We are going right into the next panel which is the view from the ftc, overseeing internet practices in the digital age. The panel looks to be incisive from a policy perspective and keeping in mind our cspan audience, we promise a Panel Discussion that is tv and Family Friendly as always. You have biographies with you that are printed. The brochure is also available at our website, in the interests of time ill keep the bios short. Seated with me at the podium here i have ted lipsky, acting director bureau of competition at the federal trade commission which addresses mergers and premerger clearance and anticome ppetitive practices. Ted is recognized in the field of anticompetition law and policy. With an extensive background as well in private practice and historic service at the antitrust division of the department of justice. I also have here on the panel, tom paul who is acting director of the bureau of Consumer Protection in the federal trade commission, the bureau of Consumer Protection involves matters such as advertising and marketing practices, privacy as well as enforcement actions. And then finally we also have with us today daniel lyons, associate professor of law at Boston College law school where he specializes in matters such as property, telecommunications and Administrative Law. Professor lyons is a member of Free State Foundations board of academic advisers. So, as we proceed along here were going to have our distinguished ftc officials speak for 10 or 12 minutes, after that time professor lyons will be offering some responsive comments or any other life changing insights that he wants to impart to us today. So i will begin by turning things over to ted lipsky, who is acting director at the bureau of competition at the ftc. Thanks to the sff for this opportunity to speak. I should probably begin saying that my colleague tom pahl is really the star of this show for a variety of simple reasons. The ftc is by far the most experienced and Expert Agency anywhere on the planet in terms of Consumer Protection, which is toms responsibility. Thanks for the plug. The bureau of competition of the federal trade Commission Even though we have can considerable authority and also regard ourselves as great experts, we have a truly unbelievable recent win loss record in antitrust litigation, and we are a fearsome fighting machine, but we share antitrust responsibility with a number of institutions within the american legal system. Of course, the antitrust division of the department of justice would be the first to identify in that respect. We have concurrent jurisdiction in most respects in terms of our antitrust jurisdiction, and of course the antitrust division also enforces laws against exclusionary monopoly conduct, cartels, we share merger review responsibility with the division as well. But such was the affection of the Benjamin Harrison administration for antitrust remedies, we also have what is called a private right of action also referred to as the private attorney general provision of the antitrust laws. Any one injured in his business or property is entitled to bring a lawsuit in a Federal District court in the United States to recover damages for any injuries suffered on account of an antitrust violation which are automatically trebled and the plaintiff gets his Attorney Fees paid by losing defendant. If the plaintiff loses he doesnt have to pay the defendants attorneys, so its a oneway fee shifting provision, but always acted as a significant subsidy for antitrust litigation in the United States and it is therefore no accident that the section of antitrust laws Spring Meeting is attended by thousands of antitrust lawyers from all over the United States and this is a model thats been repeated around the world. Antitrust litigation is one of the most prolific species of litigation in the federal courts, and theres also antitrust litigation on behalf of state attorneys general under what we call the baby sherman acts and the baby ftc acts, the state laws that are analogous to the federal laws. So its made american commerce kind of a free fire zone for antitrust litigation. And i havent even mentioned class action procedures, and a number of other broader features of the civil litigation picture in the United States that also make it very easy for an injured party to bring an antitrust lawsuit. This would include notice pleading, extensive pretrial discovery, and on and on. Thats why as i say, used to say to my younger colleagues, looking to join a law firm, i say if you are successful as, in the and the ti trust defense bar, you can look forward to a pretty good life, but youll always fly commercial. If you want to own your own gulf stream you want to be on the side of the plaintiffs bar. So antitrust the reason i am going through all of these tremendous features of the u. S. Legal system that make it so easy for the antitrust laws to be enforced, is that this is what awaits those who would engage in anticompetitive conduct as an isp or a Telecommunications Carrier out beyond whatever security is provided by a regulatory breakwater. We do have some doctrines that protect regulated parties from antitrust suits, but the burden for establishing those immunities is rather severe, if you dont have an explicit antitrust immunity under a statute and i think there are riddle or no areas for explicit antitrust immunity under the federal communications act, you have to find a plain repugnancy between the regulatory system and the antitrust laws before any of the other implied immunities can be invoked. So, the antitrust is a powerful system, it is used to condemning and bringing very severe remedies to those who engage in anticompetitive activity. To the extent that this debate how to treat the net to make it neutral or whatever, are based on the idea that a lessening of the regulatory burdening on the fcc side would lead to a situation in which anticompetitive conduct was free to occur without fear of further consequences, that is i think demonstrably unrealistic. The ftc is waiting, we brought a case for anticompetitive exclusionary conduct, a case called mcwayne, the department of justice has brought cases for exclusionary conduct. And of course the dense supply case was followed on by extensive private litigation. So thats why there are a lot of antitrust lawyers, thats why most Significant Companies are careful to have actively administered programs of compliance policies for antitrust law and why the pub need have no fear that anticompetitive practices occurring in the free market of internet offices are going to be detected and punished. So that is in a sense thats kind of the wheel, in my wheelhouse, and what does antitrust enforcement have to do with the provision gsion of int services and the things that are under consideration now at the fcc . Now, im going to get slightly editorial, and of course in everything i say im not speaking for the commission, im speaking for myself. But this is you need to keep that especially in mind for the next comment which is, i was very interested by the remarks of chief Justice Cohen on the morning panel, who observed that he didnt understand why we would be seriously discussing the application to an industry as dynamic and growing and technologic complex and internet services, why should we even be considering applying a form of regulation that goes back to the 1930s. I didnt think that he was intending that remark as a compliment to title 2 regulation. But to put the origins of title 2 back in the 1930s is in a sense a bit of flattery. This form of regulation was actually modeled on the first economic regulations that were entrusted to an administrative agency. This is going back to Grover Cleveland. And not the modern state of the art Grover Cleveland of his second term after the Benjamin Harrison term, but this is during his first term during which the Regulatory Authority was given to the Commerce Commission, and the very first economic regulatory term of the u. S. This was his first term during which this regulatory was given to the Commerce Commission. The first in the u. S. And it is a fact that the fcc title 2 regulation is a direct descendant of that form of regulation. The interstate commerce act and the interstate Commerce Commission has been the model for all of the economic regulatory agencies at the federal level in our history. Am the Civil Aviation authority which became the Civil Aeronautics Board, the federal maritime commission, the federal Power Commission which became the federal Energy Regulatory commission and the fcc which actually if you draw the line back from title two regulation, i believe youll ultimately get back to the interstate Commerce Commission which was the original repository of the electromagnetic spectrum enacted in the 1920s in the u. S. So im a cheerleader for the light regulation approach. And i endorse the philosophy that the temptation to look at the problems of a dynamic and quickly developing and to immediately apply the structure of economic regulation as a way of anticipating and making sure that future problems dont arise, has largely been a fail. The interstate Commerce Commission no longer exists. It was eliminated in 1996. And the Civil Aeronautics Board no longer exists. It was eliminated about ten years earlier, and it is in many respects a dubious and highly questionable, and in Many Industries a failed system of regulation, and so, im a light touch regulator, and im a fan of antitrust as the way of ensuring that dynamic free competition gives the consumer what he wants and in that endeavor we also need Consumer Protection and so i am going to turn the mic over to tom. Good afternoon. Thank you for asking me to come here today and discuss the ftcs future Consumer Protection role with regard to online data and security privacy. I have to give a disclaimer like tom that the views i am expressing here are my own and not necessarily represent the views of the commission or any individual commissioner. One generation has transformed our lives. When i was a kid i used to use encyclopedias to look up information and a paper map to find my way. I u shared a landline with my parents. I could only talk to one friend at a time on the telephone. My parents used travel agents to Book Vacation plans, and endured waits to be on hold buy concert tickets and hired people to perform Home Improvement tasks we didnt know how to perform ourselves. Today my teen son cannot imagine those circumstances. He can look up historical trivia, Current Events and song lyrics at the touch of a button anywhere and any time. Through group chats and social media can communicate with dozens of friends at the same time. He can buy concert tickets and Group Discounts through stub hub. And find discounts at the same time. He can look at youtube videos to learn how to mow the lawn, cook dinner or fix bathroom tile. Being a teen of course he doesnt do any of those chores but the knowhow is throughout on line if he were so inclined. In the 2010s technology has moved faster with the rise of the internet of things. Almost any pros you can imagine is being made right now as a connected or smart version. Refrigerators to Home Security systems, baby monitors, light bulbs, clothing. Yes, smart clothing. Last month amazon announced a hands free voice controlled cam that records your look and gives you fashion advice. Not if you are if thats a good thing or not but its out there for those who would like to have some thoughts on fashion. These internet developments transformed and will continue to transform our lives. In large part a free market has transformed the market while o protecting consumers from harm. My boss has described her approach to governing as regulatory humility. That it is what we are trying to implement. What this means we must recognize the errant limitations and ability to predict the future. These limits counsel abdication, not abdication but prudence in the use of governmental power. Let me discuss why i think the ftc applying such approach to online Data Security and privacy would serve consumers well. It helps to start by going back to the future. Specifically turning the clock back to 2014. The ftc was the federal governments leading security agency, the agents active law enforcer. Bringing over 500 Data Security cases prior to that time. And we challenged those who were violating the practices under the ftc act, and we challenged those who violated other laws such as the childrens Online Privacy protection act, and the fair credit reporting act, and the privacy and Data Security acts. The ftcs privacy and Data Security cases involve off line and on line information in companies charge and small, including social networks, ad networks, on time on line retailers, mobile apps and mobile hand sets. In 2009 the ftc shut down a rogue isp. They participated in spam, and harmful content. Other examples are verizon for issues related to the security of its routers. The ftc supplemented activity with some business guidance and policy research and development. For example, in 2014 the ftc had a series to examine the privacy and security of new technologies involving mobile device tracking, alternative scoring p products, and connected health and fitness devices. The ftc staff hosted a series of big data and mobile security in 2013 as well. And Commission Staff throughout this period of time released countless consumer and business educational materials to provide tips for consumers and businesses on how to avoid harm. In 2015, the ftcs rule changed somewhat. The fcc issued its open Internet Order to accommodate Broadband Service. Under the long time views of both the ftc and the fcc including articulated in a brief filed yesterday in a case of the ninth circuit, the fcc has view ed the ftcs jurisdiction with regard to the common carriers. The fccs open Internet Order therefore effectively prevented from engaging in enforcement and other Consumer Protection activities. On line Data Security and privacy. In 2016 as many of you know the fccle followed the open ordering with the issuance of the rules, limiting Data Security and privacy practice s in doing so the fcc chose a more rigid approach to broadband ka to Security Issues than the fccs databased approach. The fcc rules set data for broadband providers separate and apart from the standards applicable to others in the on line space. Eschewing the more holistic ap under the leadership of chairman proech. Pai the fcc has a different tact. In march the fcc stayed its privacy and Data Security broad band rules after which congress use the Congress Review act to invalidate them and preclude the fcc from adopting similar rules in the future. Earlier this month, the fcc also issued a notice of proposed rulemake i rulemaking to which they will no longer have broadband as a common carrier service, and as we have is heard today and all of you know, this proceeding is ongoing, but if the fcc were to make the proposed change final, the ftc would likely then be able to use its enforcement rulemakeing and other activities to once again address broadband Data Security and privacy. Id like to talk about what that would look like if it were to come to pass. The fcc is ready and able to protect broadband subscribers. The ftc continues to be the federal governments leading agency on security and privacy iss issues. We have a wealth of expertise and experience to which we would bring to bear on online Data Security and privacy laws. We would apply Data Security and privacy standards to all companies that compete in the online space regardless if the companies provide Broadband Service and data lytics or services, and the approach would ensure that the applies to comprehensive and procompetitive. At the heart of the ftcs approach to online day and the security is tough and measured law enforcement, and focused on combatting unfair practices and deceptive practices of the ftc act. At the heart of the approach to online Data Security and privacy is tough but measured law enforcement. Focused on combatting unfair or deceptive acts. We hold companies responsible for privacy promises they make to consumers. As aptly illustrated by the track