DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Ruling delayed in FTC v. Wyndham (updated)

Posted on January 13, 2014 by Dissent

Over on phiprivacy.net, I had noted that Commissioner Julie Brill had recused herself from the LabMD case after they moved to disqualify her over public statements she made.

Somehow I missed a development in the Wyndam case, even though Law360 had first reported it on January 2.  Now Stacey Brandenburg of Zwillgen reports that

Judge Salas agreed to delay her ruling to consider the import of comments that Commissioner Joshua D. Wright made during a Congressional subcommittee hearing in December 2013.  Although the hearing had focused on the FTC’s competition-related activity, subcommittee chairman Rep. Lee Terry and Commissioner Wright noted potential vagueness in the “unfairness” prong of the FTC’s Section 5 authority.  As the FTC is currently litigating this issue in Wyndham, the hotel company offered the Commissioner’s statements in support of their case.  Judge Salas ordered the parties to submit a joint letter-brief on this issue by January 21, 2014.

I went back through the archive of the December 3 hearing. In his opening statement – which differed from his submitted written testimony –  Commissioner Wright discusses the modernization of the FTC and its review of its tools, including the application of the unfair methods prong as a standalone tool.  In that context, he refers to the gap between the promise of the FTC Act and its application by the FTC, which he attributes, in part, to the “persistent absence of any meaningful guidance articulating what constitutes an unfair method of competition.” And there’s more. I can see why Wyndham would want the court to consider his statement. Commissioner Wright’s opening statement begins at 32:28 on the tape.

Thanks to Woodrow Hartzog who alerted me to this development.

Update: I’ve uploaded Wyndham’s submission of December 13 citing the hearing as a supplemental authority, here (exhibits not uploaded). I’ve also uploaded the FTC’s response of December 19, arguing selective excerpting by Wyndham and lack of relevance, here.  The court subsequently issued an order on December 27,  “that the parties shall submit a supplemental, joint letter-brief to the Court of no more than 10 pages (5 pages each) by January 21, 2014, as discussed during the December 23, 2013 conference; that, for administrative purposes, the two motions, (D.E. Nos. 91 & 92), will be held in abeyance pending the Court’s review of the parties’ supplemental letter-brief.”

 

Related posts:

  • Transcript of Oral Argument in FTC v. Wyndham
  • Wyndham: A Case Study in Cybersecurity: How the cost of a relatively small breach can rival that of a major hack attack
  • FTC Takes Action Against Drizly and its CEO James Cory Rellas for Security Failures that Exposed Data of 2.5 Million Consumers
  • FTC Fires Back In Lawsuit Against Wyndham
Category: Commentaries and Analyses

Post navigation

← Microsoft No idea What to Do after breached by Syrian Electronic Army
What Happens in the Hospital Doesn’t Stay in the Hospital →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Horizon Healthcare RCM discloses ransomware attack in December
  • Disgruntled IT Worker Jailed for Cyber Attack, Huddersfield
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.