Press Release

“Kids Online Safety Act” Is Still A Bad Deal For Consumer Privacy and Speech

December 9, 2024
By Yaël Ossowski
In Legal Reform, Press Release, Tech Regulation, Technology
0 comments

Congress is moving quickly to revive the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which passed the US Senate in August, by attaching the controversial bill to the year-end Continuing Resolution by the House of Representatives. Revisions have been made to KOSA, now championed by X CEO Linda Yaccarino, and Don Trump Jr.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center, reacted to the renewed push to pass KOSA, saying, “At the same time Republicans and Democrats are coming together in support of Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative, they’re slyly advancing KOSA which would massively expand online regulation power and necessitate more bureaucracy. In the end, kids still get no added online safety, and adults lose their privacy.”

The inclusion of the Kids Online Safety Act in the Continuing Resolution (CR) comes as Congress faces a looming deadline to avoid a government shutdown. This prompted Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to criticize KOSA’s new iteration and demand that it not be tacked onto larger legislation such as defense and government spending.

The Consumer Choice Center opposes the most current iteration of KOSA and the mechanism its sponsors aim to use to pass the bill. Stephen Kent, Media Director of the Consumer Choice Center, responded, “A bill with such large implications for free speech and the First Amendment should not be rolled into a CR with government spending and defense. Members of Congress must be able to vote their conscience and represent their constituents without being strongarmed into voting for KOSA to keep the government open.”

The Consumer Choice Center urges Congress to remove KOSA from the Continuing Resolution and reintroduce it as a standalone bill for proper debate. Public trust in government depends on lawmakers crafting policies that are transparent and evidence-based. Consumers of online platforms and services deserve better than what KOSA proposes.

Yaël Ossowski concluded, “We remain concerned about how KOSA still grants the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) a blank check on rulemaking authority, allowing them to create content moderation guidance while giving plaintiff lawyers an avenue to sue most tech companies out of existence. There’s also nothing sufficient in KOSA to guard online privacy, retention of data, and provide liability for breaches of consumer’s personal information.”

###

The Consumer Choice Center is an independent, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group championing the benefits of freedom of choice, innovation, and abundance in everyday life for consumers in over 100 countries. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa, Brasilia, London, and Geneva. Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

A North Carolina Town’s Counterproductive Legal Tactic Harming Nuclear Energy Consumers

Raleigh, NC – The town of Carrboro, North Carolina filed a major lawsuit this week in Orange County Superior Court against Duke Energy, one of the nation’s largest electric utilities providers. The suit is backed by pro-solar nonprofit NC Warn, which is seeking monetary damages to address current and future climate-related harms.

“Litigation like this is less about meaningful environmental progress and more about scoring political points at the expense of energy consumers,” said Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center. “These kinds of suits have cropped up in Honolulu, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and even Australia in local, more ideological courtrooms.”

Unlike prior cases such as the Our Children’s Trust suing Montana over allegations that oil drilling threatens the well-being of future generations, this is the first major lawsuit focused on an electric utility investing heavily in clean energy technologies such as nuclear power.

The Supreme Court has declined to get involved in advancing these climate lawsuits as recently as November.

“This effort is meant to prop up a nationally struggling solar industry and slow down the progress of nuclear energy in providing a reliable clean energy future. A cause these groups and the plaintiff in NC claim to champion” added Ossowski. “North Carolina has one of the lowest per capita natural gas usage rates, has seen energy bills reduced by $212 million in 2023, and has diversified its energy grid so fast that nuclear is one-third of the state’s portfolio. Things have never been better for North Carolinians on clean energy.”

The Consumer Choice Center wants to see Carrboro and other municipalities prioritize collaboration over litigation that is meant to drain resources that would otherwise serve consumers. North Carolinians benefit every day from lower energy costs and innovation, and we all need more of that, not less.

Yaël Ossowski’s analysis of climate change litigation can be reviewed in the Orange County Register, Duluth Tribune, West Australian, and the LA Daily News. He is available for media interviews and requests.

###

Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

PRIMER: A financial fraud crackdown won’t protect consumers from scams

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the global consumer advocacy group Consumer Choice Center launched a policy primer to evaluate legislative solutions for combatting and alleviating the harm caused by payment scams and frauds.

This primer analyzes the Protecting Consumers From Payment Scams Act, and whether the liability remedies proposed would help combat consumer fraud and scams or would ultimately create unintended consequences for consumers that do not punish wrongdoers.

The primer includes key policy suggestions for legislators to help consumers avoid frauds and scams while demonstrating the errors that would come with expanded institutional liability:

Shifting liability to financial institutions will ultimately backfire on consumers, leading to more expansive financial surveillance, higher costs due to more compliance and reimbursements, and a generally degraded consumer experience that eradicates the advantage of popular financial tech and banks.
Consumer financial education is the most effective way to prevent scams.
A national privacy law fostering innovation while protecting consumers
Stiffer penalties for individuals committing frauds and scams

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

“Though scams and fraud are a persistent issue in the American economy, we should guard against the imposition of yet more costly and intrusive rules that will degrade the consumer experience and likely create more amenable conditions for bad actors to steal.

“Rather than creating a new liability between financial institutions that would have unintended consequences for consumers of all income levels, our existing laws should concentrate on finding and punishing fraudsters and scammers we can already catch,” said Ossowski.

“While we should commend legislators for attempting a solution to frauds and scams, we cannot accept the false promise that more scrutiny on those who follow and abide by the law will deter those who have so far evaded responsibility or punishment,“ concluded Ossowski.

READ THE PRIMER HERE

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.

A court injunction saves Americans from putting their financial privacy at risk

Washington, D.C. – Late Tuesday, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the onerous reporting requirements required of all beneficial owners of LLCs and all other private businesses, as required by the Corporate Transparency Act.

The measure was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021, first vetoed by then-President Trump and later overridden by the House and Senate.

The ruling by District Judge Amos Mazzant temporarily halts the forced collection of beneficial ownership information, which was due to FinCEN by January 1, 2025.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center, praised the injunction as a good first step in halting the creeping encroachment on financial privacy by federal agencies.

“The reporting requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act are a slow-roll attack on financial privacy for ordinary people via a mass doxxing of LLCs. For small businesses and consumers that rely on them, this injunction removes the risk inherent in a centralized database of Americans’ sensitive financial information and personal data that would be prone to abuse,” said Ossowski.

Rather than deputizing financial institutions to spy on American business owners and consumers, the Consumer Choice Center believes the federal government and its agencies should look to protecting individuals’ information and minimizing the harm that could come from unauthorized leaks and hacks.

“The once again proves the crucial role of the judicial branch in protecting the individual rights of business owners, consumers, and all Americans, and should demonstrate that the rule of law and the presumption of innocence are integral to the American system,” added Ossowski.

Law enforcement agencies are still empowered to pursue reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, including tax evasion or money laundering, but must do so via legally obtained judicial warrants, which protects both consumers and firm owners.

“To capitalize on this temporary injunction, the Senate and House should pass the Saving Privacy Act, introduced by Sens. Mike Lee and Rick Scott, which would nullify the Corporate Transparency Act as well as offer meaningful reforms to the Bank Secrecy Act and other federal laws that put individual and consumer financial privacy at risk,” concluded Ossowski.

###

Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

SCOTUS Skeptical of an FDA Acting Arbitrarily Against Vape Products

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court today heard oral arguments in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, a pivotal case concerning the Food and Drug Administration’s rejection of applications to market flavored nicotine vaping devices.

This is a landmark case for regulatory accountability related to public health and consumer choice.

At issue is whether the FDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when denying numerous premarket tobacco product applications (PMTA), as alleged by the manufacturers and affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which accused the FDA of a “regulatory switcheroo”.

Elizabeth Hicks, US Affairs Analyst of the Consumer Choice Center, observed today’s arguments and weighed in on the consequences of the case for consumers,

“This case underscores the need for fairness and transparency in regulatory processes. The FDA’s blanket denials have placed enormous hurdles on firms providing harm-reduction alternatives, potentially decimating an industry that millions of adult consumers rely on to transition away from smoking traditional cigarettes.”

Advocates of prohibition on flavored e-liquids, including groups like the American Medical Association, have characterized these products as targeting youth rather than adult consumers. Arguments in front of SCOTUS focused on whether the FDA had been transparent and consistent in why product applications were denied and what was lacking in the marketing plans of the applicants.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas observed that the FDA guidance was indeed “a moving target” that shifted throughout the process, while Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch lamented that applicants where not granted conditions for jury trials in administrative cases, as the Court outlined in SEC v. Jarkesy.

Hicks continued, “The FDA’s rejection of Triton and Vapetasia’s applications demonstrates a failure to balance or even understand public health priorities and opportunities provided by less harmful nicotine products. While we all agree on the need to keep these products out of the hands of young people, denying adult smokers access to safer alternatives like flavored vaping devices could have dire consequences for harm-reduction efforts. Regulatory decisions should be evidence-based, not rooted in unachievable or shifting standards that are unreasonable to provide.”

The Consumer Choice Center calls on policymakers and regulators to prioritize consumer access to safer alternatives and ensure regulatory clarity around nicotine products.

###

Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

Harsh Regulations Create More Harm than Good

Kuala Lumpur, 28 November 2024 – Since the announcement of Act 852 regulations by the Ministry of Health (MOH), the retail industry has pleaded for the government to be sensitive to their financial burdens whilst state authorities are considering making rules that are not aligned to MOH national regulations. In our view, this has created a regulatory environment that will impact public health, consumer safety, and the retail sector. The Consumer Choice Center (CCC), a global consumer advocacy group, calls for a re-evaluation of this policy to ensure it does not inadvertently harm consumers or fuel illicit trade.

Bans Do Not Reduce Risks

CCC believes MOH’s retail display ban risks jeopardizing public health goals. The visibility and accessibility of vape products are crucial in encouraging smokers to transition to less harmful options. Not being able to browse vape products at retail outlets risks motivating adult smokers to purchase cigarettes, a product they have more familiarity yet have more serious health implications.

In addition, remind the government that every consumer has a right to information as stated in Consumer Protection Act 1999 (CPA). There should not be a case where key product information such as content or ingredients, quality certifications, and other product descriptions.

Consumer Safety Concerns

“Illicit markets don’t play by the rules. They don’t verify age, and their products are often dangerous to consumer,” said Tarmizi Anuwar, the Malaysia Country Associate for the Consumer Choice Center.

Regulated vape products are a key tool for harm reduction. Providing adult smokers with less harmful alternatives to quit combustible cigarettes is key to achieve public health goals. We urge authorities to consider scientific data before applying drastic measures to a whole industry.

A 2023 study by the Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia (UKM), titled Exhaled Carbon Monoxide Level and Practices among Tobacco and Nicotine Adult Users in Klang Valley, Malaysia, found that 68.2% of respondents successfully transitioned from smoking to vaping. This study further highlights that users of vape products exhale far fewer harmful aerosols, posing less risk to bystanders compared to cigarette smoke. Additionally, a 2024 study “Quitting Strong: New Zealand’s Smoking Cessation Success Story” found cigarettes to be 10 times more dangerous than vape.

Economic and Market Concerns

CCC urges the government to be sensitive toward the retail industry. Costs incurred in making alterations to a retail premise as well as the possibility of reduced income due to the inability of customers to easily browse smoking products in a multi-category retail store will have significant financial impact.

Recommendations for Policymakers

Allow Retails Display of Approved Products: Consider controlled product displays such as restricting public access by placing them behind the point-of-sale. Enforce age-verification, sale of only MOH approved products.
Support Harm Reduction Efforts: Recognize vape as an alternate nicotine product that is a tool for reducing smoking-related illnesses.
Collaborate with Stakeholders: Involve businesses, consumers, and public health advocates to develop sustainable policies.

The Consumer Choice Center stands ready to work with federal and state governments to develop comprehensive regulations that prioritize public health while preserving consumer access to safer alternatives.

Tariffs Will Raise Consumer Prices, So Let The People Choose

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the next Congress takes shape following President Trump’s electoral victory and Republican control of both the Senate and House being solidified, there is likely to be a tectonic shift in US trade policy.

Considering the disparate impact of tariffs on consumers, the Consumer Choice Center believes that the United States should guard against unilateral and unchecked presidential authority when imposing new costs on American consumers.

One method of ensuring the people’s voices are heard can be found in Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) bill, entitled the No Taxation Without Representation Act, which would require congressional approval for any tariff or duty imposed by the Executive Branch.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director at the Consumer Choice Center, said of Paul’s bill:

“Tariffs are taxes on consumers. Imposed costs on importers or domestic producers will always lead to higher prices for consumers already struggling with the lagging effects of inflation. If major levies and tariffs are due to impact consumers, accountability for those new costs should be localized and be approved by elected representatives to Congress”

Sen. Paul’s bill would require the President to send tariff proposals to Congress, and then be passed by joint resolution.

“This bill restores the will and voice of the people in setting policies that will impact their daily lives and disposable income. It’s consistent with the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers that make America uniquely democratic and prosperous,” concluded Ossowski.

###

Find out more at

www.consumerchoicecenter.org

DOJ’s wish for a Google-less Chrome browser shows how warped antitrust has become

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) expresses deep concern over the DOJ’s proposed remedy in the case of United States v. Google LLC that would force the tech firm sell off its popular Chrome browser, as was filed with the court on Wednesday.

Having never demonstrated a specific monopoly in the browser market, this wish by the Department of Justice is just the first of many that will have unintended consequences on consumers who use internet products.

“There has never been a more vibrant and competitive time for Internet browsers. From privacy options like Mullvad, Apple’s Safari, or the various open-source forks of Firefox, there is literally no world where consumers are forced to use any browser. Added to that, most other browsers use open-source code from Google’s Chromium project, which will no doubt be put in jeopardy. The DOJ is continuing to advance an ideological campaign that ignores consumer choice and makes a mockery of antitrust law,” said YAËL OSSOWSKI, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center.

The DOJ’s proposed remedy to force the sale of Chrome is only the first the department has offered, and we can expect that much more will come.

“The Biden Administration, whether it be at the Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice, has completely ignored consumer welfare as a factor in how they select antitrust cases and now how they propose remedies to favorable judges. It’s highly political,” YAËL OSSOWSKI of the Consumer Choice Center continued, “The United States is drifting toward the anti-tech posture of the European Union, wherein the default position becomes one of penalizing successful American companies for their popularity at a time when artificial intelligence and China-led projects are disrupting the market in real-time.”

###

Find out more at www.consumerchoicecenter.org

Consumers deserve ‘auto choice’ to bring down insurance costs

Washington, D.C. – The Consumer Choice Center today launched its policy primer offering simple reforms to provide for more competitive, reasonable, and accurate insurance rates to increase choice and lower costs for consumers.

The primer, Fixing What’s Broken: Practical Consumer-Friendly Insurance Reforms to Save Money, focuses on two pressing issues for American consumers. First, it analyzes how insurance providers can adapt to the emerging scientific reality of tobacco harm reduction and consumer trends toward less harmful nicotine alternatives to smoking. Second, this primer explains different models for structuring consumer auto insurance and suggests how costly legal battles can be minimized, in turn lowering costs and premiums.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director at the Consumer Choice Center, commented on the auto insurance policy recommendations, saying, “The legal nightmare that comes with every fender bender or more serious auto injury is known to every American, as they’re reminded by the slew of injury lawyer billboards on the interstate. Rather than subjecting every auto incident to a lawyer-led process that inevitably raises premiums, states and insurance firms should give consumers the right to choose whether they would prefer a tort or no-fault insurance model as is practiced in other countries and states.”

Attempts at legislation to offer “auto choice” to consumers have been introduced in all levels of state and federal government over the years, but have consistently been opposed by well-funded injury lawyers who see a threat to their business.

“For too long, we’ve allowed car insurance costs to balloon because of the adversarial nature of our highly litigious justice system, rather than understanding that most other countries do not force drivers into court after each accident. Giving auto insurance consumers the ability to choose between a no-fault and a tort system would allow flexibility, remove the adversarial declaration of liability that inflates lawsuits, and allows companies to compete for our business with the best policies and plans available. Best of all, good drivers with clean records would benefit from substantially lower premiums and simple plans,” added Ossowski.

Giving consumers the choice between a plan that requires legal negotiations between insurance companies to find blame and assign penalties, and a no-fault model that prioritizes quick and easy payouts without liability is a no-brainer that would bring immediate savings to consumers’ monthly premiums.

“Guided by state insurance commissioners, firms should offer alternatives to liability plans and allow consumers to choose the plan that works best for them as a perfect middle ground between enabling choice and reducing legal costs and headaches,” concluded Ossowski.

The policy primer can be read in full HERE.

###

Read this press release online.

Health and life insurance policies should accept the science on nicotine

Washington, D.C. – Today the Consumer Choice Center launched its policy primer offering simple reforms to provide Americans with more competitive, reasonable, and accurate insurance rates. The result of reform would be more choice and lower costs for consumers in the insurance market.

Elizabeth Hicks, US Affairs Analyst at the Consumer Choice Center, commented on the health & life insurance policy recommendations, saying, “Anyone who’s ever applied for health or life insurance has had to answer if they use nicotine, and that inevitably leads to higher premiums. But those who use less harmful non-combustible nicotine products such as vaping or pouches don’t face nearly the same risk. Why should they pay the same high premiums as smokers?”

By discerning the significant differences between traditional tobacco products and non-combustible nicotine alternatives for health and long-term medical costs, insurers and consumers together stand to save millions.

“The health insurance industry, as well as policymakers, should want smokers to cease smoking or switch to less harmful alternatives. Insurance plans are long overdue for accurately calculating risk around nicotine-use and restructuring consumer’s rates,” added Hicks.

Guided by state insurance commissioners, actuarial calculations at insurance firms should be recalibrated to reflect the current scientific reality on tobacco harm reduction, giving smokers an immediate financial incentive to make the switch to less harmful products. It makes no sense to penalize nicotine users who do not use combustible products.

“This change would not only reflect scientific consensus, but also promote a better economic calculation on future costs and risk profiles in the healthcare space. It would give more options to insurance firms and spur them to compete for potential customers,” concluded Hicks.

The policy primer can be read in full HERE.

###

Mandating 23-Hour Hotel Stays: A Flawed Approach to Consumer Satisfaction

KUALA LUMPUR, 21st October 2024 — The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) representative, Tarmizi Anuwar appreciates the government’s efforts to enhance consumer satisfaction and protect consumer rights in the hospitality sector. However, the recent proposal to mandate a minimum 23-hour stay at hotels is a one-size-fits-all approach that does not adequately consider the operational diversity of hotels. “Imposing a fixed period of stay for all hotel types overlooks the flexibility that different travelers and hotel operators need,” said Tarmizi Anuwar, Malaysian Country Associate at Consumer Choice Center.

This policy would create several implementation challenges for hotel operators that will affect consumers. Many hotels rely on a carefully managed balance of check-in and check-out schedules to facilitate room turnover, cleaning, and other services, particularly during high-demand seasons. Requiring a minimum 23-hour stay would strain this balance, increasing labor costs and potentially delaying room readiness for incoming guests. “Forcing hotels to comply with this mandate will lead to inefficiencies that could ultimately raise room prices, affecting consumers who are already price-sensitive,” Tarmizi added.

For consumers, the fixed 23-hour rule could limit options and reduce flexibility, especially for short-stay travelers or business guests. Many prefer the convenience of selecting accommodation based on their specific needs rather than being tied to a minimum stay duration. “This policy risks reducing consumer choice, making it harder for guests to find suitable accommodations tailored to their schedules,” he emphasized.

A more effective alternative would be to adopt flexible check-in and check-out models, as seen in other countries such as Japan and parts of Europe. In Japan, for example, some hotels allow guests to pay for the exact duration of their stay, offering flexibility whether they need a few hours or a full day. “This model empowers consumers to decide how long they wish to stay, giving them more control and improving overall satisfaction,” Tarmizi noted.

Hotels can also explore other ways to enhance customer experience, such as offering 24/7 reception services or self-service check-in kiosks. These options not only reduce wait times during peak hours but also improve customer satisfaction by letting guests control their arrival and departure times.

For younger, more spontaneous travelers, flexible check-in options would be especially appealing. Hotels can offer this flexibility either as a value-added service or as a chargeable option, allowing guests to personalize their experience. “Providing flexibility in check-in and check-out times would not only attract a wider range of travelers but also enhance the competitiveness of the hospitality industry,” Tarmizi concluded.

We encourage the government to engage with stakeholders and consider these alternative, flexible solutions, which prioritize consumer choice and maintain operational efficiency without over-regulating the market.

Walgreens Closures: This Will Worsen ‘Pharmacy Deserts’ Across the U.S.

October 15, 2024, WASHINGTON, DC – Walgreens Boots Alliance (WBA) today announced plans to close approximately Walgreens 1,200 stores, representing roughly 10% of its global locations, as part of a larger strategy to streamline operations and bolster profitability. The closures will take place over the next three years and 500 will shutter in the U.S. by August 2025.

Dr. Kimberlee Josephson, a fellow with the Consumer Choice Center and an Associate Professor of Business Administration at Lebanon Valley College, responded to the unfortunate news:

“Pharmacies are facing enormous downward pressure on their business model due to consumer shifts toward e-commerce, mail-in-options for prescription medication, and also unionization efforts that have squeezed staffing and quality service for patients when they visit brick and mortar locations.”

READ MORE from Dr. Josephson on pharmacies’ struggle for survival in RealClearPennsylvania | The Hidden Costs of Unionizing PA Pharmacists

The coming loss of over 1,000 Walgreens stores is very damaging to the health and well-being of millions of Americans who live in “pharmacy deserts”, most of all in Midwestern states. The most elderly and low-income individuals often struggle with online shopping, as well as driving 30 minutes or more to the nearest pharmacy. A CNBC report highlighted New Lebanon, Ohio which has a “population of 3,756 – three dollar stores – a Groceryland grocery store – a few fast-food restaurants, a public library branch” and no active pharmacy.

“The U.S. is on track to have 82 million senior citizens by 2050 and every year we have fewer and fewer community pharmacies ready to serve consumers the medications they need. Online shopping is convenient for consumers and will only increase with time. That’s why this sector must resist ongoing efforts nationwide to unionize pharmacists to the detriment of consumers,” concluded Dr. Josephson, “The loss of this many Walgreens locations adds to a mounting crisis for consumers who need reliable, fast, and personalized care in their local pharmacy.“

Consumer Choice Center says Walgreens move will ‘worsen pharmacy deserts’

Dr. Kimberlee Josephson, a fellow with the Consumer Choice Center and an associate professor of business administration at Lebanon Valley College, said in an emailed statement that pharmacies are facing pressure due to consumer shifts toward e-commerce and mail-in options for prescription medication.

Most elderly and low-income individuals often struggle with online shopping, according to the center’s statement, as well as driving 30 minutes or more to the nearest pharmacy.

A CNBC report highlighted New Lebanon, Ohio, which has a “population of 3,756, three dollar stores, a Groceryland grocery store, a few fast-food restaurants, a public library branch,” and no active pharmacy.

“The U.S. is on track to have 82 million senior citizens by 2050 and every year we have fewer and fewer community pharmacies ready to serve consumers the medications they need,” Josephson said. “The loss of this many Walgreens locations adds to a mounting crisis for consumers who need reliable, fast, and personalized care in their local pharmacy.”

“Kids Online Safety Act” Is Still A Bad Deal For Consumer Privacy and Speech

A North Carolina Town’s Counterproductive Legal Tactic Harming Nuclear Energy Consumers

PRIMER: A financial fraud crackdown won’t protect consumers from scams

A court injunction saves Americans from putting their financial privacy at risk

SCOTUS Skeptical of an FDA Acting Arbitrarily Against Vape Products

Harsh Regulations Create More Harm than Good

Tariffs Will Raise Consumer Prices, So Let The People Choose

DOJ’s wish for a Google-less Chrome browser shows how warped antitrust has become

Consumers deserve ‘auto choice’ to bring down insurance costs

Health and life insurance policies should accept the science on nicotine

Mandating 23-Hour Hotel Stays: A Flawed Approach to Consumer Satisfaction

Walgreens Closures: This Will Worsen ‘Pharmacy Deserts’ Across the U.S.

Consumer Choice Center says Walgreens move will ‘worsen pharmacy deserts’

Follow us

WASHINGTON

BRUSSELS

LONDON

KUALA LUMPUR

OTTAWA