Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 649 

1Complaint ¶¶ 77–90. 

2 Id. ¶¶ 52–76, 91–96. 

3See id. ¶ 85. 

4 Id. ¶ 86. 

The proposed order contains 

provisions designed to prevent 

accessiBe from engaging in these and 

similar acts and practices in the future. 

Provision I prohibits accessiBe from 

representing that its automated 

products, including accessWidget’s 

artificial intelligence and other 

automated technology, can make any 

website WCAG compliant, or can ensure 

continued compliance with WCAG over 

time as web content changes, unless the 

company has competent and reliable 

evidence to support the representations. 

Provision II prohibits accessiBe from 

misrepresenting any fact material to 

consumers about any of the company’s 

products or services, such as the value 

or total cost; any material restrictions, 

limitations, or conditions; or any 

material aspect of its performance, 

features, benefits, efficacy, nature, or 

central characteristics. Provision III 

prohibits accessiBe from 

misrepresenting that statements made in 

third-party reviews, articles, or blog 

posts about its automated products, 

including accessWidget’s artificial 

intelligence and other automated 

technology, are independent opinions 

by impartial authors; that an endorser is 

an independent or ordinary user of the 

automated product; or that the endorser 

is an independent organization or is 

providing objective information. 

Provision IV requires accessiBe to 

disclose clearly and conspicuously, and 

in close proximity to representations 

about its automated products, including 

accessWidget’s artificial intelligence 

and other automated technology, any 

unexpected material connection that an 

endorser has to accessiBe, to the 

product or service, or to affiliated 

individuals or entities. Provision V 

requires accessiBe to disclose, in 

connection with representations that 

accessWidget or the company’s other 

artificial intelligence or automated 

products correct accessibility barriers on 

a website, that such products or services 

will not correct barriers on third-party 

web domains or subdomains that may 

be part of the overall user experience, 

unless those domains also use the 

product. Such disclosure must be made 

clearly and conspicuously, and prior to 

the consumer incurring any financial 

obligation. 

Provision VI requires accessiBe to pay 

the Commission $1,000,000 in monetary 

relief. Provision VII describes 

procedures and legal rights related to 

that payment. Provision VIII requires 

accessiBe to provide sufficient customer 

information to enable the Commission 

to efficiently administer consumer 

redress. Provisions IX through XIII are 

reporting and compliance provisions. 

Provision IX mandates that accessiBe 

acknowledge receipt of the order, 

distribute the order to principals, 

officers, and certain employees and 

agents, and obtain signed 

acknowledgments from them. Provision 

X requires accessiBe to submit 

compliance reports to the Commission 

one year after the order’s issuance and 

submit notifications when certain 

events occur. Under Provision XI, 

accessiBe must create certain records for 

10 years and retain them for five years. 

Provision XII requires accessiBe 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 XIII provides 

the order’s effective dates, 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 the proposed order’s terms in 

any way. 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

Concurring Statement of Commissioner 

Andrew N. Ferguson, Joined by 

Commissioner Melissa Holyoak 

Today we vote to approve an 

administrative complaint and proposed 

consent order with accessiBe, which 

advertised its accessWidget as ‘‘the #1 

fully automated ADA [Americans with 

Disabilities Act] and WCAG [Web 

Content Accessibility Guidelines] 

compliance solution,’’ ‘‘always ensuring 

compliance by rescanning and reanalyzing your website every 24 hours 

to remediate new content, widgets, 

pages, and anything else you may add.’’ 

The complaint alleges that accessiBe’s 

automated solution fell far short of its 

promise and failed to correct many 

website accessibility issues.1 The 

complaint also accuses accessiBe of 

misrepresenting that various reviews 

and testimonials of accessWidget were 

independent and impartial when they 

were in fact bought and paid for by 

accessiBe.2

I write separately to clarify my vote in 

favor of the count accusing accessiBe of 

misrepresenting its product’s 

performance. Each subscription to 

accessWidget covers only one domain, 

but websites sometimes depend on 

subdomains or third-party domains for 

critical functionality, like making a 

reservation or processing a payment.3

The complaint alleges that ‘‘[accessiBe] 

also fail[ed] to disclose, or disclose 

adequately, that accessWidget does not 

remediate website content hosted on 

third-party web domains or subdomains 

(unless the third party or subdomains 

also happen to use accessWidget).’’ 4

The consent order requires that 

accessiBe disclose this limitation in the 

future. My vote should not be taken as 

endorsing the position that the ADA, or 

the WCAG, require a website operator to 

ensure that some or all of the third-party 

domains or subdomains with which it 

integrates are accessible. I take no 

position on that question, which 

involves the interpretation of a complex 

law that Congress has tasked other 

agencies with interpreting and 

enforcing. I concur in the deception 

count because the remaining allegations 

involving misrepresentations of the 

product’s ability to bring the user’s own 

domain into compliance are sufficient to 

state a claim of deception against 

accessiBe. Subject to that clarification, I 

concur in the filing of this complaint 

and settlement. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31765 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. 241 0082] 

Planned Companies; Analysis of 

Agreement Containing 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 methods 

of competition. 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 February 5, 2025. 

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: ‘‘Planned 

Companies; File No. 241 0029’’ on your 

comment and file your comment online 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
650 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 

at https://www.regulations.gov by 

following the instructions on the webbased 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 N), 

Washington, DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erik 

Herron (202–326–3535), Bureau of 

Competition, Federal Trade 

Commission, 400 7th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20024. 

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 of 

Agreement Containing Consent Order 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 from the FTC website at this 

web address: https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/commission-actions. 

The public is invited to submit 

comments on this document. For the 

Commission to consider your comment, 

we must receive it on or before February 

5, 2025. Write ‘‘Planned Companies; 

File No. 241 0029’’ 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 the agency’s heightened 

security screening, postal mail 

addressed to the Commission will be 

delayed. 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 ‘‘Planned 

Companies; File No. 241 0029’’ on your 

comment and on the envelope, and mail 

your comment by overnight service to: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Mail Stop H–144 (Annex N), 

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 

https://www.regulations.gov—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 this matter. 

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 

February 5, 2025. 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 Agreement Containing 

Consent Order To Aid Public Comment 

I. Introduction 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) has accepted for public 

comment, subject to final approval, an 

Agreement Containing Consent Order 

(‘‘Consent Agreement’’) with Planned 

Building Services, Inc., Planned 

Lifestyle Services Inc., Planned Security 

Services, Inc., and Planned 

Technologies Services, Inc. (collectively 

and separately, ‘‘Planned’’ or 

‘‘Respondents’’). The proposed Decision 

and Order (‘‘Order’’), included in the 

Consent Agreement and subject to final 

Commission approval, is designed to 

remedy the anticompetitive effects that 

have resulted from Respondents’ use of 

restrictive covenants in some of their 

contracts with building owners and 

managers that limit the ability of those 

building owners and managers to solicit 

or hire Respondents’ employees (‘‘NoHire Agreements’’). The term No-Hire 

Agreement refers to a term in an 

agreement between two or more 

companies that restricts, imposes 

conditions on, or otherwise limits a 

company’s ability to solicit, recruit, or 

hire another company’s employees, 

during employment or afterwards, 

directly or indirectly, including by 

imposing a fee or damages in 

connection with such conduct, or that 

otherwise inhibits competition between 

companies for each other’s employees’ 

services. 

The Consent Agreement settles 

charges that Respondents have engaged 

in unfair methods of competition in 

violation of section 5 of the FTC Act, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by entering into 

No-Hire Agreements with customers. 

Respondents’ No-Hire Agreements 

constitute unreasonable restraints of 

trade that are unlawful under section 1 

of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and are 

thus unfair methods of competition in 

violation of section 5 of the FTC Act. 

Independent of the Sherman Act, 

Respondents’ use of the No-Hire 

Agreements constitutes an unfair 

method of competition with a tendency 

or likelihood to harm competition, 

consumers, and employees in the 

building services industry, in violation 

of section 5. 

The proposed Order has been placed 

on the public record for 30 days in order 

to receive comments from interested 

persons. Comments received during this 

period will become part of the public 

record. After 30 days, the Commission 

will again review the Consent 

Agreement and the comments received 

and will decide whether it should 

withdraw from the Consent Agreement 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2025 / Notices 651 

and take appropriate action or make the 

proposed Order final. 

II. The Respondents 

Respondents, Planned Building 

Services, Inc. (‘‘PBS’’), Planned Lifestyle 

Services Inc. (‘‘PLS’’), Planned Security 

Services, Inc. (‘‘PSS’’), and Planned 

Technologies Services, Inc. (‘‘PTS’’), are 

divisions of Planned Companies 

Holdings, Inc. Planned Companies 

Holdings, Inc., is a non-wholly owned, 

loosely controlled subsidiary of 

FirstService Corporation, a publicly 

traded Canadian company and one of 

the largest property management 

companies in North America. PBS 

provides cleaning and maintenance 

services at residential and commercial 

buildings; PLS provides doorperson and 

concierge services at residential 

buildings; PSS provides security guard 

services at residential and commercial 

buildings; and PTS provides technology 

related services. Respondents are 

headquartered in New Jersey and 

employ more than 3,000 building 

services workers, primarily in the 

Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, but also in 

the metro regions of Boston, the District 

of Columbia, Atlanta, San Francisco, 

and Florida. The complaint focuses on 

Respondents’ conduct in New York and 

New Jersey. 

III. The Complaint 

The complaint alleges that 

Respondents sell building services to 

building owners and property 

management companies, primarily 

consisting of the labor of janitors, 

security guards, maintenance workers, 

and concierge desk workers who are 

directly employed by Respondents. 

These employees perform their work at 

residential and commercial buildings in 

various States, but predominantly in 

New York City and Northern New 

Jersey. 

The complaint also alleges that 

Respondents and their building owner 

and property manager customers are 

direct competitors in labor markets for 

building services workers. These 

include the markets for workers to 

perform concierge, security, janitorial, 

maintenance, and related services. 

As alleged in the complaint, 

Respondents use standard-form 

agreements with their customers that 

include No-Hire Agreements. The NoHire Agreements restrict the ability of 

Respondents’ customers to (1) directly 

hire workers employed by Respondents, 

and (2) indirectly hire workers 

employed by Respondents through a 

competing building services contractor 

after the competitor wins the customers’ 

business away from Respondents. These 

restrictions apply during the term of 

Respondents’ contracts and for six 

months thereafter. Earlier versions of 

the No-Hire Agreements applied not just 

to Respondents’ employees staffed to 

provide services for a particular 

customer, but to all of Respondents’ 

building services employees. 

The complaint alleges that 

Respondents’ No-Hire Agreements are 

facially anticompetitive because they 

are horizontal agreements among 

competitors not to compete. 

Respondents and their customer 

building owners and property managers 

are competitors for the labor of building 

services workers like Respondents’ 

employees. The No-Hire Agreements are 

horizontal agreements that prohibit 

buildings and property management 

companies from hiring building services 

workers, thereby undermining 

competition for labor, reducing worker 

bargaining power, and suppressing 

wages. For these reasons, the complaint 

alleges that the No-Hire Agreements 

constitute unreasonable restraints of 

trade that are unlawful under section 1 

of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, and are 

thus unfair methods of competition in 

violation of section 5 of the FTC Act, as 

amended, 15 U.S.C. 45. 

Independent of the Sherman Act, the 

complaint alleges that Respondents’ 

conduct constitutes an unfair method of 

competition with a tendency or 

likelihood to harm competition, 

consumers, and employees in the 

building services industry, in violation 

of section 5 of the FTC Act. According 

to the complaint, the No-Hire 

Agreements limit the ability of building 

owners and managers to hire 

Respondents’ employees. This harms 

Respondents’ employees because it 

limits their ability to negotiate for 

higher wages, better benefits, and 

improved working conditions. 

Employees may suffer further hardship 

if the building they work at brings 

services in-house because the No-Hire 

Agreements force them to leave their 

jobs in some circumstances. The 

complaint further alleges that the NoHire Agreements harm building owners 

and managers because they may be 

foreclosed from bringing services inhouse due to the prospect of losing longserving workers with extensive, 

building-specific experience. 

IV. Proposed Order 

The proposed Order seeks to remedy 

Respondents’ unfair methods of 

competition. Section II of the proposed 

Order prohibits Respondents from 

entering into, maintaining, or enforcing 

a No-Hire Agreement, or communicating 

to a customer or any other person that 

any Planned employee is subject to a 

No-Hire Agreement. 

Paragraph III.A of the proposed Order 

requires Respondents to provide written 

notice to customers that are subject to 

No-Hire Agreements that (i) the 

restriction is null and void, and (ii) any 

customer or a subsequent building 

services contractor for a customer is no 

longer subject to the restrictions or 

penalties related to the No-Hire 

Agreements in Respondents’ contracts. 

Paragraph III.B of the proposed Order 

requires Respondents to provide written 

notice to employees who are subject to 

a No-Hire Agreement. Paragraph III.C 

requires that Respondents post clear and 

conspicuous notice that employees are 

not subject to No-Hire Agreements and 

may seek or accept a job with the 

building directly, or any company that 

wins the building’s business. 

Paragraphs IV.A and IV.B of the 

proposed Order provide a timeline 

according to which the obligations 

enumerated in Section III must be met. 

Paragraphs IV.C–E set forth 

Respondents’ ongoing compliance 

obligations. 

Other paragraphs contain standard 

provisions regarding compliance 

reports, requirements for Respondents 

to provide notice to the FTC of material 

changes to their business, and access for 

the FTC to documents and personnel. 

The term of the proposed Order is ten 

years. 

The purpose of this analysis is to 

facilitate public comment on the 

Consent Agreement and proposed Order 

to aid the Commission in determining 

whether it should make the proposed 

Order final. This analysis is not an 

official interpretation of the proposed 

Order and does not modify its terms in 

any way. 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–31763 Filed 1–3–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice–Q–2024–07; Docket No. 2024–0002; 

Sequence No. 58] 

Federal Secure Cloud Advisory 

Committee Request for Applications 

AGENCY: Federal Acquisition Service 

(Q), General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: GSA is seeking applications 

to fill three (3) membership seats on the 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES