Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has teamed with almost three dozen other senators, including Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), chairman of the Consumer Protection Subcommittee, to push the Federal Trade Commission to do more to protect seniors from coronavirus-related scams. 

The letter came the same day (Thursday, March 26) that FTC chairman Joseph Simons outlined the steps the FTC is taking to combat coronavirus scammers, while pointing out the FTC has to be mindful of good faith efforts to promote helpful products. 

The FTC has issued warnings about such scams, but the senators urged Simons to better inform seniors about the scams and help the victims understand what they can do after they have been scammed.  

“At this time of heightened public fears, reports have highlighted that scams pertaining to the coronavirus are increasing, and that seniors—arguably the most vulnerable population to both the coronavirus and bad actors—have been targeted with calls telling them that the COVID-19 vaccination is ready when no such treatment currently exists,” the senators wrote to Simons.

They acknowledged the warnings, but signaled more was needed.

"Although the FTC has sent warning letters to seven sellers of fraudulent COVID-19 treatments, we are concerned that further action is needed to protect the financial well-being of seniors—who lose an estimated $3 billion annually from financial scams," they wrote. 

Klobuchar and company want answers to the following questions: 

Related: Sen. Warner, Blumenthal Slam Google Over 'Predatory' Coronavirus Ads

1. "What efforts is the FTC currently undertaking to educate seniors about COVID-19-related fraud and how to protect themselves? 
2. "What additional measures is the FTC planning to better protect seniors and assist them should they become victims of COVID-19-related fraud? 
3. "How is the FTC working with other federal agencies to combat COVID-19-related scams? 
4. "What additional resources does the FTC need in order to better protect seniors from COVID-19 and other fraud and educate them on how to prevent it?" 

In a statement Thursday, though not in response to the letter, Simons said the FTC was hard at work to combat coronavirus scams, but he also said that "at all times, good faith efforts undertaken to provide needed goods and services to consumers will be taken into account in making enforcement decisions." 

In a related move, New York State Attorney General Letitia James Thursday (March 26) ordered a handful of air purifier companies to stop marketing their products as tools "that can prevent" the spread of the virus when numerous health departments have determined that the disease spreads via respiratory droplets, not air transmission, James said. 

Senate Democrats have pressed major ISPs on they are protecting consumer privacy in the wake of congressional

Republican's nullification of the FCC's broadband privacy rules, suggesting they should adhere voluntarily with all the FCC rules that those ISPs fought, while saying they remained committed to protecting sub privacy.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a longtime advocate for privacy rights who pushed back hard against the Republican effort, led a group of eight senators in letters to AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and CenturyLink.

The letter seeks answers to a host of questions (see below), including whether they require opt-in consent for sharing web browsing, app use, and other information, whether they have "take-it-or-leave-it" offerings refusing service to those who do not agree to share their info, whether they have "pay for privacy" options, and more, essentially restating the rules and asking if their voluntary policies match them, plus some additional questions.

"We strongly disagree with the CRA resolution, and believe that broadband providers should follow strong privacy and security rules that give consumers control over how their information is used and shared, as well as confidence their information will be protected,” they wrote, urging them on their own to "provide your subscribers with the same level of privacy and security protections as stipulated in the FCC’s broadband privacy order.”

ISPs have pledged to adhere to voluntary privacy principles whatever happened to the fCC rules.

Democratic members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee at a hearing Wednesday (April 5) slammed Republicans for the CRA, suggesting promises that privacy would be protected were hollow.

Following is one of the letters, this one to AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson:

April 5, 2017

Dear Mr. Stephenson:

Congress recently passed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution rescinding the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) broadband privacy and security rules.  We strongly disagree with the CRA resolution, and believe that broadband providers should follow strong privacy and security rules that give consumers control over how their information is used and shared, as well as confidence their information will be protected.  In light of this Congressional action, we write to ask how your company plans to protect the privacy of the millions of Americans who rely on your services to connect to the internet. 

In 2017, broadband access is no longer a luxury; it is essential.  Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are gatekeepers that control the infrastructure that Americans depend on to access vital applications and services.  ISPs can use this privileged position to collect and use sensitive information about subscribers, including precise geo-location,

financial information, and web and app usage history.  Yet, many consumers have limited choice for broadband service and cannot necessarily change ISPs if their privacy and security protections are not transparent or strong.  Given this limited choice, we urge your company to provide your subscribers with the same level of privacy and security protections as stipulated in the FCC’s broadband privacy order. 

We respectfully request that you provide a written response to the following questions:

     1.Do you obtain affirmative opt-in consent to use, share, or sell any of the following information: web browsing history, app usage history, the content of communications, children’s information, health information, financial information, geo-location, and Social Security numbers? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not? If no, please disclose what information you are sharing and selling and with whom you are sharing or selling that information.

     2.Do you provide consumers opt-out control over their information? If yes, for what types of information and please detail your policy. If no, why not?

     3.Do you maintain information or data related to former subscribers? If yes, what information do you keep, how is it maintained, and is it minimized? What are your data security and privacy policies for the data and personal information of former subscribers? 

     4.Do you make “take-it-or-leave-it” offerings, where consumers are refused internet service if they do not permit their information to be used, shared, or sold? If yes, why? When updating privacy policies, must current subscribers agree to the new terms in order to continue service?  Would a consumer be forced to pay a termination fee if service is denied for refusing to agree to new privacy or data collection terms?  Please detail your policy.

    5.Do you make “pay for privacy” offerings, where consumers could be required to pay an additional amount to protect their privacy or receive compensation for declining to protect their privacy? Please detail your policy for what purposes you use and share this information, and with whom that information is shared or sold?  If yes, please detail your policy.  If no, why not?

    6. Do you notify customers at the point-of-sale, before purchase, of the types of information collected, how and for what purposes you use and share this information, and with whom that information is shared or sold?  If yes, please detail your policy.  If no, why not?

    7.Do you develop and adhere to reasonable data security practices sufficient to protect the information you collect about your subscribers? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not?

    8.Do you notify customers within 30 days if their information has been breached or accessed by unauthorized parties? Do you also alert customers to any mitigating action they should take? Do you provide free services to mitigate the impacts of a breach, such as free credit monitoring service?  If yes, please detail your policy.  If no,why not?

    9. Do you practice strong de-identification or anonymization, such that de-identified personal information cannot be reasonably linkable to a person or device? If yes, please explain your process for de-identifying data. If no, why not?

   10.Do you prohibit third parties with whom you share or sell consumers’ sensitive information from re-identifying de-identified information? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not?

   11.Do you refuse to serve a customer who does not agree to mandatory arbitration clauses? If yes, why? Please detail your policy.

   12.Do you notify customers when you make material changes to your privacy policies? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not?

   13.Do you have a clear, user-friendly, easily accessible, and responsive complaint process for consumers who have evidence or reason to believe their privacy has been violated? If yes, please detail your policy. If no, why not? 

   14.Many ISPs retain so called “netflow” records, related to their customers’ internet usage. Do you retain netflow records for your customers’ web browsing activity? If so, for how long do you retain them? Will you disclose netflow records pursuant to a National Security Letter, or only court orders?

   15.Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, carriers may not disclose subscriber location information without the “express prior authorization of the customer”. Over each of the last three years, how many times did your company disclose to third parties individually identifiable customer location data or other Customer Proprietary Network

Information with a customer’s express prior authorization?  Does your company obtain the consent from the subscriber directly?  If not, and the third party obtains the consent (or claims they do), do you request or retain a copy of documentation showing that the customer provided such consent?

   16.Please detail any changes you have made to your privacy policy or practices since the President signed the broadband privacy CRA into law.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.  We respectfully request that you provide a written response by May 1, 2017.

Some Republican senators have signaled to FCC chairman Tom Wheelerthat they are scratching their heads over the FCC's use of the 25-Mbps downstream/3-Mbps upstream metric to decide that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion.

They argue that while the FCC is using that to measure access to broadband, it is using a different metric for rural broadband and regulating Internet access.

The FCC's most recent fixed broadband report (and wireless broadband for that matter) came to that conclusion, much to the chagrin of ISPs investing billions to deploy that plant.

In a letter to Wheeler, a sextet of senators said they were concerned that that the "arbitrary" benchmark fails to record what most view as broadband and say they are troubled by the FCC's use of a different metric--10 Mbps--for rural broadband.

"While your 2016 Broadband Progress Report finds a deficiency in deployment at the 25/3-Mbps benchmark," they wrote, "your fact sheet touts the Connect America Fund subsidies -- which only require providers to offer speeds of 10 Mbps down/1 Mbps up -- as increasing broadband deployment."

The letter, which echoes a number of criticisms -- including the 10 Mbps/25 Mbps difference -- that were leveled by the FCC's Republican commissioners after the report was released, noted that Netflix recommends a 5-Mbps download speed and Amazon suggests only 3.5 Mbps.

They said it was "unclear how applying a different definition of broadband to urban and rural areas is consistent with this clear Congressional directive [of universal access]," they wrote. "Nor is it clear how the Commission can justify defining broadband by the 25/3 Mbps benchmark in one context (when assessing the market under section 706), but ignoring this definition when it sought to regulate 'broadband' Internet access providers in its Open Internet Order – there, essentially including any service above dial-up as 'broadband.' If the Commission concluded that providers are providing a 'broadband' service worthy of increased regulatory protections, it seems inconsistent for the Commission to not count all such 'broadband' providers in the Commission’s Section 706 analysis."

Signing on to the letter were Sens. Steve Daines, Roger Wicker, Roy Blunt, Deb Fischer, Ron Johnson  and Cory Gardner.