Investigate “deceptive and misleading” location-tracking practices of Android users by Google, more than 75 consumer groups wrote the FTC Tuesday. Citing a Norwegian Consumer Council report, the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) claimed Google “manipulates and nudges users” into constant tracking via location history and activity online and through apps, which is applied across all Google accounts and violates the EU’s general data protection regulation. Among claims: users are pushed into location history tracking without knowing, misled about the extent of data collection, and default settings are hidden. TACD includes the Center for Digital Democracy, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Electronic Privacy Information Center. A Google spokesperson emailed that location history is turned off by default, and users can edit, delete or pause it. If paused, depending on individual settings, the company might collect and use location data to “improve your Google experience,” the spokesperson said: “We’re constantly working to improve our controls, and we'll be reading this report closely to see if there are things we can take on board.” The FTC received the letter, its spokesperson said.

Recent FTC comments to NTIA unfairly favor corporate interests concerning opt-in data privacy proposals, 15 consumer and privacy groups wrote the commission Monday. The FTC cited “unintended consequences” of deploying an opt-in model, which would require users to authorize data collection, citing an advertising industry survey (see 1811130058). The FTC should have taken a “broader look at the evidence, rather than relying on a self-serving study by one stakeholder,” the groups wrote. They included Center for Digital Democracy, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center and Public Knowledge. The FTC didn’t comment.

The FTC finalized settlements over allegations IDmission, mResource, SmartStart Employment Screening and VenPath “falsely claimed certification under the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework” (see 1809270057), the agency said Monday. Commissioners voted 4-0-1, with Christine Wilson recused because she didn’t participate when the agency sought comment.

Expect national privacy legislation to pass by 2020, MoffettNathanson Research said Monday, citing comments at an antitrust forum last week the analyst firm organized. Analysts Craig Moffett and Michael Nathanson forecast pressure from a patchwork of state laws that will have tech platforms seeking a better alternative. Antitrust action from DOJ against platforms like Facebook, Amazon or Google is less likely, since consumer harm is difficult to prove when services are free, the analysts wrote investors.

Congress will need to decide how much it’s willing to disrupt competition when crafting privacy legislation, FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips said in an interview for C-SPAN's The Communicators, to have been televised Saturday: While lawmakers want to protect consumers, they must keep in mind that regulatory schemes can harm competition and entrench incumbents. “That may be worth it,” Phillips said. “It may be that the problem we’re solving is such that we’re willing to take a little competition out of the market, but it’s something that we need to keep in mind.” Determining these “value judgments” should come first before deciding whether the FTC needs better privacy authority, he said. “That a firm is large under our law doesn’t necessarily make it a bad firm. It doesn’t make its conduct illegal,” he said. Sometimes, firms illegally protect their position in the market, and that’s something the FTC should monitor, he noted. Phillips warned against using antitrust law to address claims that platforms are favoring content based on ideology, noting he's not sure his agency has a role there.

Officials should craft federal, baseline privacy legislation that ensures data is “handled transparently and responsibly provided the framework is technology neutral and applies to the online and offline sector,” the Computer & Communications Industry Association told the Commerce Department Wednesday. In addition to releasing Privacy Principles, CCIA commented on NTIA’s ongoing privacy effort (see 1810220032), backing more FTC resources to better enforcement. “The digital economy relies on consumers’ trust, so responsible tech companies support measures to curb the misuse of data and to ensure data protection measures meet consumers’ expectations for privacy,” CEO Ed Black said. Comments are due Friday.

The Supreme Court requested supplemental briefs on whether plaintiffs have the right to sue Google in a case involving its $8.5 million data privacy settlement (see 1810310043). The high court asked the parties and solicitor general Tuesday to address “whether any named plaintiff has standing such that the federal courts have Article III jurisdiction over this dispute.” The court was asked to weigh legitimacy of the cy pres settlement to charitable and academic organizations instead of being divided among many alleged victims. Supplemental briefs are due Nov. 30, replies Dec. 21.

Intel proposed draft online privacy legislation that would grant the FTC rulemaking authority and govern platforms and third parties by “fair information practice principles.” Such a bill would direct the agency to deliver to Congress annual reports with “recommendations to modify existing federal privacy laws which have become unnecessary or inconsistent by the provisions” of the bill.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.'s draft data privacy bill would allow the FTC to issue “steep fines” for first-time offenders and levy 10-to-20-year criminal penalties for senior executives. Fines would be up to 4 percent of annual revenue. The Consumer Data Protection Act calls for the FTC to set “minimum privacy and cybersecurity standards” and hire 175 to “police the largely unregulated market for private data.” About 50 monitor tech and credit industries, Wyden said Thursday. The bill, which was expected (see 1810110043), envisions a national “do not track” system that blocks third parties from tracking certain consumers online. It would let consumers review what data is collected and shared about them and require companies to assess algorithm fairness.

The Supreme Court debated the wisdom of directing Google’s $8.5 million data privacy settlement to charitable and academic organizations rather than to alleged victims (see 1805010051). During oral argument Wednesday in Frank v. Gaos (docket 17-961), Chief Justice John Roberts suggested Google could have awarded the money to organizations it hadn't contributed to in the past, alluding to criticisms from Ted Frank, litigation director for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which challenged the settlement. New Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked whether it would be better to have a lottery or a pro rata system to ensure an injured party benefits. Justice Samuel Alito’s questioning suggested the deal awards a lot of money to attorneys, the class-action members get nothing, and groups potentially partial to Google benefit. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested an indirect benefit outweighs what class members could have gotten. Frank told her each claiming class member “probably could have gotten between $5 and $10” with typical claims rates. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said of the settlement, “It seems like the system is working.” Google attorney Andrew Pincus said the question is whether the cost of distributing the money means the class gets essentially nothing, making an indirect benefit better.