UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of Commissioner

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

1

Statement of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

As Prepared for Delivery

Before the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce

Of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

United States House of Representatives

Washington, D.C.

July 28, 2021

Chair Schakowsky, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and members of the Subcommittee, I am 

pleased to appear before you today (and I appreciate the opportunity to appear remotely; with 

four children too young to be vaccinated at home, I am being extra cautious about COVID 

exposure). 

I want to start by thanking this Committee for its incredibly hard work to pass the 

Consumer Protection and Recovery Act—what we refer to as the 13(b) fix—through the House 

earlier this month. I am grateful for your appreciation of the challenges the recent Supreme 

Court decision posed for the Commission, and for your hard work to arm us with the tools we 

need to protect your constituents.

I’m eager for us to continue to partner with Congress and this Committee. While I am 

happy to discuss the bills before the Committee today, I also want to encourage you to continue 

work on a meaningful, comprehensive legislative approach to data abuses. 

Data Abuses, Not Just Privacy

Yesterday, the FTC held its sixth annual PrivacyCon conference, with presenters 

covering topics including algorithmic bias, issues around consent, misinformation during the 

pandemic, and special concerns related to kids and teens. That broad agenda reflected our

understanding that data issues have moved past the narrow framework of who has access to your 

personal data. This understanding is why I prefer the term “data abuses” to the narrower 

language of “privacy.”

Thinking in terms of abuses reflects the fact that rampant data collection, sharing, and 

exploitation harms consumers and competition in ways that affect nearly every aspect of our 

lives. 
2

Moving Away From Notice and Consent

I know this topic is front of mind for members of this Committee, and that you are 

actively considering how best to craft legislation to directly address the harms faced by 

consumers, workers, and small businesses in our data-driven economy. I also understand that 

doing this well takes time and thought, and encourage you to focus on approaches that not only 

address the full panoply of harms that stem from indiscriminate data collection—including civil 

rights violations, abuse of market power, economic exclusion, and exploitation of children—but 

also provide meaningful solutions that root out damaging and dangerous business models and 

market practices. 

When it comes to questions about personal data, I respectfully suggest we move past

outdated notice-and-consent models that put untenable burdens on users. Instead, we should turn 

our focus to changing the underlying incentives that fuel data-driven business models such as 

behavioral advertising. One approach to consider is data minimization, a principle that would 

ensure companies can collect only the information necessary to provide consumers with the 

service on offer, and use the data they collect only to provide that service. That minimization 

could be coupled with further use, purpose, sharing, and security requirements to ensure that the 

information companies collect isn’t used to build tools or services that imperil people’s civil 

rights, economic opportunities, and personal autonomy, or facilitate corporate self-dealing. We 

have to recognize that, as long as key digital markets are controlled by just a few large, datahungry online platforms, both consumers and prospective entrants are at their mercy.

The Importance of Rulemaking

As Congress continues to debate these issues, I believe it is incumbent upon the 

Commission to act within the full scope of our existing authority to target pernicious data 

practices with both aggressive enforcement and rulemaking.

A quick note about rulemaking, which I know can generate big reactions. Congress

specifically delegated to the FTC the authority, albeit with a burdensome process, to write rules 

that prohibit or regulate any unfair or deceptive practice that is prevalent in interstate commerce. 

In other words, if we can already sue someone for committing an unfair or deceptive practice in 

violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and the practice is prevalent, then we can also write a rule 

that clarifies for the markets that the conduct is prohibited. That means rulemaking can only

target conduct that is already illegal. Rules are developed using a participatory process with 

substantial stakeholder engagement, and, when finalized, provide notice and certainty to the 

markets about what conduct is outside the scope of our hundred-year-old statute. 

As I’ve said before, I believe it is past time for the FTC to begin a rulemaking process on 

data abuses; among other benefits, this process can have a clarifying effect for the Congressional 

debate as well. Participating in the rulemaking process means businesses, advocates, consumers,

workers, researchers, and other interested parties will all have the opportunity to make their 

opinions known, out in the open, and with specificity in the public record. An open record can 

provide substantiation of the types of consumer protection and competition harm people are 
3

experiencing in digital markets, and illuminate how we can act decisively to stamp out these 

abuses.

I look forward to working with my fellow Commissioners and with Congress to advance 

these efforts and I welcome your questions.