#FTC Enforcement

[quickkflash]

FTC Distributes $2.8 Million in Refunds to Victims of Deceptive ‘Free Trial’ Scheme

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the distribution of more than $2.8 million in refunds to individuals misled by a fraudulent “free trial” scheme orchestrated by Apex Capital Group and its associates. This initiative marks the culmination of a legal battle that commenced in 2018, targeting deceptive marketing practices in the personal care and dietary supplement sectors.

The FTC’s 2018 complaint against Apex Capital Group, alongside Phillip Peikos, David Barnett, and various affiliated entities, unveiled a complex operation exploiting online consumers. Marketed under the guise of “free trial” offers, the products were instead sold at full price, with consumers unknowingly enrolled in ongoing subscription plans. This deceptive practice ensnared countless individuals into unauthorized financial commitments, leveraging an intricate network of shell companies and straw owners both domestically and internationally to process payments.

The fraudulent operations, which began in early 2014, saw a range of personal care items and supplements pushed onto unsuspecting consumers. The scheme persisted until November 2018, when a court order, prompted by the FTC, effectively halted the deceptive activities.

In the aftermath of this legal victory, the FTC is dispatching 153,940 refund checks to affected consumers. Each recipient is advised to cash their checks within 90 days, as indicated. This refund process is a significant step in providing restitution to those impacted by Apex Capital’s unscrupulous business practices.

[ivygorgon]

An open letter to the U.S. Congress

Pass the Price Gouging Prevention Act (S. 3803 / H.R. 7390

1,047 so far! Help us get to 2,000 signers!

Of all the responses to the economic upheavals of the pandemic, price gouging has got to be one of the most egregious. This is when prices go up, or continue to stay high, not due to market pressures or other economic factors, but only because the seller, renter, or provider wants to increase their already excessive profits.

Some CEOs have even bragged to their shareholders about how much their profit-making pricing strategies exceed their inflationary increases in production costs.

To fight back against what they call “greedflation,” Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Jan Schakowsky have reintroduced their Price Gouging Prevention Act (S. 3803 / H.R. 7390) and are now seeking co-sponsors for the bills.

As your constituent, I would like to urge you to co-sponsor and pass this bill. It has several important features: It will prohibit price gouging on a nationwide basis; it will take aim at companies that have taken advantage of the pandemic to jack up prices unnecessarily and keep them up; it will focus on companies whose executives brag to shareholders about increasing prices faster than inflationary costs; it will require public disclosure of companies’ costs and pricing strategies, and it will increase the FTC’s funding to enforce these conditions.

Thank you for considering co-sponsoring the Price Gouging Prevention Act.

▶ Created on March 20 by Jess Craven · 847 signers in the past 7 days

📱 Text SIGN PBVLCW to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[professionalnooneatall]

I know "campaigning" on Tumblr is rather a taboo, but you need to know Lina Kahn exists, works in government is 500% smarter and 1000% more moral than any billionaire douchebag who just got lucky and hoards money.

She's not even making new laws, she's just enforcing laws that are on the books whose enforcement went so lax under Regan and subsequent presidents that corporations FORGOT THEY WERE A THING and didn't consider hiring the type of lawyers to insulate them from these laws. She is a good reason in and of herself to vote for Harris/Walz because she stays on the attack when it comes to bad business bullshit. This woman doesn't sleep, y'all. She has lawsuits against the worst people pending and is probably writing more. She and her team file six lawsuits before breakfast.

[ralfmaximus]

Sweeping changes to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines aimed at cleaning up the polluted, confusing world of online product reviews went into effect on Monday, meaning the federal agency is now allowed to levy civil penalties against bad actors who knowingly post product reviews and testimonials deemed misleading to American consumers.

Fucking finally.

Curious to see how enforcement works, and/or if they're going after retroactive violations. Full text of the August 2024 rules change here.

If you like this kind of thing, don't let Trump back into office. Because, well, you know...

[revdrjamesjshowersjr]

Thank you to Autom..I received the Saint Charles Borromeo Pendant yesterday. It was in the United States Postal Service, for my current compound.

Almighty Creator, bless the spirit of Saint Charles Borromeo, St. Jude and others, as we pray together for the victims of corruption, to include espionage, high treason, subversive activities, sedition, sabotage, racketeering, blackmail, graft and every other form of corruption.

So Help Me God..Amen, Ameen, Amun, Amin, Aum..

Espirit De Corpe..De Oppresso Liber..

[reasonsforhope]

Federal regulators on Tuesday [April 23, 2024] enacted a nationwide ban on new noncompete agreements, which keep millions of Americans — from minimum-wage earners to CEOs — from switching jobs within their industries.

The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday afternoon voted 3-to-2 to approve the new rule, which will ban noncompetes for all workers when the regulations take effect in 120 days [So, the ban starts in early September, 2024!]. For senior executives, existing noncompetes can remain in force. For all other employees, existing noncompetes are not enforceable.

[That's right: if you're currently under a noncompete agreement, it's completely invalid as of September 2024! You're free!!]

The antitrust and consumer protection agency heard from thousands of people who said they had been harmed by noncompetes, illustrating how the agreements are "robbing people of their economic liberty," FTC Chair Lina Khan said. 

The FTC commissioners voted along party lines, with its two Republicans arguing the agency lacked the jurisdiction to enact the rule and that such moves should be made in Congress...

Why it matters

The new rule could impact tens of millions of workers, said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist and president of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. 

"For nonunion workers, the only leverage they have is their ability to quit their job," Shierholz told CBS MoneyWatch. "Noncompetes don't just stop you from taking a job — they stop you from starting your own business."

Since proposing the new rule, the FTC has received more than 26,000 public comments on the regulations. The final rule adopted "would generally prevent most employers from using noncompete clauses," the FTC said in a statement.

The agency's action comes more than two years after President Biden directed the agency to "curtail the unfair use" of noncompetes, under which employees effectively sign away future work opportunities in their industry as a condition of keeping their current job. The president's executive order urged the FTC to target such labor restrictions and others that improperly constrain employees from seeking work.

"The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy," Khan said in a statement making the case for axing noncompetes. "Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand."

Real-life consequences

In laying out its rationale for banishing noncompetes from the labor landscape, the FTC offered real-life examples of how the agreements can hurt workers.

In one case, a single father earned about $11 an hour as a security guard for a Florida firm, but resigned a few weeks after taking the job when his child care fell through. Months later, he took a job as a security guard at a bank, making nearly $15 an hour. But the bank terminated his employment after receiving a letter from the man's prior employer stating he had signed a two-year noncompete.

In another example, a factory manager at a textile company saw his paycheck dry up after the 2008 financial crisis. A rival textile company offered him a better job and a big raise, but his noncompete blocked him from taking it, according to the FTC. A subsequent legal battle took three years, wiping out his savings. 

-via CBS Moneywatch, April 24, 2024

--

Note:

A lot of people think that noncompete agreements are only a white-collar issue, but they absolutely affect blue-collar workers too, as you can see from the security guard anecdote.

In fact, one in six food and service workers are bound by noncompete agreements. That's right - one in six food workers can't leave Burger King to work for Wendy's [hypothetical example], in the name of "trade secrets." (x, x, x)

Noncompete agreements also restrict workers in industries from tech and video games to neighborhood yoga studios. "The White House estimates that tens of millions of workers are subject to noncompete agreements, even in states like California where they're banned." (x, x, x)

The FTC estimates that the ban will lead to "the creation of 8,500 new businesses annually, an average annual pay increase of $524 for workers, lower health care costs, and as many as 29,000 more patents each year for the next decade." (x)

Clearer explanation of noncompete agreements below the cut.

Noncompete agreements can restrict workers from leaving for a better job or starting their own business.

Noncompetes often effectively coerce workers into staying in jobs they want to leave, and even force them to leave a profession or relocate.

Noncompetes can prevent workers from accepting higher-paying jobs, and even curtail the pay of workers not subject to them directly.

Of the more than 26,000 comments received by the FTC, more than 25,000 supported banning noncompetes. 

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Canonical enshittification

This is the Facebook playbook: you lure in publishers by promising them a traffic funnel ("post excerpts and links and we'll show them to people, including people who never asked to see them"), and then the rug-pull: "Post everything here, don't link to your own site. Become a commodity supplier to our platform. Abandon all your own ways of making money. Become entirely subject to the whims of our recommendation system."

Next will be: "We block links to other sites because they might be malicious."

Then some kind of "pivot to video."

Probably not video (though who knows?) but some other feature that a major rival has, which Twitter will attempt to defraud its captive, commodified suppliers into financing an entry into.

In case you were wondering, yes, this is canonical enshittification. Lure in business customers (publishers) by offering surpluses (algorithmic recommendation and an ensuing traffic funnel). Lock them in (by capturing their audience and blocking interop and logged-out reading).

Then rug the publishers, clawing back all the surpluses you gave them and more, draining them of all available capital and any margins they have, until they die or bite the bullet and leave.

I would also give good odds on this leading to a revivification of the "Pay us tens of thousands of dollars a month for a platinum checkmark and we'll actually show what you post to the people who asked to see it."

That will be pitched as the answer to publishers' complaints about not wanting to turn themselves into commodity Twitter inputs. It will be priced at the same (or more) as the revenues publishers expect to lose from being commodified, making it a wash.

All of this seems to me to be an "unfair and deceptive business practice" under Sec 5 of the FTC Act.

If I sign up to follow you because I want to see what you post, and Twitter shadowbans your posts unless they are formatted to maximize your dependence on Twitter, they have deceived me, and are being unfair to you.

This is *very* analogous to the Net Neutrality debate, where a platform blocks or deprioritizes the things its users ask to see, based on whether the suppliers of those things are its competitors.

I've written about how an end-to-end principle for social media could be enforced under Sec 5 of the FTCA, how it would address this kind of sleazy practice, how it would be easy to administer, and wouldn't form a barrier to entry for new market entrants:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/10/e2e/#the-censors-pen

[lokiinmediasideblog]

If you care about activism and DON'T WANT TO USE YOUR GOVERNMENT ID TO ACCESS THE INTERNET please contact your representatives.

THEY WILL BLOCK CRITICISM OF ISNOTREAL, SEX ED, LGBTQIA+ TOPICS, CRITICAL RACE THEORY, HISTORY, NSFW CONTENT, ETC.

FOR REPUBLICAN REPS:

FOR DEMOCRAT REPS:

Image captions credit to @fr0ggs

[image id 1: black text on a white background reading:

"My name is (blank underlines) and I'm one of your constitutents. I'm calling to urge you to vote NO on KOSA - the Kids Online Safety Act. The bill's sponsors claim it will protect kids by placing a duty of care on online platforms to prevent anything that could be harmful, but who decides what's harmful and what's free speech?

(next line) The power to decide has been ceded to the FTC. FTC leadership is made by presidential appointment. Current president Lina Khan, a Biden appointee, will have one agenda, but what happens when the someone even farther left than Joe Biden is in the Oval Office?

(next line) Imagine a President Gavin Newsom or Letitia James: Do you trust their appointee not to abuse this enforcement power to scrub information about your children's second amendment rights from the internet?

(next line) KOSA claims to protect kids, but it's poorly designed and will absolutely, without question, (underlined) harm (end underline) children, adults, and anyone who values free speech online. Vote No on KOSA." /end id.]

[image id 2: black text on a white background reading:

"My name is and I'm one of your constituents. I'm calling to urge you to vote NO on KOSA - the Kids Online Safety Act. The bill's sponsors claim it will protect kids by placing a duty of care on online platforms to prevent anything that could be harmful.

(next line) The power to decide what's harmful has been ceded to the FTC. FTC leadership is made by presidential appointment. Current president Lina Khan may proceed fairly, but what happens when the next Donald Trump is in the Oval Office? What if it's Trump himself? Do you trust a Trump appointee not to abuse this enforcement power?

(next line) KOSA claims to protect kids, but it's poorly designed and, given time, it will absolutely and without question, (underlined) harm (end underline) LGBTQ children, adults, and anyone who needs information on reproductive health or abortion.

(next line) KOSA author, Senator Marsha Blackburn, said she introduced KOSA in part - and I quote - "to protect minor children from the transgender in our society." The Heritage Foundation proudly said they'll apply pressure through KOSA to block information about abortion, reproductive health, & LGBTQ issues.

(next line) Vote NO on KOSA."

[fullhalalalchemist]

🚨🚨CONGRESS SECRETLY TRYING TO SNEAK IN EARN IT ACT COPYCAT INTO MUST PASS SPENDING BILL (PLEASE READ EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)

July 20, 2023 Congress is right now determining what is included in a must pass spending bill the NDAA. Often congress will sneakily add as amendments their bills that they can't pass in a normal setting.

If you remember, I made a previous post about EARN IT being reintroduced here.

The EARN IT Act and it's copycats are bipartisan bills that will greatly censor if not completely eliminate encryption and anything sexual and LGBTQ+ from the internet, globally. Anything the far-right doesn't like will be completely gone. The best way to stop them is to use https://www.badinternetbills.com/ to call your senators.

Following it's initial introduction earlier this year was massive opposition from human rights, LGBT, tech, political groups, and grassroots groups. Bc of this, the senators decided to remake the bill but give it a new name, so they can still pass Earn It without actually passing Earn It. Those bills are the Stop CSAM Act (yes really, they actually named it that), and the Cooper-Davis act.

The entire point of these bills is to mass surveil and censor everyone and I don't know why more people or senators speak out against it. There is a direct timeline from when the Attorney General Barr (under Trump) said he wanted to do this to it's initial introduction in 2019, and how the senators explicitly knew they couldn't actually say that so they lied and said it was about "stopping CSAM" or "stopping drugs" for Cooper-Davis Act.

These bills essentially do the following:

they gut encryption, the one thing actually protects you from having your data seen by anyone. Do you want republicans to know you're trans? that someone had an abortion? that they spoke out against the govt? to see your private photos you have uploaded to the cloud? to see what porn you watch? if youre a journalist, or an abuse survivor, any hacker or abuser can see your stuff and track you.

they gut parts of Section 230, the one thing that allows anyone to post online and birthed social media. Previous gutting into 230 gave us the tumblr nsfw ban and killed that site.

they create an unelected commission with some already established govt body (DOJ, FTC, etc) that will include law enforcement and people from NCOSE or other Christian conservative groups who will decide what is and isn't lawful to say. no citizen can vote who's on this commission, and the president gets to pick. it's like the supreme court, but for the internet.

lead to mass censorship and surveillance because of the above

We have until the end of the month to stop this, but this can be added literally any moment until then. It's literally code red. If this is added it goes into effect immediately. The BEST way to stop this is to drive calls and emails to the senate. https://www.badinternetbills.com/ connects you directly to your members of congress & gives you a call script.

It is ESSENTIAL to call the Senate leaders who can stop this. Here's a more precise call script you can use: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huD5Ldd1lPTECYTEb9Gg2ZzrqW6Y9tryHT-MdjOl8kY/edit

All these people expressed concern over Earn It, so we need to press them hard to not allow it's copycats Cooper-Davis or Stop CSAM into the NDAA. This is URGENT and needs all hands on deck. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (202) 224-6542 Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (202) 224-3441 Jon Ossof (D-GA) (202)-224-3521 Alex Padilla (D-CA) (202) 224-3553 Cory Booker (D-NJ) (202) 224-3224 Mike Lee (R-UT) (202) 224-5444

Please please please spread this message and blow up their phones.

TLDR; The Senate is trying to quietly push the Earn It Act's copycat bills into the must pass NDAA, which will lead to mass censorship and surveillance online by gutting Section 230 which is the entire reason you can even be on tumblr and why the internet exists, killing encryption which put everyone's lives in danger, and appointing far-right people to a supreme court-esque commission that the president has direct control over. They could be added in ANY DAY and we need to push hard to stop it before it gets to that point. CALL YOUR SENATORS **NOW** BY USING https://www.badinternetbills.com/ AND CALL THE SENATE LEADERSHIP AND SPREAD THE WORD!!!!

[tf2heritageposts]

it’s time to start emailing and calling!

find your

senate representative: https://www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member

house representative:

use this script if your representative is a republican

[description: text that reads “My name is (blank where you’d say your name)

and I'm one of your constituents.

I'm calling to urge you to vote NO on KOSA - the Kids Online Safety Act. The bill's sponsors claim it will protect kids by placing a duty of care on online platforms to prevent anything that could be harmful, but who decides what's harmful and what's free speech?

The power to decide has been ceded to the FTC. FTC leadership is made by presidential appointment. Current president Lina Khan, a Biden appointee, will have one agenda, but what happens when the someone even farther left than Joe Biden is in the Oval Office?

Imagine a President Gavin Newsom or Letitia James: Do you trust their appointee not to abuse this enforcement power tol› scrub information about your children's second amendment rights from the internet.

KOSA claims to protect kids, but it's poorly designed and will absolutely, without question, harm children, adults, and anyone who values free speech online. Vote NO on KOSA. end description]

use this if your representative is democrat

[description: text that reads “My name is (blank where you’d say your name)

and I'm one of your constituents.

I'm calling to urge you to vote NO on KOSA - the Kids Online Safety Act. The bill's sponsors claim it will protect kids by placing a duty of care on online platforms to prevent anything that could be harmful.

The power to decide what's harmful has been ceded to the FTC.

FTC leadership is made by presidential appointment. Current president Lina Khan may proceed fairly, but what happens when the next Donald Trump is in the Oval Office? What if it's Trump himself? Do you trust a Trump appointee not to abuse this enforcement power?

KOSA claims to protect kids, but it's poorly designed and, given time, it will absolutely and without question, harm LGBTQ children, adults, and anyone who needs information on reproductive health or abortion.

KOSA author, Senator Marsha Blackburn, said she introduced KOSA in part - and I quote - "to protect minor children from the transgender in our society." The Heritage Foundation proudly said they'll apply pressure through KOSA to block information about abortion, reproductive health, & LGBTQ issues.

Vote NO on KOSA.” end description]

only call/email once! be honest and accurate with your information!

[daytimemin]

KOSA IS BACK!!!

We knew this was coming and we are ready to fight this bill again! Senators Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn have re-introduced KOSA (Kids Online Safety Act) with the support of Senate Leaders John Thune, Chuck Schemer, and the company Apple. None of this is unexpected, new, or scary? Why? Because we've fought this bill off before and absolutely can do it again.

Under the Trump administration this bill is a threat to LGBTQ+ youth and minority communities online. It is a violation to EVERYONE's right to free speech, and it pushes censorship and age verification. While we don't know when this bill will begin to move through the process of hearings and markups, we must get back to work NOW. Call your representatives and senators and tell them you oppose this bill and why. For Republicans, highlight how this is a violations to our First Amendment rights. For Democrats, tell them how disappointed you are that they continuously turn their backs on the LGBTQ+ and minority communities.

CALL NOW USING THE CALL RESOURCES LINKED!

[zvaigzdelasas]

"We heard from employees who, because of noncompetes, were stuck in abusive workplaces," she said. "One person noted when an employer merged with an organization whose religious principles conflicted with their own, a noncompete kept the worker locked in place and unable to freely switch to a job that didn't conflict with their religious practices."

These accounts, she said, "pointed to the basic reality of how robbing people of their economic liberty also robs them of all sorts of other freedoms." The FTC estimates about 30 million people, or one in five American workers, from minimum wage earners to CEOs, are bound by noncompetes. It says the policy change could lead to increased wages totaling nearly $300 billion per year by encouraging people to swap jobs freely.

The ban, which will take effect later this year, carves out an exception for existing noncompetes that companies have given their senior executives, on the grounds that these agreements are more likely to have been negotiated. The FTC says employers should not enforce other existing noncompete agreements.

The vote was 3 to 2 along party lines. The dissenting commissioners, Melissa Holyoke and Andrew Ferguson, argued that the FTC was overstepping the boundaries of its power. Holyoke predicted the ban would be challenged in court and eventually struck down.

Shortly after the vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it would sue the FTC to block the rule, calling it unnecessary, unlawful and a blatant power grab.

Huh [23 Apr 24]

[fans4wga]

CALL TO ACTION to support WGA/SAG-AFTRA: Submit a comment about the corporate monopoly crisis.

August 18, 2023: You can personalize the template message included in the above link, or simply just add your name & email. Seems like it's US only; please boost if you can't sign yourself.

From the WGA:

"More than 100 days into our strike, as we continue to fight for the sustainability of our profession, events in Washington, D.C. provide an opportunity for writers to shine a light on one of the root causes of the strike: media consolidation. For decades, the WGA has advocated for stronger antitrust oversight, bringing attention to the ways that mergers and vertical integration in our industry – from AT&T-Time Warner to Warner Bros.-Discovery to Amazon-MGM to Disney-Fox – have consolidated the power of our employers and harmed writers as well as the diversity of content. In numerous reports and policy filings – including a new report called The New Gatekeepers: How Disney, Amazon and Netflix Will Take Over Media, released yesterday – the WGA has documented the threat to our industry from past and future consolidation and called for more aggressive antitrust enforcement. Our current strike highlights the urgency of the issue; studios gained power through anti-competitive consolidation and vertical integration and then used that power to push down wages and impose more precarious working conditions for writers while profiting off of their work, and currently – together – refuse to bargain a fair contract for writers to mitigate those harms. Last month, the FTC and DOJ jointly released proposed revisions to their Merger Guidelines, a policy document designed to guide law enforcement around consolidation. These new Draft Guidelines are part of an effort by these agencies to reinvigorate antitrust enforcement. Compared with prior versions of Merger Guidelines, they give significantly more weight to the ways that mergers can be harmful and, for the first time, explicitly direct agencies and courts to consider how mergers can hurt workers. The Draft Guidelines have been released for public comment, and the FTC and DOJ want to hear from people who have been affected by consolidation – people like you.”

The FTC and DOJ are accepting comments on their revisions of the Merger Guidelines until September 18.

[itsbansheebitch]

The SCREEN Act

Sen. Mike Lee has introduced the SCREEN ACT, a bill that applies the "harmful to minors" standard used to ban LGBTQ+ books and resources in schools and libraries and apply it nationally to the internet.

Any site that has any amount of material "harmful to minors" would be forced to employ surveillance tech (biometric scans, ID uploads, background checks) to prevent minors from accessing "pornography."

You will not be surprised to learn that this is backed by the Heritage Foundation.

Unlike some of the state age-verification laws, many of which are being challenged in court, SC will be enforced by the FTC, which has the ability to levy fines, raid business and freeze bank accounts. Yes, meaning that even non-for-profits like Ao3 will suffer.

This is something for all US users to keep on their radar. Call your reps, call your senators, and spread the word to protect our archive!

OG Source (How I found out & the OG text)

Congress.gov page

[starsfora]

RED ALERT🚨🚨 Take it down act passed House Commerce.

Today the Take It Down Act was put up for voting in the House Commerce Committee and was unfortunately passed, but we can still fight it if we speak up!!! This is not a censorship bill to protect children. But a surveillance bill that is highly dangerous for message encryption.

While I’m not sure what this means right now (any information and knowledge would be greatly appreciated) we should not give up! Keep calling your House representatives and tell them to vote NO and how this bill is harmful , censoring and a danger to private message and DM encryption

[revdrjamesjshowersjr]

affluence in the Holy Bible

65 Bible verses about Affluence

Knowing Jesushttps://bible.knowing-jesus.com › topics › Affluence

“Riches and honor are with me, Enduring wealth and righteousness. “My fruit is better than gold, even pure gold, And my yield better ...

You go ahead and be a trillionarie. My wealth is still greater than all the greed, avarice, lust, sloth, wrath, and the remainder of the 7 deadly sins.

So Help Me God..Amen, Ameen, Amun, Amin, Aum..

Thank you to the Knowing Jesus Website.