fbpx

ban

Virginia youth social media law would cause online chaos and diminish parental authority

Richmond, VA – In the name of “safety” and the “best interests” of children, the Virginia Senate this week passed a draconian age-verification bill for online platforms which would require youth who want to use social media to provide exhaustive proof of their age and to seek parental consent. This legislation is not as common-sense as its backers would have voters believe. 

SB 359 outlines the restrictions on so-called “addictive feeds” that offer content to users, but lays out significant exemptions that could be used by platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat to evade regulation impacting their competitors.

Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. responds to the VA Senate’s passage: 

“The legislation, with its focus on “addictive feeds” that “connect users,” means a number of services would arguably be exempted, including YouTube, TikTok, and Snapchat. This demonstrates that instead of trying to “protect kids” writ large, this is nothing more than legislative retribution against select social media companies, and has more to do with politics than positive discussion on online safety.”

This bill follows in the steps of last year’s adoption of SB1515, which holds websites of “harmful content” liable in civil courts if they allow minors access, similar to the so-called “porn ban” first passed last year in Utah. If the bill is passed by the House of Delegates, it would create a labyrinth of weaponized policies that prevent teens from engaging with friends and family online, would burden future social media upstarts, and create privacy risks. 

Yaël Ossowski added, “By requiring social media websites to collect sensitive photos, IDs, and documentation of Virginia minors, they are mandating enormous privacy risks that will be a cyberhacker’s dream. Not only does this bill make it more difficult for young people to begin to use the Internet and all the benefits it provides, but it enshrines into law the idea that governments should pick which social media networks young people can or cannot use rather than parents. This is gatekeeping a generation of people from the Internet.”

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

“That 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 government officials sitting in Richmond. No one knows what is in the best interests of their child than parents.” 

**

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe who want smart public policies that are fit for growth, elevate tech innovation, and protect lifestyle freedom. 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..

Hey buddy, consumers don’t need protection from natural gas stoves

The degrowther cacophony of environmentalists, bureaucrats, and supposed consumer advocates has found a new enemy to protect you from: the gas stove in your kitchen.

As spelled out by U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. in a recent Bloomberg interview, a federal “ban on gas stoves is on the table amid rising concern about harmful indoor air pollutants.”

Trumka joins the chorus of enterprising journalists, academics, and green activists (and even the World Economic Forum) who have taken up the agency’s call to not only make a health case against kitchen stoves that heat food with natural gas, but also the environmental and moral one.

An article in New York Magazine asked, rather innocently, “are gas stoves the new cigarettes?” We all know what follows.

Humbly, Trumka later clarified the agency wouldn’t propose banning them, but would instead only apply strict regulations to “new products,” following cities like San Francisco and New York City, and entire states like New York (no surprise) that have already enacted bans on natural gas hook-ups for new construction. It should be noted that the majority of these proposed actions were based on environmental claims rather than health claims, and the most prominent advocates have been “environmental law” experts and the like.

Of course, they’ll say they don’t want to outlaw gas stoves in your home or dispatch agents to rip them from your kitchens and load them onto flatbeds. That’s silly. They just want to use the force of laws, guidance, and incentives to nudge consumers away from a natural gas standard. The federal government’s ineptly named Inflation Reduction Act will go a long way.

If you voluntarily swap your gas stove for an electric one, the IRA deems you eligible for a tax rebate of up to $840 — which would easily subsidize your lifestyle “choice”. This is similar to the law’s incentives for buying electric vehicles, installing solar panels, and fitting new construction with green-friendly tech.

While subsidies for your home kitchen may be all the rage, it’s understandable why this issue has become a cultural flashpoint.

For average consumers, the advantages of using a gas stove are plentiful. For one, they heat quickly and efficiently, reducing the time and energy used to cook a meal. They offer heat moderation that any meal would require. And because natural gas is a separate utility hook-up, it means that in the case of brownouts or power outages, you can still cook, boil water, and heat your food.

Restaurant chefs are slavishly reliant on natural gas to provide the best source of heat for lunchtimes and dinners for hungry patrons, as are Americans of more modest income who can more cheaply provide food at home using natural gas than increasing their electricity bill.

The disadvantages of natural gas stoves, according to the activists, are they could leak nitrogen oxides into your home, which, when wedded with improper ventilation, presents a risk for childhood asthma and other health concerns. In addition, that gas leakage could contribute to greenhouse emissions, which links it to climate change.

When Trumka first entertained a natural gas stove ban — on a December private Zoom meeting with the Public Interest Research Group Education Fund — the asthma risk was front and center. He went so far as to call it a “hazard,” which boggled our minds at Consumer Choice Center, considering the extent of our work clarifying the errors of legislating based on risks instead of hazards.

For a look into the studies, economist Emily Oster recently did this on her Substack, and her conclusion is that the risks claimed by researchers are actually so minimal that they aren’t worth taking seriously for anyone who has a properly vented kitchen and up-to-date appliances.

While indoor air pollution is indeed a serious hazard, it is not one that affects US households. Hood vents, air conditioning, and modern construction have avoided this issue for nearly all Americans, as the EPA admits. The effect on climate change is also negligent, considering that conversion to all-electric stoves does nothing to clean up the energy grid or move all electricity generation to carbon-neutral alternatives.

Why then is this issue gathering so much steam among consumer advocates like PIRG, which began a campaign against natural gas stoves early last year?

While they may be sincere in their aims, it amounts to yet another crusade against consumer choice. People know the risks of gas stoves and the cost-benefit analysis that comes with purchasing one. Having a gas stove with children running around isn’t ideal, and in most cases, an induction stove is likely even more efficient and desirable.

But the entire purpose of having a variety of stoves is to offer users — professional chefs and home cooks alike — the option that fits best with their lifestyle and budget. There are always risks when it comes to home appliances, energy applications, and what we bring into our homes.

But we would rather trust consumers to make this decision than a regulatory agency with its own agenda.

Preserve privacy by rejecting a ban on Bitcoin and crypto self-custody in Lithuania

Lithuania’s Finance Ministry has announced plans that would essentially outlaw non-custodial crypto wallets – the practice of self-custodying of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies on a wallet an individual controls – and impose stricter regulations on crypto exchanges in an attempt to combat money-laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion. 

The prepared draft law heads to the Seimas and, if passed, would impose stricter regulations on individuals as well as cryptocurrency exchanges in the country.

This bill mirrors a proposed European Commission regulation that has passed various EU Parliament committees but has yet to adopt continent-wide, aiming to restrict cryptocurrency services and institutions.

“Banning non-custodial wallets, together with introducing strict and complicated measures for cryptocurrency exchanges will introduce unfavorable conditions for the growing industry and will cause a number of businesses to be forced and move their operations abroad – not to mention the harm this does to consumers who want to safely and securely enjoy crypto services,” said Aleksandar Kokotovic, crypto fellow at the Consumer Choice Center, a consumer advocacy group. 

“A measure that aims to prevent money laundering will have very little effect in doing so but will definitely hurt the privacy of Lithuanian citizens and force them to use services based outside of the country, leaving them less secure than they are at the moment,” said Kokotovic.

“Non-custodial Bitcoin and cryptocurrency wallets are basically just code, many of which are open source and can be replicated and forked indefinitely. A government trying to ban code is not only ridiculous but will do absolutely nothing to supposedly stop bad actors. All it will do, in the end, is create a precedent for the government to crack down on its own citizens for using cryptocurrencies,” said Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

“Banning software in 2022 is not only a bad idea that will be impossible to enforce, but will have a wide array of possible negative consequences, including the privacy of financial and crypto customers. 

“We have seen consumers voting with their feet in the past and sometimes being forced to choose service providers in different countries to avoid similar measures. We are still hoping that Seimas will understand the worries around approving such legislation and that they will preserve privacy and safeguard innovation rather than create unfavorable conditions for consumers and businesses,” said Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center.

The Consumer Choice Center strongly urges Seimas members to vote against this legislation and to preserve the privacy of Lithuanian citizens as well as continue creating a prosperous and friendly business environment for consumers and industry alike.

“We offer the following bedrock principles on smart crypto regulation for lawmakers, hoping to promote sound policies that will encourage innovation, increase economic inclusion across all income groups, all the while protecting consumers from harm,” said Ossowski.

PRINCIPLES

  • Prevent Fraud
  • Technological Neutrality
  • Reasonable Taxation
  • Legal Certainty & Transparency

“The temptation to regulate cryptocurrencies and the blockchain economy based on financial considerations alone, rather than the innovative potential, is an active threat for entrepreneurs and consumers in the crypto space,” said Aleksandar Kokotović, CCC’s crypto fellow and co-author of the primer.

“Penalizing first-movers in crypto innovation or subjecting them to outdated laws will only serve to limit the unparalleled economic growth currently provided by the sector, or risk pushing all investment and entrepreneurship to less reliable and lawful jurisdictions,” added Kokotović.

The policy primer can be read in full here

New York lawmakers just killed Bitcoin and crypto mining and consumers will suffer

Albany, NY – Early this morning, the New York State Senate joined with the State Assembly to pass a moratorium on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining, issuing yet another reminder that state lawmakers want to deny their residents from interacting with cryptocurrencies.

The law would prevent new permits from being issued to carbon-based fueled proof-of-work mining operations that use behind-the-meter energy, putting millions of dollars worth of investments into jeopardy. This follows the logic of the much-derided BitLicense regulation, which has made it nearly impossible for small and medium-sized firms to offer crypto services to New York residents.

“By passing this bill, New York lawmakers are unequivocally stating they want their residents completely locked out of cryptocurrencies, from generation and mining services to actually being able to easily buy them through an exchange,” said Yaël Ossowski, deputy director of the Consumer Choice Center, a consumer advocacy group.

“If Gov. Hochul signs this bill, it will drive a stake through the Bitcoin mining industry, and states like Florida, Montana, Utah, and Texas will rejoice at the opportunity to invite those entrepreneurs and innovators to establish operations in their states.

“Because Bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies more broadly, will serve a vital role in making finance more inclusive and accessible for sending, receiving, and saving value, we hold it in the interest of consumers that the hashrate (the total computing power of the network) continue to grow, and that better public policy on cryptocurrencies is embraced among states.

“New York, however, has decided to take the NIMBY approach and deny their residents that opportunity,” added Ossowski.

“Cryptocurrency generation and mining firms have an incentive to use the most affordable and renewable energy sources available, and the data backs up this claim. This is a win-win scenario for towns and localities with these facilities, for employees of these firms, residents in these towns that benefit from increased commerce, and energy customers overall,” said Ossowski.

“As cryptocurrency mining proliferated in New York, it opened up new entrepreneurial activities that helped improve the lives of New Yorkers in small communities and large urban centers alike. Passing a ban on these activities, in pursuit of an unclear climate goal, will negate these gains. There is a better path,” added Ossowski.

“The aim of embracing climate goals to ensure 100% renewable energy usage in cryptocurrency generation and mining is well-intended, but a complete ban will have a devastating impact on innovators and entrepreneurs hosting their facilities in the state of New York, and consumers and investors that rely on their services,” said Aleksandar Kokotovic, crypto fellow at the Consumer Choice Center. 

“We understand that the quick rise of cryptocurrency mining raises many questions for residents, particularly when it involves the local economy and environment. However, a more prudent path would be an environmental review conducted by relevant authorities, rather than a wholesale ban and moratorium that would put many projects in legal jeopardy,” added Kokotovic.

***CCC Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski is available to speak on consumer regulations and consumer choice issues. Please send media inquiries to yael@consumerchoicecenter.org.***

—

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

New Yorkers need prudence, not bans, on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining

On May 24, 2022, the Consumer Choice Center sent a letter to New York state lawmakers, warning of the potential consequences to consumers if bill S6486D was adopted, a moratorium on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining.

The full letter is available below, or in PDF version here.

Dear Senators,

We write to you to urge you to vote against S6486D, a companion bill to A7389C, which would order a state-wide moratorium on cryptocurrency generation or mining.

If passed, this bill would be a death blow to the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency industry, resulting in thousands of jobs lost in New York, a loss of capital to scale up renewable energy, and would harm all potential benefits to consumers from cryptocurrency projects and initiatives. 

The aim of embracing climate goals to ensure 100% renewable energy usage in cryptocurrency generation and mining is well-intended, but a complete ban will have a devastating impact on innovators and entrepreneurs hosting their facilities in the state of New York, and consumers and investors that rely on their services.

As a consumer group, it may seem odd for us to weigh in on a topic that affects mostly industry players and firms. However, because we believe that Bitcoin, and cryptocurrencies more broadly, will serve a vital role in making finance and economics more inclusive and accessible for sending, receiving, and saving value, we hold it in the interest of consumers that the hashrate (the total computing power of the network) continue to grow, and that better public policy on cryptocurrencies is embraced among state legislatures.

If the Bitcoin hashrate grows specifically in the United States, then we will have more control in how mining develops and how it can benefit the country, its citizens, and our energy grids.. This last part is vital for climate goals, which cannot be said for China or other nations.

According to the latest figures from the first quarter of 2022 on Bitcoin mining specifically, 58.4% of miners are using renewable energy sources, and that number has only increased in several years. In New York, many firms are retooling abandoned processing and power generation plants to build cryptocurrency data centers, and are providing economic value in return that is putting renewable energy to work.

What’s more, this wide-ranging energy diversification is happening at a pace faster than any other industry, leading to more investment in renewable energy capacities and delivery systems. This increased demand is leading to more environmentally favorable energy delivery for customers of all public electricity utilities, and will also help bring down costs. And this is being carried out due to the incentives of firms and individuals who participate in adding hash rate to mining: they want to lower their costs and find better alternatives. 

Cryptocurrency generation and mining firms have an incentive to use the most affordable and renewable energy sources available, and the data backs up this claim. This is a win-win scenario for towns and localities with these facilities, for employees of these firms, residents in these towns that benefit from increased commerce, and energy customers overall.

As cryptocurrency mining has proliferated in New York, it has opened up new entrepreneurial activities that will help improve the lives of New Yorkers in small communities and large urban centers alike. Entertaining a ban on these activities, in pursuit of an unclear climate goal, will negate these gains. There is a better path.

It should not surprise you to know that New York’s previous policy decisions, including the highly criticized BitLicense, have locked many New Yorkers out of the new cryptocurrency ecosystem due to the high compliance costs. Some New Yorkers have chosen to change residences in order to acquire cryptocurrency or to invest in crypto businesses, which they can do in any other state, but more specifically Texas, Wyoming, and Florida.

If this moratorium on cryptocurrency generation comes to pass, it will be yet another signal to entrepreneurs and consumers that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are not welcomed in New York, and the regulatory framework is too unfavorable to justify investing here.

A number of industry organizations, communities, and unions have already expressed their concerns about the impact this bill would have on their families and livelihoods, fearing potential job loss in case industry gets driven away from the state as a result of this legislation. The loss of future investments and new jobs is another concern expressed by many communities in cities such as Rochester, Albany, and Syracuse.

According to the May 2022 Empire State Manufacturing Survey, the general business conditions index has dropped thirty-six points statewide. The last thing many affected and marginalized communities need is a moratorium that would drive businesses away from the state, and keep millions of New Yorkers from being included in a new system of value.

We understand that the quick rise of cryptocurrency mining raises many questions for residents, particularly when it involves the local economy and environment. However, a more prudent path would be an environmental review conducted by relevant authorities, rather than a wholesale ban and moratorium that would put many projects in legal jeopardy.

As consumer advocates, we are strongly opposed to this bill. We believe that New York residents deserve a chance to take part in the nascent industry that so many other states are hoping to accommodate. Using the force of regulation to drive away investments and jobs, stop economic progress, and shut out millions of New Yorkers from a more inclusive financial system would not only be wrong, but it would also be negligent.

Please vote No on S6486D aiming to place a moratorium on proof-of-work and help New York become a hub of innovation that embraces new technologies. New Yorkers should have the opportunity to participate in one of the biggest innovations of our age. With your vote against this bill and a more prudent direction, we can ensure that will happen.

Sincerely Yours,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director

Aleksandar Kokotovic

Crypto Fellow

As vape panic roils, flurry of lawsuits against Juul has begun

Inhale vapor. Exhale cash. 

The health risks around vaping are so unknown, and there is so much money in the pockets of e-cigarette makers like Juul lawyers are greasing up their hands for the reach-in. 

Here are some e-cig lawsuits already filed: 

A Kansas dude who says he goes through five pods a week.

A Connecticut man who says false advertising led him to start using Juuls, which he says cause him chest pain. 

A New Jersey dad who bought Juuls for his 14-year-old son, who now coughs and vomits. 

Dozens of lawsuits, all against Juul. Many of these lawsuits say that Juul’s happy, slick ads misled them into thinking Juuls were safe, when in fact they’ve lead to health problems. 

The concequenses of vaping are unclear at this point, and it may be decades before we know actual long-term effects. Scientists are studying links between vaping and lung diesase, seizure and addiction. 

Originally published here.

For more facts about vaping, read our Research on the Myths and Facts on Vaping: What Policymakers Should Know

Consumer Choice Centre warns against hasty vaping ban

A group that advocates on behalf of consumers in Canada and the U.S. is warning legislators not to be too hasty banning vaping.

The Consumer Choice Center is responding to the growing list of illnesses, including a case in London where a teen suffered a severe respiratory disease that health officials believe is associated with vaping.

The unnamed teen has recovered, but CEO and Medical Officer of Health at the Middlesex London Health Unit Dr. Christopher Mackie said the youth had “no other health issues, whatsoever.”

In the U.S., 380 illnesses, including seven deaths, have been recorded. The Consumer Choice Center is warning politicians not to act hastily.

“The cause of the person’s illness should definitely be investigated. However, it would be misguided for legislators to over-react and fail to embrace harm reduction in public policy decisions,” said David Clement, the North American affairs manager.

On Wednesday, Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott announced she had instructed hospitals to share information on possible vaping illnesses with the province’s Chief Medical Officer of Health.

“In light of growing evidence, I have become increasingly concerned about the prevalence and possible health consequences of vaping, particularly as they affect our youth,” said Elliott.

She did not say if the province will move, as other jurisdictions have, to ban flavoured vaping products citing a lack of sufficient data.

“Our worry is that Canadian regulators will overzealously respond to this case by proposing heavy-handed regulations like has been done in the United States,” continued Clement in a release. “Heavy-handed bans and restrictions will discourage smokers from leaving cigarettes behind, which is the opposite of what public health officials are trying to accomplish.”

The CCC also released a list of what it calls myths about vaping. It said vaping is not more harmful than smoking, citing statistics from groups like Public Health England who say it is 95 percent less damaging compared to smoking. It also said restricting vaping flavours will not curb use by minors.

This article was originally published on BlackburnNews.

The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

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

Michigan’s Vape Ban Will Bring Severe Consequences For Consumers

CONTACT:
Yaël Ossowski
Deputy Director
Consumer Choice Center
yael@consumerchoicecenter.org

Michigan’s Vape Ban Will Bring Severe Consequences For Consumers

Lansing, MI –  On Wednesday, the state of Michigan took the unprecedented step of outlawing the sale of all vaping and e-cigarette products, depriving millions of Michiganders of the opportunity to switch away from more harmful methods of consuming nicotine.

The ban is the first of its kind in the United States, and comes in response to what officials describe as a teen vaping “crisis”, as well as documented cases of hospitalizations due to black market cannabis vape cartridges that do not contain nicotine.

Yaël Ossowski, Deputy Director of the Consumer Choice Center, responded to the ban by stating that it will immediately bring severe consequences to consumers in the Great Lake State.

“Bad actors in the vaping industry must and should be held accountable. But a blanket ban of all vape devices and liquids, which are used overwhelmingly by former smokers as a method to quit, is pure madness and will harm consumers,” said Ossowski.

“Responsible vapers will now be forced to shop outside the state or, unfortunately, buy their products on the black market.

“The bigger issue now is that Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has, with the stroke of a pen, created the largest-ever black market for vape devices in the entire country,” said Ossowski.

“Whereas before the sale and distribution of vaping liquids and devices could be regulated via licensed stores and responsible sellers, now it will be a free-for-all that the state won’t be able to control.

“This will invite even more dangerous oil and liquid combinations sold on the street as opposed to regulated products sold in stores, which will harm adult consumers,” said Ossowski.

“No one wants teens to be vaping, and we should make sure of that. The latest CDC figures show that 20.8% of high schoolers have vaped at least once in the last 30 days. But nearly half of those were vaping cannabis rather than nicotine, cartridges often purchased illegally on the black market instead of via established outlets.

“We should not use isolated cases caused by illegal products to inform public policy on the life-saving capabilities of vaping devices for adults. That is bad science and bad public policy.

“There is more we can do to stop youth vaping, but we must preserve this technology as a tool for adults to consume their nicotine in a less harmful fashion,” said Ossowski.

A Consumer Choice Center survey from March 2019 found that two-thirds of Americans agree that they should have the freedom of choice to buy e-cigarettes if they believe they are a lower health risk to them than tobacco.

More information on harm reduction is available on our website.


***CCC Deputy Director Yaël Ossowski is available to speak with accredited media on consumer regulations and consumer choice issues. Please send media inquiries HERE.***

—

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

Opinion: a vape tax would cost more than what the government thinks

ELITE BUSINESS MAGAZINE: The UK government is currently considering introducing a sin tax on vape products for the purpose of finding additional resources to fund the NHS. Theresa May’s government is looking to add an additional tax of 5% to vape products, which would directly impact the UK’s 2.9 million vapers and jeopardise successes achieved […]

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN