Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy
Showing posts with label Federal Trade Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Trade Commission. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 7, 2023

FTC to Ban BetterHelp from Revealing Consumers’ Data, Including Sensitive Mental Health Information, to Facebook and Others for Targeted Advertising

Federal Trade Commission
Press Release
Originally released 2 MAR 23

The Federal Trade Commission has issued a proposed order banning online counseling service BetterHelp, Inc. from sharing consumers’ health data, including sensitive information about mental health challenges, for advertising. The proposed order also requires the company to pay $7.8 million to consumers to settle charges that it revealed consumers’ sensitive data with third parties such as Facebook and Snapchat for advertising after promising to keep such data private.

This is the first Commission action returning funds to consumers whose health data was compromised. In addition, the FTC’s proposed order will ban BetterHelp from sharing consumers’ personal information with certain third parties for re-targeting—the targeting of advertisements to consumers who previously had visited BetterHelp’s website or used its app, including those who had not signed up for the company’s counseling service. The proposed order also will limit the ways in which BetterHelp can share consumer data going forward.

"When a person struggling with mental health issues reaches out for help, they do so in a moment of vulnerability and with an expectation that professional counseling services will protect their privacy,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "Instead, BetterHelp betrayed consumers’ most personal health information for profit. Let this proposed order be a stout reminder that the FTC will prioritize defending Americans’ sensitive data from illegal exploitation."

California-based BetterHelp offers online counseling services under several names, including BetterHelp Counseling. It also markets services aimed at specific groups such as Faithful Counseling focused on Christians, Teen Counseling, which caters to teens and requires parental consent, and Pride Counseling, which is targeted to the LGBTQ community. Consumers interested in BetterHelp’s services must fill out a questionnaire that asks for sensitive mental health information—such as whether they have experienced depression or suicidal thoughts and are on any medications. They also provide their name, email address, birth date and other personal information. Consumers are then matched with a counselor and pay between $60 and $90 per week for counseling.

At several points in the signup process, BetterHelp promised consumers that it would not use or disclose their personal health data except for limited purposes, such as to provide counseling services. Despite these promises, BetterHelp used and revealed consumers’ email addresses, IP addresses, and health questionnaire information to Facebook, Snapchat, Criteo, and Pinterest for advertising purposes, according to the FTC’s complaint. 

For example, the company used consumers’ email addresses and the fact that they had previously been in therapy to instruct Facebook to identify similar consumers and target them with advertisements for BetterHelp’s counseling service, which helped the company bring in tens of thousands of new paying users and millions of dollars in revenue.

According to the complaint, BetterHelp pushed consumers to hand over their health information by repeatedly showing them privacy misrepresentations and nudging them with unavoidable prompts to sign up for its counseling service. Despite collecting such sensitive information, BetterHelp failed to maintain sufficient policies or procedures to protect it and did not obtain consumers’ affirmative express consent before disclosing their health data. BetterHelp also failed to place any limits on how third parties could use consumers’ health information—allowing Facebook and other third parties to use that information for their own internal purposes, including for research and development or to improve advertising.

Friday, December 2, 2016

New ruling finally requires homeopathic 'treatments' to obey the same labeling standards as real medicines

Lindsay Dodgson
Business Insider
Originally posted November 17, 2016

The Federal Trade Commission issued a statement this month which said that homeopathic remedies have to be held to the same standard as other products that make similar claims. In other words, American companies must now have reliable scientific evidence for health-related claims that their products can treat specific conditions and illnesses.

The article is here.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ruling is here.

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Ethical Responsibilities of Direct-to-Consumer Neuroscience Companies

By Mary Darby
blog.bioethics.gov
Published on November 5, 2014

As part of the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, President Obama asked the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) to “identify proactively a set of core ethical standards – both to guide neuroscience research and to address some of the ethical dilemmas that may be raised by the application of neuroscience research findings.”

This morning, the Bioethics Commission resumed its consideration of ethical issues related to direct-to-consumer (DTC) neuroscience, including products like dietary supplements, neurofeedback devices, and even memory games.

The entire blog post is here.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Researchers retract bogus, Dr. Oz-touted study on green coffee bean weight-loss pills

By Abby Phillip
The Washington Post
Originally published October 22, 2014

Researchers have retracted a bogus study that was used by a company to validate weight-loss claims for green coffee bean pills, one of several questionable supplements being scrutinized by federal regulators.

The study, which was conducted in India but written by researchers from the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania, initially claimed that people who used the supplement lost 16 percent of their body fat (about about 18 pounds each) with or without diet and exercise.

The entire story is here.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

Path ordered to pay $800,000 to settle FTC privacy charges

By Shawn Knight
Techspot
Originally published February 1, 2013

Social networking startup Path has been ordered to pay an $800,000 fine to the Federal Trade Commission in addition to other measures to settle a controversial privacy issue. The service was accused of using deceitful tactics to collect personal information from members’ mobile device address books and storing it locally on their servers – even from children.

The FTC levied the fine against Path for collecting personal information from children without parental consent. Path allegedly collected information from around 3,000 kids under the age of 13, a move that violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection act.

The entire article is here.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Supreme Court slates generic drug 'pay-for-delay' case


By Joe Carlson
ModernHealthcare.com
Posted: December 8, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a "pay-for-delay" case that has the Federal Trade Commission accusing generic drugmakers of violating competition laws by agreeing to accept $42 million in annual payments in exchange for not selling generic versions of a more-expensive brand-name testosterone gel.

The FTC says (PDF) the companies—lead respondent Watson Pharmaceuticals, along with Paddock Laboratories, Par Pharmaceutical Cos. and Abbott Laboratories subsidiary Solvay Pharmaceuticals—conspired illegally to keep cheaper drugs off the market, to the detriment of consumers of the brand-name drug.

The companies, meanwhile, say their actions were legal and immune from FTC scrutiny (PDF). However, they did not oppose a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, because they said differing interpretations of federal law had led to split legal reasoning in various U.S. circuits on a controversy of national significance.

The entire story is here.

Monday, August 27, 2012

FTC decision jeopardizes authority of medical boards, doctors say

By Alicia Gallegos
amednews.com
Originally published August 20, 2012

Physicians are urging a U.S. appeals court to overturn a Federal Trade Commission ruling that doctors say strips medical boards of their right to regulate medicine.

The appeal comes after a North Carolina dental board was found to have violated federal antitrust regulations by attempting to stop nondentists from operating teeth-whitening centers. The FTC said the board is not exempt from antitrust scrutiny because its members are private professionals who compete with others in the marketplace.

If the FTC decision stands, the ruling would significantly imperil state regulation of medicine and put the public’s health at risk, doctors said.

“It would be disruptive to the proper regulation of medicine nationwide,” said Stephen Keene, general counsel for the North Carolina Medical Society. “The notion of having government agency bureaucrats regulate a learned profession is not good for the public. There would be no meaningful oversight of practitioners to deliver safe medicine.”

The entire story is here.