In a move that broadcasters can leverage to make their point about the relative value of their ad platform versus online, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) is slamming Google Ads, saying it has a troubling record of not weeding out fraud and abuse and calling on the company to pony up info in its ad practices and policies.

Blumenthal, like many on the Hill, has been a sharp critic of edge provider privacy and marketing practices in general.

In a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Blumenthal said that Google has "routinely failed to address dangerous scams, impersonation, cybercrime, and other fraud on its extensive advertising network."

Also: Bills Prompt Faceoff Between Big Tech, Antitrust Groups 

He also echoed past criticism's of Google for paid ad placement on Google pushing organic results "n far down below often poorly-labeled ad placements" and a new one about Google ads that once were marked with "bright badges" and colors to show they were ads now noted with "a minimal and smaller label that is easy to miss."

He said Google's ad practices are a significant cost for small businesses and threaten local competition. "Combined with Google’s increased focused on paid ads over real answers, the result is to bury smaller competitors," he told Pichai.

Either that, he said, or those businesses have to buy expensive ads to get to the top of search results, which he called an "onerous burden and indefensible tax" on those small businesses.

He said that Google has not adequately protected the site and its users against fraud and abuse.

He wants the company by September 2 to answer the following:

"1.) Google continues to allow advertisements that impersonate government agencies, mislead consumers, promote dangerous products, and violate its terms of services. What changes does Google intend to make to its advertising review and enforcement process to prevent misleading or fraudulent ads from appearing to consumers?"

"2.) What is Google’s justification for Google’s search engine results page’s move
towards a less obvious distinction between paid and organic search results?

"3.) Has Google conducted research on whether visitors easily distinguish ads on the
Google search engine results page from organic search results?

"4.) Why does Google enable large companies to place advertisements for keywords,
trademarks, and brands names associated with local and small businesses?

"5.) What percentage of keyword-driven Google Ads revenue is derived from brands
bidding on their own name or trademark, or brands bidding on a competitor's name or trademark?

"6.) Has Google conducted research into how often consumers mistakenly visit the site of, or place a call to, a competitor or fraudulent advertiser due to misleading or
impersonating ads? What data does it use to review its policies and enforcement with respect to misrepresentation?

"7.) Google has increasingly used artificial intelligence to drive ad placements. What
protections are in place that prevent this process from unintentional "learning" to
place ads in a manner that would create consumer confusion or facilitate fraud?"

Blumenthal is a co-sponsor of a bill, The Competition and Transparency in Digital Advertising Act, that would impose restrictions on the biggest players in the digital advertising market. ■

Government pressure on social media continues to ramp up. 

The latest salvo comes from a group of state attorneys general led by Massachusetts AG Maura Healey, who have launched an investigation into TikTok and what they said is its design and promotion of social media for kids and teens that "causes or exacerbates physical and mental health harms."

They are trying to find out if the platform violated state consumer protection laws, thus putting the public at risk.

The investigation will look into what TikTok knew about potential harms of usage and the methods and techniques it may have used to boost user engagement by young people. 

Also: Senators Call on FTC to Protect Kids in Metaverse

Also leading the investigation are AGs from California, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee and Vermont.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), the chair of the Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee and big Big Tech critic who is a chief sponsor of the Kids Online Safety Act, applauded the investigation as a adjunct to efforts already underway on the Hill to hold social media accountable for their impact on kids, including potentially banning certain types of targeted online advertising.

"Along with Congressional scrutiny, this significant bipartisan probe will uncover TikTok’s actions that put profits over kids’ safety," said Blumenthal. "This investigation underscores the urgent need for our Kids Online Safety Act, so these state attorneys general can hold platforms like TikTok legally and financially accountable for the harms they find. I will be fighting for passage of this bill to impose long-overdue accountability on Big Tech and to empower kids and parents online.”

The bill creates an affirmative duty for social media platforms "to prevent and mitigate harms to minors."

In his State of the Union speech, President Biden said that social media companies are experimenting on children for profit, and called for regulations on Big Tech. ■

In another shot across the bow at Big Tech, Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) have teamed up on a new bill to protect children online, citing "Big Tech’s repeated failures to protect children & teens from serious dangers on their platforms."

The Kids Online Safety Act is billed as a comprehensive, bipartisan effort stemming from hearings into social media companies spearheaded by those legislators, who have signaled that Congress would step in to rein in the platforms where it came to protecting children over issues like body image, eating disorders, substance abuse, and suicide in particular and mental health in general.

They said the bill will make social media platforms put children's interests first "by default," requiring independent audits and public scrutiny by academics, as  well as allow for disabling "addictive features," and opting out of algorithmic recommendations.

It also creates an affirmative duty for social media platforms "to prevent and mitigate harms to minors."

At a press conference on the bill, Blumenthal painted an unflattering portrait of Big Tech: ""What we’ve heard in these months at our hearings and from direct talks with parents is harrowing, haunting stories of heartbreaking loss, destructive content driven to children, addictive dark places, emotional rabbit holes, all the result of Big Tech driving toxic content at kids using black box algorithms that are little understood by parents or children."

According to the senators, the bill:

1. "Requires that social media platforms provide minors with options to protect their information, disable addictive product features, and opt out of algorithmic recommendations. Platforms would be required to enable the strongest settings by default.

2. "Gives parents new controls to help support their children and identify harmful behaviors, and provides parents and children with a dedicated channel to report harms to kids to the platform.
Also: Blumenthal Says Facebook Weaponizes Childhood Suffering

3. "Creates a responsibility for social media platforms to prevent and mitigate harms to minors, such as promotion of self-harm, suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, and unlawful products for minors (e.g. gambling and alcohol).
 
4. "Requires social media platforms to perform an annual independent audit that assesses the risks to minors, their compliance with this legislation, and whether the platform is taking meaningful steps to prevent those harms.

5. "Provides academic and public interest organizations with access to critical datasets from social media platforms to foster research regarding harms to the safety and well-being of minors."

Blumenthal and Blackburn said the bill was been endorsed by Common Sense Media, the American Psychological Association, the 5Rights Foundation, American Compass, the Internet Accountability Project, American Principles Project, and the Digital Progress Institute. ■

Computer companies are not happy with the news that Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have reintroduced the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act.

That is the bill that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Act to say that the section's immunity for online platforms from civil liability for third-party content does not extend to child exploitation, meaning a Facebook or Twitter could be held liable for posts that illegally exploit children.  

It would also establish a National Commission on Online Child Exploitation Prevention to establish best practices for preventing such exploitation.  

The Computer & Communications Industry Association called it a misdirected effort to combat child sexual abuse material online, and that would instead weaken the law (Sec. 230) that companies use to address objectionable third-party material online--without the threat of civil suits.

“Instead of directing more resources toward prosecution of industry-reported content, this bill aims to put a government commission in charge of how digital services operate,” CCIA president Matt Schruers said. “Enforcing existing criminal statutes in known cases would prevent more crime than placing a federal committee in control of how internet services police content.”

Also: EARN IT Act Debut Earns Plenty of Input

Fight for the Future (FFTF) executive director Evan Greer was even tougher on the bill, calling it “[O]ne of the most poorly conceived and dangerous pieces of internet legislation I have seen in my entire career and that’s saying a lot.” Greer said the bill “will trample human rights and online free expression, particularly for trans and queer folks.”

FFTF launched an email campaign against a prior introduction of the bill and plans to update the campaign for the reintroduced bill.

Among those on the other side of the issue are the Parents Television and Media Council (PTC) and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCSE). 

“The PTC proudly endorses the EARN IT Act of 2022,“ PTC president Tim Winter said. “We applaud the bipartisan and bicameral leadership of Senators Lindsey Graham  and Richard Blumenthal, Reps. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), and over a dozen co-sponsors from both sides of the political aisle, all of whom have come together with the noble goal of protecting children from the growing and ever-present threats that are so prevalent in today’s toxic digital media environment.”

“Big Tech has no incentive to prevent predators from grooming, recruiting, and trafficking children online and as a result, countless children have fallen victim to child abusers on platforms like Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok,”  NCSE president Patrick A. Trueman said when the bill was first introduced. “EARN IT gives us these missing incentives by making the current gift of immunity under the Communications Decency Act Section 230 conditional. To keep immunity, social media platforms will have to demonstrate they are actively working to prevent online sexual exploitation of minors and child sexual abuse material (CSAM).” ■

The Senate Consumer Protection Committee lined up three new targets Tuesday (Oct. 26) in its ongoing punishment of social media for its impact on children and teens and signaled they could take a pounding similar to Facebook's recent unpleasantness on the Hill.

That came in a hearing entitled “Protecting Kids Online: Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.” Testifying were Jennifer Stout, VP of global public policy, at SnapChat owner Snap Inc.; Michael Beckerman, VP and head of public policy, Americas, for TikTok; and Leslie Miller, VP, government affairs and public policy, for YouTube.

Also: Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube Agree to Capitol Hill Grilling

To make sure nobody missed the latest potential Big Tech beatdown, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), chairman of the Subcommittee, and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), ranking member, had issued a press release in advance of the hearing pointing out who was testifying and where to stream the proceedings.

In his opening statement, Blumenthal left no doubt about his concerns with edge providers in general. He said Facebook's revelations had led to a "definite and deafening" drumbeat of revelations, and of calls for action from Washington, and not just targeting Facebook. He said that there is there is ample evidence to launch investigations into social media platforms.

Also: Sen. Blumenthal: Facebook Chronically Ignores Internal Alarms

And while he said this hearing was about continuing to educate the committee about "this crisis," it was also about reading those platforms a riot act. Blumenthal said it was the first time TikTok and Snap had appeared before Congress and he appreciated it, but that was about the last encouraging word from him.

Sen. Blumenthal said that Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube were part of the crisis, and along with Facebook were sending the message to American parents: "You cannot trust Big Tech with your kids," and Big Tech can't say to parents it is their job to be the gatekeeper.

Like Facebook, he said, those platforms' algorithms exacerbate downward spirals for teens, fuel hate and violence, amplify depression, anger, and anxiety, and do so because those emotions hook kids on their platforms. He said that was why there was a drumbeat for accountability to "parents, the public, Congress, investors, shareholders, the SEC and other agencies.

Having read the witnesses testimony, Blumenthal said their argument was that "we're not Facebook." But he said that was not a defense, and that the Facebook bar was "the butter," and it should not be a race to the bottom.

Sen. Blumenthal, one of the legislators branding Big Tech with the Big Tobacco label, did say that there was a distinction between the two given that tobacco was inherently dangerous, while social media could be beneficial with proper safeguards.

Blackburn continued the punishment. 

She said for too long social media platforms had been allowed to promote and glorify dangerous content and that she had heard from parents, teachers, and mental health professionals all with the same question: "How long are we going to let this continue, and what will it take for platforms to crack down on this dangerous material."

She said children as young as nine had died after doing viral challenges on TikTok and girls had been lured into sexual relationships on SnapChat. Then there was the videos of people slitting their wrists on YouTube. "You are parents, how can you allow this," she asked. "Does it matter to you?" She answered her own question, suggesting they loved to attract young audiences with content fed to them with algorithms.

Both Blumenthal and Blackburn said social media were driving kids and teens down dark rabbit holes.

Stout said SnapChat is not a "rabbit hole" because it curates its content, including by choosing trusted content partners.

Miller said that YouTube prohibits content glorifying eating disorders, though eating disorder content could be on the platform if it is people sharing their stories around the issue.

Blackburn also called out TikTok for its Chinese connection and collection of data, from keystrokes to geolocation to facial recognition to audio from smart speakers, that could be used by China to surveil U.S. citizens as the Chinese government does to its own citizens.

The witnesses all said they had protections in place for young people, including tools for parents; that they have age limits and remove too-young user accounts when they find them or inappropriate content when they find it; that the majority of users had positive experiences with their platforms, and that they have all done internal impact research and either had, or would, share it publicly.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) clearly appeared unpersuaded. She said that she did not think that kids and democracy should be collateral damage to the profit-seeking of social media.

SnapChat's Stout said that the platform's architecture "was intentionally designed to empower people to express a full range of experiences and emotions with their real friends, not just the pretty and perfect moments." But she also said the company "takes into account the unique sensitivities and considerations of minors when we design products."

TikTok's Beckerman said that company's goal is "providing an age-appropriate experience for our younger users." When pressed by Blackburn, he also said that the company does not share data with the Chinese government and he had research to prove it.

YouTube's Miller said the company has "clear policies that prohibit content that exploits or endangers minors on YouTube and we have committed significant time and resources toward removing violative content as quickly as possible."

From data privacy failures to allegedly dangerous algorithms, there is bipartisan angst and anger over a Big Tech sector once the bootstrap darlings of Capitol Hill. The latest hearing was billed as examining "how tech companies treat young audiences, including how algorithms and product design choices can amplify harms, addiction, and intrusions into privacy." The goal is to come up with legislation essentially to protect kids and young people from all that bad stuff.

The hearing, the fourth in a series on the Web and young people's safety, came against the backdrop of new criticism from the subcommittee of Facebook, driven by more documents from whistleblower Frances Haugen (the headline of a top-of-fold Washington Post front page story: "Insiders [Sa] Zuckerberg Chose Growth Over Safety").

"If TikTok, Snap and YouTube were as wonderful and responsive to concerns as their representatives asserted, there wouldn't have been any need for hearings," said Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay (formerly Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood). "Unfortunately, these platforms are plagued by the same problems as Facebook and Instagram: privacy abuses, and design features and content that jeopardize young people's wellbeing and safety. The underlying issue is a business model that prioritizes engagement and data collection over the best interests of children. That's why we need a US design code. Legislative proposals like the KIDS Act and the Kids PRIVCY Act will get us there but only if Congress acts with the urgency these issues require."

Based on new documents from Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen (being dubbed “The Facebook Papers”), Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), chair of the Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee, said it was just more evidence that the social media platform has “chronically ignored serious internal alarms.”

Blumenthal has called on Facebook to make public all its internal research on the impact of its platform on users and said the latest revelations “demand the full release of the company‘s research on the harms to teens and even to our democracy.”

Also Read: Big Tech Targeted Bill Introduced

There has already been a drumbeat for more documents — which Facebook execs said the country would contemplate — after Haugen turned over internal research showing some young users felt the platform hurt their self-esteem and even prompted thoughts of suicide.

Facebook has defended that research, pointing out that the majority of respondents said Facebook's Instagram platform was a help, not a harm, and that the company was responding to those who felt the other way, with the research helping them identify the issues.

Also Read: Blumenthal Calls on Facebook CEO Zuckerberg to Testify

The company has also launched an ad campaign calling on D.C. to regulate it so it knows what the boundaries for its moderation of third party content should be.

Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube have agreed to testify at an Oct. 26 hearing in Blumenthal‘s committee, the fourth in a series on the impact of the edge on children and young people.

As the lone witness, Antigone Davis, global head of safety for Facebook, faced an unhappy panel of legislators Thursday in the first of what will be two hearings in the Senate Commerce Committee on what the committee appears to conclude are the mental health harms to children of the company's platforms.

But Davis defended its internal research, which it said was not some kind of "bombshell," as well as its plans, eventually, for an Instagram Kids version.

Also Read: Hill To Hear From Facebook Whistle Blower

The dead giveaway for the tenor of the hearing was its title: “Protecting Kids Online: Facebook, Instagram, and Mental Health Harms." The follow-up hearing, Oct. 5, also on protecting children online, is with a Facebook whistle-blower.

Thursday's (Sept. 30) hearing, the third in a series on children's online protection, was presided over by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who made it clear from the outset Davis was in for a bumpy ride.

Blumenthal said that the hearings should lead to legislation, but also changes from Facebook.

Also Read: Facebook Will Participate in Instagram Hill Hearing

Blumenthal cited documents provided by the whistleblower saying that there was substantial evidence that experiences on Facebook's platforms made body dissatisfaction worse. He said that was a formal finding from Facebook employees that had been available to the highest levels of management.

(The whistleblower is apparently a woman, at least according to CBS' 60 Minutes, which said Thursday it would reveal "her" identity in this Sunday's (Oct. 3) show in advance of the Oct. 5 hearing.)

The senator said Facebook knew that children struggle with addiction to Instagram, "and they didn't want to admit it." One undisclosed Facebook survey found that there was an "addicts narrative" about the use of Facebook platforms. He said there was a pattern of such findings over four years worth of Facebook's own formal finding.

Blumenthal said Facebook has routinely prioritized the platform's financial wellbeing and growth over that of kids, and that it has been "indefensibly delinquent" in correcting that, taking only a few, "baby," steps.

Facebook did not create the problem, he acknowledged, and has signaled that other platforms will be in for scrutiny. But he said Facebook knew that Instagram was a "perfect storm" of "downward spiral" for kids, including fostering extreme dieting and eating disorders.

After evasions and revelations, why should we trust Facebook, he said, they have done nothing to earn it, taking big tobacco's playbook of hiding research about the negative effects of its platforms as it  weaponized childhood suffering.

Facebook has evaded, misled and deceived, he said.

Sen. Blackburn, for whom Big Tech accountability is a big issue, said Facebook knows their platform actively harms children. She said Facebook was scheming to attract even younger kids, working on Instagram Kids until pausing that effort this week in advance of the hearing.

She said Facebook is fully aware that underage children are using the platform, and recruit older kids get younger children on those platforms, use that can lead to anxiety and even suicidal thoughts.

Blackburn also said Facebook knew about content forcing women into domestic servitude but did nothing until Apple threatened to pull its app from the App Store.

She said Facebook was trying to mold the world into its profit image without regard for the consequences and that Facebook cannot be trusted with children or their data. She said she is certain Facebook and other tech platforms will be held to account.

In her turn behind the microphone Davis, who spoke remotely, pointed out she was a parent and former teach who cared deeply about the safety of kids online.

She said her job is to make sure Facebook is a leader in online safety, including bullying. She said the company treats the safety of all, but especially young people, as a priority.

She said that only those over 13 are authorized to use the platform, and remove younger users when they are identified.

About the internal research, she said it showed that many kids found that Instagram helped kids deal with serious issues. She said that teen girls who struggled with 11 of 12 issues said that Instagram helped them, not hurt them.

She said the most important thing is what they have done with the research, including tools to help limit time spent on their apps.

She also made a pitch for Instagram Kids, where parents can supervise their experience, rather than lie to get on a platform not built for them. She doubled down on a pause, rather than a plug-pull, on the project, which she suggested would be un-paused as soon as they had gotten it right.

Davis said Facebook would talk to parents, engage with more experts before that un-pause. Asked who would make the decision on un-pausing, Davis said there was no single person.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said a "pause" was insufficient. He pointed out that 6% of teen users had said they linked their desire to kill themselves to Instagram. He called Instagram "that first childhood cigarette." He said Facebook is just like big tobacco, pushing a product they know is harmful. 

He asked David to commit not to launch a site that includes "like" buttons or follower features that allow kids to quantify popularity. 

Davis said the company would talk with experts about what features are and are not appropriate.  Markey shot back that if it still needed to do more research on that, Facebook should fire its researchers.

Davis said that as a former teenage girl, the mom of a teenage daughter, and teacher of teenagers, she wanted to point out that according to the research in question, more teen girls found Instagram helpful than not. She added that that did not mean that those who did not find it more helpful were not important to the company.

Blumenthal cut her off to ask if Facebook will commit to full disclosure. Davis said the company has made some documents available and was looking at making more available, but that there were privacy issues, but that it is not "bombshell" causal research. Blumenthal shot back that it was, in fact, a "bombshell," and asked her to commit to full disclosure of all documents.

Davis said that the company would try to make data available to third parties for independent review, which Blumenthal said has not been the case heretofore.

Blackburn said that she wished Davis' answers had been as attractive as the background behind her remote video.

"It is clear that nothing has changed at Facebook, despite being caught red-handed suppressing its own research," said Josh Golin, executive director of Fairplay (formerly Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood). "The company continues to view the fact that Instagram undermines teens' wellbeing as an inconvenient PR problem, not the pressing public health issue that it actually is....Through her evasions and non-responses, Antigone Davis made clear that the company will not make any substantive changes on its own."

He urged Congress to launch an investigation and subpoena all the company's research. 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) is publicly pushing the FCC to do more to combat robocalls and spam texts.

He issued a press release Friday urging action, pointing out that in July alone there were almost six billion robocalls and over seven billion spam texts, from those car warranty come-ons to COVID-19 tracing impersonators, his office said.

Blumenthal, chair of the Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee, suggested the Federal Communications Commission needed to do more consumer protecting on that front.

He called on the FCC to “strengthen anti-robocall laws, require phone carriers to block illegal marketing, and bring enforcement action against those behind the schemes,” including by swiftly implementing the STIR/SHAKEN protocol, a set of federal authentication rules intended to week out unwanted robocalls.

The senator did praise “initial actions” taken by the FCC and signaled the problem definitely preceded the current acting FCC chair, Jessica Rosenworcel. “Years spent waiting is billions of dollars lost to fraud,” Blumenthal said.

Back in May, the FCC did vote unanimously to shorten the deadline for some smaller voice providers to use the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID regime.

And to the issue of unwanted texts, Blumenthal said: “I urge the FCC to use all of its authorities, including investigations, rulemaking, and enforcement, to address unwanted text messages, send a deterrent message to marketers, and identify technical solutions.”

Driven in part by the "Devious Licks" TikTok videos, Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he plans to hold a congressional hearing in the coming weeks on the impact of social media on children and teens and said he expects TikTok, which has been invited, to show up.

Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also wrote TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew to call on the social media site to do more to nip the viral videos in the bud. He said its actions to remove them were “too little, too late’ to mitigate the damage to schools across the country, where kids have filmed themselves “clogging toilets, defacing bathrooms, and stealing and destroying school property such as fire alarms.”

“I fully expect your company to participate, particularly in light of this alarming new trend,” Blumenthal said of the hearing, which will be in the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Protection, adding that the company needed to explain "the platform’s policies, practices, and commitments to safeguard their young users."

Social media platfoms have lately been prominent targets in Washington, particularly in regard to their impact on children. Facebook, for example, has recently taken hits over its plans on a children’s version of Instagram as well as research on the impact of Instagram on young people.

Apple said Friday that it will "clarify" that app developers don't have to use its App store to accept payments, and will also give qualifying news outlets a cut of subscription revenue from Apple News.

The tech giant said that and other changes--including boosting "rigorous journalism and a free and independent press"--resolve a class action suit (Cameron et al v. Apple Inc.) filed by developers, pending acceptance of that settlement by a federal court.

Also Read: New Bill Would Fight App Store 'Bullying'

To boost 'rigorous journalism," Apple said it will launch a News Partner Program, in which news outlets that give their customers access to Apple News using Apple News Format will get a 15% commission on subscriptions to that app.

Big Tech has been under pressure from some in Congress to compensate the news it aggregates.

Apple said the settlement "clarifies that developers can share purchase options with users outside of their iOS app; expands the price points developers can offer for subscriptions, in-app purchases, and paid apps; and establishes a new fund to assist qualifying U.S. developers."

Apple also agreed to allow developers to use email to share information about payment outside iOS app and said it would issue an annual transparency report.

The fund to help smaller developers will be for those that have made $1 million or less for all of their apps in a calendar year, which works out to be 99% of all app developers.

"With the updates announced today, the App Store continues to evolve into an even better business opportunity for developers, while maintaining a safe and trusted marketplace for users," Apple said.

The language of the announcement was all about making things better and clarifying, rather than suggesting the company was correcting anything that had been wrong.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who backed the Open App Markets Act, was pleased with the settlement, but was not giving Apple any love.

“Apple’s concession is a powerful sign that Apple and Google’s stranglehold over app store markets is purely self-serving," he said in a statement. "These Big Tech giants thought they could get away with squashing competition to pocket hefty windfalls—all while insisting their ironclad grip on app markets serves the interests of consumers or developers. This marks a significant step forward, but does not rectify the full and vivid range of market abuses and practices still widespread across app markets that my and Senator Blackburn’s Open App Markets Act would address. Today’s move only adds to the momentum and further exposes rampant anticompetitive abuses in the app markets. The fox guarding the hen house status quo will remain until there are clear and enforceable rules for Apple and Google to play by. I look forward to advancing the Open App Markets Act when the Senate reconvenes this fall.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he will put a hold on the nomination of Nate Simington for a Republican seat on the FCC until and unless he commits to recusing himself from any decision on the fate of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the legal provision that gives social media networks immunity from civil liability for how they moderate their networks.

That came at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Simington's nomination and after Simington told Blumenthal that he had participated in the writing of the petition by the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) to the FCC seeking modification/clarification of Section 230, and that he would support that effort if confirmed to the FCC. He pointed to the FCC general counsel's explanation of why the agency had the authority to weigh in on Section 230.

Simington also said he had had conversations with the White House about Sec. 230 when he was being considered for the FCC nomination. Simington was nominated after President Donald Trump pulled the nomination of Michael O'Rielly after O’Rielly criticized the effort to regulate Section 230 and questioned the FCC's authority to do so.

While he said it was premature to say he would recuse himself, Simington did say he would get the advice of FCC ethics officials on whether he should recuse and follow that advice, whatever it is.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the committee, tried to help the nominee out by pointing out during his questioning that willingness by Simington to rely on that advice. Wicker also pointed highlighted Simington’s explanation that he was not in on the drafting of the NTIA policy, simply the editing and “blocking and tackling” of the issue, which he said meant he had only written about 5-7% of the petition. 

With more whimper than bang, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted Thursday (June 4) along party lines--Republicans 'yea,' Democrats, "nay"--to favorably report President Trump's nomination of Judge Justin Walker to fill a soon-to-be vacant seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

He is replacing Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who is retiring in September (the story initially said he was replacing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, but Kavanaugh's seat was already filled by Neomi Rao.

Walker, 37, is currently a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, though with only about six month's experience in that post. Before that, he was a professor at the Brandeis School of Law (University of Louisville).  

The committee's members had already made their views known in a contentious nomination hearing back in May, but a handful of Democrats briefly reprised their opposition, tied to Walker's opposition to the Affordable Care Act during a time of pandemic and their fear he could not separate his political opinions from his judicial ones. 

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked if anyone with a straight face could say that Walker, with limited judicial experience, was the best person for a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land--it is the court of first jurisdiction over government agency decisions, including the FCC, as well as something of a warming bench, as it were, for potential Supreme Court Justices, a number of whom, including Kavanaugh and current Chief Justice John Roberts, have been plucked from its ranks. 

Durbin said the only reason Walker was nominated is that he was a friend of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and an outspoken critic of Obamacare.  

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), said Walker was another effort to remake the federal judiciary in the image of the extreme far right. 

Then a brief vote was held and Walker's nomination favorably reported to the Senate for a full vote.  

Related: FCC  Case Remand Could Weaken Defense of Decisions

Walker, who clerked for Kavanaugh on the D.C. circuit, said he was unabashed in his defense of Kavanaugh's view of the law, which meant the separation of powers, the limited role of judges and their fidelity to text. "It is my job to go where the law leads," he said, saying he was an "unabashed originalist."   

Given that the D.C. Circuit often hears challenges to agency decisions--the fight over the FCC's net neutrality rules have gone several rounds in that court, his view of such reviews is important. 

Walker told the committee back in May that in terms of judges reviewing agency actions, it is never the role of the judge to second-guess a political policy decision, especially when it comes from agency expertise. But he said it is always a judge's role to say what the law is, and when an agency has issued a regulation that is not supported by statute, to find that it is invalid, even if that regulation was great policy."  

Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have written the Federal Trade Commission asking it to "address" what they said is Google's continuing inattention of coronavirus-related abuses of its ad platform.

They argue the FTC has failed to act on Google's ongoing harmful activity. "Google has made repeated representations to consumers that its policies prohibit ads for products such as protective masks," they wrote. "Yet the company appears not to be taking even rudimentary steps to enforce that policy, such as easily automated and scalable actions like flagging ads with relevant terms in the outbound URL. in recent years has allowed the company a level of vertical integration that, in effect, allows it to act as the equivalent of market-maker, commodities broker, and commodities exchange for digital advertising." 

Related: House Dems Seek Action on Coronavirus Claims

The senators said their staffs had browsed the site using various devices and found ads for hand sanitizer and face masks, despite Google's announced ban on ads for face masks and its general ban on ads that capitalize on "sensitive events." 

"The senators pointed out that on March 10, Google said it was banning the face mask ads given that the surgeon general had urged the public not to buy the masks," they told the FTC. 

The senators sent a copy of the letter to Attorney General Bill Barr, suggesting they needed that law enforcement backup.  

"Given the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s successful work in combating similar misuse of the company’s advertising platform, we have provided a carbon copy of this letter to the DOJ to address this pattern of misbehavior in light of the FTC’s inaction," he said.

"We’re committed to protecting users and surfacing helpful, authoritative information as the coronavirus situation continues to evolve," said a Google spokesperson. "Since January, we have blocked millions of ads that attempted to capitalize on coronavirus and have implemented a temporary ban on all medical face mask ads. We continue to take action to protect users and prevent these ads from serving."

A pair of powerful Democrats have drafted a bill that would change the face of children's online content/gaming industry. 

The Kids Internet Design and Safety (KIDS) Act, introduced Thursday (March 5) by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would, among many other things, ban auto-play settings, push alerts and reward "badges" on websites and/or apps for kids and young teens.

It would also prohibit web sites from recommending content with host-selling and influencer marketing, including "unboxing videos" to kids and young teens, or from "exposing children and young teens to marketing with embedded interactive elements." 

Related: Senators Push for Research into Tech Impact on Kids

“Powerful companies push kids to buy products at every turn online, and top platforms are saturated with disturbing content that no kid should ever be exposed to," said Markey, co-author of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). "As a society, we’re playing catch up to the serious risks to kids online, and Congress has a responsibility to say loud and clear that Big Tech needs to get serious about the well-being of children and teens.”

“Big Tech has designed their platforms to ensnare and exploit children for more likes, more views, and more purchases,” said Blumenthal. "The KIDS Act puts guardrails in place to reign in recklessness of marketers and Big Tech – protecting children and giving parents some peace of mind.” 

“This groundbreaking bill will provide children with the 21st Century safeguards they urgently need today,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and one of the historically strongest voices for protecting kids online. “Children in the U.S. have been turned into digital “guinea pigs” as marketers and online platforms bombard them with commercial interactive applications designed to unfairly influence their emotions and behaviors. The 'Kids Act' will ensure that young people will be able to grow up in a world where they are no longer exposed to these unaccountable outside forces.”   

Google got hammered in the Senate Constitution Subcommittee Tuesday (July 16).

It should have come as no surprise since the title of the hearing was “Google and Censorship Through Search Engines," one of at least three hearings targeting edge providers Tuesday, and was presided over by chairman Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who has consistently alleged that Google (including YouTube), and other edge providers, are biased against conservatives, including by characterizing their content as hate speech. 

Cruz said that one thing was certain: Congress never intended big tech companies to control speech using Sec. 230 of the Communications Act, which gives tech companies liability protection from third-party content. 

He said Americans are now subject to overt censorship and covert manipulation, so it is time to re-think that Sec. 230 liability carve-out. He said unless Big Tech can provide "clear and compelling evidence" that it is not playing "Big Brother" with its vast powers, there is no reason they should have a special Sec. 230 subsidy. 

He said the heart of the problem was lack of transparency and that Big Tech can no longer "hide behind its algorithms."

Ranking member Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) echoed her longstanding criticism that there was no evidence of conservative bias and that such claims were baseless. She said given that only three months the subcommittee held a hearing on allegations of anticonservative bias, where Republicans claimed a vast conspiracy to silence conservative voice, it felt like Groundhog Day. 

Hirono said study after study have debunked the claims, finding no evidence that Google biases results against conservatives. But, she said, edge provider fears of being tarred as biased has instead made tech companies hesitant to deal with racist and harassing content.

Karan Bhatia, VP of government affairs and public policy for Google, was definitive about how it operates. "[L]et me be clear: Google is not politically biased," she testified. "Indeed, we go to extraordinary lengths to build our products and enforce our policies in an analytically objective, apolitical way.... At any particular moment, in response to any particular search, some of that information may be unsatisfying to one group or another. Our job — which we take very seriously — is to deliver to users the most relevant and authoritative information out there. And studies have shown that we do just that."

But Hirono had what she called some real problems with Big Tech. One of those is the fact that despite repeated efforts by her father, Andy, to have them removed, videos of the murder of WDBJ Roanoke reporter Allison Parker and her colleague Adam Ward remain available on YouTube almost four years after the tragedy.  

She pointed out to Bhatia that Andy Parker had not only sent letters to Google but met with the company and "begged" that the videos come down. She asked why a father should have to monitor and flag to have video of his daughter's murder taken down. 

Bhatia expressed his "deepest sympathy" for what Parker had gone through, though it was not clear whether he meant the underlying tragedy or the attempt to get it off YouTube. He conceded they had engaged with Parker over time, but that there were different sets of video. He said one set was hoax videos asserting the murder hadn't happened. He said those have been taken down (Andy Parker, who was a witness on the committee's second panel, could be seen shaking his head vigorously in the background as Bhatia talked. Bhatia said the second set are a variety of videos that could include news footage and, there, there is the question of copyright and whether some of the videos are owned by Parker. But where there are news videos, YouTube would generally tend to leave them up even if they are disturbing, perhaps labeling consistent with its policies.

When asked by Hirono, he said they had taken down the videos they could legally take down. 

Asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) about President Trump's "treason" comment related to Peter Thiel's allegation about the company, Bhatia said there had been no infiltration of the company by China intelligence. Blumenthal appeared satisfied. 

But Blumenthal said the hourglass had run out on Big Tech on issues like antitrust and privacy and hoped Google was thinking about profound change, which would be necessary.

He also suggested it might have run  out on the overly broad Sec. 230.

During his testimony before the committee, Andy Parker said the pain of his daughter's death was amplified by the first person video the killer posted on YouTube. Parker has been advocating for gun control, and said that people who say the "alleged" murder was just a conspiracy to get their guns, have posted portions of that video online as part of "hate-filled" diatribes aimed at his family and Allison's former boyfriend.

He said he implored Google to take down the video and conspiratorial content and their response was that he should flag the content. "They wanted me to watch my daughter's murder and explain to a robot why it should be removed." 

He said he will never look at the video "for obvious reasons." 

Parker said that while they profess a desire to help, "in reality they do nothing." 

Parker said on May 1 he had a video conference with Google about specific content and attempts to have it removed, Google said they were "really trying." Then silence until the morning of the hearing, when he said he finally got an email from Google. Parker said that thanks to Sec. 230 Google has no incentive to take the harassing content down.

He said Congress should scrap the section and hold Google responsible for the conspiratorial content it allows on the platform. 

A bipartisan trio of senators is seeking answers from the Federal Trade Commission about its reported $5 billion fine against Facebook over its sharing of user data with Cambridge Analytica.

“It is clear that a $5 billion fine alone is a far cry from the type of monetary figure that would alter the incentives and behavior of Facebook and its peers,” wrote the Senators in a letter to the five FTC commissioners. “The public expects the Commission to put consumers first and to take all necessary steps in your power to remedy Facebook’s privacy problems. We are highly disappointed to learn that the Commission has apparently failed to reach a strong, bipartisan agreement, sending the wrong message to tech companies.”

Firing off the letter were Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.).

Related: Senators Hawley, Cruz Seek FTC Investigation Into Conservative 'Censorship'

They want answers to the following questions:

1. "What was the FTC’s process for determining the size of the monetary fine in this settlement? Please describe in detail the FTC’s method for determining the revenue Facebook was able to generate as a result of its violations of user privacy.

2. "Did the FTC interview Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and require disclosure of documents from Mr. Zuckerberg during its investigation into Facebook’s privacy practices? If not, why not?

3. "Will the FTC name Mr. Zuckerberg and any other member of Facebook management in its new settlement?

4. "Will the FTC impose new restrictions on how Facebook collects, uses, and discloses data about its users as part of this settlement? If not, why not?

5. "Will the FTC impose restrictions on Facebook’s upcoming cryptocurrency offering, Libra, as part of this settlement? If not, why not?"

6. "Will the FTC impose restrictions on Facebook's integration of messaging service offerings as part of this settlement? If not, why not?

7. "Will the FTC require Facebook to institute new rules and practices specifically designed to protect children and teens who use Facebook offerings? If not, why not?"

The FTC has not yet released the fine or accompanying settlement. 

Another day, another boulder catapulted from the Hill at a huge target in the Valley (as in Silicon). Or, "Why is that thumb still pointed up?"

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have called on Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to "end friendly fraud on Facebook" (say that three times fast). 

That came in yet another letter from legislators to the beleaguered social media giant, this one in response to what they say was the evidence that third-party game developers manipulated kids into spending their parents' money--in-app purchases. 

That evidence was provided by the Center for Investigative Reporting, which filed a complaint against the comany with the Federal Trade Commission and said Facebook knew kids were spending that money without their parents' say-so. 

The senators said Facebook still has not instituted policy changes to address that complaint. They first wrote to Zuckerberg about the issue in January, and were not happy with Facebook's initial answers. 

"Facebook’s actions thus far have failed to demonstrate a commitment to ending friendly fraud on your platform," they wrote in their latest epistle. They said it appears that Facebook is "unwilling to address the problem of young users spending their families’ money without parental awareness or consent," adding: "Profiting off the mistakes and deception of children can never be considered fair.” 

If it is not fair, the Federal Trade Commission can step in using its authority against unfair or deceptive practices. 

A handful of Democratic senators have asked FCC chair Ajit Pai to put the new T-Mobile-Sprint conditions offered up this week out for public comment before voting on the deal.  

Pai said this week that the conditions, including spinning off Boost Mobile, holding down prices and pledging 5G buildouts, made the deal in the public interest and he planned to circulate an order approving it, which his fellow Republican commissioners, comprising a majority, indicated they would support. 

In the letter, the senators, who opposed the deal as previously constituted, said they still oppose it and asked both the FCC and Justice Department to reject it.  

Related: FCC Poised to OK T-Mobile-Sprint Merger

They cited the behavioral conditions, but made no mention of the Boost spin-off. 

They said the conditions are mostly unrelated to merger-specific harms and thus the type of condition the chairman has criticized in the past. They also said they were worried about the process and that the conditions appeared without public input or "visibility." 

As a result, they said, the FCC should give the public 30 days to weigh in on the conditions, though they did not need that long to say they don't think they make the deal palatable.  

Signing on to the letter were Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey (both D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). 

Facebook has signaled it expects to pay up to $5 billion to settle an ongoing Federal Trade Commission investigation into its privacy practices, but Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Big Tech basher Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have teamed up to tell FTC Chairman Joseph Simons they want more, and not money, but instead a shot heard round the tech world.

The pair wrote Simons Monday (May 6) to ask that he wrap up the investigation and to compel "sweeping changes" given what they say has been its "pattern" of misuse and abuse of personal data.

Related: OMI Seeks Hill Investigation of FTC

They said the expected settlement will be a defining moment for the FTC, and one they want defined by tough action. "The FTC must set a resounding precedent that is heard by Facebook and any other tech company that disregards the law in a rapacious quest for growth."

"This investigation has been long delayed in conclusion – raising the specter of a remedy that is too little too late," they said, adding: "The [2011] Facebook consent decree violations have been blatant and brazen, an offensive defiance that adds insult to injury."

Blumenthal telegraphed his desire for more than just money in a tweet last week after Facebook revealed in a financial statement that it would have to be ponying up $3-5 billion to settle the FTC investigation.

[embed]https://twitter.com/SenBlumenthal/status/1121183762505662464[/embed]

Hawley has come into the Senate--he is a freshman--swinging a hammer at Big Tech in general and social media in particular. 

It was a year ago last March that the FTC confirmed it was investigating Facebook over its privacy and data security practices, saying it has "substantial concerns." Those have likely only increased with subsequent revelations, including congressional concerns about its research project that incentivized teens and others to give up info (Project Atlas) and news that the company was sharing data with big tech and is planning to integrate WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook Messenger.

The FTC investigation followed the revelation that Cambridge Analytica had used Facebook user data without their knowledge to build profiles it then sold to political campaigns, including the Trump campaign. Analytica reportedly used the information with most users having not given their permission for Facebook to share it with a third party.

Related: OMI Says  Multi-BIllion Dollar Facebook Fine Is Not Enough

Facebook is under an FTC consent decree dating from its 2011 settlement of FTC allegations it deceived consumers by not keeping its privacy promises. The FTC is authorized to enforce such pledges under its Sec. 5 (unfair and deceptive practices) authority. The commission was investigating whether Facebook had violated that agreement

That consent decree required Facebook to obtain a users' permission before sharing data, so that Cambridge Analytica data dump appeared to be a violation of the agreement.

The massive data breach Marriott has just revealed has prompted new calls from Capitol Hill for the government to step in and protect the massive amounts of consumer and other data online, whether from hotel chains or Big Tech data collectors.

“It seems like every other day we learn about a new mega-breach affecting the personal data of millions of Americans," said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and co-founder of the Cybersecurity Caucus. "Rather than accepting this trend as the new normal, this latest incident should strengthen Congress’ resolve. We must pass laws that require data minimization, ensuring companies do not keep sensitive data that they no longer need. And it is past time we enact data security laws that ensure companies account for security costs rather than making their consumers shoulder the burden and harms resulting from these lapses.”

That was seconded by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Consumer Protection Subcommittee. 

“Marriott’s failure to prevent the theft of private data has placed hundreds of millions of customers at significant personal and financial risk," he said. "The apparent failure to detect and remove hackers from its systems for four years calls into question whether Marriott took the security and privacy of its customers seriously.... Once again, Americans are left to pay the substantial cost of corporate negligence. Congress must move forward to end this cycle of broken promises. We must set clear consumer data protection standards for all companies — whether they’re hotel chains, online retailers, or big tech — and severe penalties for those who fall short.” 

Just this week at an oversight hearing, Blumenthal slammed the Federal Trade Commission for not doing enough to companies accountable for breaches. He said that hearing was about whether the FTC was ready and willing to take on hard problems and "robustly" protect privacy, something he suggested they have not had either the resources or the will to do up to this point.

“Checking in to a hotel should not mean checking out of privacy and security protections,” said Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) another veteran voice for privacy protections (as well as a noted phrase-turner). "Preventing massive data breaches isn’t just about protecting privacy, it’s also about protecting our pocketbooks. Breaches like this can lead to identity theft and crippling financial fraud. They are a black cloud hanging over the United States’ bright economic horizon. The American people deserve real action. It’s time for Congress to pass comprehensive consumer privacy and data security legislation that requires companies to adhere to strong data security standards, directs them to only collect the data they actually need to service their customer, and creates penalties for companies that fail to meet them.”

Marriott Friday disclosed what it called a "Guest Reservation Database Security Incident" That translated to a hack of the information of about a half-billion of those guests. The information included for some or all of those guests credit card numbers, name, mailing address, phone number, email address, passport number, Starwood Preferred Guest (“SPG”) account information, date of birth, gender, arrival and departure information, reservation date, and communication preferences.

While the credit card numbers were encrypted, and that it is a two-step decryption, Marriott said it could not be sure the thieves did not get both of those, too.

Marriott reported the incident to law enforcement as well as outlining it on its Web site.

Marriott was informed in September of a possible breach, and found on investigation it dated from 2014.

“We deeply regret this incident happened,” said Marriott president Arne Sorenson. “We fell short of what our guests deserve and what we expect of ourselves. We are doing everything we can to support our guests, and using lessons learned to be better moving forward.”

Consumer Watchdog used the breach to pitch California's Consumer Privacy Act, which passed earlier this year.   .“Currently many companies opt for inadequate data security because it’s cheaper than the consequences of a data breach,” said Privacy and Technology Project Director John M. Simpson. “The Consumer Privacy Act fixes that and would hold companies accountable.  That’s why big business and big tech are fighting to weaken it.”

A trio of Democratic senators are grilling mobile carriers about allegations they were throttling internet traffic. 

The FCC last fall eliminated the rule against throttling traffic as part of its Restoring Internet Freedom (RIF) order, though ISPs said they had no plans to do so, and if they did they would have to inform the FCC and the public per the transparency requirement in the RIF order. 

In letters to AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile, Sens. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said "all online traffic should be treated equally, and internet service providers should not discriminate against particular content or applications for competitive advantage purposes or otherwise,” citing reports they had throttled content from Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, and NBC Sports, and wanted answers to the following questions: "Has your company put into practice policies to throttle or prioritize internet traffic for consumers? What is the purpose of these policies?

"Are consumers able to opt-in or opt-out of traffic differentiation? Does a customer’s choice change the price or affect their service, such as data allocation or requiring a different plan?

"How do you determine which network traffic receives faster or slower treatment? Is it based on content, behavior, or IP address?"

Asked about the senators' letter and the allegations of throttling, FCC chair Ajit Pai said that his understanding that the data that went into that throttling conclusion (the study was based on data collected from an app called “Wehe," according to the senators) had not been made available for vetting, but that any issues could be addressed by the Federal Trade Commission to the extent someone wanted to invoke its authority and that process was sufficient to protect consumers and competition.

CTIA, which represents telcom ISPs, said when the Wehe study first gained attention that it had "failed to account for basic wireless network engineering, consumer preference, and how mobile content is distributed over the internet."

CTIA says that what the app is actually detecting is "is basic wireless network management and operators delivering the service consumers choose," or it is measuring data management by content providers which, it says, "have data practices in place – outside the control of providers – that reduce video resolution of data traffic flowing through their sites or apps depending on the consumer’s mobile device."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), one of social media's Hill critics, has called on the CEOs of Facebook, Google, Reddit and Twitter to investigate reports of a pro-Saudi disinformation campaign in the wake of the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

He also wants them to look into reports that the Saudi government provided aid to the Trump campaign via social media platforms, disclose the findings, and notify users.

His office said that Blumenthal's letters to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the other CEOs came after news that botnets had increased efforts to push pro-Saudi propaganda on social media following Khashoggi's death and the eventual admission by the Saudi's that he had died in their consulate in Turkey.

“President Trump’s vigorous defense of the Saudi government following the murder of Jamal Khashoggi raises questions about his ties, financial and otherwise, to Saudi Arabia," said Blumenthal. "One such question is to what extent the Saudis provided assistance to the Trump campaign, including previously reported proposals to manipulate voters through social media and online platforms,” wrote Blumenthal.

Blumenthal has called for investigations of Google over its Google+ social media platform and has been critical of Facebook over its handling of sensitive info.

A coalition of groups have filed a complaint against Facebook with the FTC over what it says is the company's collection of children's personal information without obtaining the requisite parental permission.

The complaint is leveled against the Messenger Kids app, a social media platform for children as young as five.

The app does have a parental consent mechanism, but the groups say it does not meet the requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) because it is not "reasonably Calculated" to make sure the permission giving permission is actually the parent.

Related: Senators Grill Facebook's Zuckerberg on New Messenger Kids App

They say they tested the app and any "fictional" parent can set up the app and immediately approve a child's account without proof of identity.

They also say the the privacy policy is "incomplete and vague."

The complaint was spearheaded by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and drawn up by the Communications & Technology Law Clinic at the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center.

CCFC earlier this year asked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to pull the plug on the app.

“While evidence shows that excessive social media use negatively impacts the wellbeing of children and teens, Facebook is trying to get kids hooked at the tender age of five,” said CCFC executive director Josh Golin in a statement.

Other signatories to the complaint included the Consumer Federation of America and the Parents Television Council.

Related: Markey Pans Facebook Answers on COPPA and Kids

The complaint is just the latest volley at the social media giant, which has had a rough time in Washington over the Cambridge Analytica third-party info sharing debacle and social media's role in Russian election meddling and alleged bias against conservative speech.

Facebook's release of the app last fall drew immediate scrutiny on the Hill

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) sent a letter to company CEO Mark Zuckerberg Dec. 7 saying they were "concerned about where sensitive information collected through this app could end up and for what purpose it could be used,” the Senators told Zuckerberg in a letter. “Facebook must take heightened care in ensuring the company creates a safe and controlled environment for its young users, complete with parental consent.”

Facebook has said it talked to parents, the PTA and parenting experts before giving kids something to make it easier to connect, but with parental control.

The tablet and smartphone app allows parents to set up one-one-one or group video chats with contacts they approve of and includes a library of" kid-appropriate and specially chosen GIFs, frames, stickers, masks and drawing tools."

But the senators, both members of the Commerce Committee, which oversees communications issues, wanted to make sure that the app complies with COPPA, which Markey helped draft.

CCFC and the others say it doesn't.

Sen. Democrats Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) have introduced a resolution condemning the President's attacks on the press, even as the President was launching more attacks in the wake of journalists' pushback.

Schumer is Senate minority leader and Schatz the ranking member of the Senate Communications Subcommittee.

That resolution comes the same day that journalists were joining together, led by the Boston Globe, to repudiate the President's characterization of them as enemies of the people and fake news.

“Every member of Congress has sworn to uphold the Constitution, including the right to the free press. This bill is an opportunity for us to uphold our oath and make clear that we support liberty and free speech,” said Schatz. “It also sends the message that the legislative branch is capable of functioning as a separate and co-equal branch of government.”

“Throughout history, the free press has always kept our government in check when it has gone astray, perhaps more than anywhere else around the world, and the Congress has a duty protect the press’s first amendment right,” said Schumer."

That congressional effort also came as the President took aim at that effort in a series of tweets, calling the news media the "opposition party."

[embed]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1030094399362007040[/embed][embed]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1030091812495654912[/embed][embed]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1030074380397752320[/embed]

In the wake of a record $5 billion fine against Google by the EU's European Commission, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) Wednesday (July 18) called on the Federal Trade Commission to ramp up antitrust oversight of the search giant and "end its decade of inaction."

“Once again, the European Commission has found that Google used its dominance to undercut competitors," said Blumenthal. "The unprecedented fine imposed by Europe sends a clear message that Google and other tech companies cannot continue to abuse international competition law. Through its tying of Search and Chrome to the use of Android and its agreements to exclude alternative operating systems, Google has stifled both competition and innovation in the tech sector.”

The EU fine was over what the commission says was illegal restrictions on Android device manufactures and mobile operators in violation of EU antitrust rules. Google vowed to fight the fine, saying the decision threatened the Android business model and insufficently credited the competition it faced from Apple's operating system.

This is the second giant EU fine in as many years, the previous one totaling $2.7 billion.

Blumenthal has likened Google to Microsoft in the days when he was one of the attorneys general who filed suit against the computer giant for protecting its operating system "monopoly," a case the government won.

Altice USA hosted an event with U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and company CEO Dexter Goei with students at Dolan Middle School in Stamford, Conn. to introduce its Altice Connect Smart digital literacy education program.

The program, developed in partnership with EVERFI, will provide digital citizenship education in select schools nationwide across Altice USA’s service areas -- beginning in Connecticut – and reinforcing the company’s commitment to education and digital accessibility in the local communities. The curriculum, donated by Altice USA, enables students to build digital skills and understand the risks and rewards of technology while tackling important issues including privacy, security, cyberbullying, digital relationships, and digital addiction.

The event featured remarks from Sen. Blumenthal, Goei, and Principal Charmaine Tourse. Dolan Middle School was selected as the host school for the launch event based on their initial success with the program and commitment to using the program across the entire eighth grade next year.

“It is important for our young people to learn the risks and opportunities of social media and the internet. I commend Altice USA for taking steps to help students navigate today’s increasingly complex digital world and to raise awareness of such important issues,” Sen. Blumenthal said in a statement

The Altice Connect Smart program is an interactive, new-media learning platform that combines instructional design, rich media, and gaming. The 3.5-hour curriculum is designed for students in the 6th – 9th grades and aligns with national standards established by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), as well as emerging state standards. The curriculum also focuses on building digital skills, such as creating a blog, maintaining a responsible social networking profile, and evaluating online research sources for legitimacy. The learning platform tracks both knowledge gain as well as students’ attitudes and behaviors on these important issues.

“As a technology company, we are committed to supporting education and delivering connectivity as we look to advance digital literacy in the local communities where we live and work, and we are honored to partner with Senator Blumenthal and EVERFI to launch the Altice Connect Smart education program to help accomplish this goal,” Goei said in a statement. “The program will prepare today’s students – our future innovators – by ensuring they have the skills they need to engage with technology safely and responsibly.”

Sinclair/Tribune deal friends and foes clashed on Capitol Hill Wednesday at a debate and panel session hosted by the Georgetown Law’s Institute for Technology Law & Policy.

The forum did not break a lot of new ground, but there was some scorched earth, particularly when the issue of shared services and joint sales agreements came up. Sinclair deal foe Andrew Schwartzman suggested they were an end run around ownership rules and a "disgrace." Sinclair fans suggested that if they skirted the FCC rules, why did the FCC issue guidance on how to set them up. Because FCC staffers have been in the pocket of broadcasters for decades, Schwartzman shot back, to some audible breath-catching.

One bit of news, from Sinclair's Rebecca Hansen, was that of the potential buyers lined up to purchase any deal spin-off stations, if any are required as is likely, 20% are minorities.

Jim Winston, president of the National Association of Black owned Broadcasters, who was one of the panelists, signaled his hope was that the deal would be pro-diversity, at least in the sense of providing some opportunities for more black owned broadcasters.

The event, which featured a nearly full house audience--there were more bodies than box lunches, for example--also dealt more broadly with the necessity of media ownership rules in general. Winston said NABOB's past knee-jerk rejection of consolidation had morphed into less than that, citing the difference between the market caps of the largest broadcasters and the MVPD and online media company market caps that dwarfed them--Hanson came armed with a slide that illustrated that.

Hosting the debate was Gigi Sohn, distinguished fellow at Georgetown Law's Institute for Technology Law & Policy, and former counselor to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. She suggested she had to call in some favors to get both sides on the dais.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who arranged for the room, made a late appearance to remind everyone that he opposed the merger and had called on Republican leadership to hold hearings on it in both the Judiciary and Commerce Committees--he is a member of both. He said the fact that none had been forthcoming on what he called a "profoundly important" deal to the public interest, no matter which way you looked at it, was "profoundly distressing," and reiterated his call for "close and searching congressional scrutiny."

The debate portion featured David Goodfriend, a backer of the Coalition to Save Local Media, which could be rechristened the Stop the Sinclair/Tribune Merger Coalition vs. Jerry Fritz, EVP at ONE Media, a joint venture controlled by Sinclair.

Initially it was to have been John Hane, Sinclair's counsel, but he was ill and Fritz, who is a former FCC official and Allbritton exec, agreed at the last minute to sub in.

The backdrop for the discussion was both the FCC's and Justice Department's ongoing vetting of the deal, but the FCC vote, scheduled for Nov. 16, to role back some media ownership regs, which rollback could mean fewer Sinclair stations would need to be spun off.

Goodfriend said that since broadcasters got a free monopoly form the government--spectrum, which they didn't pay for, and could sell for billions, along with a government-guaranteed monopoly on network programming for affiliated stations, and guaranteed carriage via must carry, the quid pro quo was that broadcasters had to serve the public interest, and that included free programming, local news, and viewpoint diversity.

He said Sinclair's history had been to buy stations, fire staff and centralize operations.

Goodfriend said that if broadcasters wanted to get out from under public interest regulations, it should give up all those benefits, as some in Congress (rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) in particular) have proposed and broadcasters have fought.

Fritz said that most broadcasters are not the original owners so did not get their spectrum for free, that they have rising programming costs thanks to competition with big-pocketed MVPDs and online players, and that consolidating is a way to gain the scale to fight what is an existential threat to broadcasters existence from having to compete with essentially unregulated entities.

Goodfriend and Fritz agreed on the importance of local broadcasting, but Goodfriend said that was why letting the broadcasters combine to form the largest--by a wide margin--broadcast group should be denied, and Fritts why it was in the public interest for it to gain that scale.

Fritz argued that the FCC did not need to be in the broadcast merger review business at all, and that it should be left to the Justice Department to do an antitrust review. He argues that the FCC definitions of diversity and competition were set years ago according to political calculations, rather than reflecting market realities.

He pointed to the FCC's decision to break up Allbritton's WJLA-TV Washington and the Washington Star newspaper decades ago. The result: The Star died, he said.

Fritz argues that the current ownership limits, which the FCC is poised to loosen, prevent broadcasters from gaining the scale on the local and national fronts, to compete. He said it was preposterous that regs from another century still ruled, borrowing from Washington Irving, suggesting it was time for Rip Van Winkle to wake up and "get over it."

During the panel that followed, Hanson suggested that if they had gotten their spectrum for free, they would be expecting a check for the billions Sinclair had spent to acquire it. She said broadcasters were using their "government benefits" to try create a financially solid business.

Goodfriend had said during the debate that Tribune did more news in its top three markets than Sinclair--his point was that the deal needed to be in the public interest, so that Sinclair should improve on that.

Eddie Lazarus, EVP and general counsel for Tribune, said that was because in its top markets, Tribune stations were indies that did not have network morning and evening news, so programmed their own, while Sinclair's were affiliates that had network news obligations.

Schwartzman took issue with Hanson's use of the term "our spectrum." He countered that it was the public's spectrum, which is why the FCC could ask for certain programming--say, the three-hour, educational, children's TV requirement, which was a response to Fritz suggestion that the government should not be in the business of telling broadcasters what kind of content to air.

Lazarus, responding to the point about broadcasters getting free carriage, pointed out that most of the stations at issue are not must carry, and that retrans stations have no guaranteed carriage. He also pointed out that there was no requirement that stations deliver local news, and some like Ion and religious stations, don't.

News, he said, is a differentiator, and expensive, which like paying for expensive sports, like the Mets and Yankees on Tribune's WPIX New York, need the kind of scale a merger will provide. He said without that, more high-value sports will move behind the pay wall.

Democratic Senators joined with representatives of net-neutrality activists Free Press and Fight for the Future to pledge war against any effort by FCC chairman Ajit Pai to reverse the common-carrier classification of ISPs.

That came at a press conference Wednesday morning (April 26) held by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), three of the most passionate defenders of the FCC's Title II Order, in advance of FCC chairman Ajit Pai's speech on the future of net-neutrality regulation at an event at the Newseum in Washington hosted by FreedomWorks and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship (SBE) Council.

Related:Sen. Schatz Meets With NCTA, Others on Open Internet Order

Also on the call were Craig Aaron of Free Press and Evan Greer of Fight for the Future.

As he has before, Markey said chairman Pai should expect a tsunami of resistance to any such proposal.

Unlike the Republicans' ability to push through a repeal of the related broadband privacy framework, the participants argued, to roll back the FCC's Open Internet order will take time, time they can use to their advantage.

Blumenthal and others pointed out that to reverse Title II, the FCC would have to demonstrate to the court, which upheld the reclassification, that something major and material had changed, which would take time to build a record, and have that record commented on.

They vowed to use that time to mobilize that "tsunami" of consumer opposition, which has so far been a trickle if the FCC's accounting of most active dockets over the past 30 days is any example -- only 69 comments.

They also suggested the Trump Administration had miscalculated its base, which they said did not want big cable companies, which already charge too much for service, deciding where they could go on the Web and what they could do.

One way to delay the rollback would be for FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn not to vote such a proposal, which would deny the Republicans the quorum they needed to proceed, but neither Markey nor Blumenthal, who weighed in, said they would advise Clyburn to take such action, or inaction as it were, saying that was up to her. Markey did say he would talk to Clyburn, who is the only remaining commissioner who voted for the Open Internet order.

Related:Clyburn Will Make Hill Plea for Open Internet Order

"She is in the middle of the battle herslef, and it is a tough choice, but I am sure she is going to make the right judgmentBlumenthal said. "I will talk to her about what is the best course of action, but I don't want to prejudge it."

Blumenthal said not voting was only one part of a potential strategy, a strategy that "utilizes public opinion, that reaches out to the chairman and the commission," adding that it was obviously her decision.

The language tended toward the extreme on the call, with Blumenthal saying the Trump Administration was trying to kill a vital part of the Internet, the openness that was the heritage and DNA of the "net, and destroy the basic protections of no blocking and throttling and paid prioritization.

He also talked about the speech implications, saying allowing blocking or discrimination threatened the public square soapbox the 'net had become.

Blumenthal outlined their plan of attack, which included to "galvanize the seismic outcry that should follow this kind of misguided effort, and oppose the rollback in committee, on the Senate floor and in the courts.

Asked if Pai's plan could prompt some Democrats to come to the table on a possible legislative fix to secure basic protections outside of Title II classification, Markey said there was nothing wrong that needed fixing and he was focused on stopping Pai. He also suggested any compromise bill would lack sufficient protections.

Last time around, when a massive campaign helped move the Open Internet needle toward Title II, Fight for the Future generated calls to Congress and comments to the FCC and even camped out outside the FCC in protest. Greer warned the same could happen this time around: "Hell hath no fury like the Internet scorned," he said.

A bill reintroduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) would require manufacturers of connected cars to get an owner's opt-in permission to use any information collected by the car for advertising or marketing purposes -- such as triggering a gas pump ad for a local restaurant as the car rolls into the station for a fill-up.

The Security and Privacy in Your Car Act of 2017 (SPY Car Act) would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Trade Commission (which oversees device privacy) to set cybersecurity standards for cars.

In addition to user opt-in for sharing of data, the bill would require "clear and conspicuous notice" to vehicle owners or lessees of the collection, transmission, retention and use of data collected from their cars.

The opt-in would extend to data used for car safety systems. Owner or lessees who decided not to opt in would still get access to navigation tools and other features "to the extent technically possible."

Opting in to data sharing for marketing or ad purposes can't be a condition for the use of any non-marketing related features or functions.

Those car-related provisions track with the FCC broadband privacy rules -- opt in, no marketing quid pro quo -- that Republicans in Congress are trying to overturn, and both Markey and Blumenthal strongly support.

The senators are also reintroducing an aircraft cybersecurity bill.

“Whether in their cars on the road or in aircraft in the sky, Americans should be protected from cyberattack and violations of their privacy,” Markey said of the two bills. “If hackers access the critical systems of a car or plane, disaster could ensue and our public safety could be compromised. We must ensure that as technologies change, our safety and privacy is maintained. I thank Sen. Blumenthal for his partnership on this critical issue.”

Some Hill Democrats were praising the FCC's report finding that some zero-rating plans may run afoul of network-neutrality rules.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had led calls for tough action on "harmful zero-rating offerings" thought to run afoul of the rules and led the applause at the findings.

RELATED > FCC: DirecTV Now Plan Appears to Violate Net Neutrality Order

Zero-rating offerings exempt some services, including video streaming services, from counting toward a user's broadband data plan. In some cases, the service pays the ISP to exempt its content.

“In response to our inquiry, the FCC has issued clear guidelines on how to protect consumers from harmful zero-rating plans that violate the core tenants of net neutrality,” Markey said. “These guiding principles will help the FCC, industry, and the public evaluate zero-rating offerings and identify plans that distort competition, stifle innovation, and hamper user choice and free speech. I will continue to work with my colleagues to encourage the commission to enforce these guidelines and ensure that the internet remains a permission-less environment where anyone with an idea or voice can participate.”

The FCC's senior Republican, Ajit Pai, signaled that the FCC under new management did not share the report's opinion.

But Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), a big network-neutrality fan, and among those who joined in a letter to the FCC last November asking for the review, shared the FCC's concerns.

"A free and open Internet has been a crucial engine for innovation and economic growth," Franken said. "That's why I'm pleased to see that the FCC has heeded our call and released a framework for evaluating zero-rating plans, which can often harm competitors and consumers. This report evaluating whether zero rating plans violate net neutrality will help make sure the internet remains the free and open platform that it's always been. Keeping the internet open is critical to our democracy.”

The FCC under Republican control is widely expected to roll back the FCC's approach to network neutrality, likely including the "general conduct standard" review under which the FCC concluded that AT&T's DirecTV Now sponsored data and Verizon's FreeBee Data 360 zero-rating plans were problematic.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) were also signatories to the letter and added their applause. 

“Despite clever branding gimmicks, so called ‘free data’ or zero-rating plans like those offered by AT&T and Verizon are a scheme to manipulate consumers and transfer money from their pockets to a company’s bottom line,” Wyden said. “This report lays the framework for ensuring zero-rating plans don’t betray net neutrality and is a step in the right direction towards maintaining a free and open Internet.”

Blumenthal added: “I commend the commission for undertaking this careful and thorough report on how zero-rating offerings may negatively affect consumers and competition. As wireless carriers look for creative ways to differentiate themselves, it would serve them well to take heed of this report’s findings and address any red flags in their own offerings. This report confirms my concerns that some zero-rating offerings not only subvert the spirit of net neutrality, but also unfairly distort competition, disadvantage consumers, and decrease choice.”