But many in Washington view the agency as a watchdog that too rarely bites. In more than 40 interviews, former and current F.T.C. officials, lawmakers, Capitol Hill staff members, and consumer advocates said that as evidence of abuses has piled up against tech companies, the F.T.C. has been too cautious.
Now, as the Trump administration and Congress debate whether to expand the agency and its authority over privacy violations, the Facebook
inquiry looms as a referendum on the F.T.C.’s future. “They have been asleep at the switch,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut Democrat and ranking member of the subcommittee charged with overseeing the agency. “It’s a lack of will even more than paucity of resources.” Even if the agency does not penalize Facebook over the Cambridge incident — and some former F.T.C. officials disagree with Mr. Kohm’s reasoning — the commission could punish the company for other offenses. Former officials say they’ve been told that its inquiry has expanded to include recent security and privacy breaches as well as Facebook’s secretive data-sharing deals with Amazon, Netflix and other companies.
Facebook declined to comment on the inquiry.
The agency — overseen by five commissioners, three of them typically from the president’s party — is habitually tight-lipped. Joseph J. Simons, the chairman, declined to comment on the Kohm memo.
“If the F.T.C. had reached a conclusion that there was no case, we would have announced it,” Mr. Simons said in a statement. “Our investigation continues and when it is finished, you can be sure that the result of that investigation will be made public.”The agency’s defenders said it had taken significant action against tech companies
in recent years. Consumer advocacy groups, they said, sometimes want the F.T.C. to take on cases that its relatively narrow powers will not permit.
“The act creating the F.T.C. was not designed with privacy in mind,” said Jessica L. Rich, a consumer protection expert who formerly ledthe F.T.C.’s consumer bureau. “That they’ve been able to bring hundreds of privacy and data security cases is actually quite a feat, not only given the limitations on their authority but the challenges companies
have mounted, especially recently".
A cautionary tale
As the federal government’s main consumer protection and antitrust authority, the F.T.C. has pursued carmakers, drug companies, illegal robo-callers and bloggers who fail to disclose corporate sponsors. But it is hampered by its relatively small size — about 1,100 employees, roughly a quarter the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission — and broad mandate. Guarding consumer privacy online, just one part of its mission, can raise complex technical issues.
The agency’s enforcement arm, led by Mr. Kohm, doesn’t have its own tech experts, instead borrowing them from other agency units. The job of chief technologist, an adviser to the F.T.C. chairman, has been vacant since April. And its lawyers are outnumbered by the armies of attorneys employed by tech giants. “They have considerably less staff than they had in the 1980s, and more responsibility,” said Justin Brookman, a former F.T.C. official under the Obama administration who now works at the Consumers Union.
F.T.C. officials said privacy and data security cases had gotten more attention than any others over the last decade.
Still, all five commissioners agreed at the November Senate hearing that the agency needed more money and greater regulatory authority to keep up with big tech. Critics said a greater problem was cultural. The F.T.C. is haunted, for example, by a clash with Congress in the 1980s over an attempt by the agency to ban television ads for junk food directed at children, known as “KidVid.” Lawmakers pulled funding and severely weakened the F.T.C.’s power to issue new regulations. Even today, “in just about every meeting I have at the F.T.C., staff mention KidVid,” said Josh Golin, the executive director of Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, which has filed complaints against YouTube and Facebook.
Fears that Congress could again cripple the F.T.C. have made some career lawyers reluctant to take on politically sensitive cases, according to current and former employees, speaking about their experiences during the Trump and Obama administrations. “They think of themselves as deal-makers, not cops,” said Matt Stoller, policy director at the Open Markets Institute, who has called for big tech platforms to be broken up and regulated. “They have an institutional culture of deference.”
That has hobbled the agency’s approach to tech giants, leading to inadequate responses to privacy violations or efforts to squeeze out emerging competitors, according to Gene Kimmelman, a former senior antitrust official at the Justice Department and president of the consumer group Public Knowledge. The F.T.C. needs legislation to allow it to set new rules for the era of big tech, he argued.
©2019 The New York Times News Service