Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The FTC's Top Consumer Protection Official Can't Go After Facebook -- or 100 Other Companies (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

The Federal Trade Commission's top consumer protection official is prohibited from handling the cases involving 120 different companies, including Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Uber, according to financial disclosure documents published by Public Citizen this week. From a report: Andrew Smith, who heads the FTCs Consumer Protection Bureau, would be in charge of handling investigations into some of the country's largest companies and any consumer protection violations that may occur. But due to his conflicts of interest, Smith is barred from participating in any investigations involving the companies he previously provided legal services for. "It's a big world out there, and the FTC has very broad jurisdictions," Smith said to The Verge. "There are plenty of investigations that I'm involved in." Smith was approved by a 3-2 Republican majority in May.

32 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. bullshit story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No - he can't be in charge of the investigations
    Yes - he can delegate those investigations to other officers under him - just like happens in the Justice Department.
    I'm sure the Verge was all up in arms when Maxine Waters was re-upped to the banking committee in the house after she abused her powers to cut out a sweet deal for her husband's bank.

    1. Re: bullshit story by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      This is just another case of a much LARGER problem in Government (especially federal)....

      Each regulatory agency is merely a revolving door between the industry to be regulated and the regulators.

      Another horrible example of this is with the FDA....you see leaders and CEO's and the like of agro-businesses leaving their companies, to go into lead the FDA....and we never get good food policies for the nation, as that these guys do NOT recuse themselves from conflicts of interest, but they perpetuate it and freely rule in favor of the agro industry over that of the general public. Hence, our food system cannot change where needed.

      This happens in all departments, and I wish there could be stipulations that if you worked in the industry you are regulating, then you can't regulate on the govt side.

      I realize that having someone in charge of regulating some industries that has no experience it the actual industry/tech, etc would have problems knowing what it was all about, but what is a better way to get more unbiased regulation?

      I don't like much regulation at all, but of course, there has to be some....and best that that regulation and investigation is honest and not biased by having them essentially self regulate with always having one of their own on the Federal govt side of things.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re: bullshit story by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying you don't like the ongoing (since the 90's?) Republican trend of putting industry foxes in positions to "guard" our public henhouses for the explicit purpose of NOT regulating them, eh?

      Nope, this is truly a bi-partisian problem.

      Aren't you one of the outspoken Trump supporting morons?

      Not really. While I support somethings he has done and tried, I do not like everything, nor do I count myself as a fan. I do feel he was the lessor of two evils (Hillary/Bernie).

      But I think he's an idiot many times that sometimes gets things right in spite of himself. I liked the SCOTUS appointments, that was one of my chief concerns in the previous election.

      I'd much rather a more middle road candidate, slightly liberal socially, slightly conservative fiscally, and overall for less intrusive government, especially on the federal side.

      While I'm thinking NOW would be the best time in recent history for a valid 3rd party candidate to run due to the main party pulling to such extremes....I'm not optimistic that I'll see any such candidate in my lifetime.

      So, I choose who will at least address some of my main concerns as best as I can.

      Some of the Dem stuff coming up on the horizon really scares me...this state one: NY SB 9191 ...which will require anyone wanting to get a gun, to hand over all social media credentials so the police can ascertain if you post things too radical to allow you to have a gun.

      This linked article is by a democrat leaning person, as they say they don't care if the 2nd amendment is run roughshod over....but they are concerned about the implications of the 1st and 4th amendment violations being proposed here.

      Look at federal House Bill 7115 3D Firearms Prohibitions Act .(Which has precious little to do with 3D printed gun or gun parts if you read it).

      Even if you support the parts essentially banning the sales of gun parts and the long time right to home gunsmithing, and all...and the 80% lowers, there is a part on there that wants to prohibit you from even posting or talking about how to build your own gun, etc. Isn't that 1st amendment?

      I mean, I'm no fan of the old Anarchist Cookbook, but I don't feel it should be banned either?

      So, no....neither party right now is a fan of freedom.

      You just have to pick and choose what parts mean the most to you and think you can win with whomever you "support".

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:bullshit story by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Although that rarely happens. Mary Jo White did the same when she was appointed by Obama to the SEC. She deadlocked over 50 investigations into some of the biggest banks and companies.

      This revolving door system is a continuous problem in Washington DC and happens in all regulatory committees and agencies (FCC, FTC, ...)

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  2. Idiots begone by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

    Andrew Smith may head the Consumer Protection Bureau, but doesn't personally investigate companies. That is the job of those below him. So the limitation on him investigating companies is meaningless political drivel.

  3. Anothe reason why "independence" is bad by MikeRT · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The FTC, FCC, etc. would function a lot better if they were normal executive branch agencies and this post were a political appointee. No president would want to waste their time on a guy who would get such an obvious "lol, gtfo" from the Senate upon submission and it coming out that 20% of the fortune 500 cannot be investigated by him.

    1. Re:Anothe reason why "independence" is bad by ilsaloving · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Independence isn't the problem. The problem is that they hired someone who can't do the job due to conflict of interest.

      This would be no different if he was voted in or appointed. Of course, the way the rest of this administration is managed, I can't help but go into conspiracy theory territory and think that this was done intentionally to make it harder for the FTC to do it's job.

  4. Forget 2 cars in every garage by schklerg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a fox in every hen house for the US.

    --
    Be Excellent To Each Other
  5. tentacles by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whether or not the chair of the Consumer Protection Bureau is personally able to head investigations is less important to me than the question of why you would want to appoint a CPB chair who has all these previous financial ties to the biggest companies his agency is supposed to be protecting consumers from?

    It's like appointing Mr Fox to be the head of the Henhouse Security Agency and thinking it's OK because he's not personally responsible for protecting the henhouse. I mean, what the fuck else is his job, then and why would you think he's going to delegate that responsibility to someone who has the hens' best interests in mind?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:tentacles by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Sorta like FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Verizon shill.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:tentacles by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You are kidding, right? Why do you think they want to appoint these people? Washington DC is a bunch of politicians looking for money and when they get out of politics they want jobs in the private sector. This is how they pay for those jobs.

    3. Re:tentacles by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Sorta like FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Verizon shill.

      Are you noticing a pattern?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:tentacles by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Washington DC is a bunch of politicians looking for money and when they get out of politics they want jobs in the private sector.

      You could also say, "Washington DC is a bunch of lobbyists and corporate interests looking for politicians and when they get out of lobbying they want jobs working in the public sector."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:tentacles by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it works both ways. That is why they call DC a "revolving door".

    6. Re:tentacles by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's been going on for centuries. The real pattern, the one that we can fix, is in a different place, hint: it's not the government, well, it is, but its direction is decided by... oh wait, don't want to give that away. It'll wreck the story.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re: tentacles by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      Or what about having daycare be provided by the friendly guy with windowless white van and rust spots? I hear he serves free candy and really, really likes kids.

    8. Re:tentacles by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You know, you could read before posting.

      Did you know that it is not "illegal," for a person to enter the United States without documentation for the first incident?

      By way of evidence, consider that first-timers are not charged with anything -- they are simply deported at taxpayer expense.

      Did you know that the US has a pretty decent immigration policy that includes administration buildings and staff along the border where a bloke can get a decent meal and a cuppa joe? Congress never funded it.

      Your obsession with the word, "illegal," is transparent as a mindless trigger to mask ignorance.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    9. Re:tentacles by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I got ten one dollar bills in exchange for one ten dollar bill and I was pretty much neutral regarding the transaction.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  6. Reminds me of a certain landlord during the 1980's by magusxxx · · Score: 2

    He purposefully hired several lawyers to do simple legal stuff for only one reason.

    So a tenant wouldn't be able to hire anyone local if they decided to sue him.

    Makes me wonder if some of these large companies do the same thing. Hire lawyers with political ties so if/when they get into power they won't be able to go after them.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
  7. Citizens United by sdinfoserv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    THIS is EXACTLY why we need to pull corporate money out of politics AND reign in lobbyists. Bar lobbyists from serving on high level posts.

    1. Re:Citizens United by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Who is we? We have no power to do that. Only the people who craft the laws can do that.

    2. Re:Citizens United by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      It isn't just the US. Other countries do exactly the same.

    3. Re:Citizens United by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      THIS is EXACTLY why we need to pull corporate money out of politics AND reign in lobbyists. Bar lobbyists from serving on high level posts.

      I propose reign in by guillotine. Works just as well for politicians as for lobbyists. Throw in international tax dodgers from the Panama Papers and other sources and we'll have a much better society in mere days.

    4. Re:Citizens United by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and most of them are representative democracies of one sort or another also. Does that say anything? To anybody? We must be in space, because nobody hears the screaming. Ok, technically, we are in space...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Citizens United by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You don't think that China, North Korea, etc don't have these issues?

    6. Re:Citizens United by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      *sigh* That's for the Chinese and North Koreans to deal with.

      Man! You'll pull out any distraction you can to avoid seeing the elephant.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Citizens United by guruevi · · Score: 1

      This isn't even lobbyist, this is a revolving door of lawyers stacking government offices at all levels. They get themselves tainted for a few years and then move to a higher position at the same agency. Mary Jo White at SEC did the same and killed over 50 investigation. Maxine Waters did the same thing.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:Citizens United by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Implicate all the tax dodgers in the murder/ murder-conspiracy of Daphne Caruana Galizia, and try them under Napoleonic principles of law, Guilty until proven innocent.

      I'm not a fan of guilty until proven innocent generally but admittedly if your named in the Panama Papers it seems reasonable. The only good use for the NSA in my mind is tracking down international tax fraud.

    9. Re:Citizens United by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

      "We" are the insane who continually vote for the same assholes while expecting different results.

  8. Re:Reminds me of a certain landlord during the 198 by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    There is a reason so many corporate HQ are in the Washington DC area. It isn't because of the weather.

  9. He shouldn't have gotten the job. by rashanon · · Score: 1

    If your a lawyer, and your company has defended a crap load of the folks who are under investigation by the Federal Trade Commision, YOU SHOULD NOT BE WORKING THERE. I ANY CAPACITY.
    This is exactly whats wrong with Washington. Its the same a working for Universities in finance and financial theory, then working for the Security Exchange Commision, and the working for Goldman or B of A. Its the same vicious circle of insiders running the system with no real policing of bad behaviour.

    America isnt a democracy, its a Plutocracy, the club of rich bastards who pull all the strings from behind the curtain.

  10. If only the FCC were the same. by bill.pev · · Score: 1

    It is ironic that the Smith and the trade commission cannot prosecute companies because of his prior connection (most likely privileged) but Ajit Pai and the comm commission can determine what's fair for human people despite his prior connection (I don't know if in house counsel also has privilege but I assume he would.)

    The game seems rigged, once again.