Showing posts with label Federal Trade Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Trade Commission. Show all posts

2018-09-13

FTC Hearings on 21st Century Competition and Consumer Protection

FTC Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century (graphic)
The Federal Trade Commission will begin its Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century with a full-day session, co-sponsored with and held at the Georgetown University Law Center, on September 13, 2018, 9:00AM–5:15PM EDT. [Note: The second day of hearings on Friday, September 14 has been postponed due to potential weather-related disruptions from Hurricane Florence.]

The Georgetown event will be the first in a series of hearings that will examine whether broad-based changes in the economy, evolving business practices, new technologies, or international developments might require adjustments to competition and consumer protection enforcement priorities of the Commission. Many sessions will conclude with an opportunity for those attending the event in-person to submit questions to the participants. These public events, in conjunction with the public comment process, will provide the FTC with a broad and diverse range of viewpoints and stimulate evaluation of key enforcement and policy issues.

FTC Chairman Joe Simons will present opening remarks, followed by discussion by a distinguished set of panelists who will discuss the following topics:
  • the current landscape of competition and consumer protection law and policy;
  • whether the U.S. economy has become more concentrated and less competitive;
  • the regulation of consumer data;
  • antitrust law and the consumer welfare standard; and
  • the analysis of vertical mergers
WEBCAST: The conference will be webcast. The webcast link can be found on the event page on the day of the workshop.

Future hearings - next up: Sep. 21, 2018 State of U.S. Antitrust Law; Mergers and Monopsony or Buyer Power FTC Constitution Center, Washington, DC.

More info:





TWITTER: The workshop will be tweeted live from the FTC’s Twitter page @FTC using #FTCHearings:


feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo

2015-06-28

FBI and FTC Join ICANN, GAC, PSWG: ICANN 53 Review, Part Two

photo: ICANN 53 RySG meeting with FBI and FTC reps
ICANN 53 RySG meeting with FBI (middle) and FTC (left) reps;
Far right: Keith Drazek, Verisign, Chairman of the RySG
This is the second in a series on ICANN 53 which just concluded its meeting in Buenos Aires. Find Part One here: IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability. UPDATE: Part 3: ICANN is NOT a new gTLDs Marketing Agency.

It became clear to Domain Mondo during the course of ICANN 53, that the US government is already participating in ICANN meetings as if the IANA stewardship transition is finished--which is a good thing--representatives of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the FBI attended ICANN 53 in Buenos Aires and met with the RySG (Registry Stakeholders Group -Registry Operators of all gTLDs) and the Registrar Stakeholder Group and others. They explained their involvement in the newly created Public Safety Working Group (PSWG), a sub-group under the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), to engage and interact with the ICANN community, how they will be participating in ICANN in the future, and "potential areas of interest" as of June 2015 (see below):

Slides from GAC-PSWG presentation by representatives of the FTC and FBI at ICANN 53
Above: slides from GAC-PSWG presentation by representatives of the FTC and FBI at ICANN 53
Note the "potential areas of interest"--
  • WHOIS
  • Contract Compliance
  • Implementation of new gTLDs
  • Internationalized Domain Names
Domain Mondo has a list of several more "potential areas of interest" to suggest to the FBI, FTC, and PSWG, including the serious problem of domain name theft. Now all domain name registrants, globally, have a resource for dealing with registrant issues involving registrars, registry operators, ICANN and others. As Domain Mondo noted some time ago: For Domain Name Registrants, ICANN Is Useless. So Domain Mondo says to the FTC, FBI, and PSWG: Welcome, glad you now have a seat at the ICANN table!

For legitimate domain name registrants, this is all very good news. Domain name registrants have had little, if any, representation within ICANN (e.g., there is no Registrant Stakeholder Group). For others, both within and without ICANN, this may not be good news. For example: who receives the "proceeds" from domain name registrations used by cyber criminals, cybersquatters, child pornographers, and other bad actors? Answer: Registries, Registrars, and ICANN itself. Notable Quote: "ICANN has a conflict of interest in pursuing the global public interest since its own financial interests are at odds with keeping costs down for Internet users and businesses." 

What "costs" are we talking about? Not only the costs of domain name registrations, but the increased friction costs of doing business online which actually strangles "innovation," and other "costs" caused by ICANN programs and policies--having to engage in "defensive domain registrations" (e.g., brand gTLDs, new gTLDs, etc.), trademark registration defense costs--as well as the "costs" to society due to online drug-trafficking, child pornography, etc. ICANN has admitted it is incompetent to deal with illegal activity. Heck, it is even debatable whether, after 16 years, ICANN is even capable of running the DNS competently, which is supposed to be its core competency.
"We can enforce the terms and conditions of our contracts with registries [and registrars], but it is the responsibility of governmental regulatory agencies, law enforcement and the courts to police illegal activity."--Allen Grogan, Chief Contract Compliance Officer, ICANN (emphasis added)
Put another way, in the U.S., if you are a landlord and knowingly allow tenants or others to use your property to engage in unlawful, criminal activity such as illegal drug-trafficking, you can lose your property to government seizure (forfeiture). For years, the Internet was known as a lawless Wild West--it was only a matter of time before the Sheriff showed up.

ICANN's primary jurisdiction pre- and post-transition is the United States, and the presence of the PSWG, FTC, and FBI, "at the ICANN table" has the potential of having a profound effect upon both ICANN processes and outcomes, which will benefit domain name registrants who have never had an equal voice within ICANN, as compared to the special vested-interest stakeholders (e.g., new gTLDs lobbyists). Domain Name Registrants worldwide can now contact the FTC or FBI directly with any complaint that involves US-based ICANN, its directors, officers, staff, or contractors, incuding registry operators and registrars. This is the kind of ICANN accountability which the CCWG-Accountability work, though commendable, is completely missing.

For those outside the US and not familiar with the FTC or FBI, here is a brief description of each:

Federal Trade Commission (FTC): domain name - ftc.gov
The FTC is a bipartisan federal agency with a unique dual mission to protect consumers and promote competition. The FTC protects consumers by stopping unfair, deceptive or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. "We conduct investigations, sue companies and people that violate the law, develop rules to ensure a vibrant marketplace, and educate consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. We collect complaints about hundreds of issues from data security and deceptive advertising to identity theft and Do Not Call violations, and make them available to law enforcement agencies worldwide for follow-up. Our experienced and motivated staff uses 21st century tools to anticipate – and respond to – changes in the marketplace." Promoting Competition: "Competition in America is about price, selection, and service. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of goods and services high. By enforcing antitrust laws, the FTC helps ensure that our markets are open and free. The FTC will challenge anticompetitive mergers and business practices that could harm consumers by resulting in higher prices, lower quality, fewer choices, or reduced rates of innovation. We monitor business practices, review potential mergers, and challenge them when appropriate to ensure that the market works according to consumer preferences, not illegal practices." (source: FTC)

Note comments of FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez in her letter to ICANN in the dotSUCKS case:
Excerpt from FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez letter to ICANN in the dotSUCKS case

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): domain name - fbi.gov
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States, which simultaneously serves as the nation's prime Federal law enforcement organization. Operating under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI has jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crimes. (source: Wikipedia)
Internationally, the FBI is probably most recently known for its involvement in the 2015 FIFA corruption case: "Near the end of May 2015, fourteen people were indicted in connection with an investigation by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division (IRS-CI) into wire fraud, racketeering, and money laundering." (source: Wikipedia)

Also note the position of the US Department of Justice in the Silk Road case:
"... Ulbricht claims to be, in essence, untouchable. He was merely the “operator of a website,” he asserts, and cannot be held responsible for the conduct of its users. He himself was not directly involved in buying or selling drugs or malicious software, he argues, and therefore he cannot be charged under the narcotics and computer hacking laws. Further, Ulbricht contends, the money laundering laws have not kept pace with the times and do not cover transactions with Bitcoins, the exclusive form of payment on Silk Road, so he cannot be charged with money laundering either. He moves to dismiss the Indictment against him in its entirety. The arm of the law, however, is far longer than Ulbricht imagines it to be. In particular, Ulbricht misunderstands the law of conspiracy, which extends to anyone who enters into a joint venture with others to commit crime – regardless of whether their role in the crime is large or small, direct or indirect. The conspiracy laws easily apply to Ulbricht, who played a central, organizing role in running Silk Road and in facilitating the countless illicit sales executed through the site. And it hardly matters that Ulbricht’s conduct took place on the Internet. The federal criminal laws are expansive and adaptable, and readily reach his conduct online to the same extent as if it occurred on the street ..." (source: United States of America v. Ross Ulbricht, a/k/a “Dread Pirate Roberts,” a/k/a “DPR,” a/k/a “Silk Road)(emphasis added)
For related posts on Domain Mondo:

2015-06-03

New gTLD Domain Names, Defects, ICANN Liability, FTC Complaints

"..."Universal acceptance" (UA) has become an urgent top priority for new gTLD adherents as well as those concerned about the performance of new domains for consumers and businesses. Simply put, many new gTLD addresses don't resolve in web browsers or work with email systems. This is exactly the type of technical issue that is supposed to be ICANN's core competence, so why is it only now being grappled with given the many years of planning in the run-up to new gTLDs becoming available? This is hardly a new issue. According to the CTO for Afilias, the challenge was first identified by ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) in 2003, with multiple recommendations made to address it. Yet, he observes,"That was over a decade ago! "..."--Philip S. Corwin - ICANN.WTF?...
As Phil Corwin pointed out above, ICANN knew that new gTLD domain names would have universal acceptance "defects"--i.e., "failing to work as expected on the Internet" and/or "break stuff" or even compromise the stability and security of the Internet--that must be why ICANN included an exculpatory (escape of liability) clause a/k/a weasel clause, in its Registry Agreements with new gTLD domain name registry operators:
Registry Agreement between ICANN and new gTLD Registry operators"....1.2 Technical Feasibility of String. While ICANN has encouraged and will continue to encourage universal acceptance of all top-level domain strings across the Internet, certain top-level domain strings may encounter difficulty in acceptance by ISPs and webhosters and/or validation by web applications. Registry Operator shall be responsible for ensuring to its satisfaction the technical feasibility of the TLD string prior to entering into this Agreement...." (emphasis added)
But what about the gullible "suckers" (not a reference to dotSUCKS and no pun intended) who "buy" or register these new gTLD domain names, and then discover their new gTLD domain names "failing to work as expected on the Internet" or "break stuff"Where was ICANN when it came to protecting consumers--domain name registrants, users, businesses-- and the public interest? Or was ICANN just out to make money for itself to expand its offices and pay lavish amounts to ICANN officers, staff, directors, and/or "line the pockets" of its multitudes of contractors and self-serving, self-interested stakeholders?

How big a problem is universal acceptance with new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains)? Look at the schedule for the ICANN 53 meeting later this month: a full one-day Universal Acceptance workshop plus another separate Universal Acceptance session the next day. No prior ICANN meeting has devoted so much time to the Universal Acceptance problemBetter late than never!

The victims or "injured parties" here include domain name registrants who have been deceived by all the hype from ICANN or its new gTLD registry operators or new gTLD domain name registrars, without benefit of any corresponding prominent warnings or disclosures about the universal acceptance problems with new gTLD domain names.
Domain Name Registrants' Rights: "... 3.You shall not be subject to false advertising or deceptive practices by your Registrar or though [sic] any proxy or privacy services made available by your Registrar. This includes deceptive notices, hidden fees, and any practices that are illegal under the consumer protection law of your residence...." (emphasis added)
Could this be yet another ICANN matter for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate?
What We Do | Federal Trade Commission: "The FTC protects consumers by stopping unfair, deceptive or fraudulent practices in the marketplace. We conduct investigations, sue companies and people that violate the law, develop rules to ensure a vibrant marketplace, and educate consumers and businesses about their rights and responsibilities. We collect complaints about hundreds of issues from data security and deceptive advertising to ... and make them available to law enforcement agencies worldwide for follow-up. Our experienced and motivated staff uses 21st century tools to anticipate – and respond to – changes in the marketplace." (emphasis added)
For more information or to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission go to https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/Information or www.ftc.gov/complaint and watch the video below, or call Toll-free: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).


If you cannot view the FTC video above, view the video here.

2015-04-14

The dot SUCKS Conundrum: ICANN, FTC, OCA, New gTLD Domains

“… they say shipwrecked fellows’ll make a meal of friend as quick as they would of a total stranger... But I don’t see the conundrum in your case, I guess it’s up to both parties to take care of their own skins.” --Edith Wharton, The Custom of the Country.
Things just keep going from bad to worse for ICANN and its new gTLDs. A year ago, ICANN predicted that 33 million new gTLD domain names would be registered in FY2015 (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015), then lowered that estimate to 15 million domain names, and today, with only a little more than two months to go, we have a total of only about 5 million new gTLD domain names registered according to ntldstats.com, of which less than 4 million were registered in this fiscal year (about 1.4 million new gTLD domain names were already registered in June, 2014, before this fiscal year began). And now new gTLD domains are hemorrhaging registrations as first-time renewals come due and registrants decide new gTLDs are not worth the renewal registration fees.

In addition, after ICANN had collected its money and started delegating new gTLDs into the Internet Root, it was reported that the new gTLDs compromise the stability and security of the Internet DNS, fail to work across Internet, and reportedly "break stuff."

How much worse can it get? Well, as almost everyone now knows, ICANN, when confronted by the results of its own ill-conceived and misbegotten new gTLDs policy and program, decided last week to throw under the bus one of its own new gTLD contractors a/k/a ICANN's "customers" or "partners"--Vox Populi, Registry operator of .SUCKS--without any ICANN finding of wrongdoing or breach by Vox Populi of its Registry Agreement with ICANN!

How did we arrive at this sad state of affairs? Unsurprisingly, it's all about the money--there was money, a lot of money, to be made, by ICANN itself, as the sole monopoly in the world with the ability to "sell" new generic top-level domains, thanks to authority granted it by the United States Department of Commerce, as well as money to be made by the domain name industry--registry operators, registrars, consultants, lawyers, service providers, et al. In that kind of environment, the ideals of Jon Postel et al, and the public interest, were sacrificed on the high altar of Mammon.

All along the way, there were numerous warnings that ICANN chose to ignore:

"We strongly believe that ICANN should substantially reduce the maximum number of new gTLDs that could be introduced in the initial round to a much smaller number. Indeed, doubling the number of existing [22] gTLDs in one year would be an aggressive increase. The imposition of a more reasonable limit is necessary to curb the risks inherent in expanding the number of gTLDs, including the proliferation of malicious conduct. We recommend that ICANN use this round as a limited pilot program, as it has done in previous rounds, assess the organization’s ability to evaluate, introduce, and manage additional gTLDs, conduct an assessment of the increased risks posed by the program, and then consider whether a more significant expansion would be appropriate. --US Federal Trade Commission, letter to ICANNDecember 16, 2011 (emphasis added).

“'The public at large, consumers and businesses, would be better served by no expansion or less expansion' of [new gTLD] domains." -- Jon Leibowitz, former Chairman of the US Federal Trade Commission (New York Times, August 17, 2013, emphasis added).

“…. I view it as little more than a predatory shakedown scheme. The business model behind this gTLD [.SUCKS] seems to be the following: force large corporations, small businesses, non-profits, and even individuals, to pay ongoing fees to prevent seeing the phrase “sucks” appended to their names on the Internet… a gTLD like “sucks” has little or no socially redeeming value and it reinforces many people’s fears that the purpose of gTLD expansion is to enrich the domain name industry rather than benefit the broader community of Internet users …” --US Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, letter to ICANNMarch 12, 2014 (emphasis added).

Now resulting in this:

"... It [.SUCKS pricing] creates a mockery of the new TLD process and calls into question the very ability of ICANN as an organization to be able to administer the new gTLD program. This issue is particularly timely, given the accountability debate in which ICANN is embroiled... we call on ICANN to put a stop to this coercive scheme based on an abusive modification of ICANN’s RPMs. ICANN is the sole entity in the world charged with the orderly introduction of new gTLDs in a secure, reliable and predictable manner. If ICANN is unwilling or unable to put a halt to this, then who is?..." --Gregory S. Shatan, President, Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), letter to ICANNMarch 27, 2015 (emphasis added). 

To which ICANN responded:

Regular Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee of the ICANN Board of Directors was held telephonically on 1 April 2015 "... At the Committee's request, staff provided an overview of the points raised in a 27 March 2015 letter from the Intellectual Property Constituency concerning the .SUCKS TLD (pdf)... Committee members expressed various views about the claims made in the IPC letter, and staff noted that it was evaluating the claims, and exploring possible alternatives to address the noted issues. The Committee asked to receive updates on this matter going forward. The Chair called the meeting to a close."

"... John Jeffrey, ICANN’s General Counsel & Secretary, has sent a letter to the United States’ Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Canada’s Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) asking them to consider assessing and determining whether Vox Populi is violating any laws or regulations enforced by their respective offices... We are following up to request responses from these two regulatory agencies and hope that you and the IPC might also encourage these entities to evaluate this, and additionally might offer your assistance should they have any questions..." --ICANN's Akram Atallah letter to Gregory S. Shatan, April 9, 2015. (emphasis added)

"... ICANN, through its registry agreement, may seek remedies against Vox Populi [.SUCKS Registry] if the registry’s actions are determined to be illegal… ICANN has limited expertise or authority to determine the legality of Vox Populi’s positions, which we believe fall within your [FTC and OCA] respective regimes… should the FTC or the OCA make a determination of illegal activity, it could be that Vox Populi will also be in breach of its registry agreement…” --John O. Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel, Letter to the U.S. government's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Government of Canada's Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA), April 9, 2015 (emphasis added).

Beyond the Contract: Partnering to Strengthen Business and Consumer Protections - ICANN blog post by Allen Grogan, ICANN Chief Contract Compliance Officer, April 9, 2015: "... ICANN is not a regulator ... if Vox Populi is not complying with all applicable laws, it may also be in breach of its registry agreement. ICANN could then act...." (emphasis added)

Apparently, even if the FTC and OCA find Vox Populi has violated a regulation or law, ICANN says only it "may" then do something, and by that time, months, if not years, will have passed!

UPDATE: The ICANN Business Constituency on May 8, 2015, sent its own letters to ICANN, the FTC, and OCA, reiterating and supporting the position taken by the IPC above:
Questions:
  • Will the FTC (or OCA) even open an investigation? Will the FTC open an investigation and expand it to include ICANN and all of its new gTLD contractors (registry operators)? Will the FTC utilize its full and broad authority and powers in both competition (anti-trust) and consumer protection matters--ICANN is a monopoly granting new gTLD registry operators a monopoly (sole authority over a TLD)?
  • Will the European equivalents of the FTC and OCA (and perhaps other governmental authorities throughout the world) open their own investigations into these matters?
  • How will Vox Populi, the Intellectual Property Constituency, and other interested parties now respond to ICANN, the FTC, and OCA?
  • How will all of this impact the US Congress, House and Senate, and their opinions and views of the IANA transition proposed by Larry Strickling, NTIA, US Department of Commerce?
  • Will the global multistakeholder community now, finally, turn away in disgust from ICANN and its conflicted, inept management and coordination of the global Internet DNS, and seek an international solution based on the global public interest, not special interests, based in Geneva or some other neutral locale and jurisdiction?
In the meantime, the media are having a field day:



Caveat Emptor!


2015-04-10

Domain Name Registrar Network Solutions Settles FTC Charges

Web.com Group, Inc., which owns domain name registrar and hosting provider, Network Solutions, disclosed on August 1, 2014, in a SEC 10-Q filing, a pending FTC investigation:
"The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") is investigating the methods by which Network Solutions has marketed its domain name and web hosting services to customers. The Company is cooperating with the FTC investigation. The Company has responded to an FTC Civil Investigative Demand and is responding to additional FTC information requests. The FTC investigation could conclude with a variety of outcomes, including the closing of the inquiry with no action, an order regarding our marketing practices, or a payment to the government or to customers." (emphasis added)
The FTC has now announced this week a settlement with Network Solutions--

From the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Washington, D.C. (press release)--FTC Obtains Settlement From Network Solutions LLC for Misleading Consumers About Refunds--

"Network Solutions LLC has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misled consumers who bought its web hosting services by promising a full refund if they canceled within 30 days. In reality, the company withheld substantial cancellation fees from most refunds.

"In an administrative complaint, the FTC alleged that Network Solutions, a domain name registrar and web hosting provider, offered web hosting packages with a “30 Day Money Back Guarantee,” but did not adequately disclose that it withheld part of the refund – up to 30 percent – from customers who cancelled within 30 days of buying an annual or multi-year package and registering an included domain name.

"The proposed settlement order prohibits Network Solutions from failing to clearly disclose, before obtaining a customer’s billing information, the material terms of any money-back guarantee, or failing to refund the full purchase price in response to a request that complies with the terms of a guarantee. The settlement also bars the company from misrepresenting material terms of any refund or cancellation policy or money-back guarantee, or any other material fact about web hosting.

"The FTC acknowledges the assistance of the Better Business Bureau serving Metro Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania in this case.

"The Commission vote to issue an administrative complaint and accept the proposed consent agreement for public comment was 5-0. The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through May 7, 2015, after which the Commission will decide whether to issue the order on a final basis. Interested parties can submit written comments electronically."

Federal Trade Commission
Title: Proposed Consent Agreement and Request for Public Comments
Subject Category: In the Matter of Network Solutions, LLC; File No 132 3084
Published: Date To Be Added
Comments Due: Thursday, May 7, 2015


Invitation To Comment:
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The Federal Register Notice includes an Analysis to Aid Public Comment that describes both the allegations in the proposed draft complaint and the terms of the consent order - embodied in the consent agreement - that would settle these allegations. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments on the issues....
(emphasis added; read more and submit comment at the Federal Trade Commission website.)

2015-03-27

FTC Rules Operators of Jerk.com Deceived Consumers, Violated FTC Act

From the March 25th press release--FTC Rules Jerk, LLC and John Fanning Deceived Consumers, Violated FTC Act | Federal Trade Commission:

"The Federal Trade Commission has granted summary decision against the operators of Jerk.com, a website that billed itself as “the anti-social network,” for deceiving users about the source of content on the website. The Commission found that the operators – Jerk, LLC (“Jerk”) and John Fanning – misled consumers by claiming that content on the website was posted by other users. Instead, most of the content came from Facebook profiles mined by the operators.

"The Commission also found that the company and Fanning misrepresented the benefits of a paid membership which, for $30, purportedly allowed consumers to update information in their Jerk.com profiles. In fact, consumers who paid for the membership were unable to correct information about them on the site, and did not receive anything of value for their “membership.”

"The final order and an accompanying opinion resulted from an administrative complaint the FTC staff filed in 2014 against Jerk and Fanning. The summary decision was requested by FTC staff trying the case.

"The order requires the company and Fanning to delete all personal and customer information collected during the operation of the now-defunct website within 30 days, and prohibits them from selling or disclosing any of that information. The order also prohibits them from misrepresenting the source of any content on a website, including personal information, and from misrepresenting the benefits of joining any service.

"The Commission vote to issue the opinion granting summary decision and the final order was 5-0.

"The company or Fanning may file a petition for review of the Commission Opinion and Final Order with a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals within 60 days after service of the Final Order."

"The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad."  (source: FTC)


Domain Mondo archive