Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States

The FTC's Top Consumer Protection Official Can't Go After Facebook -- or 100 Other Companies (theverge.com) 75

The Federal Trade Commission's top consumer protection official is prohibited from handling the cases involving 120 different companies, including Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, and Uber, according to financial disclosure documents published by Public Citizen this week. From a report: Andrew Smith, who heads the FTCs Consumer Protection Bureau, would be in charge of handling investigations into some of the country's largest companies and any consumer protection violations that may occur. But due to his conflicts of interest, Smith is barred from participating in any investigations involving the companies he previously provided legal services for. "It's a big world out there, and the FTC has very broad jurisdictions," Smith said to The Verge. "There are plenty of investigations that I'm involved in." Smith was approved by a 3-2 Republican majority in May.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The FTC's Top Consumer Protection Official Can't Go After Facebook -- or 100 Other Companies

Comments Filter:
  • bullshit story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 07, 2018 @11:42AM (#57766192)
    No - he can't be in charge of the investigations
    Yes - he can delegate those investigations to other officers under him - just like happens in the Justice Department.
    I'm sure the Verge was all up in arms when Maxine Waters was re-upped to the banking committee in the house after she abused her powers to cut out a sweet deal for her husband's bank.
    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

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

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

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

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Friday December 07, 2018 @12:07PM (#57766380)

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

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

  • by schklerg ( 1130369 ) on Friday December 07, 2018 @11:54AM (#57766292)
    It's a fox in every hen house for the US.
  • tentacles (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday December 07, 2018 @11:57AM (#57766306) Journal

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

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

    • Sorta like FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Verizon shill.

      • Sorta like FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Verizon shill.

        Are you noticing a pattern?

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

        • I am.

          The paradigm shift is to return to the days of monopolies. Americans want capitalism to rule.

          Also, Americans want to move away from global dominance in the sciences and technology. Americans wish for a return to a White Evangelical Christian majority rule.

          Americans are irrationally scared shitless of immigrants to the point of ignoring that immigrants provide a positive influence.

          The needle is pegged to the right.

          In fairness, that's what America wants. We the People have spoken, and the way forward is

      • Sorta like FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, Verizon shill.

        Wait, I've got an even better one.

        Trump picked a former Monsanto executive to be head of the Fish & Wildlife Service. No joke.

        https://www.apnews.com/aa701b5... [apnews.com]

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

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

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • He purposefully hired several lawyers to do simple legal stuff for only one reason.

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

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

  • Citizens United (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Friday December 07, 2018 @12:17PM (#57766448)
    THIS is EXACTLY why we need to pull corporate money out of politics AND reign in lobbyists. Bar lobbyists from serving on high level posts.
    • Who is we? We have no power to do that. Only the people who craft the laws can do that.
      • "We" are the insane who continually vote for the same assholes while expecting different results.
    • THIS is EXACTLY why we need to pull corporate money out of politics AND reign in lobbyists. Bar lobbyists from serving on high level posts.

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

    • by guruevi ( 827432 )

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

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

    America isnt a democracy

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

    The game seems rigged, once again.

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...