“It’s specifically designed to help developers understand what federal laws and regulations might apply to their apps,” MAW reports.

The FTC offering was created in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“The guidance tool asks developers a series of high-level questions about the nature of their app, including about its function, the data it collects, and the services it provides to users,” according to an earlier FTC announcement. “Based on the developer’s answers to those questions, the guidance will point the app developer toward detailed information about certain federal laws that might apply to the app.”

Some applicable laws include the FTC Act, the FTC’s Health Breach Notification Rule, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act (FD&C Act).

The post A Healthy New Tool for Mobile App Developers Launched by the FTC appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.

The following is a guest contributed post from Todd Bryant, the president and founder of Bryant Surety Bonds.

Recently, the telemarketing industry has been falling under tighter regulations. Just last year the FCC gave robocall-blocking technology the green light in an effort to protect consumers from unwanted phone calls.

This year, it’s the FTC that has proposed new regulatory rules in the forms of amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). The majority of these amendments have been in effect since Feb. 12 2016, so it’s important for telemarketers to know them in detail. Failure to comply with them can trigger a claim against their telemarketing bond, as well as other punitive action. So what should telemarketers be careful about?

#1 Making or Accepting Remote Payment Orders

Effective June 13, telemarketers will not be allowed to receive remote payment orders, whether inbound or outbound. This is an attempt at cutting a fraudulent practice where a telemarketer can debit funds from a client’s bank account for a sum larger than the payor agreed upon. Experience shows that payments like this are then harder to reverse by the bank, leaving numerous consumers disgruntled.

Of course, many telemarketers use remote payment orders just out for convenience, but this would no longer be possible. Even if a payor agrees that you generate a payment order with their payment details and then deposit it on their behalf, you still shouldn’t do it.

#2 Requesting Cash-to-Cash Transfers

Another frequently spread practice that is getting banned by the FTC is cash-to-cash money transfers, using services such as MoneyGram or Western Union. A cash-to-cash service is one way fraudulent telemarketers can request money from one location, pick it up at another and leave with the money without offering any real service.

Another similar method being banned is that of “cash reload”, where funds are added to a prepaid card. Major cash reload providers are already using a safer alternative, called the swipe reload process. Both measures are also coming into effect June 13.

#3 Oral Authorization of Charges

Amendments to the rule will require a tape recording with the buyer’s express verifiable authorization to be charged for a particular telemarketing transaction. This recording should clearly state and describe the goods, services or charitable contribution the payor is agreeing to. While a recording of the oral authorization of charges is not something new, the description of the purchase must now always be in it.

#4 Collecting Advance Fees on Non-Telemarketing Transactions

A ban is introduced on collection advance fees for loss recovery services on telemarketing transactions, but now the language of the TSR has been amended to include non-telemarketing ones as well. The purpose of this is mostly to include online scams under the ban.

#5 Calling People from the DNC Registry

There are a few exceptions introduced to when a telemarketer can call a person who is in the Do Not Call (DNC) registry. One of them is if you can prove you have an existing business relationship with the person you are calling. The second one is if you obtain an express written consent. Keep in mind: telemarketers are prohibited from calling a person at their workplace in an effort to circumvent the DNC. It’s also illegal to split the cost of accessing the DNC registry with another seller.

#6 Interfering With People’s Right to Be on the Entity-Specific Do Not Call List

There has been numerous attempts to prevent telemarketers from persuading people in any way to opt out of the DNC registry. The TSR amendment explicitly states a few examples to make the rule more clear:

• harassing consumers who make such a request,
• hanging up on them
• failing to honor the request
• requiring the consumer to listen to a sales pitch before accepting the request
• assessing a charge or fee for honoring the request
• requiring the consumer to call a different number to submit the request
• requiring the consumer to identify the seller or charitable organization making the call or on whose behalf the call is made.

As you can see, the amendments to the TSR introduce some important changes to the telemarketing industry. Make sure you read the full text of the rule, so you can stay out of surety bond claims and other legal issues.

What do you think of the amended rules? How are you going to protect your business, so you are not in violation of them? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

The post New FTC Rules: How Are Telemarketers Affected? appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.

As a lifestyle blogger, 28-year-old Marianne Hewitt has an impressive 396,000 followers on Instagram. Not only that, Fortune reports that her follower engagement rate is high. It is for this reason, combined with her ability to take editorial-like images, that Marianne has been comped about 12 free luxury vacations from around the world in the last year.

Marianne is not the only individual who resorts court for free vacations, but one of many in an effort to reach a larger customer base.

While most hotels and resorts will not require specific photos to be taken, they will usually request at least one image per day. Naturally, hotels sincerely want their comped guest to share their experience through their own eyes, but they will often provide additional amenities to make a flattering shot easier to achieve—such as flowers in the room, champagne, and artfully placed food.

While the FTC has created “Dot Com Disclosure” guidelines for social media personalities who receive free gifts or payments from companies—how this is to be enforced is not clearly spelled out. Some simply add a sponsored hashtag such as “#spon” to cover their bases.

The post Could Instagram Be Your Key To A Free Vacation? appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.

The Federal Trade Commission filed suit, alleging that since 2011, Google “made it too easy for children to use Android phones to buy items ranging from 99 cents to $200 in kids-oriented games without a parent’s permission.”

According to a story on the lawsuit at the Washington Post, “The settlement is the latest in the FTC’s three-year investigation into so-called “in-app purchases” on devices running software by Apple, Amazon and Google. The enforcement agency has said the purchases are deceptive and particularly harmful for children. Apple agreed to a $32.5 million settlement last January. Amazon in July said it would fight similar charges brought by the FTC.”

Apparently, safeguards were few.

“The FTC has alleged that the major technology companies did not properly disclose to parents and children the ability to purchase items within games and other children’s-oriented apps. Parents have filed civil lawsuits against the companies, too, criticizing the firms and apps developers for what they describe as predatory practices that target children to buy $99 gold coins and other items within games,” according to the Washington Post. “Children, they say, were at times able to buy those items — later billed to parents — without any safeguards such as apps store passwords. Apple has changed its practices, and Amazon has offered parental safety tools to prevent unwanted purchases.”

“For millions of American families, smartphones and tablets have become a part of their daily lives,” FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a release. “As more Americans embrace mobile technology, it’s vital to remind companies that time-tested consumer protections still apply, including that consumers should not be charged for purchases they did not authorize.”

Google has agreed to full refunds for unauthorized in-app charges incurred by children and to start getting “express, informed consent” from consumers for in-app purchases. All Android customers who have made in-app charges will soon hear from Google about how they can get refunds, said the company.

The post Google's Gotta Pay, Says FTC Kids Apps Lawsuit appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.

And the same goes for retailers with mobile apps.

A new staff report issued by the Federal Trade Commission finds that many mobile apps for use in shopping “do not provide consumers with important information – such as how the apps manage payment-related disputes or handle consumer data – prior to download.”

The report, “What’s the Deal? An FTC Study on Mobile Shopping Apps,” explored some of the most popular apps used by consumers to comparison shop, collect and redeem deals and discounts, and pay in-store with their mobile devices.

In this new report, FTC staff surveyed a total of 121 different shopping apps across the Google Play and Apple App Stores. The survey included 47 price comparison apps, which let consumers compare prices on a particular item in real-time; 50 “deal” apps, which provide consumers with coupons or discounts; and 45 in-store purchase apps, which enable consumers to use their phones to pay for goods they purchase in physical stores. Several apps were found in more than one category.

“As mobile apps become more central to the shopping experience, it’s important that consumers have meaningful information about how those apps work before they download them,” said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a news release. “Consumers should not be left in the dark about their potential liability for erroneous or unauthorized charges or about the way shopping apps handle their data.”

The report makes a number of recommendations to companies that provide mobile shopping apps to consumers. To review them, check out the report here.

The post FTC Raises Red Flags on Mobile Apps for Shopping appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.

As it turns out, Amazon may have been processing millions of dollars in unauthorized in-app purchases from mobile apps that took advantage of young audiences.

According to a Federal Trade Commission complaint filed in federal court and obtained in a new report from NativeMobile, Amazon has allegedly “billed parents and other account holders for millions of dollars” in unauthorized in-app charges incurred by children.

Consequently, the FTC filed a lawsuit in hopes of forcing Amazon to issue refunds and change its in-app purchase policies.

“Amazon’s in-app system allowed children to incur unlimited charges on their parents’ accounts without permission,” FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez is quoted in the report. “Even Amazon’s own employees recognized the serious problem its process created. We are seeking refunds for affected parents and a court order to ensure that Amazon gets parents’ consent for in-app purchases.”

MMW will provide further updates as more insight emerges and Amazon formally responds to the allegations.

The post FTC Takes Aim at Amazon appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.

The FTC alleges that T-Mobile received anywhere from 35 to 40 percent of the total amount charged to consumers for subscriptions for content such as flirting tips, horoscope information or celebrity gossip that typically cost $9.99 per month.

T-Mobile in some cases continued to bill its customers for these services offered by scammers years after becoming aware of signs that the charges were fraudulent, a provided statement from the FTC reads.
T-Mobile is denying any wrongdoing.

“We have seen the complaint filed today by the FTC and find it to be unfounded and without merit,” says John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile USA. “In fact T-Mobile stopped billing for these Premium SMS services last year and launched a proactive program to provide full refunds for any customer that feels that they were charged for something they did not want.  T-Mobile is fighting harder than any of the carriers to change the way the wireless industry operates and we are disappointed that the FTC has chosen to file this action against the most pro-consumer company in the industry rather than the real bad actors.”

The FTC’s complaint alleges that in some cases, T-Mobile was charging consumers for services that had refund rates of up to 40 percent in a single month.

“It’s wrong for a company like T-Mobile to profit from scams against its customers when there were clear warning signs the charges it was imposing were fraudulent,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The FTC’s goal is to ensure that T-Mobile repays all its customers for these crammed charges.”

“This is about doing what is right for consumers and we put in place procedures to protect our customers from unauthorized charges,” Legere counters. “Unfortunately, not all of these third party providers acted responsibly—an issue the entire industry faced.  We believe those providers should be held accountable, and the FTC’s lawsuit seeking to hold T-Mobile responsible for their acts is not only factually and legally unfounded, but also misdirected.”

The post FTC Blasts T-Mobile Over 'Bogus' Mobile Charges appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.

Over the weekend, the director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection issued a message to Facebook. It came as a stark reminder of the social media behemoth’s obligations to protect the privacy of its users.

“In a letter to the two companies,” NativeMobile reported yesterday, “Bureau Director Jessica Rich noted that WhatsApp has made clear privacy promises to consumers, and that both companies have told consumers that after any acquisition, WhatsApp will continue its current privacy practices.”

An excerpt from the letter reads:

We want to make clear that, regardless of the acquisition, WhatsApp must continue to honor these promises to consumers. Further, if the acquisition is completed and WhatsApp fails to honor these promises, both companies could be in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act and, potentially, the FTC’s order against Facebook.

As report author Randy Dahlke notes, in 2011, Facebook settled FTC charges that it deceived consumers by failing to keep its privacy promises. Under the terms of the FTC’s order against the company, it must get consumers’ affirmative consent before making changes that override their privacy settings, among other requirements.

The letter adds that before making any material changes to how they use data already collected from WhatsApp subscribers, the companies must get affirmative consent, Dahlke explains.

The post Facebook Once Again on FTC's Radar appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.

The suit stems from an old loophole that used to allow children to make in-app purchases without the assistance or permission of parents.

As a result of the settlement, the FTC is dropping its lawsuit against Apple, which will pay a $32.5 million penalty in the form of refunds to consumers who were subjected to these erroneous in-app purchases.

“It doesn’t feel right for the FTC to sue over a case that had already been settled,” Apple CEO Tim Cook explained to Apple employees in a communication shared Wednesday. “To us, it smacked of double jeopardy. However, the consent decree the FTC proposed does not require us to do anything we weren’t already going to do, so we decided to accept it rather than take on a long and distracting legal fight.”

Cook said that Apple received 37,000 claims and reimbursements are now being processed.

The post Apple Resolves In-App Purchase Lawsuit appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.

Native ads – advertisements designed to look and read like organic newspaper and magazine content – have drawn intense scrutiny since their impressive surge began across the digital media landscape last year. Just this week, The New York Times will launch its redesigned website, which will prominently feature native ads.

“Native advertising will be a huge and continuing theme in our work,” Rich tells Adweek. “I want to make a broader push into mobile, mobile security, mobile payments, making sure we are able to bring mobile investigations, just as we are able to bring brick-and-mortar investigations.”

In 2014, native ads are projected to make a huge splash in mobile and could drive ad spend and ad revenue to new heights, benefiting advertisers, publishers, and even mobile app developers who may for the first time have an option to monetize their apps with native ads.

In December, NativeMobile reported that U.S. mobile advertising spending was on pace to reach $9.60 billion by year’s end, which is up 120.0% from $4.36 billion from 2012.

“But when you look across the advertising landscape today, there is no hotter phenomenon on the scene than native advertising,” the report reads. “And its burgeoning presence in mobile is undeniable.”

But with the FTC remaining committed to its alleged witch hunt on native advertising, will the fear of new regulations stifle the ad format’s growth until the smoke clears and greater clarity enters the market?

According to Mark Riley, an independent advertising consultant from Chicago, Illinois, the lucrative potential of native advertising is too great to keep the majority of interested parties on the sidelines for long.

“You can almost picture that scene from the original Batman,” Riley tells NativeMobile. “I can also picture the early adopters of native advertising saying the same thing: ‘Wait ’til they get a load of me.’”

“For the companies that get it right [native mobile advertising], the payday will be immense,” he adds, “both for the provider of the ads and the consumer who may finally have something to gain or something to learn from an ad on their smartphone or tablet.”

To read the full report on Adweek, click here.

The post FTC Not Relenting in Native Ad Witch Hunt appeared first on Mobile Marketing Watch.