Office of Commissioner 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Federal Trade Commission 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

Rohit Chopra 

Prepared Opening Statement of 

Commissioner Rohit Chopra 

Before the United States Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

Hearing on “Strengthening the Federal Trade Commission’s 

Authority to Protect Consumers” 

April 20, 2021 

Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

holding this hearing today. 

The Supreme Court is expected to issue an opinion soon on whether the Commission can 

continue to seek monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. I appreciate efforts by 

Congress to address the uncertainty surrounding the agency’s authority. 

Of course, a Section 13(b) “fix” will not fix the FTC’s fundamental problems. Time and time 

again, when large firms flagrantly violate the law, the FTC is unwilling to pursue meaningful 

accountability measures. 

Take the example of Google, where the company’s repeated law violations over the last decade 

were frequently met with favorable treatment from the FTC. In 2011, the Commission entered an 

order against Google to halt its unlawful privacy practices. But, just one year later, the FTC 

announced that the company was violating the order. Around the same time, there were growing 

concerns that Google was engaged in a host of troubling anticompetitive practices. But, in 2013, 

the Commission closed its antitrust investigation into Google, allowing the company to submit a 

highly unusual non-binding letter of commitments, rather than be subjected to a formal order. In 

2014, the FTC announced it caught Google breaking the law again regarding in-app purchases by 

children. But, it didn’t end there. The FTC then caught Google engaging in years of illegal 

surveillance of children on YouTube. The Commission’s latest resolution: a highly favorable 

settlement, where the tech giant was assessed a penalty that still allowed it to profit from its 

misconduct. Google was even allowed to retain algorithms enhanced by illegally obtained data 

from kids.1 

1 Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Rohit Chopra In the Matter of Google LLC and YouTube, LLC, Fed. Trade 

Comm’n File No. 1723083 (Sept. 4, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/09/statementcommissioner-rohit-chopra-regarding-youtube. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the FTC is quick to bring down the hammer on small businesses, companies like Google 

know that the FTC is simply not serious about holding them accountable. Congress and 

Commissioners must turn the page on the FTC’s perceived powerlessness. 

First, we must make clear that FTC orders are not suggestions. Google is not the only company 

to engage in repeat offenses. In 2012, after the FTC finalized an order with Facebook about its 

privacy abuses, the company violated the agreement almost immediately – and continued 

violating it over and over again. But in 2019, Facebook was able to extract a settlement from the 

FTC that gave the company a lot to celebrate. The FTC did not require Facebook to make any 

material changes to its business model or its user surveillance. The FTC even handed out special 

immunity provisions for Facebook’s top executives and broad releases for unknown violations. 

The settlement was a devastating setback for consumer privacy.2 

Congress and the Commission must implement major changes when it comes to stopping repeat 

offenders. In addition, since the Commission has shown it often lacks the will to enforce agency 

orders, Congress should allow victims and state attorneys general to seek injunctive relief in 

court to halt violations of FTC orders.3 

Second, we must make sure that the FTC is meaningfully deterring wrongdoing in the first 

instance. The Commission often agrees to no-money no-fault settlements, even in cases of 

egregious misconduct, like fake review and Made-in-USA fraud, where bad actors simply agree 

to follow the law going forward. And when the FTC does seek money from wrongdoers, it is 

often insufficient. That is because under Section 13(b), if a bad actor steals $1 million, the most 

they can be required to pay is $1 million. This is not really a deterrent, particularly when the 

probability of getting caught by the FTC is very low. Commissioners can take action now to 

trigger additional remedies, such as penalties and damages, for certain misconduct without 

imposing any new requirements on businesses.4 In addition, Congress can authorize the FTC to 

seek civil penalties in a broader range of cases, including for knowing violations of Section 5 and 

other dishonest or fraudulent conduct. 

Last, but not least, we must address the abuse of Section 230 of the Communications Decency 

Act. Tech companies aggressively exploit Section 230 to evade accountability. Even when the 

immunity does not or should not apply, the lack of clarity taxes public resources and slows down 

enforcement. I am particularly concerned that e-commerce marketplaces are becoming a haven 

for counterfeit and unsafe goods, including fake PPE and medicines to treat COVID-19, while 

platforms wipe their hands of responsibility for the harm that results. 

2 Devin Coldewey, 9 reasons the Facebook FTC settlement is a joke, TECHCRUNCH (July 24, 2019), 

https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/24/9-reasons-the-facebook-ftc-settlement-is-a-joke/; Dissenting Statement of 

Commissioner Rohit Chopra Regarding the Matter of Facebook, Inc., Fed. Trade Comm’n File No. 1823109 (July 

24, 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/07/dissenting-statement-commissioner-rohit-chopraregarding-matter-facebook. 3 Under the Packers and Stockyards Act, which is modeled after the FTC Act, farmers, ranchers, and others can seek 

injunctions for violations of orders regarding unfair, deceptive, and other unlawful practices. See 7 U.S.C. § 216. 4 See Prepared Remarks of Rohit Chopra at Truth in Advertising (Jan. 11, 2021), https://www.ftc.gov/publicstatements/2021/01/prepared-remarks-commissioner-rohit-chopra-truth-advertising-event-0; Rohit Chopra & 

Samuel A.A. Levine, The Case for Resurrecting the FTC Act’s Penalty Offense Authority, 170 U. PA. L. REV. 

(forthcoming 2021), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3721256. 

2 
Members of this Committee have put forth a number of proposals for Section 230 reform, 

including removal of the immunity in actions by civil law enforcement. I strongly support 

Congressional efforts to rein in these excesses, which can put brick-and-mortar small businesses 

and local newspapers at a competitive disadvantage. 

In conclusion, COVID-19 and the endless scandals involving large technology firms have 

reminded us that we must work together to ensure the FTC uses all of its tools to protect 

American families and honest businesses from abuse. 

Thank you and I look forward to your questions. 

3