Policy

The FTC's next privacy move is a dangerous game years in the making

Tech's de facto regulator has been taking half measures for decades as Congress fails on data protection. That might soon change.

FTC chair Lina Khan

The FTC has been clearing the way to issue more rules governing whole industries.

Photo: Graeme Jennings/AFP via Getty Images

After many years of "concerns" and false starts, the FTC appears poised to tell tech companies what they must do — and stop doing — to protect consumer privacy.

Crafting actual privacy rules is an ambitious undertaking that has eluded Congress for more than a decade. But the FTC, under new chair Lina Khan, seems ready to regulate most of the digital services industry and a good chunk of the "offline" world to boot. If history's any guide, any move is sure to spur furious pushback that could endanger even the FTC's basic powers.

It's also something that Khan and the other two Democrats on the commission have been readying for months, after years of half-measures by the agency charged by default with regulating Big Tech.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the commission is considering opening a new rulemaking procedure, likely using its authority to regulate specific "unfair or deceptive acts." The new rules would allow the commission to act without waiting for Congress to decide on an approach for certain fraught issues, such as whether tech platforms should face consumer lawsuits for privacy violations.

"There are now some pretty good indications that the Federal Trade Commission is going to have, or begin, rulemaking on privacy," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who led Democratic colleagues in a letter urging a rulemaking in September, during a hearing soon after the Journal report. "This development would be very, very welcome."

New, privacy-specific rules would be a far cry from how the FTC has dealt with Big Tech's practices in the past. For the history of modern tech as we know it, the agency's approach has been a narrow one. Essentially, the FTC has focused on a few high-profile companies that appeared to be lying to users about their privacy practices, then reached settlements with those firms saying they could face large fines for future violations where a company's actions didn't match its consumer-facing statements. If one of those companies was later found to be violating the terms of those settlements, the FTC was then able to extract actual money — such as the agency's $5 billion total fine on Facebook in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal — and promises of future better behavior.

That emphasis on repeat offenders is written into the law, but the focus on the worst conduct from the biggest players is an outgrowth of budget constraints. To the FTC's credit, chairs from both parties have long sought the ability to punish companies the first time they break the law, as well as for more resources from Congress.

But until now, the idea of the FTC forcing the whole industry to abide by privacy rules appeared to be unfathomable, outside of children's privacy. As recently as last year, an in-house FTC report called the commission's rulemaking powers, which are more time-consuming than other agencies', "an imperfect tool for the rapidly evolving space of data privacy." The FTC pleaded for Congress to do the work that voters demanded — maybe giving the agency some expedited power to adjust technical definitions in the process — but commission leadership essentially ignored the possibility that it could take over the whole project.

That appears to have changed in recent months. Even one of the FTC's Republican commissioners, Christine Wilson, testified before Congress in July that she "had become more receptive" to FTC rulemaking on privacy "to address the information asymmetry between the providers of goods and services and their users," though she also said her doubts had grown again because of how Khan has run the commission.

Advocates of FTC-only action largely still would prefer that Congress take the lead, but they're increasingly unwilling to wait around for lawmakers to pass a bill.

"Congress just hasn't done its job," Justin Brookman, head of tech policy for Consumer Reports, said in a tweet. He cited a failed privacy bill from the year 2000 to make his point, calling for the FTC to jump into the rulemaking process.

Blumenthal likewise said Congress had "failed abjectly to fulfill its responsibility" and said "the FTC is supposed to fill gaps," such as the absence of broad federal privacy rules.

Laying the groundwork

Within her first few weeks as chair, Khan, a vocal tech skeptic, began to clear a path so the FTC wouldn't have to wait much longer. In July, during the first of the public meetings that she instituted, Khan and the Democrats voted to streamline the FTC's procedure for rulemaking, although it remains particularly cumbersome. Her fellow Democratic commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who had pushed for more rulemaking before Khan joined the commission, argued during the meeting that Congress' grant of regulatory authority sent "a clear directive to the FTC to promulgate trade rules to protect consumers in the dynamic and changing economic landscape."

When the FTC voted to streamline its rulemaking in July, it also moved to broaden its powers to police "unfair methods of competition," and floated the possibility of new rules on the issue. And Congress is considering $1 billion for a privacy bureau at the FTC.

Shortly after Khan took over as chair, President Joe Biden issued an order urging the FTC to tackle competition, including attention to "unfair data collection and surveillance practices that may damage competition, consumer autonomy, and consumer privacy."

Since then, Khan has also made clear her first task as chair is to understand not just what tech companies want to talk about, but the underlying business models and incentives that truly drive them, such as Facebook's roaring advertising business that sucks up so much user data.

Biden in September also nominated privacy hawk Alvaro Bedoya to join the commission, now that Democrat Rohit Chopra is leaving to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Accountable Tech, a Democratic-allied group that's been critical of the industry, also recently formally petitioned for rulemaking on "surveillance advertising" — casting the technology that powers Big Tech companies like Google as a threat to competition.

Despite this seemingly broad support, however, any FTC effort will face plenty of headwinds. The potential avenues for regulating privacy are immense, ranging from ads and children's privacy to connected devices' listening techniques, health apps, data brokers, the civil rights implications of algorithms, computer hacks and even the competitive dynamics affecting privacy. Brick-and-mortar retailers have even become enmeshed in online privacy debates if they have ecommerce sites. Each of these issues, by itself, has stymied the commission for years — let alone any attempt to roll them up together.

The opposition is also coming from inside the house. In a joint opinion piece on Wednesday, the FTC's other Republican commissioner, Noah Phillips, and two top Republican lawmakers who have been working on privacy legislation called any potential privacy rulemaking "blatant overreach that would almost certainly invite legal challenges."

"The legislative process may be slower than some would prefer, but that is no basis for executive agencies to usurp the people's elected representatives and the powers granted them by the Constitution," wrote Phillips, Sen. Roger Wicker, and Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Litigation could tie up any new rules up for years, but from the commission's perspective it may be the lesser evil as compared to drawing ire from Congress. Critics of FTC inaction trace the agency's timidity to the 1980s. At the time, many saw the FTC's attempts to regulate children's advertising as the height of nanny-state overreach, in part thanks to a campaign by advertisers. In response to "kidvid," Congress reined in the agency's regulatory powers — and in the process taught generations of FTC staff to tiptoe around lawmakers.

It's a cycle that's recurred throughout FTC's existence, and Khan, who loves the agency's history, has made clear she's well aware of it.

Her colleagues, too, seem well aware that the clock is ticking: In a speech earlier in October, Slaughter discussed online ads and pushed the idea that companies should only collect data necessary for their offerings.

"I am confident that it is time for us to start asking the questions and developing the record, before the practices about which we are concerned become even more entrenched," she said. "The market is changing whether we promulgate rules or not."

A MESSAGE FROM ALIBABA

www.protocol.com

The future of retail is digital, experiential – and happening now in China. U.S. businesses are going digital and using Alibaba to create immersive experiences to sell to the 900 million Chinese consumers on Alibaba's ecommerce platforms.

LEARN MORE

Fintech

Election markets are far from a sure bet

Kalshi has big-name backing for its plan to offer futures contracts tied to election results. Will that win over a long-skeptical regulator?

Whether Kalshi’s election contracts could be considered gaming or whether they serve a true risk-hedging purpose is one of the top questions the CFTC is weighing in its review.

Photo illustration: Getty Images; Protocol

Crypto isn’t the only emerging issue on the CFTC’s plate. The futures regulator is also weighing a fintech sector that has similarly tricky political implications: election bets.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has set Oct. 28 as a date by which it hopes to decide whether the New York-based startup Kalshi can offer a form of wagering up to $25,000 on which party will control the House of Representatives and Senate after the midterms. PredictIt, another online market for election trading, has also sued the regulator over its decision to cancel a no-action letter.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at rdeffenbaugh@protocol.com.
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.
Enterprise

The Uber verdict shows why mandatory disclosure isn't such a bad idea

The conviction of Uber's former chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, seems likely to change some minds in the debate over proposed cyber incident reporting regulations.

Executives and boards will now be "a whole lot less likely to cover things up," said one information security veteran.

Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

If nothing else, the guilty verdict delivered Wednesday in a case involving Uber's former security head will have this effect on how breaches are handled in the future: Executives and boards, according to information security veteran Michael Hamilton, will be "a whole lot less likely to cover things up."

Following the conviction of former Uber chief security officer Joe Sullivan, "we likely will get better voluntary reporting" of cyber incidents, said Hamilton, formerly the chief information security officer of the City of Seattle, and currently the founder and CISO at cybersecurity vendor Critical Insight.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.

Climate

Delta and MIT are running flight tests to fix contrails

The research team and airline are running flight tests to determine if it’s possible to avoid the climate-warming effects of contrails.

Delta and MIT just announced a partnership to test how to mitigate persistent contrails.

Photo: Gabriela Natiello/Unsplash

Contrails could be responsible for up to 2% of all global warming, and yet how they’re formed and how to mitigate them is barely understood by major airlines.

That may be changing.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Entertainment

Inside Amazon’s free video strategy

Amazon has been doubling down on original content for Freevee, its ad-supported video service, which has seen a lot of growth thanks to a deep integration with other Amazon properties.

Freevee’s investment into original programming like 'Bosch: Legacy' has increased by 70%.

Photo: Tyler Golden/Amazon Freevee

Amazon’s streaming efforts have long been all about Prime Video. So the company caught pundits by surprise when, in early 2019, it launched a stand-alone ad-supported streaming service called IMDb Freedive, with Techcrunch calling the move “a bit odd.”

Nearly four years and two rebrandings later, Amazon’s ad-supported video efforts appear to be flourishing. Viewership of the service grew by 138% from 2020 to 2021, according to Amazon. The company declined to share any updated performance data on the service, which is now called Freevee, but a spokesperson told Protocol the performance of originals in particular “exceeded expectations,” leading Amazon to increase investments into original content by 70% year-over-year.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Latest Stories
Bulletins