Commercial surveillance pricing must be investigated & regulated @DigitalDemoc "If the Trump Adm. controlled FTC does not act to seriously protect Americans from the data surveillance leviathan that manipulates what they pay—at the store, pump, and interest from credit --it will leave millions of Americans at greater financial risk." Exposes role of Retail/Commerce Media apparatus. #privacy #consumerprotection; bit.ly/4yRGHwx

We welcome TikTok to Lantern, the program Meta helped build to protect children online through industry collaboration. Now to truly keep teens safe, TikTok should step up and meet the standard we’ve set with the nation’s attorneys general.

The concerns articulated by current OpenAI employee Daniel Selsam are quite different from Jacob Coxon's. Dismayed to see this one get a 1/100 of the views

Law enforcers already have authority to charge companies and their CEOs for creating and releasing dangerous, unvetted, or defective products. We shouldn’t let discussions about new legal regimes distract from the fact that there’s no AI exemption from laws already on the books — a point @FTC emphasized repeatedly during my tenure. 1. There is an extensive set of laws that govern dangerous and defective products. For example, releasing unvetted AI models or agents can violate consumer protection laws. Shipping flawed AI tools without implementing adequate measures to detect and stop rogue or defective AI agents can be an “unfair or deceptive” act or practice under the FTC Act (and analogous state laws). And some state AGs are already exploring holding AI firms and their CEOs criminally liable when their models participate in criminal activity. 2. Existing laws also prohibit “unfair methods of competition.” This covers instances where AI firms appropriate the competitively sensitive information of their customers, including through tracking their use of various tools. It can also cover instances where firms pursue dangerous behavior, aware that doing so may compel rivals to do the same. As the Supreme Court has noted: “A method of competition which casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though it is not criminal, was thought to involve the kind of unfairness at which the [unfair methods of competition] statute was aimed." 3. The highly concentrated and interconnected structure of these markets could be creating major risks and conflicts of interest. We had started investigating these partnerships and cross-investments across the stack (and released a preliminarily overview of some findings: ftc.gov/news-events/news/pre…). Both federal and state enforcers should be scrutinizing these opaque relationships and inter-dependencies. We are already seeing how these relationships could undermine accountability. For example, OpenAI could face liability given the Hugging Face incident, but Hugging Face being bought up by Nvidia means that we’re unlikely to see it file a lawsuit over this — given Nvidia’s strong incentive to see OpenAI continue full speed ahead. 4. As AI tools dramatically change the landscape of cybersecurity risks and hacks, all businesses should be doubling down on having core security protections in place. Firms that fail to invest in adequate data security measures or fix known vulnerabilities can also be breaking the law. A recent analysis showed that around 1/3 of Fortune 100 companies do not even have a way to notify them about security issues. During my @FTC tenure, we sued firms for poor data security practices and held CEOs liable when they were personally responsible. this.weekinsecurity.com/doze… ftc.gov/news-events/news/pre… 5. As policymakers consider new legal regimes, we should be looking to lessons from prior efforts to govern major sectors, such as banking and other networks, platforms, and utilities. Tools like structural separations, nondiscrimination, and supervision could be key, and there’s a rich history of what works and what doesn’t. But we can and must pursue any new efforts alongside enforcing existing laws.

Until the State AGs & regulators address the (now) Gen AI+data run ad & marketing systems of #Meta, Google, TikTok, big brands, young people will still be targets--despite whatever changes agreed to. We have a trillion dollar global ad economy, fueled by the biggest co's, luring youth (& everyone else), on every platform, to the increasingly agentic driven social media Siren.

We’ve secured a proposed settlement with Meta that will significantly change how Instagram and Facebook interact with children and teens, and that will include a $17 billion payment. If the settlement is approved by the court, these changes include daily time limits, stopping notifications during school hours, blocks on nighttime use, banning dangerous filters, enhanced detection and removal of users under 13, and much more. Alongside a bipartisan coalition, I’m proud to deliver real transparency and real change to protect children’s and teens' mental health and support parents across the country. oag.ca.gov/news/press-releas…