Page 2 Progress Snapshot 6.7
using the new powers conferred on his agency in a bill (H.R, 4173) few realize has anything todo with Internet policy.
Most importantly, Rep. Frank’
s bill would repeal procedural safeguards imposed on the FTC by
a heavily Democratic Congress in 1980. The agency, in the 1970s, had so thoroughly abused itsuniquely vast jurisdiction by, among other things, trying to ban advertising to children, that it
hardly a Thatcherite bastion. Infact, Congress actually briefly shut down the agency to make it clear that it had not dubbed theagency a regulatory knight errant, free to tilt its steely lance at imagined windmills of
“unfairness” or “deception.” Besides requiring the agency to
better define these vagueconcepts and focus on demonstrable harms, Congress strengthened safeguards it had put inplace with the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Act to ensure that the agency did not rush intopreemptive regulation without carefully weighing the costs and benefits of governmentintervention.FTC Chairman Leibowitz complains that the Magnuson-Moss process takes too long, and Rep.
Frank’s bill would indeed accelerate the rulemaking process—
by eliminating opportunities forpublic input and Congressional
notification, while removing restrictions on Commissioners’
ex parte
meetings. So much for transparency!These safeguards remain as necessary as they were when Congress passed Magnuson-Moss in
1975 to constrain the FTC’s unique
ombudsman authority over nearly all of the economy. ButH.R. 4173 would go much further than simply removing these restraints. It would alsosignificantly lower both the legal threshold for FTC regulation and the standard for judicialreview of regulation: The FTC would no longer have to prove that an unfair or deceptive
practice is “prevalent” to regulate it or justify regulation with “substantial evidence.”
ChairmanLeibowitz has also complained that the FTC lacks the resources it needs to enforce its existingauthority effec
tively. But instead of simply funding increased enforcement, Rep. Frank’s bill
would fundamentally transform the way FTC enforcement works. Today, the FTC relies onadministrative orders and injunctions to stop bad actors, and imposes civil penalties only if a
company violates a prior order. That’s critical because the FTC’s guiding legal standards—“unfairness” and “deception”—
are so profoundly subjective. For example, in deciding whether
Google’s design of its new Buzz service was “unfair,” the FTC
benefits against consumer injury and ask whether that injury was one “
consumers could notreasonably have avoided
.” Such trade
-offs are particularly thorny when it comes to privacy,
since many privacy “invasions” also offer great benefits to users.
But under Rep. Frank’s bill, the FTC could impose civil penalties on a company before evenputting them on notice that it might consider a particular practice “deceptive” or “unfair”—
,the risk of huge penalties would hang like the“
industry, forcing them to err on the side of e
xtreme caution. This kind of nightmarish “strictliability” legal regime would give the FTC unprecedented power to regulate by intimidation, by
driving companies to rush to the FTC to ask,
“Mother, May I?”
whenever in doubt. That wouldbe particularly devastating for online innovation
, putting the FTC in the driver’s seat when it
comes to changing business models, technologies, and even user interface design.