fbpx

Press Release

National privacy bill exempts and empowers gov’t agencies over real consumer privacy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | April 18, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new federal privacy bill has surfaced in Congress that introduces sweeping changes for how the privacy rights of American citizens are regarded and respected.

The bill, known as the American Privacy Rights Act, is the latest serious attempt by a bipartisan cohort of congressional legislators to address Americans’ privacy rights online, as well as the obligation of companies, nonprofits, and organizations that cater to them.

Though the bill addresses important principles for privacy legislation, it also unduly burdens many innovative services that Americans enjoy, as well as totally exempts government agencies from having to follow privacy rules.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, reacts:

“A national privacy bill that preempts the patchwork of state laws is a necessity in the 21st century. As more leaks, hacks and unauthorized disclosures of American’s personal and financial data make their way online, individuals are left with little recourse to address harms.

“While this new privacy bill addresses important principles, such as requiring transparency of data collected, the ability for consumers to have portable access to their information, and mechanisms for punishing bad actors, it goes too far in granting government agencies power over private contracts and business models while exempting any agency from those same privacy rules,” said Ossowski.

“The particular provision creating a new private right of action, unheard of in any other global privacy bill, would inevitably become a quagmire that will litter our justice system with bogus and outrageous claims, all the while empowering politically connected trial attorneys who stand the most to gain. This would ultimately degrade the quality and raise of the prices of goods and services that consumers depend on and would do nothing to safeguard user privacy.

“In addition, the specific section on universal “opt-outs” for targeted ads amount to a de facto ban on specific algorithms used by any social media service, cutting off the ability for small businesses and entrepreneurs to reach and properly inform consumers of their goods and services.

“The bill also grants extraordinary new powers to the Federal Trade Commission, far beyond its mandate of punishing unfair and deceptive practices, which give the FTC the ability to halt any new algorithmic model if it deems it in violation of any statue, putting innovation in both artificial intelligence and the Internet itself at risk.

“All of these issues, coupled with the outright exemption for all government agencies, who handle most of our sensitive data, demonstrate that this privacy bill needs severe changes if it wishes to protect consumers while also championing American innovation,” Ossowski.

“We look forward to providing additional context and research to the House and Senate Commerce Committees, in the good faith effort to create a much nimbler and more appropriate bill to balance protecting Americans’ privacy and safeguarding innovation that we can all benefit from,” concluded Ossowski.

The Consumer Choice Center has published its own comprehensive analysis of the bill, available here.


The Consumer Choice Center is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy group that champions the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva, Lima, Brasilia, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

FCC’s plan to make your Internet a ‘public utility’ will only make it worse

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the Federal Communications Commission revived its proposal to reclassify Internet providers as public utilities under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, commonly known as “net neutrality.” The FCC vote will take place on April 25.

This marks a step back for all American Internet users, who have thus far profited from a more innovative Internet marketplace since the repeal of these rules in 2017 by former chair Ajit Pai.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, reacts:

“Resurrecting the idea of Title-II regulation of Internet Service Providers, after its successful repeal in 2017, is the idea that nobody needs, certaintly not in 2024. Since then, we’ve seen incredible innovation and investment, as more Internet customers begin using mobile hotspots and satellite Internet, getting more Americans online than ever before. No one is asking for this proposal and no one needs it.

“Regulating ISPs like water utilities or electricity providers is a path toward more government control and oversight of the Internet, plain and simple, and will only make things worse,” said Ossowski.

“As we’ve seen with the recent court cases before the Supreme Court, today’s major Internet problem isn’t broadband providers blocking certain access or services, but government agencies attempting to strong-arm and jawbone Internet providers and platforms into censoring or removing content they don’t agree with. This is more concerning than any worst-case scenario dreamed up by FCC commissioners.

“Bringing these dead regulations back to life to enforce Depression-era rules on the web will be a losing issue for millions of Americans who enjoy greater Internet access and services than ever before.

“Rather than support Americans’ access to the Internet, it stands to threaten the vast entrepreneurial and tech spaces across our country and will push companies to set up in jurisdictions that promise true Internet freedom rather than state-imposed regulation of content and delivery of Internet services.

“We implore the FCC to whole an open and honest public engagement process on these proposed net neutrality regulations, and we are certain consumers will have their say against this proposal,” added Ossowski.


The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva, Lima, Brasilia, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Nebraska: Don’t Penalize Consumers and Online Users on Ad Taxes

Dear Nebraska Senators,

As a consumer advocacy group that champions the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life, we write you to express concern over recent amendments to the property tax relief proposal found in LB388, specifically sections 8-12 known as the “Advertising Services Tax Act”.

The levying of a 7.5% tax on a digital advertising platform – no matter its size – will ultimately have an impact on small businesses that use such platforms, as well as consumers and users who rely on legitimate advertising to be better informed about products and services they enjoy.

The broader goal of property tax relief is a very worthwhile endeavor, and one we support, but including a separate punitive tax in the same bill on those who use digital advertising services would likely do more harm than good. Startups, small businesses, and advocacy groups use digital advertising to reach consumers and citizens alike, and we believe that placing additional burdens would raise the cost and ultimately favor larger businesses that can afford it.

As a consumer advocacy organization that aims to reach and inform consumers on public policy matters, we often use digital advertising tools to spread our message, as we did in Nebraska around the issue of bans on direct-to-consumer auto sales, disproportionally high vehicle registration fees, and the persistence of corporate welfare that harms consumers and taxpayers.

With a levy on digital advertising, those costs will ultimately be passed on to groups like ours, and will stifle and limit information that consumers can receive about goods and services they prefer, as well as important public policy considerations.

We would urge reconsideration of the amendments in question, and hope you can return to the business of providing a stable and competitive legal environment for the benefit of all Nebraska consumers.

Sincerely yours,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director

Consumer Choice Center

Introducing a licensing system for selected shops selling vapes will make it difficult for consumers to access safer products

KUALA LUMPUR, 18th March 2024 – As the Malaysian government contemplates the implementation of a licensing system for selected shops selling vaping products, the Consumer Choice Center (CCC) voices concern over the potential consequences on consumer access to safer vaping alternatives. With a mission to promote consumer choice and empower individuals, CCC emphasizes the importance of preserving access to diverse and high-quality vaping products for informed consumer decision-making.

The proposed licensing system, while aiming to address concerns surrounding vaping, may inadvertently hinder access to safer vaping options for consumers. CCC underscores the necessity of balanced regulation that prioritizes both public health objectives and consumer choice. By restricting the availability of licensed vape shops, consumers may face limited options, potentially resorting to less regulated or unsafe alternatives.

Representative of the Malaysian Consumer Choice Center, Tarmizi Anuwar stated, “Introducing a licensing system for selected vape shops could inadvertently push consumers towards unregulated channels, undermining public health objectives. We advocate for policies that empower consumers with access to a variety of safer vaping products while ensuring appropriate regulatory oversight.”

“Accessibility to access alternative products is very important to help consumers quit smoking. The selective store licensing system only makes it difficult for consumers to access safer products and tends to return to smoking and the black market.”

The Consumer Choice Center stresses the importance of transparency and consumer involvement in the formulation of regulatory measures concerning vaping products. As such, CCC emphasizes the necessity for the Ministry of Health to publicly disclose the regulatory details of any proposed vape regulations.

“This transparency would enable consumers to provide feedback and express their concerns regarding the potential impact on accessibility and product diversity. By soliciting input from the individuals directly affected by these regulations, policymakers can ensure that any proposed measures align with consumer preferences and prioritize public health objectives effectively,” he said.

Commenting further on the proposed regulation of vape, the Tarmizi underscores the importance of embracing technological neutrality. By recognizing the diverse array of nicotine delivery products available on the market, including open, closed, or disposable vapes, heated tobacco, and oral nicotine, policymakers can foster an environment that promotes consumer choice and encourages innovation.


“Technological neutrality guarantees freedom of choice by not forcing consumers or companies to use any particular technology. The use of specific technologies will discriminate against other technologies to the point of increasing operating costs and the price of final goods. Furthermore, it makes it difficult for consumers to access and buy vapes or alternative products that are less harmful and cheaper” he concluded.

DOJ’s Apple “monopoly” lawsuit is an attack on consumer preference

Washington, D.C. – Today the DOJ unveiled its long-awaited antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging that Apple maintains an “illegal monopoly” over the smartphone industry.  

“This is a very extreme position being taken by Merrick Garland’s DOJ, said Stephen Kent, media director of the Consumer Choice Center, “The lawsuit claims that Apple throttles the use of third-party messaging apps despite ample evidence that millions of tech consumers have a wide range of choice for powerful messaging apps that rival the experience of iMessage.”

** Read Stephen Kent in The Hill on DOJ’s weak case against Apple **

The lawsuit also asserts that Apple limits the connectivity of certain competitor devices such as smartwatches, favoring Apple devices in their own ecosystem of technology. 

Kent continued, “DOJ is arguing that consumers are wrong to like Apple products and how they sync so nicely with one another. Apple is a fully integrated system of tech and lifestyle brand. For the government to say Apple must build technology to accommodate its competitors at the expense of their user experience, is a huge stretch for antitrust law. This reminds me of the FTC’s witch hunt against Microsoft & Activision/Blizzard, where the US government appeared to be working on behalf of Sony to stop a pro-consumer merger. Apple’s competitors should make products more consumers enjoy the way consumers enjoy Apple.” 

The Consumer Choice Center stands for consumers’ right to choose between products in a fair, competitive, and open market. It is unclear how the government’s case against Apple would unleash competition and innovation in the smartphone sector. 

** Read Yael Ossowski in The Hill on Apple’s “green bubble” text controversy **

If anything,” Stephen Kent concluded, “This case will simply lower the bar for smartphone tech and user experience in the US, rather than improving consumer access to technology. Let Apple be Apple.” 

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Brussels, Geneva, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for  Consumer Choice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Limited State Registries Will Negatively Impact Consumers of Nicotine Products 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In the first few months of 2024, more than a dozen bills have been introduced in US states calling for a state-based Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA) registry for alternative nicotine products such as vaping devices, heaters, and nicotine pouches.

Although this type of legislation has already been passed in Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama, it’s crucial that other states recognize the unintended consequences and course-correct before it is too late.

ELIZABETH HICKS, US Affairs Analyst at Consumer Choice Center, responded, “While the intention behind these bills is to manage consumer access to unregulated nicotine products on the illicit market, the reality is that the FDA is not approving enough new devices and products to create a competitive, regulated marketplace that meets consumer demand.”

While 26 million nicotine alternative products submitted PMTAs to the FDA, only 23 have been approved. Of those 23 approved products, 12 are simply tobacco-flavored e-liquid refills.

“The FDA is hiding the ball here on product approvals and how few new products are actually coming to market. If the goal is to improve public health across the country, then consumers deserve to choose from a variety of different nicotine alternatives,” added Hicks.

“The FDA’s flawed PMTA process needs reform. Instead of restricting consumer access to products that have been demonstrated to be 95 percent less harmful than combustible tobacco, state legislatures should refrain from adding to counterproductive federal policies and advance tobacco harm reduction through a competitive marketplace,” she concluded.

_______________

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Brussels, Geneva, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for  Consumer Choice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Forcing TikTok’s divestiture from the CCP is both reasonable and necessary

Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, a bipartisan group of US House legislators introduced a bill that would force ByteDance Ltd. to sell its US version of TikTok or face massive fines and federal investigations. This would have big ramifications for the video-sharing app, which is estimated to have over 150 million users in the US.

In practice, HR7521 designates the popular social media application TikTok as a “foreign adversary controlled application,” invoking the government’s ability to force the firm into new ownership by any private, legal entity in the United States —  a full forced divestiture.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the consumer advocacy group, Consumer Choice Center, responded:

“In recent years, the default mode for the federal government has been to wage a regulatory war against American tech companies, all the while leaving the Chinese Communist Party-linked app TikTok to grow uninhibited,” said Ossowski. “While consumers generally do not want wholesale bans on popular tech, considering the unique privacy and security concerns implicit in TikTok’s ownership structure as well as its accountability and relationship to the CCP, the solution of a forced divestiture is both appropriate and necessary.”

Reports have already revealed that European TikTok users can, and have, had their data accessed by company officials in Beijing. The same goes for US users. Given the ownership structure of TikTok, there isn’t anything that can be done about this to shield American consumers from privacy violations. A forced divestiture would bring TikTok under the legal authority of the US and thus alleviate many of the concerns that consumers have about their security on the app. 

We praise Reps. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi for spearheading this effort in a constitutionally nuanced and legal way that does not risk furthering the anti-tech attitudes of so many in Washington,” concluded Ossowski. “Upholding consumer choice is among our core principles, as is ensuring that the ethos of liberal democracies continues to guide the arc of technological progress.

READ: The best answer to TikTok is a forced divestiture 

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Brussels, Geneva, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for  Consumer Choice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Biden’s ‘Junk’ Fees Rule Will Not Help Consumers With Credit Card Debt

A rule released today by the Biden Administration and federal regulators at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), to cap credit card late fees at $8 is of great concern to the Consumer Choice Center (CCC). Any intention to improve the consumer experience through well-informed and economically sound regulation is commendable, but this new rule is anything but. 

“The CFPB argues that the 55 million consumers who are charged late fees on credit cards each year stand to now save up to $220 per year. This talking point from the administration completely ignores how consumers will be more incentivized to spend beyond their means and increase their overall debt levels,” said Dr. Kimberlee Josephson, Professor of Business at Lebanon Valley College and a Research Fellow with the Consumer Choice Center. 

Unintended consequences will follow this new Biden Administration rule, such as higher credit card interest rates, less availability of credit, and higher annual fees. By specifically targeting large credit card issuers with more than 1 million accounts, where roughly 95% of the total outstanding credit card debt is held, the regulation will inadvertently harm the very consumers it claims to protect. 

As Dr. Kimberlee Josephson wrote at FEE.org [Foundation for Economic Education], similar financial regulations on fees in recent history resulted in, “90 percent of banks raising their costs for consumers and restricting rewards programs for patrons, to make up for the loss incurred by the interchange fee caps. Consumers who previously enjoyed accruing points or getting cashback on their purchases were now unable to do so. Many banks did away with free checking accounts, which hurt lower-income households the most.”

As advocates for consumer choice and market-driven solutions, the Consumer Choice Center supports a balanced regulatory approach that takes both economic reality and consumers’ financial well-being into account. Consumers deserve a competitive credit market with clear and transparent terms, as well as broad availability of credit with dynamic rewards programs and fair interest rates. 

“The more the government meddles in the financial sector, the less market-driven the system becomes for consumers. This may be good short-term politics for President Biden, but sound economics don’t change, and consumers will pay more in the long run,” concluded Dr. Josephson. 

Taxing Vapes Will Put the Lives of 4.5 Million Vapers at Risk

London, 27 February 2024 – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) is concerned by reports of implementing a new levy on vapes and demands the government to conduct proper research into the consequences of a vape tax in its tobacco harm strategy.

In a statement, Mike Salem, the UK Country Associate of the CCC explained that “this tax not only puts off vapers economically, but it also sends a message that the government is punishing them for trying to quit tobacco. We should not be putting up barriers to those who are desperately trying to quit cigarettes; the government should instead be providing support for those who need it.”

The proposed tax would see a new and separate levy on vapes introduced on top of the VAT that already exists, which would directly affect 4.5 million vapers and indirectly some 6.4 million smokers.

Salem further stated that “The UK has been doing extremely well over the past few years in its effort to reduce smoking prevalence, but this is now being actively hindered by the current government. These measures will put our population and especially our children at more risk, as consumers will turn to the black market for cheaper alternatives. I urge the government to reconsider its position on taxing vapes and its wider strategy in reducing smoking prevalence so as to not harm our children and adults”. 

The CCC urges the government to consider the health of smokers and the support it can provide during the current economic downturn. Furthermore, in light of the recent government decision to ignore the recommendations from the Khan Review and the mismanagement of the joint announcement on the ban of disposable vapes between Westminster and the devolved administration, it also recommends that the UK Government conducts proper research and coordination with the devolved administration on tobacco harm reduction.

‘Kids Online Safety Act’ is a Trojan Horse For Digital Censorship

Washington, D.C. – This week, a bipartisan cohort of US Senators unveiled a new version of the Kids Online Safety Act, a bill that aims to impose various restrictions and requirements on technology platforms used by both adults and minors.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. responded: 

“This bill is constitutionally dubious and would create new powers that should frighten not only every parent but also every user of digital platforms such as social media. In writing new federal rules to “protect” kids online, the real effect will be to significantly degrade the experience for all users while putting their sensitive personal information at risk.”

The Consumer Choice Center believes strongly that if Congress were to pass such a bill, lawmakers would be aligning with the idea that the government should have the final say over young people’s access to the Internet, thus diminishing the role of parents in their kids’ lives. 

“There are ways to protect kids online, but that begins at home with parental authority and supervision. It’s a false choice to accept the gatekeeping of an entire generation from technology that has become so integral to daily life and contributes to their development as responsible citizens,” added Ossowski. 

Privacy and consumer advocates are sounding the alarm about what this law would mean in practice. Rules emanating from Washington granting “duty of care” to government officials will erode parental authority and consumer choice online. The bill seeks to control “design features” and limit developers’ inclusion of personalized recommendation systems, notifications, appearance-altering filters, and in-game purchases for apps used by minors. It’s a crackdown not just on features that work functionally for certain apps, but also on features that make them fun for users.

“KOSA is fundamentally wrong,” concluded Ossowski. “We as a society should trust that parents have the ultimate right to decide whether or not their children access certain websites or services, not indifferent government officials sitting in Washington. No one knows what is in the best interests of their child more than parents.”  

Media inquiries and interview requests can be sent to Media Director Stephen Kent: Stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

***

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, D.C., Ottawa, Brussels, Geneva, and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for  Consumer Choice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org.

Scroll to top
en_USEN