uk

THE US CONGRESS STANDS UP FOR APPLE AND CONSUMER PRIVACY EVERYWHERE

MARCH 13, 2025 | Today a bipartisan group of US lawmakers signed onto a joint letter calling on the UK’s government to immediately bring transparency to their upcoming hearing for Apple on March 14th. The American technology company has found themselves in a standoff with the UK’s Home Office, which demanded backdoor access to encrypted Apple iCloud data under the Investigatory Powers Act. 

Stephen Kent  of the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., London and Ottawa reacted to the letter from Congress:

“British authorities are actively harming their own people’s privacy and data security by pursuing backdoor access to Apple’s consumer encryption. The United States correctly sees this as a domestic threat, because a backdoor in the UK means a backdoor for access to Apple users’ cloud data everywhere.”

The demand by US Senators Ron Wyden and Alex Padilla, as well as Congressmen Andy Biggs, Warren Davidson and Zoe Lofgren, is that the UK make their March 14th hearing public so that its proceedings can be analyzed by cybersecurity experts and the US Congress. 

“The US government has changed its tune in recent years on the issue of encryption. They went from being outright hostile to encryption like the kind Apple provides, over concerns about countering terrorism, to then realizing it was the only thing keeping consumers safe whatsoever from massive foreign hacks,” Kent continued. 

Mike Salem of the Consumer Choice Center’s UK office told media in February about the clash between British authorities and Apple, saying “This marks a very sad day for the basic principle of consumer privacy in the 21st century, depriving users of the tools that leave UK citizens exposed to governments, criminals and malicious hackers. The fact this has been done without debate, oversight or advance warning to UK Apple users is extremely concerning.”

The Consumer Choice Center applauds Republicans and Democrats of the US Congress, as well as the Trump Administration, in their vocal defense of consumer privacy in the case of Apple vs the UK’s Home Office. We hope the Investigatory Powers Tribunal yields to the request of the US Congress and makes their hearing public, before taking steps to walk back this disastrous attack on encryption which has left UK consumers without the protection of Apple’s Advanced Data Protection tool. 

###

FOR UK or US MEDIA QUERIES and INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

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.


President Trump Is Headed Toward a Tariff Backlash

FEB 28, 2025 | President Donald Trump’s pledge to enact sweeping 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico begins this Tuesday, March 4. While Trump’s team has used the threat of tariffs to extract concessions from foreign adversaries and allies alike, the notion of open trade war with America’s neighbors remains an unpopular one with most Americans, according to a new poll from Public First.  

“This has a lot of potential to backfire on President Trump as his favorability gap shrinks” said Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group.  “Americans certainly elected Donald Trump to reassert US strength around the world and to be extra pushy, but when only 28% of Americans express support for tariffs on Canadian imports it goes to show that American voters don’t see Canada as being an opponent of any kind.” 

Asked why support for tariffs on Mexico is slightly more popular, with 35% of adults supportive, roughly ten percent above views about tariffs on Canada, Kent said,

It’s pretty clear 2024 was an immigration election and Americans wanted to see Mexico brought to the table on restricting northbound migration and fentanyl trafficking. When Mexican President Sheinbaum put 10,000 more troops on the border in exchange for a delay of tariffs, that was the point.

But Americans still know that tariffs are ultimately a tax on their lifestyle and shopping lists.” 

President Trump’s tariff threats have already injected uncertainty into markets and supply chains. After pausing the tariffs in February, the administration’s indecisiveness created confusion for businesses that rely on predictable trade policies. Imposing the 25% tariffs will only escalate tensions, raise consumer prices and distract from Americans’ top concern of trade imbalance with China. 

Polling data from Public First, shared with POLITICO, underscores that tariffs are vastly more popular when it comes to China, with 45 percent of respondents supporting them versus 30 percent opposed. 

“Americans aren’t going to like the result of tariffs on Chinese imports any more than they like the cost increases for basic car repairs in the US after 25% tariffs hit Canada, but the difference is that Donald Trump’s entire political career was based on renegotiating relations with China, not Canada,” added Stephen Kent of the Consumer Choice Center. “If these tariffs go into effect on March 4, I’d expect them to be short-lived. Trump likes to do popular things, and trade war in North America is already unpopular. Americans want to poke fun and enjoy some nationalistic fun when watching hockey games between Canada and the US, not when they’re shopping or trying to fill up their car.”

The Consumer Choice Center’s staff in Canada, Europe, and the US call on the Trump Administration to help make America and its allies prosperous by rejecting trade barriers which limit consumer freedom and purchasing power. Tariffs are not the way. 

FOR MEDIA QUERIES OR INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

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.


DNI Director Gabbard Stands Up For Apple & Consumer Privacy 

FEB 27, 2025 | Tulsi Gabbard, now U.S. Director of National Intelligence, has confirmed that U.S. officials and DNI lawyers are now reviewing whether the United Kingdom breached a bilateral treaty known as the CLOUD Act. Under the agreement, the UK is prohibited from demanding access to the data of U.S. citizens or individuals within U.S. borders. 

Stephen Kent, Media Director for the Consumer Choice Center, an international consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., reacted to news of Gabbard’s invoking the CLOUD Act:

“Gabbard is spot on in her defense of American consumers at home and abroad being threatened by the UK’s effort to break Apple’s encryption for users. The nature of consumer encryption tech is that if it’s broken anywhere, it’s broken everywhere. The UK is acting more like China and less like a democratic ally of the US.”

The UK’s Home Office demanded access to encrypted Apple iCloud data under the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA, which would create a “backdoor” for the UK to Apple’s encryption for all its consumers worldwide. As a result, Apple has opted to suspend its Advanced Data Protection encryption feature for UK users. 

“This mode of thinking is why Europe was taken off guard last week by Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference. What Gabbard is pointing out in her defense of encryption is that an ally of the United States is trying to violate their citizens’ privacy in a way that compromises consumers in the United States,” Kent continued. 

“The FBI under former Director Christopher Wray used to advocate for the same ‘backdoor’ access to encryption, but they’ve since changed their tune about encryption because of the rising threat of foreign data hacks, which pose huge risks to American consumers and companies.”

Cybersecurity analysts have long warned that any backdoor created for a government could eventually be discovered and misused by cybercriminals and hostile foreign actors. The UK’s push to weaken encryption disregards these risks, potentially exposing sensitive data to hackers and bad actors worldwide.

Kent concluded, “There are few consumer privacy issues as important in the world today as maintaining the integrity of encryption technology and services. The Trump Administration should pull no punches in letting Keir Starmer’s government know that this kind of ‘big brother’ behavior won’t be tolerated and makes our people worse off.” 

FOR MEDIA QUERIES OR INTERVIEWS PLEASE CONTACT:

Stephen Kent

Consumer Choice Center

stephen@consumerchoicecenter.org

###

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.


The UK Government’s spying requests force Apple to phase out encryption for users

A logo with orange and blue letters

Description automatically generated

London, UK – As of this afternoon, new Apple users in the UK can no longer enable Advanced Data Protection (APD) of their data, an end-to-end encrypted backup. In response to the government’s requests to secure a backdoor to Apple’s encrypted ecosystem, the company has decided to abandon this feature, and will still only provide data with law enforcement, if they have a warrant

In a statement, Mike Salem, UK Country Associate for the Consumer Choice Center (CCC), reacted to the news: 

This unfortunate move is a direct result of the government’s own decision to force tech companies to hand over the keys to our data, giving them a blank cheque to access any of our information without due process.”

“Everyone in the UK should be extremely worried about what the government aims to access not just in the UK, but across the world. Over 40 public authorities, including police, intelligence agencies, HMRC, and even local councils can apply for such warrants with broad powers for communication and data surveillance, and with guaranteed approval.”

“The UK government has set a precedent, and cast a new reputation that underscores the erosion of personal liberties and privacy in a digital age where these values are needed more than ever.”

“This marks a very sad day for the basic principle of consumer privacy in the 21st century, depriving users of the tools that leave UK citizens exposed to governments, criminals and malicious hackers. The fact this has been done without debate, oversight or advance warning to UK Apple users is extremely concerning.”

The CCC calls on the government to once again outline its reasons for the necessity and proportionality of such measures as soon as Monday in Parliament, and to urge parliamentarians in opposition to hold the government to account so that consumers can once again elect to encrypt and secure their data.


The Consumer Choice Center is a non-profit organisation dedicated to defending the rights of consumers around the world. Our mission is to promote freedom of choice, healthy competition and evidence-based policies that benefit consumers. We work to ensure that consumers have access to a variety of quality products and services and can make informed decisions about their lifestyle and consumption.

It’s time for the UK to bring drug approval into the 21st century

Settling Brexit has been a byzantine process, but it’s got nothing on the UK’s opaque and outright baffling system of pharmaceutical drug availability and research.

Every year the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the UK’s national drug regulator, approves dozens of new medicines, including both the newest patented medicines and lower-cost generic drugs.

After Brexit the MHRA will have a much bigger role as the European Medicines Agency (EMA) will likely no longer be responsible for the approval of innovative drugs in the UK. But the UK has an outdated and murky approach to patenting and regulatory approval that leaves patients in the dark.

Bracing for Brexit means also that we need to bring our drug approval system to the 21st century and include openness and transparency.

Instead of regularly notifying which drugs are approved and their patent status, the UK hides much of this information. This makes it harder for patients and healthcare professionals to know which drugs are currently available and will soon be at the pharmacy. This stands in stark contrast to the international trend of promoting more transparency in pharmaceutical markets.

And while the EMA has such a notification mechanism set up for certain innovative and orphan medicines, the UK does not. An open and transparent government should provide patients, doctors and pharmacists with the information on which drugs manufacturers are currently filing for market authorisation.

At the moment, you can find six pages in MHRA’s annual report on its energy use, but precious little on the current approval and application pipeline. Shouldn’t patients have access to this information?

We should follow international best practices and publicly release more information about drugs being considered for approval. This should include information about the patent status of these drugs and the timeline for approval.

Canada provides a good example of how to go about this. Its Patented Medicines Regulations allow the timely release of this information and keep patients better informed about their health care options. It also helps to hold the government accountable, leading to a more transparent and functional drug approval process.

Other advanced countries, including Singapore, have open systems in which governments transparently and efficiently review the patent status of new medicines prior to marketing approval. This transparency makes markets work better and brings down costs and prices.

The UK is not alone in needing more patient-friendly transparency and open government: France and Italy both lack having an easy-to-access database that lists all approved drugs and drugs in review.

Increased transparency of patent information and regulatory approval helps patients in a number of ways. It can help bolster intellectual property protections essential to getting the newest, most effective medicines to market. It can also help speed up the process of approving lower-cost generic medicines that could immediately save lives.

Patients should demand the implementation of an online database that not only lists currently approved patent-protected drugs and generics but also shows in real-time which marketing authorisations are being sought by patented and off-patent drugs. Ideally, drug manufacturers would apply for marketing authorisation in the UK through that open platform as well. This would allow a one-stop-shop for patients, health care professionals, and the pharmaceutical industry.

In the age of Amazon, TripAdvisor, and Ocado, it’s about time that our public administration helps bring more transparency and live data to patients and doctors. Any delay means keeping patients in the dark – and we all deserve better.

Originally published here.


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

Germany’s Uber ban is bad for consumers and the environment

Today a court in Frankfurt effectively banned Uber in all of Germany. The company Taxi Deutschland, a licensed taxi app, went to court arguing that Uber requires a license. The court agreed with Taxi Deutschland’s interpretation of the legal situation.

For the last couple of years, Uber was able to operate in Germany by working with subcontractors that complied with the German rental car and chauffeur services regulations. That law also mandates the driver to drive back to a dispatching station after every single ride. This is of course not just expensive but also terrible for the environment and just adds additional cars to already congested roads. The plaintiff was able to prove that many Uber drivers do not drive back empty to their dispatching station but keep picking up passengers. While this is good news for the environment, roads, and passengers, it is bad legal news for Uber. Policy makers should realize that this is an outdated regulation and update it according to the realities of many consumers preferring Ubers to licensed taxis.

Uber entered the German market in 2013 and for the last six years politicians kept complaining about Uber not being fully compliant with German laws. Updating these outdated, anti-competitive, and unecological laws did somehow not happen. Instead of legislative changes we see the old-school taxi lobby pushing their special interest successfully through German courts.

The court in Frankfurt also questions whether Uber is merely a platform connecting drivers with passengers or actually the provider of the ride. A spokesperson of the court said that consumers are not aware of Uber being merely a platform. One can only assume that the judges have never used an Uber as to everyone who was in an Uber and had a conversation with their driver it is pretty obvious that the drivers and independent contractors and not employees of Uber.

No one is forced to use an Uber!

In the heated debate about whether ride hailing services such as Uber or Lyft should be banned many people suggest that they aren’t safe as the drivers are not licensed taxi drivers. And while there are definitely black sheep among Uber drivers one can at least be assured to be GPS-tracked during the entire ride and one can give feedback to Uber about bad behavior. More important is that the dimension of choice does not appear in the debate at all: No one is forced to use an Uber. So those who dislike Uber should just not use their services and keep walking, cycling, or taking a cash-only overpriced and smelling Taxi. But those who prefer to use the Ubers of the world should be allowed to choose as well.

Fighting for consumer choice since Summer 2014

I was probably one of the first Uber customers when they started in Berlin. I just loved that I didn’t need to have cash on me and usually spent 30% less than in a yellow cab. When in Summer 2014 taxi drivers all over Europe went on a symbolic strike against the new competition from Uber, two friends of mine and I took an Uber (and paid it out of our own pockets) to the taxi manifestation in front of the olympic stadium in Berlin. We countered the 1,000 taxi drivers protesting by endorsing competition and made some headlines that day.

On the other side you can clearly see that some taxi drivers weren’t happy at all about consumers fighting for their right to choose. Just look at this very angry driver:

The fact that there were literally no consumer groups that stood up for customers like us who wanted to be able to choose between Uber and taxis was one of the reasons why we went on and several years later started the Consumer Choice Center.

There are many outdated regulations that don’t reflect consumer preferences and just serve special interests. In cases like Uber bans this is not just bad for consumer choice but also for the environment and traffic. 

My big appeal to German politicians is to update legislation and create a solid framework in which innovative companies such as Uber and Lyft can compete with legacy industries such as licensed taxis. Or as we say in German: Macht die Bahn frei für Wahlfreiheit im Taximarkt!


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

en_USEN

Follow us

WASHINGTON

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

BRUSSELS

Rond Point Schuman 6, Box 5 Brussels, 1040, Belgium

LONDON

Golden Cross House, 8 Duncannon Street
London, WC2N 4JF, UK

KUALA LUMPUR

Block D, Platinum Sentral, Jalan Stesen Sentral 2, Level 3 - 5 Kuala Lumpur, 50470, Malaysia

OTTAWA

718-170 Laurier Ave W Ottawa, ON K1P 5V5

© COPYRIGHT 2025, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Also from the Consumer Choice Center: ConsumerChamps.EU | FreeTrade4us.org