Computerworld: Congressman calls for halt to FTC breach probe amid claims of ‘corporate blackmail’

Read the full story: Computerworld

Government watchdog Cause of Action, (CoA) which has taken up LabMD’s defense, welcomed the House Oversight Committee investigation demand for an investigation into its relationship with Tiversa.

 

“The House Oversight Committee’s investigation should send a message to federal agencies, the President and the courts that the arbitrary abuse of administrative power will not go unchecked,” Cause of Action’s executive director Dan Epstein said. “This is why it has investigated and litigated for LabMD to stop the FTC from arbitrarily expanding and abusing its power by victimizing an entrepreneur who did nothing wrong.”

 

The CoA contends that there is no evidence that the FTC has taken steps to independently authenticate Tiversa’s claims.

Cause of Action: Time for Department of Labor to Stop Hiding Behind Regulations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                 CONTACT: Adam Temple

June 3, 2014                                                          temple@jdafrontline.com

 

Cause of Action: Time for Department of Labor to Stop Hiding Behind Regulations

WASHINGTON – In court filings today on behalf of Rhea Lana, Inc., a national children’s consignment event company, Cause of Action opposed the Department of Labor’s (DOL) motion to dismiss its lawsuit seeking to free the company from DOL’s attempts to ban consignor-volunteers at for-profit enterprises.

Rhea Lana, Inc. hosts consignment sales in numerous cities that allow parents and other family members to sell children’s clothing and items to other families. Consignors keep approximately 70 percent of the profits generated from their items, and Rhea Lana, Inc. keeps 30 percent.  The small family business has grown to include sales in 23 states across the country.  Consignors assist at sales events in exchange for the option to shop early. Given the tough economic reality facing many parents with young children, shopping for affordable, quality children’s items at Rhea Lana, Inc. events has led to overwhelmingly positive experiences for many families.

In January 2013, DOL commenced an investigation and concluded, despite receiving no apparent complaints from parents and other participants, that consignment event consigner-volunteers were “employees” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the DOL acted arbitrarily and outside the law when it classified Rhea Lana’s consignor-volunteers as employees under the FLSA. Cause of Action seeks a declaration that Rhea Lana, Inc. consignor-volunteers are not employees under the FLSA and an injunction prohibiting the DOL from bringing action against the company.

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action is a non-profit, nonpartisan government accountability organization that fights to protect economic opportunity when federal regulations, spending and cronyism threaten it.  For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.

About Rhea Lana, Inc.:

Founded by Rhea Lana Riner in her living room 16 years ago and headquartered in Conway, Arkansas, Rhea Lana’s Children’s Consignment hosts semi-annual sales.  With Arkansas roots, Rhea Lana’s Franchise Systems, Inc. is rapidly growing with 69 locations in 23 states.  The company is the first consignment sale business in the country to offer on-line management and real time tracking of merchandise through a computerized inventory system and a convenient mobile application. For more information, visit www.rhealana.com.

To schedule an interview with Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein, contact Adam Temple, temple@jdafrontline.com

###

Reason: The Feds vs. Craig Zucker

Read the full story: Reason 

In November 2013, with the pro bono backing of the nonprofit government accountability group Cause of Action, Zucker sued the CPSC for what he calls its “unprecedented regulatory overreach.” The suit alleges that the CPSC’s actions are aimed at punishing him for speaking out against the agency. In an emailed statement, CPSC spokesperson Scott Wolfson says “CPSC staff filed this case in order to prevent young children, tweens, and teens from suffering serious injuries,” adding that the agency “is using enforcement, education, and rulemaking to address a serious and hidden hazard with an entire product line.”

 

Neither case will be resolved anytime soon. In the meantime, Zucker has launched a new line of larger, less ingestible magnets called Liberty Balls, which he is selling to help cover his personal legal fees.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek: A Franchisor Sues the U.S. Labor Department Over Volunteer Workers

Read the full story here: Bloomberg BusinessWeek

The DOL’s actions could cripple Riner’s business and the “entire consignment industry,” the lawsuit alleges. It was filed in federal court for the District of Columbia by Cause of Action, a legal group founded in 2011 to support limited government. It challenges the Labor Department’s policy of banning for-profit enterprises from using volunteer labor,  and it asks the court to block the DOL from further investigating or collecting penalties from Rhea Lana’s. It also asks for attorney’s fees but does not request a specific monetary award.

 

As I wrote last summer, the U.S. Labor Department opened an investigation into Rhea Lana’s volunteer policy in January 2013, after the Arkansas Department of Labor took a similar action. In August 2013, the feds informed the company that it was in violation of minimum wage laws for not fairly compensating its volunteers—mostly stay-at-home mothers and retired grandmothers who help staff Rhea Lana’s mammoth consignment sales in Riner’s hometown of Conway, Ark., and around the country through her franchisees. In exchange for their work, volunteers are given an opportunity to shop early at the sales, snagging the best used toys, clothes, and baby gear for themselves.

Related Documents: Zucker v. CPSC

Craig Zucker’s Case before the CPSC (not represented by CoA)

May 9, 2014: Craig Zucker and CPSC Settlement

Consent Agreement between Craig Zucker and CPSC

United States District Court for the District of Maryland

NFIB adopts U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief (April 11, 2014)

US Chamber Amicus Brief (April 8, 2014)

Response to Government’s Motion to Dismiss (February 28, 2014)

CPSC Motion to Dismiss (January 14, 2014)

CPSC Memo in Support (January 14, 2014)

Complaint (November 12, 2013)

FOIA Request

FOIA Complaint (April 1, 2014)

FOIA Request to CPSC (November 12, 2013)

Petition for Disclosure and Correction in accordance with the Information Quality Act (IQA)

Information Quality Act Appeal (April 14, 2014)

CPSC Response to IQA Petition (January 10, 2014)

Information Quality Act Petition (November 12, 2013)

 

Related Documents: Federal Trade Commission v. LabMD

CoA defended LabMD against a complaint brought by the FTC based, in part, on allegations that a third party was able to obtain data from LabMD’s computers through the peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing program LimeWire. LabMD denies the FTC’s allegations of violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act as well as allegations that LabMD failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for personal information on its computer networks.

Before the Federal Trade Commission

Order Granting Respondent’s Renewed Motion for Order Requiring Testimony under Grant of Immunity Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.39(b)(2) (December 29, 2014)

Respondent LabMD Renewed Rule 3 39b Motion with Exhibits (December 11, 2014)

Order on Respondent LabMD Motion to Strike Tiversa Holding Corp.’s “Notice of Information” (November 20, 2014)

Respondent LabMD Motion to Strike Tiversa Holding Corp.’s “Notice of Information” (November 4, 2014)

Respondent LabMD Unopposed Motion for an Order Requiring Richard Wallace to Testify (October 6, 2014)

Respondent LabMD Response to Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Order Requiring Respondent’s Counsel to File Rule 3 39 (August 15, 2014)

Respondent LabMD Motion for Sanctions (April 21, 2014)

Final Trial Transcript (June 12, 2014)

Final Trial Transcript (May 30, 2014)

Final Trial Transcript (May 28, 2014)

Final Trial Transcript (May 27, 2014)

Final Trial Transcript (May 23, 2014)

Final Trial Transcript (May 22, 2014)

Final Trial Transcript (May 21, 2014)

Final Trial Transcript (May 20, 2014)

Respondent LabMD’s Motion to Admit RX542 (June 16, 2014)

FTC v. LabMD June 12, 2014 Unofficial Trial Transcript (June 12, 2014)

FTC Order Denying LabMD Motion for Summary Decision (May 19, 2014)

Respondent LabMD Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Decision (May 12, 2014)

Respondent LabMD Pre-Trial Brief (May 9, 2014)

Order Denying Motions In Limine to Exclude Profferred Experts (May 5, 2014)

Order Granting Respondent’s (CoA) Motion to Compel Testimony Order Denying Motion In Limine to Strike Trial Witness (May 1, 2014)

LabMD Motion for Summary Decision (April 21, 2014)

Administrative Law Judge’s Order on Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Served on Complaint Counsel and for Protective Order (January 30, 2014)

Order Denying Respondent LabMD Motion to Dismiss (January 17, 2014)

Statement of Commissioner Julie Bril Regarding Motion to Disqualify (December 24, 2013)

LabdMD Motion to Disqualify (December 18, 2013)

LabdMD Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuity and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (November 26, 2013)

Order on Respondent’s Motion for a Protective Order (November 22, 2013)

Respondent LabMD Motion to Dismiss (November 12, 2013)

Respondent LabMD Motion for Protective Order (November 5, 2013)

LabMD Answer to FTC Complaint (September 17, 2013)

FTC Complaint (August 29, 2013)

United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit

Opinion (January 20, 2015)

Supplemental Authority (December 11, 2014)

LabMD Reply Brief (August 11, 2014)

LabMD Brief (June 25, 2014)

LabMD Request for Judicial Notice (June 25, 2014)

Order Denying Appellant’s Motion for Stay Pending Review and for Expedited Briefing Schedule (May 19, 2014)

FTC Opposition to Appellant’s Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Review and For Expedited Briefing Schedule (May 19, 2014)

LabdMD Motion for Stay Pending Review and Request for Expedited Briefing Schedule & Exhibits (May 15, 2013)

Petitioner LabMD Reply in Support of Motion for Stay Pending Review (January 16, 2014)

Petitioner LabMD Response to Jurisdictional Question (December 30, 2013)

Motion for Stay Exhibits 1-2 & 4-7 & 9-17 Exhibit 3 Exhbit 8 Exhibits 18-23 Exhibits 23 cont Exhibits 24-28 Exhibit 29 Exhibit 29 cont-30 Exhibit 30 cont-31 (December 23, 2013)

United State District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Opinion and Order (May 12, 2014)

Transcript of Proceedings Before the Honorable William S. Duffey, Jr., United States District Judge (May 1, 2014)

Second Supplemental Declaration of Michael J. Daugherty (May 1, 2014)

LabMD Response to FTC’s Motion to Dimiss and in Opposition to FTC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (April 14, 2014)

Complaint &  Motion for Preliminary Injunction (March 20, 2014)

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

LabMD, Inc. v. FTC et al.Complaint (November 14, 2013)

LabMD Sues Federal Trade Commission

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Kevin Schmidt, 202-499-2414

kevin.schmidt@causeofaction.org

 

LabMD Sues Federal Trade Commission

Action Taken in the District Court for D.C., Seeks Relief from FTC’s unconstitutional abuse of government power 

WASHINGTON – Cause of Action (CoA), a government accountability organization, filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on behalf of LabMD, seeking to stop the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) extralegal abuse of government power.  LabMD argues that the FTC lacks the authority to regulate patient-information.

CoA is also defending LabMD against a complaint brought by the FTC based, in part, on allegations that a third party was able to obtain data from LabMD’s computers through the peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing program LimeWire. The FTC has attacked LabMD without publishing any data-security regulations or standards and with the knowledge that LabMD’s data security practices are regulated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  HHS has never suggested that LabMD violated any patient information data-security regulations or requirements.

In September, CoA challenged the FTC’s statutory authority to regulate patient information data-security practices as “unfair acts or practices” under Section 5 of the FTC Act and disputed the FTC’s claim that LabMD supposedly failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for personal information on its computer networks. Earlier this month, CoA filed a Motion for Protective Order before an Administrative Law Judge on behalf of LabMD seeking to quash 35 subpoenas served by the FTC in a single day. As the filing today argues, the FTC’s subpoena tactics are wrongfuly instrusive and burdensome. These tactics are consistent with the FTC’s plain goal of forcing LabMD into submission by exhausting the small Atlanta-based cancer diagnosis company’s resources.

“The FTC has clearly abrogated the law Congress granted it or specifically refused to grant it,” said CoA Executive Director Dan Epstein.  “From the initial action to the burdensome subpoenas, the FTC continues to exemplify the dangers of unbridled federal agency overreach into areas in which they have no authority.”

“By filing this lawsuit, we are asking the court to stop FTC’s abuse of government power and to ensure LabMD’s case is decided fairly and objectively. Right now, small businesses like LabMD that stand up to the FTC must play a rigged game because FTC is the legislator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one,” CoA Senior VP of Litigation Reed Rubinstein said.  “The FTC has no power over LabMD here and its obvious disregard for the patient-information data security regulations that the Department of Health and Human Services has had in place for years creates additional chaos, expense and hardship for America’s doctors, medical labs and clinics.”

The FTC’s bullying tactics include:

  • Conducting a multi-year “civil investigation” requiring LabMD to produce thousands of documents and its principals to submit to multiple examinations by government lawyers all unsupported by any concrete allegation of wrongdoing.  Complying with the FTC’s demands has cost LabMD hundreds of thousands of dollars as well as thousands of hours of management and employee time.
  • Forcing LabMD into an administrative hearing in which the Commission itself makes the “law,” prosecutes the “violations” and then determines the “verdict.”
  • Using abusive tactics that would not be tolerated by any independent federal court.  For example, the FTC served 35 subpoenas on third parties around the country demanding at least 23 depositions to take place simultaneously.  For LabMD to comply with the FTC’s oppressive subpoenas, LabMD would have to hire more than 23 attorneys and pay for their transportation to appear at depositions in California, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Florida, etc.

Given the FTC’s lack of jurisdiction to even bring such a data-security action against LabMD, it makes their abusive practices all the more egregious:

  • Notwithstanding the FTC’s repeated requests that Congress confer upon it the authority to regulate data-security, Congress has refused to do so.
  • In a 2000 report to Congress, Privacy Online: Fair Information Practices in the Electronic Marketplace: A Report to Congress, for example, the FTC admitted that it “lacks the authority to require firms to adopt information practice policies” and requested that Congress enact legislation providing a federal agency with the authority to regulate data security.  Notwithstanding the FTC’s pleas, Congress has not seen fit to expand the FTC’s jurisdiction.
  • The FTC cannot rely on any statutory precedent for the proposition that the FTC has authority to regulate data-security practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
  • Federal District Judge William Duffy recently noted, “There is significant merit to [LabMD’s] argument that Section 5 [of the Federal Trade Commission Act] does not justify an [FTC] investigation into data security practices and consumer privacy issues….”
  • Even assuming, arguendo, that the FTC did have jurisdiction over its asserted claims against LabMD because the Commission has not promulgated any rules, regulations, or other binding guidelines establishing the data-security practices with which it expects compliance, this enforcement action against LabMD violates due process requirements guaranteed and protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit filed today, along with the previous filings on behalf of LabMD, can be found here.

About Cause of Action:

Cause of Action is a non-profit, nonpartisan government accountability organization that fights to protect economic opportunity when federal regulations, spending and cronyism threaten it. For more information, visit www.causeofaction.org.

About LabMD:

LabMD is a cancer detection facility that specializes in analysis and diagnosis of blood, urine, and tissue specimens for cancers, micro-organisms and tumor markers. You can find out more about their battle with the FTC here.

 

To schedule an interview with Cause of Action’s Executive Director Dan Epstein, contact Mary Beth Hutchins,  202-400-2721 or Kevin Schmidt, kevin.schmidt@causeofaction.org.

 

###