Lawyers representing Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, clashed with the U.S. government on Tuesday regarding the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) plan to strengthen a privacy order dating back to 2019, reported Reuters.
In May, the FTC accused Meta of providing misleading information to parents concerning the extent of control they had over their children’s interactions within the Messenger Kids app, among other concerns. As a response, the FTC proposed modifications to the existing privacy agreement, which would prohibit profiting from minors’ data.
James Rouhandeh, representing Meta, argued before U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly in the District of Columbia that the FTC lacked the authority to enforce these changes because Meta had not consented to them. He stated, “They (the FTC) do need consent to modify. Because this is a contract, they need consent to modify it.”
Related: Meta Wins Ruling Against FTC In VR Purchase Case
On the other side of the argument, Zachary Cowan, representing the FTC within the Justice Department, contended that it was the FTC’s prerogative to decide whether adjustments to settlements were necessary, and the district court had no jurisdiction over this matter.
Judge Kelly expressed his skepticism regarding Meta’s jurisdictional claims and indicated that he would likely make a ruling before November 30.
The primary point of contention revolves around whether Meta and the FTC, in the event of failing to reach an agreement, would turn to the district court or an FTC judge to determine the fate of the 2019 agreement.
The proposed changes put forth by the FTC include prohibiting Facebook from profiting from data collected on users under the age of 18, including within its virtual reality business. Additionally, Facebook would face more stringent restrictions on the use of facial recognition technology.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand