Issues & Insights
Pixabay

What the Facebook Settlement Means for New Privacy Legislation

Does America need a new cop on the Internet beat? Or just clearer laws? The Federal Trade Commission, the de facto Federalย Technologyย Commission, just announced a $5 billion fine over Facebookโ€™s data sharing with app developers such as Cambridge Analytica. Some claim the FTCโ€™s fine was a slap on the wrist compared to Facebookโ€™s $55.8 billion in 2018 revenue. But consider more relevant comparisons:

  • Itโ€™s over 22 times greater than the FTCโ€™s previous record fine: $22.5 million against Google back in 2012.
  • Itโ€™s roughly equal to theย five largest settlementsย reached by the Consumer Financial Protection Boardย combinedย since the CFPB, Elizabeth Warrenโ€™s brainchild, launched in 2011 โ€” including a $700 million settlement just reached by the FTC and CFPB with Equifax related to a massive breach of financial records.ย 
  • The vast bulk of the CFPBโ€™s settlements involve returning money to consumers. But in Facebookโ€™s case, thereโ€™sย zeroย quantifiable consumer harm. Whatever Facebookโ€™s failings, it didnโ€™t cheat consumers out of money. The FTCโ€™s basis for the $5 billion figure is murky, at best โ€” and the money will go to the Treasury, not consumers, as with Equifax.ย 
  • If the FTC had decided to pursue the case in court, it might have gotten a lot less money โ€” and maybe none at all. And Facebook agreed to heavy regulatory conditions that the FTC couldnโ€™t have obtained in court.

In short, the FTC is being as aggressive as possible on privacy. The Commissionโ€™s approach to Facebook is consistent with how itโ€™s handled issues like privacy and data security for more than 20 years โ€” under century-old authority that is among the broadest and most amorphous of any federal regulator.ย 

Because that power is so murky, the FTC canโ€™t impose penalties when it alleges a practice is unfair or deceptive (though it can get money to compensate cheated or injured consumers, as with Equifax). But once a company has settled one case and agreed to a 20-year โ€œconsent decreeโ€ โ€” as virtually the entire tech sector has โ€” the FTC may impose literally trillions of dollars in fines. Combine that with the fact that companies essentially always settle with the FTC and it becomes clear just how arbitrary the FTCโ€™s power is.

Ironically, this power actually helps to entrench the dominance of Facebook and the other tech giants. Facebook is better positioned than any of its competitors to walk a compliance tightrope where even small mistakes can result in billions in fines. Even more burdensome is the compliance program demanded by the FTC. In effect, Facebookโ€™s $5 billion settlement serves as a moat around the platformโ€™s business model that anyone trying to challenge Facebook will have to cross. 

What lessons should Congress draw for federal privacy legislation?

First, while the FTC could certainly use more staff, it remains the right cop on the privacy beat.ย 

Second, unless Congressional reforms the FTCโ€™s penalty authority, the Commissionโ€™s enforcement approach will be inconsistent. Whether the FTC can get privacy penalties at all shouldnโ€™t depend on whether it can shoehorn a new case into a prior consent decree โ€” but, rather, on willfulness: did the company know it was doing something illegal? A new privacy law would allow penalties in some cases where the FTC couldnโ€™t impose them today. Yet without clear limits on total fines, the growing โ€œTechlashโ€ hysteria will continue to balloon fines ever larger. Yes, todayโ€™s tech giants will suffer, but the moats protecting them from competition will become impossibly deep โ€” and enforcement will always be arbitrary and prone to abuse.ย 

On both scores, the CFPBโ€™s penalty authority โ€” written by Democrats โ€” offers a more rational and predictable model. So does the privacy legislation proposed by President Obama in 2015. Such legislation would allow the FTC to come down hard when warranted, but also ensure that smaller companies donโ€™t face unmanageable risks. Thatโ€™s the best way to protect consumers. 

Berin Szoka is President of TechFreedom and Ian Adams is Vice President of Policy at TechFreedom, a post-partisan think tank focused on embracing technological change and pushing back against those who fear it and would control it.


Note to Readers: Issues & Insights was launched by the seasoned journalists behind the legendary IBD Editorials page. Our mission is to use our decades of experience to provide timely, fact-based, reported and deeply informed analysis on the news of the day.

We’re doing this on a voluntary basis because we think our approach to commentary is sorely lacking on the internet. If you like what you see, feel free to click the Tip Jar over on the right sidebar. And be sure to tell your friends!

About Issues & Insights

Issues & Insights is run by seasoned journalists who were behind the Pulitzer Prize-winning IBD Editorials page (before it was summarily shut down). Our goal then and now is to bring our decades of combined journalism experience to help readers understand the top issues of the day. I&I is a completely independent operation, beholden to none, but committed to providing cogent, rational, data-driven, fact-based commentary that the nation so desperately needs.ย 

Discover more from Issues & Insights

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading