Meta Platforms has challenged the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposal to alter a privacy settlement from 2020, stating that such changes would require federal court approval. During a hearing on Tuesday, an attorney representing Meta asserted that the consumer protection agency lacks the authority to amend the agreement without the company’s agreement.
Meta’s lawyer, James Rouhandeh, highlighted that past revisions to settlements were primarily procedural in nature. He contended that significant modifications would exceed the commission’s powers, emphasizing that “the commission doesn’t have that authority to do that on its own.”
Last year, the FTC accused Meta of breaching the terms of the 2020 settlement, prompting the agency to initiate new proceedings aimed at prohibiting the company’s use of facial recognition technology and the monetization of children’s data. Meta has been bound by a privacy consent decree with the FTC since 2012 and had agreed to pay $5 billion (approximately Rs. 42,202 crore) along with implementing stricter privacy regulations under the 2020 agreement.
The timeline for a decision from the agency remains uncertain. With the upcoming election and the potential for Donald Trump’s administration to take office, there is speculation that the FTC may abandon its efforts to modify Meta’s settlement if a Republican majority is established in the agency next year.
In response to the proceedings, Meta has launched multiple legal challenges in both federal court and before the FTC. The focus of Tuesday’s session was to determine whether the agency could legally alter its existing orders.
Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, one of the two Republican members who may ascend to a leadership position in the next administration, expressed concern over the approach taken by the agency. He questioned the decision to initiate an internal modification of the order rather than pursuing a contempt charge in federal court against Meta. “It seems foreign to me to say when someone violates the order, rewrite the order,” Ferguson remarked, cautioning that this could place a company in a perpetual state of liability.
In rebuttal, FTC lawyer Reenah Kim argued that Congress has granted the agency limited powers to amend orders, and that such authority has traditionally been exercised with caution.
© 2024 Bloomberg LP
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
