7/2. The U.S. Court of Appeals (4thCir) issued its opinion [PDF] in Carefirst Maryland v. CPC, a case involving whether the operation of a website by a local non profit group can serve as the basis for personal jurisdiction over it by an out of state court in a trademark infringement case. The District Court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appeals Court affirmed.

Carefirst Pregnancy Centers (CPC) is an Illinois corporation, based in the city of Chicago, Illinois. It is a non-profit, evangelical, pro-life advocacy organization, that provides services for Chicago area women. It states that it provides care "in pregnancy-related crisis by meeting their emotional, physical and spiritual needs, enabling them to choose life." It operates a web site. It has no office, employees or operations in the state of Maryland. However, its does have other ties to Maryland. Its web site is accessible from the state of Maryland. It solicits donations online, which includes donations from persons in Maryland. Finally, its web hosting company is in Maryland. However, the servers where the web site resides are in Massachusetts

Carefirst of Maryland, which does business as Carefirst Blue Cross/Blue Shield, is a large healthcare insurance company. It has registered the trademark "Carefirst".

Carefirst Maryland filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against CPC alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. However, the District Court did not address the merits of Carefirst's claims. Rather, it dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, for lack of personal jurisdiction over CPC. Instead of filing its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Carefirst appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court first addressed the basics of personal jurisdiction. It wrote that "for a district court to assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant, two conditions must be satisfied: (1) the exercise of jurisdiction must be authorized under the state's long-arm statute; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The Court added that "A court's exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant comports with due process if the defendant has ``minimum contacts´´ with the forum, such that to require the defendant to defend its interests in that state "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." The Court cited the landmark case of International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).

The Court continued that "The standard for determining the existence of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant varies, depending on whether the defendant's contacts with the forum state also provide the basis for the suit. If those contacts form the basis for the suit, they may establish ``specific jurisdiction.´´ In determining whether specific jurisdiction exists, we consider (1) the extent to which the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state; (2) whether the plaintiffs' claims arise out of those activities directed at the state; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally ``reasonable.´´" The Court cited ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Service Consultants, 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 868 (2003), a case in which the Court found that there was not jurisdiction over an out of state web host in an online copyright infringement action. See also, stories titled "Internet Shoes: Two Appeals Courts Address Internet Based Personal Jurisdiction", "Fourth Circuit Holds No Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Web Host", and "DC Circuit Suggests Personal Jurisdiction Over Out of State Online Brokerage" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 452, June 17, 2002.

The Court also wrote that "If, however, the defendant's contacts with the state are not also the basis for the suit, then jurisdiction over the defendant must arise from the defendant’s general, more persistent, but unrelated contacts with the state. To establish general jurisdiction, the defendant’s activities in the state must have been ``continuous and systematic.´´"

The Appeals Court then concluded that since there is "no suggestion that CPC engaged in continuous and systematic activities within Maryland, our inquiry must focus on the conduct giving rise to the suit, i.e., CPC’s alleged infringement of Carefirst's trademark. And accordingly, it is only if (1) CPC purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in Maryland, (2) Carefirst's claims arise out of those activities, and (3) the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally ``reasonable,´´ that CPC can be held subject to specific jurisdiction in Maryland."

In analyzing whether the requisites of specific jurisdiction were met, the Court applied the "effects test" of Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), in which the Supreme Court held that a court may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when the defendant intentionally directed tortious conduct toward the forum state, knowing that that conduct would cause harm to a forum resident.

The Appeals Court then reviewed its precedent in ALS Scan and Young v. New Haven Advocate. (On December 13, 2002, the Court its opinion [12 pages in PDF] in Young holding that a court in Virginia does not have jurisdiction over two small newspapers, and their editors and reporters, located in Connecticut, who wrote allegedly defamatory stories about a Virginia prison warden and published them on the internet. The Court held that the web publication did not establish minimum contacts because the newspapers are not directed at a Virginia audience. See, TLJ story titled 4th Circuit Rules in Internet Jurisdiction Case, December 13, 2002.)

Having set forth the applicable law and precedent, the Court then applied this law to the facts of the present case. First, the Court examined whether the CPC website can serve as the basis for jurisdiction. The wrote that "in order for CPC's website to bring CPC within the jurisdiction of the Maryland courts, the company must have done something more than merely place information on the Internet." The Court examined the character of the CPC website.

The Court wrote that "it is relevant that CPC's sites are ``semi-interactive,´´ in that they contain features that make it possible for a user to exchange information with the host computer." The Court added that when a website is "neither merely passive nor highly interactive, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined ``by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs.´´" The Court commented that "the only concrete evidence of online exchanges between CPC and Maryland residents was the single donation initiated by Carefirst’s counsel (and ostensibly made to bolster the position of her client in this litigation)." (Parentheses in original.) The Court also found it "pertinent that the overall content of CPC’s website has a strongly local character, emphasizing that CPC’s mission is to assist Chicago-area women in pregnancy crises." (Emphasis in original.)

Hence, the Court concluded that "when CPC set up its generally accessible, semi-interactive Internet website, it did not thereby direct electronic activity into Maryland with the manifest intent of engaging in business or other interactions within that state in particular. ... Consequently, the website fails to furnish a Maryland contact adequate to support personal jurisdiction over CPC in the Maryland courts."

Second, the Court examined whether the use of a Maryland web hosting company can serve as the basis for jurisdiction. The Court wrote that "NetImpact merely facilitated the purchase of CPC’s domain names and rented CPC space on its servers -- which in fact were located not in Maryland, but in Massachusetts. It is unreasonable to expect that, merely by utilizing servers owned by a Maryland-based company, CPC should have foreseen that it could be haled into a Maryland court and held to account for the contents of its website. Consequently, CPC’s employment of NetImpact as a web host does not ground specific jurisdiction over CPC in Maryland."

Other Cases. In addition to the cases cited by the Court (ALS Scan and Young v. New Haven Advocate), there are several other recent cases that address personal jurisdiction in the context of internet activities.

On December 10, 2002, the High Court of Australia issued its opinion in Dow Jones v. Gutnick. It took a different approach, and reached a different result on the question of personal jurisdiction. This was a case involving three procedural issues -- jurisdiction, choice of law, and convenient forum. It was a tort action brought in Australia for an allegedly defamatory news story published on the internet by Dow Jones, a U.S. publisher. The Court held that because of publication on the internet, the Australian courts have jurisdiction, that Australian law applies, and that the case should proceed in the trial court in the Australian state of Victoria. See, story titled "High Court Rules Australia Has Jurisdiction Over Dow Jones Based on Web Publication", TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 564, December 10, 2002.

7/7. The U.S. District Court (SDNY) issued issued its Opinion and Order approving the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) settlement with WorldCom.

The SEC issued a release in which it summarized the settlement. It wrote that the Court "will enter the Final Judgment as to Monetary Relief in the form submitted by the parties. That Final Judgment provides that WorldCom is liable for a civil penalty in the amount of $2,25 billion. The Final Judgment also provides that in the event of confirmation of a plan of reorganization of WorldCom by the Bankruptcy Court, WorldCom's obligations under the Commission's judgment shall be deemed to be satisfied by the company's payment of $500 million in cash and by its transfer of common stock in the reorganized company having a value of $250 million to a distribution agent to be appointed by the District Court. Under the terms of the settlement, the funds paid and the common stock transferred by WorldCom to satisfy the Commission's judgment will be distributed to victims of the company's fraud, pursuant to Section 308 (Fair Funds For Investors) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The proposed settlement remains subject to review and approval of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York."

On July 2, the SEC filed documents with the District Court modifying the proposed settlement of its claim for a civil penalty in its civil action against WorldCom. See, SEC release.

The SEC stated that "The filings supplement the relief provisions in the proposed settlement previously filed in that action on May 19, 2003, which required WorldCom to pay a civil penalty judgment in the amount of $1,510,000,000. That proposed settlement further provided that, as a result of the company's pending bankruptcy case, the Commission's judgment would be satisfied by WorldCom's payment, after review and approval of the terms of the settlement by the Bankruptcy Court, of $500,000,000."

The SEC continued that "WorldCom and the SEC mutually agreed to supplement to the terms of the proposed settlement. The modifications ... provide that in the event of confirmation of a plan of reorganization of WorldCom by the Bankruptcy Court, WorldCom's obligations under the Commission's judgment shall be deemed to be satisfied by the company's payment of $500,000,000 in cash and by its transfer of common stock in the reorganized company having a value of $250,000,000 to a distribution agent to be appointed by the District Court. The supplemental relief, if approved, would allow victims of the fraud to share in the potential upside of owning WorldCom common stock when it emerges from bankruptcy. All other material terms of the proposed settlement remain the same."

See also, WorldCom release of July 2, and release of July 7.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on Tuesday, July 15, titled "Bankruptcy and Competition Issues in relation to the WorldCom Case".

7/1. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [12 pages in PDF] in Ranger Cellular v. FCC, a case regarding how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) awards cellular licenses. The Appeals Court denied the petition for review.

The FCC previously awarded licenses for use of spectrum through either a comparative hearing or a lottery. The petitioners, Ranger Cellular and Miller Communications, filed applications in 1988 and 1989 respectively to participate in a lottery for Rural Service Area (RSA) cellular telephone licenses. The FCC awarded most of the licenses, but by the mid 1990s six licenses for RSAs were still pending due to the disqualification or withdrawal of the original winner.

Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 by in 1993 by adding Section 309(j), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 309(j), which authorized the FCC to award almost all spectrum licenses by competitive bidding and limited the use of lotteries. The 1993 legislation provided that the FCC "shall not issue any license or permit [by lottery] ... unless ... one or more applications for such license were accepted for filing by the Commission before July 26, 1993."

Congress further amended Section 309(j) in 1997 by requiring the FCC to use competitive bidding, except in a few specifically enumerated circumstances, and terminated the FCC's authority to use a lottery, except for a small class of broadcast licenses).

The Congress also amended Section 309(l) regarding "Applicability of competitive bidding to pending comparative licensing cases". The statute provides that "With respect to competing applications for initial licenses or construction permits for commercial radio or television stations that were filed with the Commission before July 1, 1997, the Commission shall ... treat the persons filing such applications as the only persons eligible to be qualified bidders for purposes of such proceeding."

Thus, the statute bars the FCC from accepting new applications in the case of "commercial radio or television stations". The petitioners asserted that this provision applied to applications for cellular licenses, and limited the pool of bidders to those who had filed an application prior to July 1, 1997. The FCC issued an order that rejected petitioners' interpretation. Ranger Cellular and Miller Communications then filed their petition for review with the Court of Appeals.

The Court wrote that the petitioners had some credible arguments. For example, it wrote that "cellular service is regulated as a ``commercial mobile radio service,´´ 47 C.F.R. § 20.9(a), which seems to place it neatly within the more general class of  ``commercial radio and television stations´´ referenced in § 309(l)." However, the Court also found that the FCC supported its argument that "commercial radio or television stations" does not encompass cellular telephone services. The Court applied the Chevron standard, and concluded that the FCC "has shown that § 309(l), viewed in the context of the 1997 Act, supports a reading that covers only broadcast stations. Although this reading is not the only possible interpretation of § 309(l), it is certainly a reasonable one and therefore commands our deference."

The Appeals Court also held that the FCC justified its decision under the public interest standard.

Finally, it held that the FCC was not subject to 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(7)(B), which provides that "in prescribing regulations pursuant to Paragraph 4(A) of this subsection, the Commission may not base a finding of public interest, convenience and necessity solely or predominantly on the expectation of Federal revenues from the use of a system of competitive bidding under this subsection."

The House will meet at 10:30 AM for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 PM. The House will consider HR __, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, a bill which contains technology related provisions. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Senate will meet at 11:45 AM. It will vote on the nomination of David Campbell to be a Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. It will also vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Victor Wolski to be a Judge of the Court of Federal Claims.

Day one of a two day conference titled "Supernova 2003". The topic will be "decentralization of communications, software, and media". The speakers will include Reed Hundt (former FCC Chairman), Bob Pepper (FCC Chief of Policy Development), and Bruce Mehlman (Technology Administration). See, agenda. Location: Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, Virginia.

9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will hold a one day workshop on storage and processor card technologies. See, notice in the Federal Register, April 7, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 66, at Page 16784. Location: Administration Building (Bldg. 101), Green Auditorium, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

9:30 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on two nominations, including that of Pamela Harbour to be Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Location: Room 253, Russell Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security will hold a hearing on HR 2214, the "Reduction in Distribution of Spam Act of 2003". Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The Senate Finance Committee will hold a hearing titled "An Examination of U.S. Tax Policy and Its Effect on the Domestic and International Competitiveness of U.S.-Based Operations". (A second hearing will address competitiveness of U.S. operations located outside the U.S.) Location: Room 215, Dirksen Building.

2:00 to 4:00 PM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) International Bureau will hold a public forum to discuss implementation of the new satellite application procedures adopted in the First Space Station Reform Order. The event will be webcast. See, notice [2 pages in PDF]. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305 at 445 12th St., SW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on two nominations, including that of Jack Goldsmith to be Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202 224-5225. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

Day one of a two day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on interoperability among storage and processor card systems. The price to attend is $275. See, notice. For more information, contact Curt Barker at 301 975-8443 or wbarker@nist.gov. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

Day two of a two day conference titled "Supernova 2003". The topic will be "decentralization of communications, software, and media". See, agenda. Location: Hyatt Regency, Crystal City, Virginia.

9:30 AM - 12:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) will host a tutorial on Time Division Duplex (TDD). The FCC stated in its notice [PDF] that "Unlike the legacy cellular and PCS systems that have traditionally been circuit switched and focused on voice, these new systems can be optimized for the transmission of packet-switched data, which are characterized by asymmetric traffic flows both to and from the user. Increasingly, TDD is becoming increasingly popular for new broadband wireless access systems, including LAN systems like 802.11, and advanced broadband wireless access systems". Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room, TW-C305 at 445 12th St., SW.

2:30 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on several pending judicial nominations. See, notice. Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202 224-5225. See, notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee will meet to mark up numerous bills, including HR __, implementing legislation for U.S. Chile free trade agreement (FTA), HR __, implementing legislation for U.S. Singapore FTA, and HR 1561, the "United States Patent and Trademark Fee Modernization Act of 2003". The meeting may continue on July 10 at 10:00 AM. Location: Room 2141, Rayburn Building.

Approx. 11:00 AM. The House Commerce Committee's Subcommittees on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection and on Telecommunications and the Internet will hold a hearing titled "Legislative Efforts to Combat Spam". The scheduled witnesses are Timothy Muris (Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission), Charles Curran (Assistant General Counsel of America Online), Charles Betty (P/CEO of EarthLink), Paul Misener (Amazon.com), Kenneth Hirschman (Digital Impact), Christopher Murray (Legislative Counsel of the Consumers Union), and Christine Gregoire (Attorney General of the state of Washington). Press contact: Ken Johnson or Jon Tripp at 202 225-5735. The hearing will begin 30 minutes after completion of the Committee's markup of HR 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which is scheduled for 10:00 AM. Location: Room 2123, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Research will hold a hearing on on HR 2183, the "Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act". Press contact: Heidi Tringe at 202 225-4275. The hearing will be webcast. Location: Room 2318, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Ericsson v. Harris, No. 02-1571. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (NDTex) in a patent infringement case involving wireless and cellular technology (D.C. No. 3-98 CV 2903-M). Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

10:30 AM - 12:00 NOON. The Department of State's U.S. International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will hold a meeting to discuss matters related to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), which will take place on December 10-12, 2003 in Geneva, Switzerland. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 18, 2003, Vol., 68, No.117, at Page 36623. Location: National Academy of Sciences, 2100 C St., NW.

Day two of a two day workshop hosted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on interoperability among storage and processor card systems. The price to attend is $275. See, notice. For more information, contact Curt Barker at 301 975-8443 or wbarker@nist.gov. Location: NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

The House will meet at 10:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

7:45 - 11:30 AM. The Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) will host an invitation only policy forum titled "Securing Information Infrastructure in the E-Gov Era". The speakers will include Robert Holleyman (BSA), Jim Lewis (CSIS), Dan Burton (Entrust), Scott Charney (Microsoft), Mark Forman (OMB), Tim Hoechst (Oracle), Drew Ladner (Department of the Treasury), John Landwehr (Adobe Systems), Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Tim McNulty (Carnegie Mellon University), George Newstrom (Virginia Secretary of Technology), Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), Douglas Sabo (Network Associates), and Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX). Press contact: Jeri Clausing at jeric@bsa.org or 202 530-5127. Others may contact Dan Fix at danf@bsa.org or Joelle Laszlo at jlaszlo@csis.org. Location: Room HC-5, Capitol Building.

9:30 AM. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will hold a meeting. First, representatives of the FCC's International Bureau will report on the World Radio Conference 2003, which took place in Geneva, Switzerland from June 9 through July 4. Second, the FCC will consider a Report and Order regarding the compatibility of digital wireless phones and hearing aids. This is WT Docket No. 01-309. Third, the FCC's Homeland Security Policy Council will report on its accomplishments and future activities. See, agenda [PDF]. The meeting will be webcast. Press contact: Audrey Spivack or David Fiske at 202 418-0500. Location: FCC, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-C05 (Commission Meeting Room).

9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold an executive business meeting. Press contact: Margarita Tapia at 202 224-5225. See, notice. Location: Room SDG 50, Dirksen Building.

10:00 AM. The House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Social Security will hold a hearing on use and misuse of social security numbers. Location: Room B-318, Rayburn Building.

10:00 AM. The U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) will hear oral argument in Superguide v. DirecTV, No. 02-1561. This is an appeal from the U.S. District Court (WDNC) in a patent infringement case involving Interactive Program Guides (IPG) software and systems used in connection satellite television services. Location: Courtroom 402, 717 Madison Place, NW.

Day one of a two day conference titled "Municipal Broadband". The price to attend is $895. For more information, call 206 621-1938. Location: Pier 5 Hotel, Inner Harbor, Baltimore, MD.

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will host a one day seminar titled Essentials of Export Controls. The BIS charges for admission. Location: Washington DC.

The House will meet at 9:00 AM for legislative business. See, Republican Whip Notice.

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer Advisory Committee (CAC) will hold a meeting. See, notice in the Federal Register, June 25, 2003, Vol. 68, No. 122, at Pages 37824 - 37825. Location: FCC, Room TW-C305, 445 12th Street, SW.

Day two of a two day conference titled "Municipal Broadband". Ed Thomas, Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) is schedule to speak at 8:30 AM. The price to attend is $895. For more information, call 206 621-1938. Location: Pier 5 Hotel, Inner Harbor, Baltimore, MD.

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) will host a one day seminar titled Export Management Systems (EMS). The BIS charges for admission. Location: Washington DC.

7/3. The U.S. Court of Appeals (9thCir) issued its opinion [12 pages in PDF] in In Re Read-Rite Corp. Securities Litigation, a case involving application of the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).

Read-Rite manufactured and sold ferrite metal-in-gap (MIG) recording heads and Tripad thin film inductive recording heads for hard disk drives. Plaintiffs were owners of common stock of Read-Rite.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court (NDCal) against Read-Rite and several of its officers and directors alleging securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs also sought class action status. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to the PSLRA, for failing to meet the heightened pleading requirements of the statute.

The Appeals Court affirmed in a relatively brief opinion which it relied upon 9th Circuit precedent in Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423 (2001), and In re Silicon Graphics, Inc. Sec. Litig., 183 F.3d 970 (1999).

7/1. The U.S. Court of Appeals (DCCir) issued its opinion [17 pages in PDF] in Z-Tel v. FCC. In 2001 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued an order approving Verizon's Section 271 application to provide in region interLATA services in the state of Pennsylvania. Z-Tel, a competitive local exchange carrier, challenged the order, arguing that the FCC erred in finding that Verizon provides competitors nondiscriminatory access to its wholesale billing services. The Appeals Court affirmed the order of the FCC.

7/7. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it filed a complaint in U.S. District Court (DAriz) against NexGen3000.com and others alleging violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act in connection with their operation of an internet shopping mall network that allegedly constitutes a pyramid scam. The complaint names as defendants NexGen3000.com, Globion, Inc., Infinity2, Inc., David A. Charette, Jennifer K. Charette, Robert J. Charette, Jr., Marta H. Charette, Stephen M. Diamond, Christine A. Wasser, and Edward G. Hoyt. See, FTC release.