>>176892, >>176893, >>176894, >>176895, >>176896, >>176897, >>176898, >>176899, >>176900, >>176901, >>176902, >>176903, >>176904, >>176905, >>176906, >>176907, >>176908, >>176909, >>176910, >>176911, >>176912, >>176913, >>176914, >>176915, >>176916, >>176917, >>176918, >>176919, >>176920, >>176921, >>176922, >>176923, >>176924, >>176925, >>176926, >>176927, >>176928, >>176929, >>176930, >>176931, >>176932, >>176933, >>176934, >>176935, >>176936, >>176937, >>176938, >>176939, >>176940, >>176941, >>176942, >>176943, >>176944, >>176945, >>176946, >>176947, >>176948, >>176949, >>176950, >>176951, >>176952, >>176953, >>176954, >>176955, >>176956, >>176957, >>176958, >>176959, >>176960, >>176961, >>176962, >>176963, >>176964, >>176965, >>176966, >>176967, >>176968, >>176969, >>176970, >>176971, >>176972, >>176973, >>176974, >>176975, >>176976, >>176977, >>176978, >>176979, >>176980, >>176981, >>176982, >>176983, >>176984, >>176985, >>176986, >>176987, >>176988, >>176989, >>176990, >>176991, >>176992, >>176993, >>176994, >>176995, >>176996, >>176997, >>176998, >>176999, >>177000, >>177001, >>177002, >>177003, >>177004, >>177005, >>177006, >>177007, >>177008, >>177009, >>177010, >>177011, >>177012, >>177013, >>177014, >>177015, >>177016, >>177017, >>177018, >>177019, >>177020, >>177021, >>177022, >>177023, >>177024, >>177025, >>177026, >>177027, >>177028, >>177029, >>177030, >>177031, >>177032, >>177033, >>177034, >>177035
public comment to better understand how Big Tech companies and platforms deny or degrade consumers' access to services or information based on the content of speech or their affiliations. including in ways that may violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.6
The First Amendment protects the speech of Big Tech firms. But the First Amendment has never extended its protection to material misrepresentations made to consumers, nor does it immunize speakers from conduct that Congress has deemed unfair under the FTC Act, even if that conduct involves speech.7 Accordingly, Big Tech companies that suppress or promote news articles in their news aggregators or feeds based on the perceived ideological or political viewpoint of the article or publication may violate the FTC Act if that suppression or promotion (1) is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of service; (2) is contrary to consumers' reasonable expectations such that failure to disclose the ideological favoritism is a material omission; or (3) when those practices cause substantial injury that is neither reasonably avoidable nor outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. As you know, Apple News has instituted terms of service and policies covering its relationship with existing and prospective consumers. These terms of service and policies address a wide range of topics including, among other things, the content of the site, a consumer's use of the site, prohibited conduct, privacy and data security, and dispute resolution.8
Recently, there have been reports that Apple News has systematically promoted news articles from left-wing news outlets and suppressed news articles from more conservative publications.9 Indeed, multiple studies have found that in recent months Apple News has chosen not to feature a single article from an American conservative-leaning news source, while simultaneously promoting hundreds of articles from liberal publications.10 These reports raise serious questions about whether Apple News is acting in accordance with its terms of service and its representations to consumers, as well as the reasonable consumer expectations of the tens of millions of Americans who use Apple News.
As an American citizen, I abhor and condemn any attempt to censor content for ideological reasons. Such efforts, whether taken to appease overzealous activists, at the behest of foreign
145