<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > FTC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/ftc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:20:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Can the Supreme Court hike drug prices?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/29/can_the_supreme_court_hike_drug_prices/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/29/can_the_supreme_court_hike_drug_prices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prescription Medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Roberts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lobbying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antonin Scalia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consumer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13254274</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How the industry uses the high court to allow bribery, evade the FDA, and boost medicine prices 5 times their cost]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court oral arguments on marriage equality deserved all the attention they received -- but it's another case heard this week that will affect even more people over the course of their lifetimes. And it could cost Americans millions in prescription drug bills.</p><p>The case falls within a sadly predictable continuum for the Roberts Court, which virtually always sides with the corporate litigant over the government or individual. This time, the arguments in FTC v. Actavis revolve around an insidious tactic common to the nation’s largest drug companies, and known as “pay for delay.” As a result of the likely ruling in this case<em>,</em> drug companies will be able to charge consumers as much as five times the potential cost of their products. And both government regulators and consumers will watch helplessly as pharmaceutical companies bribe generic drug makers to retain their exclusive holds on the lifesaving medicines we all inevitably require.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/29/can_the_supreme_court_hike_drug_prices/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/29/can_the_supreme_court_hike_drug_prices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FTC to mobile advertisers: Behave!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/ftc_to_mobile_advertisers_behave/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/ftc_to_mobile_advertisers_behave/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mobile advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smartphones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Do Not Track]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13188362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new government report asks advertisers and app developers to "consider" a Do Not Track system]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I'd love to take credit for the fact that just two weeks after my story on how <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/18/the_spies_inside_our_smartphones/">mobile online advertisers are compiling detailed profiles of us through our smartphone apps,</a> the FTC has released <a href="http://ftc.gov/opa/2013/02/mobileprivacy.shtm">a report stuffed with recommendations</a> as to how mobile platform companies, app developers and advertisers can "improve mobile privacy disclosures." But the truth is the FTC has been focused on the issue for years -- and understandably so, since the cutting edge of privacy is now in our pockets.</p><blockquote><p>First, more than other types of technology, mobile devices are typically personal to an individual, almost always on, and with the user. This can facilitate unprecedented amounts of data collection. The data collected can reveal sensitive information, such as communications with contacts, search queries about health conditions, political interests, and other affiliations, as well as other highly personal information. This data also may be shared with third parties, for example, to send consumers behaviorally targeted advertisements.</p></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/ftc_to_mobile_advertisers_behave/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/ftc_to_mobile_advertisers_behave/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google antitrust claims dropped by FTC</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/google_antitrust_claims_dropped_by_ftc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/google_antitrust_claims_dropped_by_ftc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 20:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search engine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13161136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regulators found no evidence to claims that Google unfairly favors its own services in searches]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON -- Google is agreeing to license certain patents to mobile phone rivals and stop a practice of including snippets from other websites in its search results as part of a settlement to end a 19-month investigation into the search leader's business practices, the Federal Trade Commission said Thursday.</p><p>U.S. antitrust regulators added that they have found no evidence to claims that Google unfairly favors its own services in search results.</p><p>Google did agree to license patents deemed to be "essential" for rival mobile devices such as Apple Inc.'s iPhone, Research in Motion Ltd.'s BlackBerry and smartphones running on a Microsoft Corp.'s Windows software. Some of the patents in question came as part of Google's $12.4 billion acquisition of device maker Motorola Mobility Holdings earlier this year.</p><p>Regulators say Google is also promising that upon request, it will exclude snippets copied from other websites in its summaries of key information, even though the company had insisted the practice is legal under the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law. Despite the fair-use practice, Google already had scaled back on the amount of cribbing, or "scraping," of online content after business review site Yelp Inc. lodged one of the complaints that triggered the FTC investigation.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/google_antitrust_claims_dropped_by_ftc/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/google_antitrust_claims_dropped_by_ftc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apps for kids are secretly collecting information</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/apps_for_kids_are_secretly_collecting_information/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/apps_for_kids_are_secretly_collecting_information/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mobile Apps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13120545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The FTC reports that mobile apps designed for children collect and share data without parental consent]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Trade Commission <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/12/kidsapp.shtm">released a report </a>Monday, which shows that most mobile apps for children are secretly collecting information and sharing it with third parties.</p><p>Of the Google Play and Apple Store apps reviewed, only 20 percent disclosed any information about the app’s privacy practices, while almost 60 percent of the apps were found to be transmitting information from a user's device to third parties, such as the app developers, advertising networks or analytics companies. Fourteen apps out of hundreds surveyed were also found to transmit the location of the device and the phone number, the FTC found.</p><p>The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act requires online service operators for children under 13 to get consent from parents before collecting and sharing personal information. Based on its findings, the FTC announced Monday investigations to determine if certain mobile apps developers have violated COPPA.</p><p>FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz commented in a written statement:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/apps_for_kids_are_secretly_collecting_information/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/apps_for_kids_are_secretly_collecting_information/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The price of airline iPad freedom</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/the_price_of_airline_ipad_freedom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/the_price_of_airline_ipad_freedom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Air Travel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mobile devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wireless devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tracking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13120439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Another defeat for privacy: We will soon be able to use our mobile devices during takeoff and landing]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look, I get it. I understand why the twittering masses are so excited to learn that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski <a href=" http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/271565-fcc-chairman-to-faa-allow-greater-use-of-electronic-devices-during-flights">sent a letter last week</a> to the FAA encouraging the agency to get its act together and allow airline passengers to play with their mobile devices during takeoff and landing. I have long wondered, along with everyone else, why we haven't seen any meaningful scientific evidence that the use of such devices interferes with the operation of an aircraft. Miles away from the airport, I still feel the pain for those parents of toddlers (and everyone sitting within earshot) who are denied the right to distract their spawn with the fabulous interactivity of the latest iPad. And I always die a little death every single time I have to stop checking for the latest Facebook status updates just so my Boeing 727 can get launched off the ground. Let Alec Baldwin <a href="http://mashable.com/2011/12/06/alec-baldwin/">play as much</a> "Words With Friends" as he wants! We're talking about <em>freedom</em> here!</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/the_price_of_airline_ipad_freedom/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/the_price_of_airline_ipad_freedom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An online privacy invader gets caught</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/05/an_online_privacy_invader_gets_caught/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/05/an_online_privacy_invader_gets_caught/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epic marketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13116129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Impotent? Infertile? Bankrupt? Online advertisers want to know, and they'll break the law to find out]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>News from the privacy wars: The Federal Trade Commission and Epic Marketing, an online ad network, have settled <a href="http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/1123182/121205epiccmpt.pdf">charges</a> that Epic was secretly and illegally gathering information on the browsing history of Web users, a practice known as "history sniffing" or "history stealing."</p><p>And not just any kind of history. Epic was specifically looking for people who had visited websites searching for information on "fertility issues, impotence, menopause, incontinence, disability insurance, credit repair, debt relief, and personal bankruptcy." Epic divided these people up into "interest groups" and targeted advertisements to them. So if, for example, you Googled "impotence" and visited a few Web pages with relevant information, the next time you checked out CNN.com you might suddenly be assaulted by a slew of Viagra and Cialis advertisements.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/05/an_online_privacy_invader_gets_caught/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/12/05/an_online_privacy_invader_gets_caught/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google faces antitrust ultimatum</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/google_faces_antitrust_ultimatum/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/google_faces_antitrust_ultimatum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YouTube]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Antitrust]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13069641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Following a long FTC investigation, the tech giant must settle or face a lawsuit]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission has warned Google: settle or face a formal antitrust lawsuit, Bloomberg News reported. The FTC has been investigating the tech giant for over a year, looking into claims that Google has given its own services -- such as YouTube or Google Drive -- precedence over competitors in search results.</p><div>Bloomberg <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12/google-said-to-face-ultimatum-from-ftc-in-antitrust-talks.html">reported</a> Monday:</div><blockquote> <div>For almost 20 months, the FTC has been probing whether Mountain View, California-based Google is abusing its dominance of the Internet and it’s prepared to file a case against the operator of the world’s largest search engine if the company fails to make an acceptable settlement proposal, the people said...</div> </blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/google_faces_antitrust_ultimatum/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/google_faces_antitrust_ultimatum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Misleading advertising on the rise</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/08/22/misleading_advertising_salpart/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/08/22/misleading_advertising_salpart/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Next New Deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[POM Wonderful]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sketchers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12989494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four ways the Federal Trade Commission can fight back and protect consumers]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last year, President Obama created the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, a new agency to protect American consumers with the explicit purpose of preventing some of the risky practices that led to the crisis of 2008. It took one of the greatest financial disasters in history to initiate regulatory change. But there were a number of small failures leading up to the disaster that indicated things were going poorly. Had the CFPB existed at any one of these smaller junctures, much of the disaster could have been averted.<br /> <a href="http://www.nextnewdeal.net/"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/05/next-new-deal-logo.png" alt="Next New Deal" align="left" /></a></p><p>Today, the United States is at a similar juncture: consumers need additional protection, misleading advertising is on the rise, and the current agency responsible for regulation—the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—is not doing enough.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/08/22/misleading_advertising_salpart/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/08/22/misleading_advertising_salpart/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
