[BILLING CODE 6750-01-P] 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 425 

RIN 3084-AB60 

NEGATIVE OPTION RULE 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Initial notice of informal hearing; final notice of informal hearing; list of Hearing 

Participants; requests for submissions from Hearing Participants. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has proposed 

amendments to the “Rule Concerning the Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans,” to be 

retitled the “Rule Concerning Subscriptions and Other Negative Option Plans” (“Negative 

Option Rule” or “Rule”). The proposed changes are calculated to combat unfair or deceptive 

business practices, including recurring charges for products or services consumers do not want 

and cannot cancel without undue difficulty. In response to the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

several commenters requested an informal hearing.0F

1 The informal hearing will be conducted 

virtually on January 16, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern, and the Commission’s Chief Presiding 

Officer, the Chair, has appointed Administrative Law Judge for the Securities and Exchange 

Commission, the Honorable Carol Fox Foelak, to serve as the presiding officer of the informal 

hearing. 

DATES: The informal hearing will be conducted virtually starting at 10:00 a.m. Eastern on 

January 16, 2024. 

1 The following entities requested an informal hearing: (1) International Franchise Association (IFA); 

(2) TechFreedom; (3) Performance Driven Marketing Institute (PDMI); (4) NCTA – The Internet & Television 

Association (NCTA); (5) FrontDoor; and (6) Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB). 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADDRESSES: Hearing Participants may submit their oral presentations in writing or file 

supplementary documentary submissions online or on paper by following the instructions in Part 

IV of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Negative Option Rule 

(16 CFR Part 425) (Project No. P064202)” on your request or documentary submission, and file 

it online through https://www.regulations.gov. If you prefer to file your request or documentary 

submission on paper, mail or deliver it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, 

Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC–5610 (Annex B), Washington, 

DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Johnson, Attorney, (202) 326-

2185, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Following public comment on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR), 84 FR 

52393 (Oct. 2, 2019), the FTC proposed amending the Negative Option Rule as described in a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 88 FR 24716 (Apr. 24, 2023). The Commission posted 

1,163 public comments in response to the NPRM.1F

2 

II. The Requests for an Informal Hearing; Presentation of Oral Submissions 

Section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, and the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.11(e), provide interested persons the opportunity to make an oral 

statement at an informal hearing upon request.2F

3 To make such a request, a commenter must 

2 See FTC, Negative Option Rule, https://www.regulations.gov/document/FTC-2023-0033-0001/comment. 3 The FTC Act provides that “an interested person is entitled to present his position orally or by documentary 

submission (or both).” 15 U.S.C. 57a(c)(2)(A). 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

submit, no later than the close of the comment period for the NPRM, (1) a request to make an 

oral submission, if desired; (2) a statement identifying the interested person’s interests in the 

proceeding; and (3) any proposal to add disputed issues of material fact to be addressed at the 

hearing.3F

4 

The Commission received six4F

5 such requests in response to the NPRM from: 

1. International Franchise Association (IFA)5F

6 

7 2. TechFreedom6F

3. Performance Driven Marketing Institute (PDMI)7F

8 

4. NCTA – The Internet & Television Association (NCTA)8F

9 

10 5. FrontDoor9F

6. Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB)10F

11 

4 16 CFR 1.11(e)(1)-(3). 5 All but one—TechFreedom—identified their interest in the proceeding either as industry groups or as private 

companies with vested interests in the outcome of this rulemaking. See TechFreedom comment (June 23, 2023), 

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0033-0872. 6 IFA identified itself as “the world’s oldest and largest organization representing franchising” whose members 

include “franchise companies, individual franchises, and companies that support franchise companies,” explaining 

that “IFA is particularly concerned on [sic] the potential adverse effects of the proposed amendments to the Rule on 

franchised small businesses.” IFA comment at 1 (June 23, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-

0033-0856. 7 Although TechFreedom failed to identify its interests in the rulemaking proceeding, according to a recent internet 

search, “TechFreedom is a non-profit, non-partisan technology think tank launched in 2011, . . . [f]ocusing on issues 

of Internet freedom and technological progress.” See TechFreedom, About, https://techfreedom.org/about/ (last 

visited Nov. 30, 2023). 8 PDMI explained that its more than 130 member companies, doing business in performance and direct-to-consumer 

marketing, “market their goods or services using the types and styles of marketing covered by the FTC’s proposed 

Rule changes.” PDMI comment at 1 (June 23, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0033-0864. 9 NCTA stated that its members provide consumers with “cable, broadband, voice, video streaming, and other 

services” and “is the principal trade association for the U.S. cable industry,” and expressed concern the “proposed 

rule will have unintended consequences that would burden, confuse, and harm consumers, and would prohibit 

Members from providing consumers with key information that could inform their decisions about whether to modify 

or cancel their services.” NCTA comment at 1-2 (June 23, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-

0033-0858. 10 FrontDoor stated that it and its subsidiaries “have served millions of customers for over fifty years by offering 

comprehensive home repair and maintenance services through an extensive network of pre-qualified professional 

contractors” and that many of the contracts it offers come with an automatic renewal option. FrontDoor comment at 

1 (June 23, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0033-0862. 11 IAB represents “over 700 leading media companies, brand marketers, agencies, and technology companies” 

3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Commission finds that these requests were adequate and therefore will hold an informal 

hearing. These commenters constitute the Commission’s list of interested persons, pursuant to 

Commission Rule 1.12(a)(4), who will make oral presentations or additional submissions (or 

both) during the hearing.11F

12 The Commission has not determined whether there are any groups of 

interested persons with the same or similar interests in the proceeding, so it does not include any 

13 such list in this Notice.12F

III. Disputed Issues of Material Fact; Final Notice 

In the NPRM, the Commission did not identify any disputed issues of material fact that 

need to be resolved at an informal hearing. The Commission may still do so, however, after the 

NPRM, either on its own initiative or in response to a persuasive showing from a commenter.13F

14 

Two interested persons, NCTA and IAB, proposed that the Commission consider several 

potential disputed issues of material fact.14F

15 Specifically, NCTA proposed the following 

(reprinted verbatim):15F

16 

• Is there substantial evidence that 1) broadband, cable, voice (including both VoIP and 

mobile wireless services), and video streaming service providers have failed to provide 

consumers with material information relating to their services and any negative option 

features and 2) such practices are prevalent? 

• Is there substantial evidence that 1) broadband, cable, voice (including both VoIP and 

mobile wireless services), and video streaming service providers have imposed unwanted 

services on consumers through deceptive statements made during enrollment and 2) such 

practices are prevalent? 

responsible for “selling, delivering, and optimizing digital advertising and marketing campaigns,” and whose 

members “account for 86 percent of online advertising expenditures” in the United States. IAB comment at 1 (June 

23, 2023), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2023-0033-1000. 12 See infra Part IV. These interested persons are referred to herein as the “Hearing Participants.” 13 Commission Rule 1.12(a)(5) requires the initial notice of informal hearing to include a “list of the groups of 

interested persons determined by the Commission to have the same or similar interests in the proceeding.” 16 CFR 

1.12(a)(5). 

14 88 FR 24716, 24730 (Apr. 24, 2023). 15 FrontDoor requested that the Commission “hold an informal hearing to engage in further factfinding on the 

disputed issues of material fact that have been raised in comments” but FrontDoor failed to identify any specific 

disputed issues of material fact as required by Commission Rule 1.11(e)(3). FrontDoor comment at 3. 16 NCTA comment at 35-37. 

4 
 

 

 

 

• Is there substantial evidence that 1) broadband, cable, voice (including both VoIP and 

mobile wireless services), and video streaming service providers have imposed unwanted 

services on consumers through deceptive communications when consumers seek to 

cancel one or more of their services and 2) such practices are prevalent? 

• Is there substantial evidence that 1) broadband, cable, voice (including both VoIP and 

mobile wireless services), and video streaming service providers have misrepresented 

their billing practices relating to automatic renewal and 2) such practices are prevalent? 

• Is there substantial evidence that 1) broadband, cable, voice (including both VoIP and 

mobile wireless services), and video streaming service providers have failed to obtain 

consent from consumers before enrolling them for automatically renewing services and 

2) such practices are prevalent? 

• Is there substantial evidence that 1) consumers have difficulty cancelling their 

broadband, cable, voice, or video streaming services and 2) such difficulty is due to 

practices and processes of providers that are prevalent? 

• Is there substantial evidence that 1) a click-to-cancel approach for multi-faceted, 

complex, and often bundled broadband, cable, voice, and video streaming services 

benefits consumers and 2) such benefits outweigh the downsides and consumer harms? 

• Is there substantial evidence that 1) consumers often forget they have purchased 

broadband, cable, voice, or video streaming services, warranting an annual notice to 

remind them they are not incurring charges for services they do not want to use and 2) 

such practices are prevalent? 

• Is there substantial evidence that broadband, cable, voice, or video streaming service 

transactions have distinctive characteristics which place consumers in a disadvantaged 

bargaining position and leave them especially vulnerable to prevalent unfair and 

deceptive practices? 

• Is there substantial evidence that 1) consumers are burdened by listening to “saves” or 

“upsells” and 2) burdensome “saves” or “upsells” are prevalent? 

• Do consumers who hear a “save” often decide to retain or modify service? 

• If the proposed Rule is adopted, will 1) the “click to cancel” mechanism as required by 

proposed section 425.6(c) impose significant costs on businesses that must change 

systems and user interfaces and 2) these costs on businesses result in higher costs for 

consumers? 

• If the proposed Rule is adopted, will 1) a prohibition on “saves” as required by 

proposed section 425.6(d) impose significant costs on businesses and 2) these costs on 

businesses result in higher costs or less access to discounts for consumers? 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IAB,16F

17 for its part, indicated that it “intended to raise several disputed issues of material 

fact,” first with respect to the compliance costs and the accuracy of the Commission’s estimates 

as follows (reprinted verbatim): 

• Whether the costs associated with implementing these new requirements will be 

significantly higher than the FTC estimates; and 

• Whether the NPRM makes compliance easier for businesses, in light of the lack of 

preemption of state law. 

And, as “to each of the major substantive sections in the NPRM”: 

• Whether the disclosure requirements proposed by the NPRM improve customer 

understanding of the terms of an automatic renewal across devices and contexts; 

• Whether the double opt-in consent requirement improves consumer understanding, even 

if sellers disclose the autorenewal feature per the proposed disclosure requirements; 

• Whether a cancellation flow that complies with the Commission’s requirements (i.e., 

that asks the consumer for consent to receive a save) is easier for a consumer to navigate 

and understand than a cancellation flow that simply provides the offer or discount; 

• Whether consumers are actually confused or burdened by a reasonable number of 

“saves”; and 

• Whether the deceptive practices identified in the rulemaking record are limited to 

certain media (e.g., phone or in-person). 

To be appropriate for cross-examination or rebuttal, a disputed issue of material fact must 

raise “specific facts” and not “legislative facts”17F

18 and must be not only “material” but also 

17 IAB comment at 20-21. 18 Commission Rule 1.12(b)(1) (“An issue for cross-examination or the presentation of rebuttal submissions, is an 

issue of specific fact in contrast to legislative fact.”). This Commission Rule follows directly from the legislative 

history of the adoption of Section 18 of the FTC Act: “The only disputed issues of material fact to be determined for 

resolution by the Commission are those issues characterized as issues of specific fact in contrast to legislative fact. It 

was the judgment of the conferees that more effective, workable and meaningful rules will be promulgated if 

persons affected by such rules have the opportunity afforded by the bill, by cross-examination and rebuttal evidence 

or other submissions, to challenge the factual assumptions on which the Commission is proceeding and to show in 

what respect such assumptions are erroneous.” H.R. Rep. No. 93-1606, at 34 (Dec. 16, 1974) (Conf. Rep.). As 

further explained in Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC, 627 F.2d 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the distinction 

between “specific fact” and “legislative fact” grew out of a recommendation from the Administrative Conference of 

the United States (ACUS): 

6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“necessary to be resolved.”18F

19 The relevant legislative history explains “disputed issues of 

material fact necessary to be resolved” should be interpreted narrowly.19F

20 As explained below, the 

Commission has reviewed the two interested persons’ proposed disputed issues of material fact 

and has determined that they are not “disputed,” “material,” or “specific facts” “necessary to be 

resolved.” 

In this context, “disputed” and “material” are given the same meaning as in the standard 

for summary judgment.20F

21 As in summary judgment, the challenging party must do more than 

Conference Recommendation 72-5 is addressed exclusively to agency rulemaking of general 

applicability. In such a proceeding, almost by definition, adjudicative facts are not at issue, and the 

agency should ordinarily be free to, and ordinarily would, proceed by the route of written comments, 

supplemented, perhaps, by a legislative-type hearing. Yet there may arise occasionally in such 

rulemaking proceedings factual issues which, though not adjudicative, nevertheless justify 

exploration in a trial-type format because they are sufficiently narrow in focus and sufficiently 

material to the outcome of the proceeding to make it reasonable and useful for the agency to resort 

to trial-type procedure to resolve them. These are what the Recommendation refers to as issues of 

specific fact. 

Id. at 1164. 19 16 CFR 1.13(b) (addressing issues that “must” be considered for cross-examination or rebuttal are only those 

disputed issues of fact the Commission determines “material” and “necessary to be resolved”). See also 15 U.S.C. 

57a(c)(2)(B) (providing that cross-examination and rebuttal are available only “if the Commission determines that 

there are disputed issues of material fact it is necessary to resolve”). 20 See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 93-1107, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1974] U.S.C.C.A.N. 7702, 7728; Ass’n of 

Nat’l Advertisers, Inc. v. FTC, 627 F.2d 1151, 1163 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 93-1606, at 33 (1974) 

(Conf. Report)). 

21 As explained in the legislative history: 

The words ‘disputed issues of material fact’ are intended to describe and limit the scope of crossexamination in a rulemaking proceeding. Thus, the right of participants in the proceeding to crossexamine Commission witnesses does not include cross-examination on issues as to which there is 

not a bona fide dispute. In this connection, the Committee considers the rules of summary judgment 

applied by the courts analogous. Where the weight of the evidence is such that there can be no bona 

fide dispute over the facts, summary judgment is proper. Similarly, in such a situation crossexamination would not be permitted; neither is a participant entitled to cross-examination where the 

disputed issues do not involve material facts. This language in the bill is used to distinguish facts 

which might be relevant to the proceeding but not of significant enough import to rise to the level 

of materiality. The word material is used here with the same meaning it is given under the common 

law rules of evidence. Also of importance is the word ‘fact.’ Cross-examination is not required 

regarding issues in rulemaking proceedings which are not issues of fact. Examples of such issues 

are matters of law or policy or matters whose determination has been primarily vested by Congress 

in the Federal Trade Commission. Thus, unless the subject matter with regard as to which cross7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

simply assert there is a dispute regarding the Commission’s findings. If those findings are 

otherwise adequately supported by record evidence, they must come forward with sufficient 

evidence to show there is a genuine, bona fide dispute over material facts that will affect the 

outcome of the proceeding.21F

22 As discussed below, NCTA and IAB proposed disputed issues of 

material fact challenging the Commission’s findings as to (1) the prevalence of unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in negative option marketing; (2) the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the various Rule provisions and the Commission’s statements on the proposed Rule’s 

economic impact. However, these findings are supported by ample evidence in the record, and 

neither interested person identified any evidence challenging the FTC’s conclusions. 

As to prevalence, the Commission must make two findings on prevalence if it 

promulgates a rule under Section 18. First, it must explain its “reason to believe that the unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices which are the subject of the proposed rulemaking are prevalent” 

when, after an ANPR, it issues an NPRM.22F

23 The Commission did that.23F24 The second is that, in 

the statement of basis and purpose to accompany any final rule, the Commission must include “a 

statement as to the prevalence of the acts or practices treated by the rule.”24F

25 The Commission’s 

prevalence findings need only have “some basis or evidence” to show “the practice the FTC rule 

examination is sought relates to disputed issues, which are material to the proposed rule and which 

are fact issues, there is no right to cross-examination on the part of any party to the proceeding. 

H.R. REP. No. 93-1107, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1974] U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 7702, 7728. 22 Id. See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (explaining the standard as “[o]nly 

disputes over facts that might affect the outcome”); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 

574, 586 (1986). 

23 15 U.S.C. 57a(b)(3). 24 88 FR 24716, 24725 & n.60 (collecting cases). See also ANPR, 84 FR 52393, 52396 (noting that “recent cases 

and the high volume of ongoing complaints suggests there is prevalent, unabated consumer harm in the 

marketplace” and soliciting comment on prevalence). 25 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(1). “The contents and adequacy of any statement required” in the statement of basis and 

purpose, such as the statement as to prevalence, “shall not be subject to judicial review in any respect.” Id. 

57a(e)(5)(C). 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

seeks to regulate does indeed occur.”25F

26 The Commission based its first prevalence finding on its 

extensive record of law enforcement cases challenging deceptive or unfair negative option 

practices. The robust rulemaking record also included comments from State Attorneys General, 

who also have vast experience in this area, as well as comments from consumer advocates and 

individual consumers. There is no genuine dispute as to the fact that, if the Commission decides, 

after the informal hearing, to promulgate a final rule, it will be able to include a statement as to 

the prevalence of the negative-option practices treated by the rule with far more than some basis 

or evidence that they do indeed occur. 

As to evidentiary sufficiency, the Commission’s factual findings are supported by 

substantial evidence if the record contains “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might 

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”26F

27 Again, based on evidence cited in the NPRM and 

from FTC cases, State Attorneys General, and commenters, the Commission has more than 

adequate evidence from which one could find unfair or deceptive practices in negative option 

marketing. No interested person identified any evidence showing otherwise. For instance, both 

NCTA and IAB suggested there is insufficient evidence to support the Commission’s initial 

finding that costs imposed by implementing the Rule’s disclosure and other requirements are not 

significant. However, this statement, without more, does not rise to the level of a bona fide 

dispute, and no reasonable factfinder could conclude the Commission has failed to meet the 

applicable standard given its vast experience in this area and the extensive rulemaking record. 

Further, NCTA’s and IAB’s proposed disputed issues of material fact challenge the 

Commission’s findings as to quintessentially “legislative facts”—“facts which help the tribunal 

26 Pa. Funeral Dirs. v. FTC, 41 F.3d 81, 87 (3d Cir. 1994). 27 Id., 41 F.3d at 85 (citing cases). 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

determine the content of law and of policy.”27F

28 Because such facts “combine empirical 

observation with application of administrative expertise to reach generalized conclusions, they 

need not be developed through evidentiary hearings.”28F

29 Thus, because these do not raise 

questions of “specific fact,” they do not warrant cross-examination and rebuttal submissions.29F

30 

Accordingly, the Commission finds that the issues raised by NCTA and IAB are not 

genuinely disputed or material within the narrow meaning set forth in the case law and 

legislative history and that they do not require a “trial-type” proceeding for their proper 

determination because they are not issues of “specific fact.” Therefore, the Commission finds 

that there are no “disputed issues of material fact” to resolve at the informal hearing30F

31 and no 

32 need for cross-examination or rebuttal submissions.31F

This initial notice of informal hearing also serves as the “final notice of informal 

hearing.”32F

33 A final notice of informal hearing is limited in its substance to matters that arise only 

when the Commission designates disputed issues of material fact: who will conduct crossexamination; whether any interested persons with similar interests will be grouped together for 

such purposes; and who will make rebuttal submissions.33F

34 Because cross-examination and 

submission of rebuttal evidence are not anticipated to occur in this informal hearing, no separate 

final notice of informal hearing is necessary. 

28 Ass’n of Nat’l Advertisers, 627 F.2d at 1161-62 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (internal citation omitted). 29 Id. at 1162. 30 See generally supra nn.18-22. 31 If any interested person seeks to have disputed issues of material fact designated by the presiding officer, the 

interested person may make such request pursuant to Commission Rule 1.13(b)(1)(ii), 16 CFR 1.13(b)(1)(ii). 32 16 CFR 1.12(b). 33 16 CFR 1.12(c). 34 Id. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

IV. List of Hearing Participants; Making an Oral Statement; Requests for 

Documentary Submissions. 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.12(a)(4), 16 CFR 1.12(a)(4), the following is the list of 

interested persons (“Hearing Participants”) who will have the opportunity to make oral 

presentations at the informal hearing: 

1. International Franchise Association (IFA) 

2. TechFreedom 

3. Performance Driven Marketing Institute (PDMI) 

4. NCTA – The Internet & Television Association (NCTA) 

5. FrontDoor 

6. Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) 

Oral statements will be limited to 10 minutes, although they may be supplemented by 

documentary submissions as described below, and the presiding officer may grant an extension 

of time for good cause shown. Transcripts of the oral statements will be placed in the rulemaking 

record. Hearing Participants will be provided with instructions as to how to participate in the 

virtual hearing. 

If you are a Hearing Participant and would like to submit your oral presentation in 

writing or file a supplementary documentary submission, you can do so by submitting a 

comment on this rulemaking docket. You must do so on or before [INSERT DATE 14 DAYS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Write “Negative Option 

Rule (16 CFR Part 425) (Project No. P064202)” on your submission. If you file a documentary 

submission under this Section, your documentary submission—including your name and your 

state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including on the website 

11 
 

https://www.regulations.gov. To ensure the Commission considers your online documentary 

submission, please follow the instructions on the web-based form. 

Because your documentary submission will be placed on the public record, you are solely 

responsible for making sure that it does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In 

particular, your documentary submission should not contain sensitive personal information, such 

as your or anyone else’s Social Security number; date of birth; driver’s license number or other 

state identification number or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account 

number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your 

documentary submission does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical 

records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your documentary 

submission should not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and Commission Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including, in particular, 

competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, 

devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names. 

Documentary submissions containing material for which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply 

with Commission Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential 

treatment that accompanies the documentary submission must include the factual and legal basis 

for the request and must identify the specific portions to be withheld from the public record. See 

Commission Rule 4.9(c). Your documentary submission will be kept confidential only if the 

General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once 

your documentary submission has been posted publicly at https://www.regulations.gov—as 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

legally required by Commission Rule 4.9(b), 16 CFR 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove it, 

unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under 

Commission Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website to read this document and the news release describing it. The FTC 

Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of documentary 

submissions to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider 

all timely and responsive documentary submissions it receives on or before [INSERT DATE 14 

DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. For information on 

the Commission’s privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see 

https://www.ftc.gov/siteinformation/privacypolicy. 

Hearing Participants who need assistance should indicate as much in their comment, and 

the Commission will endeavor to provide accommodations. Hearing Participants without the 

computer technology necessary to participate in video conferencing will be able to participate in 

the informal hearing by telephone; they should indicate as much in their comments. 

V. Conduct of the Informal Hearing; Role of Presiding Officer 

The Commission’s Chief Presiding Officer, the Chair, has appointed and designates 

Administrative Law Judge for the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Honorable Carol 

Fox Foelak, to serve as the presiding officer of the informal hearing. Judge Foelak will conduct 

the informal hearing virtually using video conferencing starting at 10:00 a.m. Eastern on January 

16, 2024. The informal hearing will be available for the public to watch live from the 

Commission’s website, https://www.ftc.gov, and a recording or transcript of the informal hearing 

will be placed in the rulemaking record. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

Because there are no “disputed issues of material fact” to resolve at the informal hearing, 

the presiding officer is not anticipated to make a recommended decision.34F

35 The role of the 

presiding officer therefore will be to preside over and to ensure the orderly conduct of the 

informal hearing, including selecting the sequence in which oral statements will be heard, and to 

place the transcript and any additional written submissions received into the rulemaking record. 

The presiding officer may prescribe additional procedures or issue rulings in accordance with 

Commission Rule 1.13, 16 CFR 1.13. In execution of the presiding officer’s obligations and 

responsibilities under the Commission Rules, the presiding officer may issue additional public 

notices. 

VI. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their Advisors 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.18(c)(1), 16 CFR 1.18(c)(1), the Commission has 

determined that communications with respect to the merits of this proceeding from any outside 

party to any Commissioner or Commissioner advisor shall be subject to the following treatment. 

Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications shall be placed on 

the rulemaking record if the communication is received before the end of the comment period. 

They shall be placed on the public record if the communication is received later. Unless the 

outside party making an oral communication is a member of Congress, such communications are 

permitted only if advance notice is published in the Weekly Calendar and Notice of “Sunshine” 

Meetings.35F

36 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

35 See 16 CFR 1.13(d) (“The presiding officer’s recommended decision will be limited to explaining the presiding 

officer’s proposed resolution of disputed issues of material fact.”). 36 See 15 U.S.C. 57a(i)(2)(A); 16 CFR 1.18(c). 

14 
Secretary. 

15