Facebook’s proposed $19 billion purchase of WhatsApp cleared an important regulatory hurdle Thursday, a victory tempered by the delivery of a stern privacy warning.
In a statement Thursday, Facebook said the Federal Trade Commission had already approved its purchase of WhatsApp, though the agency declined to comment specifically on the matter. The company still requires an OK from international regulators before the acquisition can go forward.
“We’re pleased the FTC has completed its review and cleared our acquisition of WhatsApp,” a company spokeswoman said. “Naturally, both companies will continue to comply with all applicable laws after the transaction closes.”
But the social-media giant must honor the prior “privacy obligations” that WhatsApp, a mobile chat client, had promised to its hundreds of millions of users before the deal was announced, the FTC notified both companies Thursday.
Some privacy groups have expressed concern that Facebook, which relies heavily on collecting user data and selling it to advertisers, would breach assumed privacy protections that WhatsApp adopters believed they would be given when signing up with the internationally popular messaging platform. The Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy filed a complaint with FTC last month objecting to the purchase on these grounds.
“The FTC is to be commended for sending a very strong signal that they will hold Facebook and WhatsApp accountable for their promises,” Jeff Chester, the executive director of CDD, said in a statement responding to Thursday’s announcement. “The commission’s action has likely spoiled, for now, the plans Facebook has developed to turn its $19 billion into even more digital gold for themselves.”
If Facebook wishes to use WhatsApp data in a way that extends beyond the existing privacy agreement, it must first earn “affirmative consent” from individual users before doing so.
This isn’t the first time that Facebook has tangled with FTC over privacy issues. In 2011, the company settled government charges that it had deceived its consumers and violated privacy agreements by changing privacy settings before obtaining consent.
“We want to make clear that, regardless of the acquisition, WhatsApp must continue to honor these promises to consumers,” the letter continues. “Further, if the acquisition is completed and WhatsApp fails to honor these promises, both companies could be in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and, potentially, the FTC’s order against Facebook.”
Facebook announced it had purchased the five-year-old WhatsApp, which boasts 450 million users and soaring growth rate of a million more each day, in February for a humongous price tag of $19 billion that shocked most observers, some of whom were unfamiliar with a messaging service that is far more popular overseas than it is in the United States.
What We're Following See More »
In light of his recent confessions, the speakership of Dennis Hastert is being judged far more harshly. The New York Times' Carl Hulse notes that in hindsight, Hastert now "fares poorly" on a number of fronts, from his handling of the Mark Foley page scandal to "an explosion" of earmarks to the weakening of committee chairmen. "Even his namesake Hastert rule—the informal standard that no legislation should be brought to a vote without the support of a majority of the majority — has come to be seen as a structural barrier to compromise."
Even if "[t]he Republican presidential nomination may be in his sights ... Trump has so far ignored vital preparations needed for a quick and effective transition to the general election. The New York businessman has collected little information about tens of millions of voters he needs to turn out in the fall. He's sent few people to battleground states compared with likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, accumulated little if any research on her, and taken no steps to build a network capable of raising the roughly $1 billion needed to run a modern-day general election campaign."
Rep. Dave Young can't even refuse his own paycheck. The Iowa Republican is trying to make a point that if Congress can't pass a budget (it's already missed the April 15 deadline) then it shouldn't be paid. But, he's been informed, the 27th Amendment prohibits him from refusing his own pay. "Young’s efforts to dock his own pay, however, are duck soup compared to his larger goal: docking the pay of every lawmaker when Congress drops the budget ball." His bill to stiff his colleagues has only mustered the support of three of them. Another bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), has about three dozen co-sponsors.
Sixty miles away, in Sandusky, Ohio. "We're pretty bitter about that," said Harmeet Dhillon, vice chairwoman of the California Republican Party. "It sucks to be California, we're like the ugly stepchild. They need us for our cash and our donors, they don't need us for anything else."
Anyone looking forward to seeing some boldfaced names on the client list of the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam," will have to wait a little longer. "The Supreme Court announced Monday it would not intervene to allow" the release of her phone records, "despite one of her former attorneys claiming the records are “very relevant” to the presidential election. Though he has repeatedly threatened to release the records if courts do not modify a 2007 restraining order, Montgomery Blair Sibley tells U.S. News he’s not quite sure what he now will do."