[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38510-38513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12507]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


FTC Collaboration Act of 2021 Study

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FTC Collaboration Act of 2021 directs the Federal Trade 
Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') to ``provide opportunity for 
public comment and advice'' relevant to the production of a study 
concerning certain specified topics related to ``efforts with State 
Attorneys General to prevent, publicize, and penalize frauds and scams 
being perpetrated on individuals in the United States.'' The Commission 
is soliciting written comments from interested persons, entities, and 
organizations on one or more of the topics described in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 14, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by 
following the instructions in the Public Comments portion of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ``FTC Collaboration Act 
of 2021 Study (Project No. P238400)'' on your comment and file your 
comment online through https://www.regulations.gov.
    If you prefer to file a comment in hard copy, please write ``FTC 
Collaboration Act of 2021 Study (Project No. P238400)'' on your comment 
and on the envelope and mail your comment to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex R), Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Quigley, Attorney, (310) 
824-4334, and Miles D. Freeman, Attorney, (310) 824-4332, Western 
Region Los Angeles, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 
Commission, 10990 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 400, Los Angeles, CA 90024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Background Information

    The mission of the Federal Trade Commission is to protect the 
public from deceptive or unfair business practices and from unfair 
methods of competition through law enforcement, advocacy, research, and 
education. Many State Attorneys General have similar missions within 
their States, in addition to other responsibilities. These 
complementary missions present numerous opportunities for the 
Commission and State Attorneys General to share information and 
collaborate on matters involving consumer protection.
    On October 10, 2022, President Biden signed into law the FTC 
Collaboration Act of 2021.\1\ The Act directs the Commission to 
``conduct a study on facilitating and refining existing efforts with 
State Attorneys General to prevent, publicize, and penalize frauds and 
scams being perpetrated on individuals in the United States.'' \2\ The 
results of this study will inform a report, which the Commission shall 
submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate.\3\ In addition to setting forth the 
results of the study, the report shall contain ``[r]ecommended best 
practices to enhance collaboration efforts between the Commission and 
State Attorneys General with respect to preventing, publicizing, and 
penalizing fraud and scams''; ``[q]uantifiable metrics by which 
enhanced collaboration can be measured''; and ``[l]egislative 
recommendations, if any, to enhance collaboration efforts between the 
Commission and State Attorneys General to prevent, publicize, and 
penalize fraud and scams.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 117-187, 136 Stat. 2201 (2022).
    \2\ Id. at sec. 2(a)(1).
    \3\ Id. at sec. 2(b).
    \4\ Id. at sec. 2(b)(2) through 2(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission welcomes the comments of State Attorneys General, 
other law enforcement and regulatory agencies, public interest 
organizations, industry representatives, consumers, economists, 
lawyers, academics, information technology professionals, and other 
interested parties.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In addition to providing this notification and opportunity 
for public comment, the Commission has been directed to consult with 
the National Association of Attorneys General, public interest 
organizations dedicated to consumer protection, relevant private 
sector entities, and any other Federal or State agency that the 
Commission considers necessary. Id. at sec. 2(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Topics for Public Comment

    Commenters are invited to address one or more of the following 
topics generally, or with respect to a specific industry or area of 
consumer protection.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id. at sec. 2(a)(2). The Commission shall also examine 
in the study the ``policies, procedures, and mechanisms that 
facilitate cooperation and communications across the Commission,'' 
id. at sec. 2(a)(2)(B), which the Commission intends to do primarily 
through communications with relevant parts of the agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The roles and responsibilities of the Commission and State 
Attorneys General that best advance collaboration and consumer 
protection.
    Of particular interest to the Commission:
    (1) What do commenters view as the respective roles and 
responsibilities of the Commission and State Attorneys General as they 
relate to consumer protection and preventing, publicizing, and 
penalizing frauds and scams?
    (2) How, in practice, do the Commission and State Attorneys General 
effectively collaborate and support each other's consumer protection 
missions, in the context of: (a) investigating potential frauds and 
scams; (b) bringing joint or parallel law

[[Page 38511]]

enforcement actions to prevent and penalize frauds and scams; and (c) 
reaching out to specific consumer audiences or the community as a whole 
to raise awareness and prevent and publicize frauds and scams? How 
could existing practices be improved to enhance effective 
collaboration?
    (3) How, if at all, has the United States Supreme Court's decision 
in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission \7\ impacted 
effective collaboration between the Commission and State Attorneys 
General or otherwise impacted enforcement programs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 141 S. Ct. 1341, 1352 (2021) 
(holding that equitable monetary relief, including consumer redress, 
is unavailable under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) How does the work of State and local consumer protection law 
enforcement agencies or regulators outside of State Attorneys General, 
such as State financial services regulators and City Attorneys, 
facilitate and refine efforts between the Commission and State 
Attorneys General to prevent, publicize, and penalize frauds and scams? 
Similarly, how does the work of federal agencies that enforce laws 
prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices (UDAP), such as the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of 
Transportation, facilitate and refine efforts between the Commission 
and State Attorneys General to prevent, publicize, and penalize frauds 
and scams? How do these organizations effectively collaborate with and 
support State Attorneys General and the Commission in fulfilling their 
respective consumer protection missions? How could existing practices 
be improved to enhance effective collaboration?
    (5) To what extent has federal law that has preempted State 
jurisdiction affected the ability of State Attorneys General to protect 
consumers from unlawful business practices?
    (6) To what extent do differences or similarities between the FTC 
Act and State UDAP laws affect the respective abilities of the 
Commission and State Attorneys General to collaborate on preventing, 
publicizing, and penalizing frauds and scams? To what extent does the 
private right of action available under many State UDAP laws affect 
collaboration between the Commission and State Attorneys General? What 
differences are there between the remedies that the Commission and 
State Attorneys General may obtain under the statutes that they 
respectively enforce, and to what extent do these differences affect 
the respective law enforcement priorities of the Commission and State 
Attorneys General, and collaborative efforts between them?
    (7) How can the Commission maximize use of, and contributions to, 
the Consumer Sentinel Network?
    (B) How resources should be dedicated to best advance such 
collaboration and consumer protection.
    Of particular interest to the Commission:
    (1) How should resources be dedicated to best advance collaboration 
and consumer protection missions between the Commission and State 
Attorneys General in the context of: (a) investigating potential frauds 
and scams; (b) bringing joint or parallel law enforcement actions to 
prevent and penalize frauds and scams; and (c) reaching out to specific 
consumer audiences, industry stakeholders, or the community as a whole 
to raise awareness and prevent and publicize frauds and scams?
    (2) Are there any strategic, logistical, or technical challenges 
arising from such collaboration between the Commission and State 
Attorneys General?
    (3) Has the exchange of technical or subject-matter expertise 
between the Commission and Attorneys General when collaborating on 
consumer protection matters been effective? Why or why not? Would 
States benefit from technical assistance from Commission staff, such as 
technologists and economists, in consumer protection matters? Are there 
any legal or practical restrictions on the Commission providing, and 
State Attorneys General receiving, technical assistance of this nature?
    (4) How can information-sharing practices and technologies between 
the Commission and State Attorneys General be improved?
    (5) What new resources or authority may be needed to enhance the 
Commission's collaboration with State Attorneys General?
    (C) The accountability mechanisms that should be implemented to 
promote collaboration and consumer protection.
    Of particular interest to the Commission:
    (1) With respect to the Commission, one of the Commission's 
Strategic Objectives is to ``[c]ollaborate with domestic and 
international partners to enhance consumer protection.'' \8\ The 
Commission currently reports on certain performance indicators and 
metrics bearing on this Objective that relate to collaboration with 
State Attorneys General.\9\ Are there any additional performance 
indicators or metrics that the Commission should consider reporting, or 
other mechanisms that should be implemented?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Federal Trade Commission Annual Performance Report for 
Fiscal Year 2021 and Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal Years 2022 
to 2023, at 8, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/21apr_22-23app.pdf.
    \9\ Id. at 13 (Indicator 1.1.IND.3: ``Number of contributors to 
the Consumer Sentinel Network (CSN)''); id. at 65 (Performance 
Metric 1.3.1: ``Number of investigations or cases in which the FTC 
and other U.S. federal, state and local government agencies shared 
evidence or information that contributed to FTC law enforcement 
actions or enhanced consumer protection'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Do any of the changes in practices, new resources, or authority 
recommended by commenters warrant new reporting requirements or other 
mechanisms to promote accountability and transparency? If so, what 
kinds of reporting requirements or mechanisms are recommended?

III. Public Comments

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider 
your comment, we must receive it on or before August 14, 2023, 2023. 
Write ``FTC Collaboration Act of 2021 Study (Project No. P238400)'' on 
your comment. Your comment--including your name and your state--will be 
placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the https://www.regulations.gov website.
    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening. We encourage you to submit your comments 
online through the https://www.regulations.gov website.
    If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write ``FTC 
Collaboration Act of 2021 Study (Project No. P238400)'' on your comment 
and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex R), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, 
submit your paper comment to the Commission by overnight service.
    Because your comment will become publicly available at https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that 
your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential 
information. In particular, your comment should not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social 
Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state 
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; 
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also 
solely

[[Page 38512]]

responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any 
sensitive health information, such as medical records or other 
individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment 
should not include any ``trade secret or any commercial or financial 
information which . . . . is privileged or confidential''--as provided 
by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 
4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including in particular competitively 
sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, 
formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer 
names.
    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is 
requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled 
``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, 
the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the 
comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and 
must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from 
the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept 
confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in 
accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has 
been posted publicly at www.regulations.gov, we cannot redact or remove 
your comment unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the 
requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 
Counsel grants that request.
    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit 
the collection of public comments to consider and use in this 
proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and 
responsive public comments that it receives on or before August 14, 
2023. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including 
routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.

Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan Joined by Commissioner Rebecca Kelly 
Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya

    The FTC Collaboration Act of 2021 directs the FTC to examine how we 
can improve collaboration with state attorneys general to prevent, 
publicize, and penalize fraudulent business practices. As we undertake 
this inquiry, we are issuing a Request for Information to gather public 
input.
    State regulators and attorneys general play an essential role in 
protecting Americans from unlawful business practices. For decades they 
have initiated key lawsuits and filled in regulatory gaps, often paving 
the way for broader federal efforts. State governments have also 
trailblazed a variety of important consumer protection laws--from 
banning certain uses of facial recognition technologies to protecting 
Americans' right to repair their products.
    Unfortunately, federal agencies at times have sought to block 
consumer protection efforts by states. For example, in the leadup to 
the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007, some federal regulators sought to 
cripple states' oversight function by wiping out their anti-predatory 
lending laws.\1\ States still took action against non-bank subprime 
lenders, protecting the public at a time when federal actors were slow 
to mobilize.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ WookBai Kim, Challenging the Roots of the Subprime Mortgage 
Crisis: The OCC's Operating Subsidiaries Regulations and Watters v. 
Wachovia Bank, 21 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 278 (2009).
    \2\ Press Release, State of Conn. Dep't of Banking, Ameriquest 
to Pay $325 Million for Predatory Lending Practices that Bilked 
Consumers (Jan. 23, 2006), https://portal.ct.gov/DOB/Newsroom/2006/
Ameriquest-to-Pay-$325-Million-in-Nationwide-Settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC is committed to working closely with state partners to 
maximize our collective efficacy in combatting unlawful business 
practices and protecting Americans. States bring to cases not only an 
important set of remedial tools, but also more direct visibility into 
business practices that are harming their citizens.
    Led by our regional offices, the FTC has a long history of 
collaborating with state enforcers. Over the last year alone, for 
example, we have partnered with states to bring:
     our largest-ever fair lending action against a multistate 
auto dealer; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Takes Action Against 
Multistate Auto Dealer Napleton for Sneaking Illegal Junk Fees onto 
Bills and Discriminating Against Black Consumers (Apr. 1, 2022), 
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/04/ftc-takes-action-against-multistate-auto-dealer-napleton-sneaking-illegal-junk-fees-bills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     our first action under the Military Lending Act; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC and 18 States Sue to 
Stop Harris Jewelry from Cheating Military Families with Illegal 
Financing and Sales Tactics (July 20, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/ftc-18-states-sue-stop-harris-jewelry-cheating-military-families-illegal-financing-sales-tactics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a major action against Google for airing deceptive ads; 
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC, States Sue Google and 
iHeartMedia for Deceptive Ads Promoting the Pixel 4 Smartphone (Nov. 
28, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/11/ftc-states-sue-google-iheartmedia-deceptive-ads-promoting-pixel-4-smartphone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     an action against pesticide giants who used illegal pay-
to-block schemes to inflate farmers' costs; \6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC and State Partners Sue 
Pesticide Giants Syngenta and Corteva for Using Illegal Pay-to-Block 
Scheme to Inflate Prices for Farmers (Sept. 29, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/09/ftc-state-partners-sue-pesticide-giants-syngenta-corteva-using-illegal-pay-block-scheme-inflate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     our first-ever lawsuit with California's Division of 
Financial Protection and Innovation to shut down a mortgage relief 
operation that preyed on struggling homeowners.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, Federal Trade Commission, 
California Take Action To Shut Down Mortgage Relief Operation that 
Preyed on Struggling Homeowners (Sept. 19, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/09/federal-trade-commission-california-take-action-shut-down-mortgage-relief-operation-preyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to filing these joint lawsuits, the FTC has supported 
states against efforts to undermine their consumer protection 
authorities. For example, we recently filed an amicus brief refuting 
Google's argument that all state-law claims involving children's online 
privacy are nullified because they are ``inconsistent'' with the 
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a federal privacy 
law.\8\ Last year we filed an amicus brief explaining that companies 
cannot use the FTC's Franchise Rule to circumvent state-level labor 
protections.\9\ We have also supported efforts to strengthen state-
level consumer protections. For example, FTC staff recently testified 
before a California State Senate committee in support of legislation 
that would expressly grant people a right to repair several types of 
consumer products.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Files Brief in Jones 
v. Google in Support of Appeals Court Ruling that COPPA Does Not 
Preempt Plaintiffs' State Privacy Claims (May 22, 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-files-brief-jones-v-google-support-appeals-court-ruling-coppa-does-not-preempt-plaintiffs-state.
    \9\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Files Amicus Brief in 
Patel, v. 7-Eleven, Inc. (Dec. 6, 2021), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/12/ftc-files-amicus-brief-patel-v-7-eleven-inc.
    \10\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Testifies Before 
California State Senate on Right to Repair (Apr. 11, 2023), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/04/ftc-testifies-california-state-senate-right-repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many thanks to the FTC team who crafted this RFI.\11\ I look 
forward to receiving and reviewing public comments on how we can deepen 
our

[[Page 38513]]

partnership with state enforcers to protect Americans from fraudulent 
business practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In particular, I am grateful to Maricela Segura, Faye 
Barnouw, Robert Quigley, and Miles Freeman in the Western Region Los 
Angeles Office, as well as Dotan Weinman and Lois Greisman in the 
Division of Marketing Practices.

[FR Doc. 2023-12507 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P