It's even right in the dek: Businesses must disclose if they use consumer data to set individual prices.

Did they even read the article?

They are going to "enforce" disclosure rules but not enforce to prevent the substantive harms of surveillance pricing. It's framed (and many stories and readers and commenters run with the narrative) that it's a restriction, when it's actually a permission. This means that unlike the direction Lina Khan's FTC was taking to prevent surveillance pricing, it is saying to companies, "It's fine to surveillance price as long as you disclose." Meaning, open season.

It's the difference between, for example, enforcing actual net neutrality versus enforcing "disclosure" about violating net neutrality.

that's nothing like a crackdown. that's like saying, privacy policies are a crackdown on data brokers

@chuckleslord @RedGreenBlue the future might be great, it's the present that's worrying me. Oh, and the future, that's a worry too.

@chuckleslord @RedGreenBlue @SallyStrange “New startup Fraudr aims to disrupt the marketplace for false advertising”

@chuckleslord @RedGreenBlue not a bad scam considering back in the 90s and 00s a ton of garbage patents were granted for "(obvious established real-world thing) but on a computer" leading to a bunch of blatantly fraudulent lawsuits that some Texas dumbasses said were valid coughbecausetheywerepaidoffcough for some reasonFolks making and enforcing laws are amazingly vulnerable to fundamentally meaningless semantics when there's money to be made

That's a different issue, if the selling price doesn't cover costs it gets adjusted, its meant to prenet citizens being ripped of by price gouging practices or like the bread price fixing scandal we have in Canada.

VPN needs to be added to my dictionary on this new KB app