§ 45(a), prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices.1 The proposed consent order with InMarket is the result of the FTC’s complaint alleging that InMarket violated the FTC Act in four ways: (1) unfair collection and use of consumer location data; (2) unfair collection and use of consumer location data from third party apps; (3) unfair retention of consumer location data; (4) deceptive failu. [...] As explained in the complaint, consumers face substantial injury in the form of a loss of privacy concerning their day-to- day movements when their location information is unfairly collected or misused.7 Using this information to profile consumers and target them with advertisements is unrelated to the apparent EPIC, In re Matter of Support King, LLC (SpyFone.com), FTC File No. [...] Second, as we have noted previously in comments and filings with the Commission, the best way to mitigate the harms from the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information is a data minimization framework rather than a system that places a heavy burden on consumers to grant or withhold consent. [...] Here, imposing an across-the-board data minimization framework on InMarket’s collection and use of location data would limit the personal information available to InMarket in the first place and minimize the risk of future data misuse—all while reducing the burden on consumers to manage InMarket’s collection and use of their own precise location information. [...] However, to the extent that the order relies on individual consent to limit the location data collected and processed by InMarket, EPIC commends the Commission for including strong requirements in its definitions of “Affirmative Express Consent” and “Clear and Conspicuous,” as well as in the “Withholding and Withdrawing Consent” and “Obligations When Consent is Withdrawn” provisions of the propose.
Authors
- Pages
- 4
- Published in
- United States of America
