getty Images; Protocol

Elon Musk’s text inbox is a rarefied space. It’s a place where tech’s wealthiest casually commit to spending billions of dollars with little more than a thumbs-up emoji and trade tips on how to rewrite the rules for how hundreds of millions of people around the world communicate.

Now, Musk’s ongoing legal battle with Twitter is giving the rest of us a fleeting glimpse into that world. The collection of Musk’s private texts that was made public this week is chock-full of tech power brokers. While the messages are meant to reveal something about Musk’s motivations — and they do — they also say a lot about how things get done and deals get made among some of the most powerful people in the world.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Fintech

Circle’s CEO: This is not the time to ‘go crazy’

Jeremy Allaire is leading the stablecoin powerhouse in a time of heightened regulation.

“It’s a complex environment. So every CEO and every board has to be a little bit cautious, because there’s a lot of uncertainty,” Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire told Protocol at Converge22.

Photo: Circle

Sitting solo on a San Francisco stage, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire asked tennis superstar Serena Williams what it’s like to face “unrelenting skepticism.”

“What do you do when someone says you can’t do this?” Allaire asked the athlete turned VC, who was beaming into Circle’s Converge22 convention by video.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

Enterprise

Is Salesforce still a growth company? Investors are skeptical

Salesforce is betting that customer data platform Genie and new Slack features can push the company to $50 billion in revenue by 2026. But investors are skeptical about the company’s ability to deliver.

Photo: Marlena Sloss/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Salesforce has long been enterprise tech’s golden child. The company said everything customers wanted to hear and did everything investors wanted to see: It produced robust, consistent growth from groundbreaking products combined with an aggressive M&A strategy and a cherished culture, all operating under the helm of a bombastic, but respected, CEO and team of well-coiffed executives.

Dreamforce is the embodiment of that success. Every year, alongside frustrating San Francisco residents, the over-the-top celebration serves as a battle cry to the enterprise software industry, reminding everyone that Marc Benioff’s mighty fiefdom is poised to expand even deeper into your corporate IT stack.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a writer-at-large at Protocol. He previously covered enterprise software for Protocol, Bloomberg and Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JoeWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.

Policy

The US and EU are splitting on tech policy. That’s putting the web at risk.

A conversation with Cédric O, the former French minister of state for digital.

“With the difficulty of the U.S. in finding political agreement or political basis to legislate more, we are facing a risk of decoupling in the long term between the EU and the U.S.”

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Cédric O, France’s former minister of state for digital, has been an advocate of Europe’s approach to tech and at the forefront of the continent’s relations with U.S. giants. Protocol caught up with O last week at a conference in New York focusing on social media’s negative effects on society and the possibilities of blockchain-based protocols for alternative networks.

O said watching the U.S. lag in tech policy — even as some states pass their own measures and federal bills gain momentum — has made him worry about the EU and U.S. decoupling. While not as drastic as a disentangling of economic fortunes between the West and China, such a divergence, as O describes it, could still make it functionally impossible for companies to serve users on both sides of the Atlantic with the same product.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories
Bulletins