Apresentação
Este é um informativo diário que traz para o(a) leitor (a) notícias e casos de defesa da concorrência das principais jurisdições antitruste do mundo (CADE, FTC, Comissão Europeia, CMA etc).
Notícias
FTC Takes Action Against Gravy Analytics, Venntel for Unlawfully Selling Location Data Tracking Consumers to Sensitive Sites
Proposed order bans use or sale of data associated with military sites, churches, labor unions, and other sensitive locations
Tags:
The Federal Trade Commission is taking action against Gravy Analytics Inc. and its subsidiary Venntel Inc. for unlawfully tracking and selling sensitive location data from users, including selling data about consumers’ visits to health-related locations and places of worship.
Under a proposed order settling the FTC’s allegations, Gravy Analytics and Venntel will be prohibited from selling, disclosing, or using sensitive location data in any product or service, and must establish a sensitive data location program.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that Gravy Analytics and Venntel violated the FTC Act by unfairly selling sensitive consumer location data, and by collecting and using consumers’ location data without obtaining verifiable user consent for commercial and government uses.
According to the complaint, Gravy Analytics continued to use consumers’ location data after learning that consumers didn’t provide informed consent. Gravy Analytics also unfairly sold sensitive characteristics, like health or medical decisions, political activities and religious viewpoints, derived from consumers’ location data.
“Surreptitious surveillance by data brokers undermines our civil liberties and puts servicemembers, union workers, religious minorities, and others at risk,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “This is the FTC’s fourth action taken this year challenging the sale of sensitive location data, and it’s past time for the industry to get serious about protecting Americans’ privacy.”
Virginia-based Gravy Analytics and Venntel allegedly obtained consumer location information from other data suppliers and claimed to collect, process, and curate more than 17 billion signals from around a billion mobile devices daily. The location data the companies sold can be used to identify consumers and is not anonymized, according to the complaint.
The complaint alleges that Gravy Analytics used geofencing, which creates a virtual geographical boundary, to identify and sell lists of consumers who attended certain events related to medical conditions and places of worship and sold additional lists that associate individual consumers to other sensitive characteristics.
The FTC says the companies exposed consumers to potential privacy harms, which could include disclosure of health or medical decisions, political activity, and religious practices. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive characteristics puts consumers at risk of stigma, discrimination, violence and other harms, according to the complaint.
Proposed Settlement Requirements
Under the proposed order, Gravy Analytics and Venntel will be prohibited from selling, licensing, transferring, sharing, disclosing, or using sensitive location data except in limited circumstances involving national security or law enforcement. The order also requires the companies to maintain a sensitive location data program designed to develop a list of sensitive locations and prevent the use, sale, license, transfer, sharing, or disclosure of consumers’ visits to those locations, including locations associated with:
- Medical facilities,
- Religious organizations,
- Correctional facilities,
- Labor union offices,
- Schools or childcare facilities,
- Services supporting people based on racial and ethnic backgrounds,
- Services sheltering homeless, domestic abuse, refugee or immigrant populations, and
- Military installations.
The order also requires the companies to delete all historic location data and any data products developed using this data. It also requires that the companies inform customers that received historic location data within the last three years of the Commission’s requirement that such data should be deleted, de-identified, or rendered non-sensitive. The companies can retain historic location data if they ensure that it is deidentified or rendered non-sensitive or if consumers consented to the use of their data.
It also requires the companies to maintain a supplier assessment program designed to ensure that consumers have provided consent for the collection and use of all data that may reveal a mobile device or consumer’s precise location.
The companies also will be banned from making misrepresentations about the extent to which:
- they review data suppliers’ compliance and consent frameworks, consumer disclosures, sample notices, and opt in controls;
- collect, use, maintain, disclose, or delete any covered information; and
- the data they collect, use, maintain, or disclose is de-identified.
The Commission voted 5-0 to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the consent agreement with the companies. Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya issued a concurring statement joined in full by Chair Lina Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and in part by Commissioner Holyoak. Holyoak issued a separate concurring statement joined in part by Bedoya. Commissioner Andrew Ferguson issued a concurring and dissenting statement.
This is the FTC’s fifth action challenging the unfair handling of consumers’ sensitive location data by data aggregators. The agency’s other cases include a 2022 action against Kochava for selling data tracking people to reproductive health clinics and other sensitive locations, and the January 2024 actions against X-Mode for selling raw location data and InMarket for selling precise user location data. Earlier today, the FTC announced an action against Mobilewalla for also selling data tracking users to military sites, health clinics, churches and other sensitive locations.
The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.
NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $51,744.
The lead staffers on this matter are Jennifer Rimm, Brian Shull and Bhavna Changrani in FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.
Contact Information
Media Contact
Office of Public Affairs
La CNMC realiza nuevas inspecciones en el sector de los servicios de consultoría y asistencia técnica de ingeniería
Sector: Nota de prensa
Ámbito CNMC: Competencia
- Investiga posibles acuerdos anticompetitivos entre empresas para repartirse contratos públicos.
- Entre el 25 y el 28 de noviembre, se llevaron a cabo inspecciones en las sedes de varias compañías.
- Se trata de una segunda ronda, tras las realizadas entre el 31 de enero y el 2 de febrero.
- Estas inspecciones constituyen un paso preliminar a la posible incoación formal de un expediente sancionador.
La CNMC investiga posibles prácticas anticompetitivas consistentes en acuerdos y/o reparto de licitaciones convocadas para prestar servicios de consultoría y asistencia técnica de ingeniería.
Entre los días 25 y 28 de noviembre, personal de la CNMC llevó a cabo nuevas inspecciones en la sede de empresas que operan el sector. A principios de año, entre el 31 de enero y el 2 de febrero, se realizó una primera ronda de inspecciones (nota de prensa).
Las inspecciones suponen un paso preliminar en el proceso de investigación de las supuestas conductas anticompetitivas y no prejuzgan el resultado de la investigación ni la culpabilidad de las empresas inspeccionadas. Si como resultado de la inspección se encontrasen indicios de prácticas prohibidas, se procederá a la incoación formal de expediente sancionador.
Infracciones muy graves
Los acuerdos entre competidores constituyen una infracción muy grave de la legislación de competencia, que puede conllevar multas de hasta el 10 % del volumen de negocios total de las empresas infractoras. De hecho, la investigación de los cárteles constituye una de las prioridades de actuación de la CNMC, dada la especial gravedad de sus consecuencias sobre los consumidores y el correcto funcionamiento de los mercados.
La CNMC cuenta con el Programa de clemencia que permite a las empresas que forman parte de un cártel beneficiarse de la exención del pago de la multa, siempre y cuando aporten elementos de prueba que posibiliten a la CNMC su detección, o de una reducción del importe de la multa que pudiera imponérsele, si aporta información con valor añadido significativo, en relación con una investigación ya iniciada por la CNMC.
Prohibición de contratar
Por otra parte, la prohibición de contratar, establecida en el artículo 71 de la Ley 9/2017, de 8 de noviembre, de Contratos del Sector Público, por la que se transponen las Directivas del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo 2014/23/UE y 2014/24/UE, de 26 de febrero de 2014, para los sancionados por infracción grave en materia de falseamiento de la competencia, se exceptuaría respecto de las empresas solicitantes de clemencia, en aplicación del artículo 72.5 de la citada Ley, que señala que no procede declarar la prohibición de contratar a las empresas solicitantes de clemencia.
Además de la exención del pago de la multa o la reducción de su cuantía, las empresas solicitantes de clemencia también quedan exceptuadas de la prohibición de contratar, establecida en el artículo 71 de la Ley de Contratos del Sector Público para los sancionados por infracción grave en materia de falseamiento de la competencia. Ello es así en aplicación del artículo 72.5 de la citada ley, y de los artículos 65.4 y 66.5 de la Ley de Defensa de la Competencia, en los que se regula el programa de clemencia.
La CNMC también dispone de una plataforma online de colaboración ciudadana para ayudar a detectar cárteles: el Sistema de Informantes de Competencia Anónimos (SICA). De forma anónima, se pueden poner en conocimiento prácticas anticompetitivas, tales como acuerdos entre empresas competidoras para la fijación de precios u otras condiciones comerciales, reparto de los mercados o de los clientes, o repartos fraudulentos de las licitaciones públicas o privadas.
Documento no oficial, destinado a los medios de comunicación, y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita la fuente.
Atos de concentração – Decisões
CADE
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.009381/2024-92
Requerentes: Oleoplan S.A. – Óleos Vegetais Planalto e Green Ventures Indústria de Biodiesel Ltda. Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.009512/2024-31
Requerentes: SPX Capital Holding Ltda. e SPX SYN Participações S.A. Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.009544/2024-37
Requerentes: CCR S.A. e Neoenergia Renováveis S.A. Aprovação sem restrições.
Ato de Concentração nº 08700.009175/2024-82
Requerentes: Química Amparo Ltda. e Casa dos Ventos S.A. Aprovação sem restrições.
Comissão Europeia
PATIENT SQUARE / CARLYLE / CORROHEALTH
Merger
Last decision date: 03.12.2024 Super simplified procedure
STRATEGIC VALUE PARTNERS / NORDIC PAPER
Merger
Last decision date: 03.12.2024 Simplified procedure
SENNDER / EST
Merger
Last decision date:03.12.2024 Simplified procedure
ONE / LX PANTOS / BOXLINKS
Merger
Last decision date: 03.12.2024 Super simplified procedure
CMA
BlackRock / Preqin merger inquiry
- The CMA is investigating the anticipated acquisition by BlackRock, Inc. of Preqin Limited.
- Updated: 3 December 2024
Merger inquiry outcome statistics
- Statistics showing the outcomes of merger inquiries examined under the Enterprise Act 2002.
- Updated: 3 December 2024
GXO / Wincanton merger inquiry
- The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating the completed acquisition by GXO Logistics, Inc. of Wincanton Plc.
- Updated: 3 December 2024
Boparan / ForFarmers (Burston and Radstock mills) merger inquiry
- The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is investigating the anticipated acquisition by Boparan Private Office Limited (via 2 Agriculture Limited) of ForFarmers UK Limited’s Burston and Radstock feed mills.
- Updated: 3 December 2024
Autorité de la Concurrence
Secteur(s) :
24-DCC-257
relative à la prise de contrôle exclusif de la société SBME par la société ITM Entreprises
Décision de contrôle des concentrations|
Publication du sens de la décision le : 03 décembre 2024