79594 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 

significant banking organizations 

representing entities actively 

participating in the federal funds and/or 

other money markets. 

Total estimated number of 

respondents: 277. 

Total estimated change in burden: 

14,000. 

Total estimated annual burden hours: 

133,825. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, September 25, 2024. 

Benjamin W. McDonough, 

Deputy Secretary and Ombuds of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22324 Filed 9–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 232 3042] 

DoNotPay, Inc..; Analysis of Proposed 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices. The attached 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to 

Aid Public Comment describes both the 

allegations in the complaint and the 

terms of the consent order—embodied 

in the consent agreement—that would 

settle these allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 30, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments online or on paper by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Please write ‘‘DoNotPay, Inc.; 

File No. 232 3042’’ on your comment 

and file your comment online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, please mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail 

Stop H–144 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Fentonmiller (202–326–2775), 

Attorney, Division of Advertising 

Practices, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule § 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of 30 days. The following Analysis to 

Aid Public Comment describes the 

terms of the consent agreement and the 

allegations in the complaint. An 

electronic copy of the full text of the 

consent agreement package can be 

obtained at https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/commission-actions. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before October 30, 2024. Write 

‘‘DoNotPay, Inc.; File No. 232 3042’’ on 

your comment. Your comment— 

including your name and your state— 

will be placed on the public record of 

this proceeding, including, to the extent 

practicable, on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

Because of heightened security 

screening, postal mail addressed to the 

Commission will be subject to delay. We 

strongly encourage you to submit your 

comments online through the https://

www.regulations.gov website. If you 

prefer to file your comment on paper, 

write ‘‘DoNotPay, Inc.; File No. 232 

3042’’ on your comment and on the 

envelope, and mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail 

Stop H–144 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website at 

https://www.regulations.gov, you are 

solely responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include 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 

comment does not include sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule § 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2)—including competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 

§ 4.9(c). In particular, the written 

request for confidential treatment that 

accompanies the comment must include 

the factual and legal basis for the 

request and must identify the specific 

portions of the comment to be withheld 

from the public record. See FTC Rule 

§ 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept 

confidential only if the General Counsel 

grants your request in accordance with 

the law and the public interest. Once 

your comment has been posted on the 

https://www.regulations.gov website—as 

legally required by FTC Rule § 4.9(b)— 

we cannot redact or remove your 

comment from that website, unless you 

submit a confidentiality request that 

meets the requirements for such 

treatment under FTC Rule § 4.9(c), and 

the General Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website at https://

www.ftc.gov to read this document and 

the news release describing the 

proposed settlement. The FTC Act and 

other laws the Commission administers 

permit the collection of public 

comments to consider and use in this 

proceeding, as appropriate. The 

Commission will consider all timely 

and responsive public comments it 

receives on or before October 30, 2024. 

For information on the Commission’s 

privacy policy, including routine uses 

permitted by the Privacy Act, see 

https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/ 

privacy-policy. 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To 

Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, subject to 

final approval, an agreement containing 

a consent order from DoNotPay, Inc. 

(‘‘DoNotPay’’). 

The proposed consent order 

(‘‘proposed order’’) has been placed on 

the public record for thirty days for 

receipt of comments by interested 

persons. Comments received during this 

period will become part of the public 

record. After thirty days, the 

Commission will again review the 

agreement and the comments received 

and will decide whether it should 

withdraw from the agreement and take 

appropriate action or make final the 

agreement’s proposed order. 

This matter involves DoNotPay’s 

reliance on the emergence of new 

technology like artificial intelligence 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 79595 

1Cf. Sandbox Information for Interested 

Applicants, Utah Office of Legal Services 

Innovation, https://utahinnovationoffice.org/infofor-interested-applicants/ (last visited Sept. 12, 

2024) (describing Utah’s ‘‘legal regulatory 

sandbox,’’ which ‘‘enables authorized entities to 

employ innovative legal service methods and 

business models . . . to ensure consumers have 

access to a well-developed, high-quality, 

innovative, affordable and competitive market for 

legal services’’). 

1 In re DoNotPay, Inc., Complaint (‘‘Complaint’’) 

& Decision and Order. 

2Complaint ¶ 9. 

3 Id. ¶ 17. 

4 Id. ¶ 10. 

5 Id. ¶ 11. 

6 Id. ¶ 17. 

7 Id. ¶ 20. 

8 Id. ¶ 24. 

(AI) to market its DoNotPay Service 

(‘‘the Service’’) as a cutting-edge 

solution for producing legal documents. 

DoNotPay described its Service as ‘‘the 

world’s first robot lawyer’’ and as an 

‘‘AI lawyer’’ capable of performing legal 

services such as drafting ‘‘ironclad’’ 

demand letters, contracts, complaints 

for small claims court; challenging 

speeding tickets; and appealing parking 

tickets. The proposed complaint alleges 

that the Service was not designed to 

operate like a human lawyer, and that 

the company’s claims were false, 

misleading, or unsubstantiated. 

The proposed complaint also alleges 

that DoNotPay falsely claimed that the 

Service used artificial intelligence and 

other technology to analyze a 

consumer’s small business website for 

federal and state law violations and 

could save a consumer hundreds of 

thousands of dollars in potential legal 

fees. Further, the proposed complaint 

alleges that DoNotPay falsely claimed 

that the General Membership 

subscription to the DoNotPay Service 

included some features that, in fact, 

were not available to General 

Membership subscribers. 

The proposed order contains 

provisions designed to prevent 

DoNotPay from engaging in these and 

similar acts and practices in the future. 

Provision I prohibits DoNotPay from 

representing that its Service or any other 

internet-enabled product or service that 

it offers operates like a human lawyer or 

any other type of professional, unless 

that representation is not misleading 

and DoNotPay possesses competent and 

reliable evidence to substantiate the 

representation. Provision II prohibits 

DoNotPay from misrepresenting that its 

Service or any other internet-enabled 

product or service is capable of 

analyzing or evaluating a website or any 

other document for federal and state law 

violations or will save consumers legal 

fees. This provision also prohibits 

misrepresentations about the features, 

benefits, or attributes included with the 

purchase of, or subscription to, any such 

product or service. 

Provisions III requires DoNotPay to 

pay the Commission $193,000 in 

monetary relief. Provision IV describes 

the procedures and legal rights related 

to that payment. Provision V requires 

DoNotPay to provide the Commission 

customer contact information upon 

request in order to administer consumer 

redress. Provision VI requires DoNotPay 

to provide eligible customers with 

notice of the consent order and the 

settlement. 

Provisions VII through XI are 

reporting and compliance provisions. 

Provision VII mandates that DoNotPay 

acknowledge receipt of the order, 

distribute the order to principals, 

officers, and certain employees and 

agents, and obtain signed 

acknowledgements from them. 

Provision VIII requires DoNotPay to 

submit compliance reports to the 

Commission one year after the order’s 

issuance and submit notifications when 

certain events occur. Under Provision 

IX, DoNotPay must create certain 

records for 10 years and retain them for 

five years. Provision X requires 

DoNotPay to provide information or 

documents necessary for the 

Commission to monitor compliance 

with the order during the period of the 

order’s effective dates. Finally, 

Provision XI provides the effective dates 

of the order, including that, with 

exceptions, the order will terminate in 

20 years. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

proposed order. It is not intended to 

constitute an official interpretation of 

the complaint or proposed order, or to 

modify in any way the proposed order’s 

terms. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Joel Christie, 

Acting Secretary. 

Concurring Statement of Commissioner 

Melissa Holyoak, Joined by Chair Lina 

M. Khan 

The Commission votes today to accept 

for public comment an administrative 

complaint and consent agreement with 

DoNotPay, Inc., resolving allegations 

that the company made false and 

unsubstantiated claims that its artificial 

intelligence (‘‘AI’’)-powered service 

could function like a human lawyer; 

that its service could analyze a business 

website for law violations based solely 

on the business’s email address; and 

that some legal services were available 

as part of its general membership when 

in fact they were not. 

For consumers to benefit from AI (as 

with any technology), they must be able 

to trust the claims that companies make 

about its capabilities. Importantly, this 

settlement does not suggest that 

consumers should use expensive 

professional services, or that companies 

should avoid offering innovative 

products that reduce the need for highpriced lawyers.1 The misdeeds of a few 

bad apples shouldn’t dampen proconsumer innovation. Indeed, we are 

hopeful that AI will give consumers 

access to many types of services at 

lower cost and with greater convenience 

than has previously been available. 

Today’s settlement shows the 

Commission’s important role in 

eliminating deception from the market 

so that honest firms can compete to offer 

consumers innovative, trustworthy 

products. 

Concurring Statement of Commissioner 

Andrew N. Ferguson 

The Commission today issues an 

administrative complaint and accepts a 

proposed consent agreement with 

DoNotPay for deceptively marketing a 

generative artificial intelligence (AI) 

system.1 The Commission’s complaint 

alleges that DoNotPay advertised its 

service as ‘‘the world’s first robot 

lawyer’’ that could ‘‘fight corporations, 

beat bureaucracy and sue anyone at the 

press of a button.’’ 2 DoNotPay told 

consumers it could ‘‘Generate Perfectly 

Valid Legal Documents in No Time’’ 

and guide consumers through filing a 

lawsuit.3 The DoNotPay website 

prominently featured a quote that it 

claimed was from the Los Angeles 

Times: ‘‘What this robot lawyer can do 

is astonishingly similar—if not more—to 

what human lawyers do.’’ 4 But this 

quote was actually from a high-school 

student’s opinion piece in the High 

School Insider website, a blog hosted by 

the Los Angeles Times for young 

people.5 DoNotPay told consumers that 

‘‘[w]hile it is possible to handle suing 

for assault on your own, it may not be 

the best approach’’ and advised them 

that ‘‘it is easier to have the expertise of 

an entity such as DoNotPay on your side 

to avoid complications.’’ 6 The 

Commission’s complaint alleges that 

DoNotPay fell far short of these 

promises, and that DoNotPay employees 

had not even tested the quality and 

accuracy of the legal documents and 

advice generated by the service.7 In 

some cases, the Commission alleges that 

DoNotPay advertised features that it 

simply did not provide.8

I am happy to vote for this complaint. 

It is a great example of the Commission 

enforcing Section 5 of the Federal Trade 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
79596 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 189 / Monday, September 30, 2024 / Notices 

9 15 U.S.C. 45. 

10 Id. 45(a)(2). 

11See Dissenting Statement of Commissioner 

Andrew N. Ferguson, Joined by Commissioner 

Melissa Holyoak, In the Matter of Rytr LLC, at 9– 

10 (Sept. 25, 2024); Concurring and Dissenting 

Statement of Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson, A 

Look Behind the Screens: Examining the Data 

Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming 

Services, at 10–11 (Sept. 19, 2024). 

12Complaint ¶¶ 25–27. 

13See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125. 

1 78 FR 3972, 4005 (Jan. 17, 2013). 

2This consists of certain traditional website 

operators, mobile app developers, plug-in 

developers, and advertising networks. 

3See, e.g., 80 FR 76491 (Dec. 9, 2015); 84 FR 1466 

(Feb. 4, 2019). 

Commission Act 9 against businesses 

that deceive consumers about the 

capabilities of their generative AI 

services. Businesses that exploit media 

hype and consumer unfamiliarity with 

this new technology to cheat people out 

of their hard-earned money should 

expect a knock on the door from the 

Commission and other law-enforcement 

agencies. In this case, consumers who 

relied on DoNotPay’s wholly inadequate 

legal advice not only wasted their 

money but were also likely induced into 

reliance on the inadequate legal 

contracts and ineffective legal filings 

generated by DoNotPay. It does not take 

a vivid imagination to imagine how 

such reliance could have ruinous 

consequences. The Commission’s staff 

deserves great credit for bringing and 

settling this case. 

I write separately to ensure that no 

one confuses what we are doing today— 

holding generative-AI companies to the 

same standards for honest-business 

conduct that apply to every industry— 

with the regulation of AI qua AI. 

Congress has given us the power to 

enforce prohibitions against unfair 

methods of competition and unfair or 

deceptive acts and practices.10 We may 

reach some AI-related activity 

incidental to enforcing those 

prohibitions, as we do today. But 

Congress has not given us power to 

regulate AI standing alone. We should 

not succumb to the panicked calls for 

the Commission to act as the country’s 

comprehensive AI regulator.11

I write also to clarify that my vote 

should not be taken as support for the 

State Bar of California’s claim that 

DoNotPay was engaged in the 

unauthorized practice of law.12 The 

Commission does not enforce state 

occupational-licensing laws like 

California’s unauthorized-practice-oflaw prohibition.13 And if a company 

were to create a computer system 

capable of giving accurate legal advice 

and drafting effective legal documents, 

or honestly advertise a system that 

provides something less, I doubt that the 

aggressive enforcement of lawyers’ 

monopoly on legal services would serve 

the public interest. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22400 Filed 9–27–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; 

Comment Request; Extension 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is seeking public comments on its 

proposal to extend for an additional 

three years the current Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’) clearance for 

information collection requirements 

contained in the Children’s Online 

Privacy Protection Rule (‘‘COPPA Rule’’ 

or ‘‘Rule’’). That clearance expires on 

April 30, 2025. 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

November 29, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘COPPA Rule: Paperwork 

Comment, FTC File No. P155408’’ on 

your comment, and file your comment 

online at https://www.regulations.gov by 

following the instructions on the webbased form. If you prefer to file your 

comment on paper, mail your comment 

to the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 

20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Trilling, Attorney, (202) 326– 

3497, Division of Privacy and Identity 

Protection, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Children’s Online 

Privacy Protection Rule, 16 CFR part 

312. 

OMB Control Number: 3084–0117. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Affected Public: Private Sector: 

Businesses and other for-profit entities. 

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 

17,700. 

Estimated Annual Labor Costs: 

$8,687,169. 

Estimated Annual Non-Labor Costs: 

$0. 

Abstract: The COPPA Rule, 16 CFR 

part 312, requires commercial websites 

and online services to provide notice 

and obtain parental consent before 

collecting, using, or disclosing personal 

information from children under age 

thirteen, with limited exceptions. The 

COPPA Rule contains certain statutorily 

required notice, consent, and other 

requirements that apply to operators of 

any commercial website or online 

service directed to children that collect 

personal information, and operators of 

any commercial website or online 

service with actual knowledge that they 

are collecting personal information from 

children. The Rule also applies to 

operators that have actual knowledge 

that they are collecting personal 

information directly from users of 

another website or online service that is 

directed to children. Covered operators 

must, among other things: (1) provide 

online notice and direct notice to 

parents of how they collect, use, and 

disclose children’s personal 

information; (2) obtain the prior consent 

of the child’s parent in order to engage 

in such collection, use, and disclosure; 

(3) provide reasonable means for the 

parent to obtain access to the 

information and to direct its deletion; 

and (4) establish procedures that protect 

the confidentiality, security, and 

integrity of personal information 

collected from children. 

Burden Statement 

A. Annual Hours Burden: 17,600 

hours. 

I. New Entrant Operators’ Disclosure 

Burden 

Based on public comments received 

by the Commission during its 2013 

COPPA Rule amendments rulemaking,1

FTC staff estimates that the Rule affects 

approximately 280 new operators per 

year.2 FTC staff maintains its 

longstanding estimate that new 

operators of websites and online 

services will require, on average, 

approximately 60 hours to draft a 

privacy policy and design mechanisms 

to provide the required online privacy 

notice and, where applicable, the direct 

notice to parents.3 This yields an 

estimated annual hours burden of 

16,800 hours (280 respondents × 60 

hours). 

II. Safe Harbor Applicant Reporting 

Requirements 

Operators can comply with the 

COPPA Rule by meeting the terms of 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1