George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School

Author: aolsavsk

PEP Files in Response to FTC’s Request for Public Comment on Technology Platform Censorship

Last week, PEP responded to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) request for public comment on technology platform censorship of user content.

In this comment, PEP analyzes the First Amendment and the FTC Act to make three main points:

  • The First Amendment places limits on the Commission’s ability to police technology platforms’ content moderation under the FTC Act;
  • Several serious legal hurdles are likely to prevent the FTC from establishing that technology platforms’ content moderation decisions comprise “unfair methods of competition”; and
  • Other than in very narrow circumstances, it is unlikely that platform censorship constitutes “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.”

PEP’s comments emphasize that given heavy dependence on digital platforms for access to vital information, decisions addressing censorship concerns have far-reaching impact. However, the authority Congress granted the FTC to prohibit “unfair methods of competition” or “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” does not appear to be the appropriate mechanism to address these concerns.

You can view the full comment here.

PEP Files Comment in Response to House Committee on Energy and Commerce Privacy Working Group’s RFI

Earlier this spring, the Law & Economics Center‘s Program on Economics & Privacy (PEP) submitted a comment to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s newly formed Privacy Working Group (PWG) in response to it’s Request for Information (RFI).

In the comment, PEP urges the PWG to consider that personalization—through content and ads—drives the online ecosystem. This means that any legislation limiting the ability to engage in personalization is likely to reduce the revenue available to online creators, leading to lower quality and output of content. Second, the comment encourages the PWG to rely, when possible, on revealed preferences (RP)—actual data based on known choices—rather than stated preferences (SP), such as those derived from surveys or polls. Finally, the comment asks the PWG to consider the extent to which competition over privacy can help address market failures in providing consumers with optimal levels of privacy.

You can view the full comment here.