FTC
Culture War Comes to Silicon Valley as Sen. Josh Hawley Introduces Bill to Strip Section 230 Immunity from Social Media

WASHINGTON, June 20, 2019 — Legislation authored by Sen. Joshua Hawley could signal the start of a new chapter of the culture war: Conservatives directly targeting Silicon Valley tech companies.
On Wednesday, Hawley, R-Mo., announced that he’d introduced the “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” (PDF), which would repeal a provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that granted online service providers immunity from liability for user-generated content posted on their websites.
The law, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, has increasingly come to be seen as generous – and perhaps overly generous – in encouraging robust online discussion. Many of the law’s most public beneficiaries – Facebook, Google, Twitter – are now the technology platforms that are America’s largest companies.
As a result, a growing group of tech critics are saying that Section 230 is no longer in the national interest. (See our story last week, “With Google and Facebook Under Fire, Section 230 is at a Tipping Point as More Push for Changes.”)
Section 230 was included in the Telecom Act as a way of incentivizing websites concerned that they would be held liable for the comments of others. It was intended to reverse court rulings holding an online service provider liable for defamatory content posted by users when the tech company employed moderators to enforce terms of service rules.
Hawley’s mission against Facebook
Only six months into his first term, Hawley has garnered attention in conservative media circles by taking up the cause of conservative-identifying social media users. They claim that social media companies who ban or suspend the social networks’ rules against hate speech, threats, and harassment amounts to political censorship, even if done by a private sector actor.
(See our story last month, “Sen. Josh Hawley Accuses Facebook of Addiction and Calls Social Media Worth-Less,” which also touched upon Sen. Hawley’s views about Section 230.)
Now, Hawley says he wants condition providers’ immunity on their ability to convince four of five members of the Federal Trade Commission that they have not discriminated against conservatives when applying their terms of service.
The bill would only apply to platforms with more than 30 million active monthly users in the U.S., more than 300 million active monthly users worldwide, or more than $500 million in global annual revenue.
It would require these giant tech platforms to biannually provide the FTC with “clear and convincing evidence” that “their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral.”
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” Hawley said in a statement.
“This legislation simply states that if the tech giants want to keep their government-granted immunity, they must bring transparency and accountability to their editorial processes and prove that they don’t discriminate.”
Tech industry lobbyists wonder whether they should take it seriously
But industry and legal experts savaged Hawley’s proposal as antithetical to the First Amendment and a throwback to policies long rejected by conservatives, including the Fairness Doctrine that required broadcasters using the nation’s radiofrequency spectrum to grant airtime to opposing views.
Computer & Communications Industry Association President Ed Black deplored the “ludicrousness” of Hawley’s proposal, which he called “an unbelievable disregard for the essence of the First Amendment and attempt to overlay a lens of partisan politics over the communications of millions of Americans.”
“If Congress is serious about tech companies doing more to remove hate speech and illegal content online, putting new restrictions on the legal protection that allows them to do that would be ill-advised,” Black said.
In a statement, TechFreedom President Berin Szoka said that the measure would effectively require internet companies to obtain a license from the FTC in order to operate. It would make them depend on the goodwill of FTC commissioners and the presidents who nominate them.
Szoka, who testified last year at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on conservatives’ allegations of political censorship, predicted that the biannual vote Hawley’s bill requires would turn into a “partisan bloodmatch” in which companies would be presumed guilty and have to prove their innocence.
“The bill would give politicians a gigantic regulatory hammer to use against big tech and transform the FTC overnight into the most politicized regulatory body in Washington,” he said. “Sadly, that seems to be the point.”
Szoka noted that Hawley’s bill would deter companies from making social networks “usable for normal people” by moderating content and combatting abusive behavior, extreme content and disinformation, and suggested such deterrence is meant to benefit Republicans.
“If, as social science research suggests, such harmful content seems to help Republicans energize their base more than it helps Democrats, even truly ‘neutral’ enforcement of terms of service will, on net, hurt the Right,” he said. “That which would explain why Republicans insist on framing content moderation as ‘censorship’ of their views.”
(Photo of Hawley by Drew Clark; Reporter Emily McPhie contributed to this article.)
Antitrust
FTC Funding Request Harshly Criticized by Republican Lawmakers
The agency’s aggressive approach to antitrust under Chair Lina Khan has sparked controversy.

WASHINGTON, April 19, 2023 — House Republicans expressed skepticism about the Federal Trade Commission’s requested budget increase during a Tuesday hearing, accusing the agency of overstepping its jurisdiction in pursuit of a progressive enforcement agenda.
The hearing of the Innovation, Data and Commerce Subcommittee showcased sharp partisan tension over Chair Lina Khan’s aggressive approach to antitrust — heightened by the fact that both Republican seats on the five-member agency remain vacant.
Khan, alongside Democratic Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, argued that the $160 million budget increase was necessary for maintaining existing enforcement efforts as well as “activating additional authorities that Congress has given us.”
But Republican lawmakers seemed unwilling to grant the requested funds, which would bring the agency’s total annual budget to $590 million.
“You seem to be squandering away the resources that we currently give you in favor of pursuing unprecedented progressive legal theories,” said Subcommittee Chair Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla.
“What is clearly needed — before Congress considers any new authorities or funding — are reforms, more guardrails and increased transparency to ensure you are accountable to the American people,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., ranking member of the full committee, defended the funding request by saying the FTC has “one of the broadest purviews of any federal agency: fighting deceptive and unfair business practices and anti-competitive conduct across the entire economy.”
“Managing this portfolio with less than fourteen hundred employees is no small feat,” Pallone said, noting that the FTC currently has fewer employees than it did 45 years ago.
FTC highlights potential AI threats, other tech developments
FTC staff and Democratic lawmakers have been flagging concerns about understaffing at the agency for years, arguing that rapid technological and market changes have increased the scope and complexity of the agency’s role.
“The same lawyers who ensure that social media companies have robust privacy and data security programs are making sure labels on bed linens are correct,” testified former Chief Technologist Ashkan Soltani at a Senate hearing in 2021.
In their written testimony, commissioners detailed several emerging priorities related to technological developments — such as combatting online harms to children and protecting sensitive consumer data shared with health websites — and emphasized the corresponding need for increased resources.
The agency is also preparing to pursue violations related to artificial intelligence technologies, Khan said, as the “turbocharging of fraud and scams that could be enabled by these tools are a serious concern.”
But several tech-focused trade groups, including the Computer & Communications Industry Association, have signaled opposition to FTC expansion.
“The FTC can best carry out its mission if it heeds the committee’s call to return its focus to consumer needs and consumer fraud — rather than pursuing cases rooted in novel theories against American companies,” CCIA President Matt Schruers said after the hearing.
The Consumer Technology Association urged lawmakers to reject the requested budget increase in a letter sent Friday.
“In 2022, agency data shows consumers reported losing almost $8.8 billion to scams… Despite this mounting caseload of fraud, identity theft and related cases, the FTC appears more interested in attacking U.S. tech companies, to the detriment of consumers who have benefitted from an unparalleled explosion of innovative, online-based products and services,” CTA President Gary Shapiro wrote.
FTC
Epic Games Settles with FTC for $520 Million
Epic’s $275 million penalty for alleged COPPA violation is the largest to date, according to the agency.

WASHINGTON, December 19, 2022 – The Federal Trade Commission and Epic Games, creator of the popular video game Fortnite, have reached a pair of settlements, totaling $520 million, to resolve allegations that the developer violated the data privacy of child users and deceptively pushed in-app purchases, the agency announced Monday.
The FTC alleges that Epic violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act by collecting the personal data of players under 13 years of age without properly notifying their parents or obtaining parental consent. In addition, the watchdog says children’s game settings by default allowed voice and text communication with other players, exposing them to harm.
“Children and teens have been bullied, threatened, harassed, and exposed to dangerous and psychologically traumatizing issues such as suicide while on Fortnite,” the FTC said.
Epic agreed to pay a $275 million penalty for its alleged COPPA violation, which is the largest penalty for breaking an FTC rule imposed to date, according to the agency. Epic agreed to the second penalty, $245 million, to resolve allegations that it manipulated users into purchasing in-game content through a confusing interface.
“Statutes written decades ago don’t specify how gaming ecosystems should operate. The laws have not changed, but their application has evolved and long-standing industry practices are no longer enough,” Epic said in an online post. “We accepted this agreement because we want Epic to be at the forefront of consumer protection and provide the best experience for our players.”
As a part of the settlements, Epic neither admitted nor denied the claims made against it.
The settlements immediately drew praise: “The FTC’s lawsuit against Epic proves we need stronger online privacy protections for children and teens,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., in statement Monday. “Kids were bullied, harassed, and threated because Epic designed its games to let them communicate with strangers from all over the world. It’s time for Congress to step up for kids and protect them from online harms and to make sure we have a stronger FTC to enforce against bad actors.”
FTC
FTC Forum Hears Evidence that U.S. Should Follow European Union Privacy Model
The agency is proposing to use its own authority to regulate tech platforms for their ‘commercial surveillance’.

WASHINGTON September 15, 2022 – The Federal Trade Commission should consider adopting standards established by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation to force Big Tech platforms to consent to the use of their user’s personal information, according to the CEO of a digital content trade organization.
The FTC proposed last month to use its authority under Section 18 of the FTC Act to bring “commercial surveillance” – the act of entities collecting personal information and selling them to third-party data brokers – under its authority to further regulate technology platforms. Section 18 is a statute of the FTC Act that grants the commission the authority to implement trade regulation rules for businesses that use tactics that are considered “unfair” or harmful to consumers.
Digital Content Next CEO Jason Kint said during an FTC public hearing on the matter on September 8 that the EU’s GDPR model provides an established practice of requiring companies and organizations to get consent to the use of their data in these contexts.
“Having a pop-up come up [for consent] every time you visit the site…that’s entirely in line with users’ expectations,” Kint said. To comply with GDPR principles, websites shown to users in the United States must ask visitors if they consent to the collection of their data in part to cater certain products to them.
“The user doesn’t want it to happen where their data is being tracked by third parties,” Kint said.
“So, if you’re the party that they’re choosing to interact with for service, providing them that data is very different.”
In August, the FTC announced an rulemaking to consider commercial surveillance as a Section 18 violation of the FTC Act. It its notice seeking comment, the FTC asked questions about what companies should disclose, who would administer the disclosure agreements, and if the FTC should impose limitations on the mechanisms companies use to hide their surveillance practices.
On July 20, the Senate Commerce Committee passed comprehensive privacy legislation a restricting collection and transfer of personal data of U.S. citizens without consent.
The measure has not yet passed the House, but in responding to the August announcement, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said that it is the responsibility of Congress, not the FTC, “to pass comprehensive federal privacy legislation.”
There are currently more than 120,000 comments on this issue. The FTC is still collecting public statements on this issue until October 21.
-
Fiber2 weeks ago
The High Cost of Fiber is Leading States to Explore Other Technologies
-
Broadband Mapping & Data4 weeks ago
FCC is Looking to Update its Definition of Broadband
-
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
Emergency Connectivity Funding, Comcast in Connecticut, Glo Fiber in Pennsylvania
-
FCC3 weeks ago
‘It Was Graft’: How the FCC’s CAF II Program Became a Money Sink
-
Expert Opinion2 weeks ago
Ryan Johnston: What Happens to BEAD Without the Affordable Connectivity Program?
-
Funding2 weeks ago
NTIA Confirms Licensed-by-Rule May Apply for BEAD Funding
-
Digital Inclusion2 weeks ago
Federal Officials Agree: Infrastructure Alone Will Not Close the Digital Divide
-
Spectrum3 weeks ago
Biden Administration Announces Plan to Free Up Spectrum