Why the FTC v. Meta Trial Matters: Competition Gaps and Civil Liberties Opportunities

EFF update
1 week 1 day ago

We’re in the midst of a long-overdue resurgence in antitrust litigation. In the past 12 months alone, there have been three landmark rulings against Google/Alphabet (in search, advertising, and payments). Then there’s the long-running FTC v. Meta case, which went to trial last week. Plenty of people are cheering these cases on, seeing them as a victories over the tech broligarchy (who doesn’t love to see a broligarch get their comeuppance?).

But we’re cautiously cheering for another, more fundamental reason: the Big Tech antitrust cases could and should lead to enforceable changes that will foster more vibrant online expression and more meaningful user privacy protections.

Antitrust doctrine isn’t just about prices – it’s about power. The cases are nothing less than a fight over who will control the future of the internet, and what that future will look like. Will social media platforms continue to consolidate and enshittify? Or will the courts create breathing room for new ways of connecting to emerge and thrive?

Take FTC v Meta: The FTC argues that Meta’s control over Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram – the latter two being companies Facebook acquired in order to neutralize them as competitors— gives it unfair monopoly power in personal social media, i.e. communications with friends and family. Meta disputes that, of course, but even if you take Meta at their word, there’s no denying that this case is directly concerned with online expression. If the FTC succeeds, Meta could be broken up and forced to compete. More important than competition for its own sake is what competition can deliver: openings in the canopy that allow green shoots to sprout – new systems for talking with one another and forming communities under different and more transparent moderation policies, a break from the content moderation monoculture that serves no one well (except for corporate shareholders).

These antitrust cases aren’t the sole purview of government enforcers. Private companies have also brought significant cases with real implications for user rights.

Take Epic Games v Google, in which Google insists that the court order to open up its app store to competition will lead to massive security risks. This is a common refrain from tech giants like Google, who benefit from the system of “feudal security” in which users must depend on the whims of a monopolist to guarantee their safety. Google claims that its app store security measures keep its users safe – reprising the long-discredited theory of “security through obscurity.” As the eminent cryptographer (and EFF board member) Bruce Schneier says, “Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can’t break.”

It’s true that Google often does a good job securing its users against external threats, but Google does a much worse job securing users against Google itself – for example, there’s no way to comprehensively block tracking for Google’s apps on Android. Competition might make Google clean up its act here, but only if they start worrying that there’s a chance you’ll switch to an upstart with a better privacy posture. Enabling competition—as these cases are trying to do—means we don’t have to rely on Google to get privacy religion. We can just switch to an independently vetted rival. Of course, you can only vote with your feet if you have somewhere else to go.

Related Cases: Epic Games v. Google
Corynne McSherry

EFF to Congress: Here’s What A Strong Privacy Law Looks Like

EFF update
1 week 1 day ago

Enacting strong federal consumer data privacy laws is among EFF’s highest priorities. For decades, EFF has advocated for federal privacy law that is concrete, ambitious, and fully protective of all Americans’ data privacy.

That’s why, when the House Committee on Energy and Commerce recently established a Privacy Working Group and asked for comments on what we’d like to see from a Data Security and Privacy Framework, EFF was pleased to offer our thoughts.

Our comments highlight several key points. For one, we urge Congress not to weaken current federal privacy law or create new policy that supplants stronger state laws. A law that overrides strong state protections would hurt consumers and prevent states from protecting their constituents. 

We also urge Congress to include the most important tool to ensure that privacy laws have real bite: the individual right to sue over privacy violations. As we say in our comments:

It is not enough for the government to pass laws that protect consumers from corporations that harvest and monetize their personal data. It is also necessary to ensure companies do not ignore them. The best way to do so is to empower consumers to bring their own lawsuits against the companies that violate their privacy rights. Strong “private rights of action” are among EFF’s highest priorities in any data privacy legislation.

Additionally, we reiterate that any strong privacy law must include these components:

  • No online behavioral ads.
  • Data minimization.
  • Opt-in consent.
  • User rights to access, port, correct, and delete information.
  • No preemption of stronger state laws.
  • Strong enforcement with a private right of action.
  • No pay-for-privacy schemes.
  • No deceptive design.

As we have said in our Privacy First white paper, a strong privacy law would also help us address online harms, protect children, support journalism, protect access to health care, foster digital justice, limit private data collection to train generative AI, limit foreign government surveillance, and strengthen competition.

EFF thanks the committee for the opportunity to weigh in. We invite further conversation to develop strong, comprehensive law that affirms the privacy and civil rights of all American consumers. You can read our full comments here: 

  • EFF Comments to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce - Privacy Working Group
Maddie Daly

【出版トピックス】4月─障害者への偏見と差別を防ぐには＝出版部会

日本ジャーナリストクラブ（JCJ）
1 week 1 day ago
◆出版社倒産1.8倍　　2024年度に発生した出版社の倒産は31件、前年度（17件）の約1.8倍となった。15年度以来9年ぶりに30件を上回り、20年度以降20件を下回る低水準が続いていたが、ここにきて増加し始めている。　ペーパレス化や電子書籍の普及、ネット専業メディアの台頭の影響を受け、雑誌の休刊・廃刊が相次ぐなど出版業界の事業環境は悪化の一途を辿っており、小規模事業者を中心に破綻が相次いだ。　紙やインクの価格が高騰し、製造コストが上昇。需要減のなか、わずかな利益で事業を続..
ＪＣＪ