TechLuver.com

San Francisco, Calif — Feb 03, `08 — Yahoo! would consider a business alliance with Google as one way to rebuff a $44.6 billion takeover proposal by Microsoft, Reuters reported citing a source familiar with Yahoo’s strategy said on Sunday.

The report further said, “a second source close to Yahoo said it had received a procession of preliminary contacts by media, technology, telephone and financial companies. But the source said they were unaware whether any alternative bid was in the offing.

Few natural bidders exist beside Google that could engage in a bidding war, and Google would be unlikely to win approval from antitrust regulators, some Wall Street analysts said on Friday.

Yahoo!’s efforts to find an alternative bidder could simply be a measure to pressure Microsoft to boost its bid, which valued Yahoo at $44.6 billion when first announced on Friday.” More at Reuters.

In response to Google’s foul cry over Microsoft’s Yahoo! bid, Microsoft has released a statement from Bard Smith, General Counsel:

REDMOND, Wash — Feb 03, `08 — The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling number two competitor for Internet search and online advertising. The alternative scenarios only lead to less competition on the Internet.

Today, Google is the dominant search engine and advertising company on the Web. Google has amassed about 75 percent of paid search revenues worldwide and its share continues to grow. According to published reports, Google currently has more than 65 percent search query share in the U.S. and more than 85 percent in Europe. Microsoft and Yahoo! on the other hand have roughly 30 percent combined in the U.S. and approximately 10 percent combined in Europe.

Microsoft is committed to openness, innovation, and the protection of privacy on the Internet. We believe that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! will advance these goals. More at Microsoft.

Feb 03, `08 — In a statement released today on Google’s press center, Mr. David Drummond, Google’s Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer cries foul over Microsoft’s Yahoo! bid.

Mr. David Drummond in his rude and venomous language falsely accuses Microsoft of making ” hostile bid ”. He says, “So Microsoft’s hostile bid for Yahoo! raises troubling questions. This is about more than simply a financial transaction, one company taking over another.”

Now Mr. Drummond do you even know or have any remote idea how many take overs Google have made in last five years or so ??

He also says, “Users benefit from constant innovation. It’s what makes the Internet such an exciting place.”

Mr. Drummond do you actually mean supporting rampant piracy through YouTube, when you say “Users benefit from constant innovation” ??

Do you even have any remote idea of how many pirated videos of Movies, TV Shows, Dramas, Music Videos, etc are being hosted at any given moment ??

Mr. Drummond further goes on to say, “This hostile bid was announced on Friday so there is plenty of time for these questions to be thoroughly addressed.”

Mr. Drummond when even Yahoo! in its official response refers to Microsoft’s proposal as “an unsolicited proposal”, who are you in the world to refer that proposal as “hostile” ??

And Mr. Drummond when you say, “It’s about preserving the underlying principles of the Internet: openness and innovation”, do you actually mean that buying DoubleClick despite the immense privacy concerns from within the US and from Europe ??

If Google were to believe in its well publicized but never implemented ideology of ” Do NO Evil ” then Mr. Drummond why in the world Google needed to buy YouTube or DoubleClick? Google was already making tons of millions anyway… Google could have let YouTube / DoubleClick make money for themselves or let some one else buy ‘em (of course you would have stopped Microsoft from buying any of ‘em either, right?)

So Mr. Drummond before making entirely false claims using rude and venomous language, it would have been better if you have just took a little look at Google’s own past 10 years.

Or may be fear of loosing monopoly and loosing world dominance makes you speak highly rude & venomous language along with highly exaggerated claims and false acquisitions ??

Google’s statement on Microsoft’s bid for Yahoo!

Feb 03, `08 — Nicki Dugan on Yahoo’s Corporate Blog ( Yodel Anecdotal ) said that, “process like this is fluid and can take quite a bit of time” to weigh its strategic options, including keeping the company independent, following Microsoft’s $44.6 billion offer to buy the company.

Here is the complete posting:

Our response to Microsoft’s proposal

Posted February 1st, 2008 at 1:11 pm by Nicki Dugan, Blog Editor

Number of Comments 17 Comments / Filed in: Trends & News

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now, Microsoft made an unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo! yesterday evening. Since then, we’ve gotten quite a number of questions about what this means for Yahoo!. Right now our board of directors is evaluating the proposal and looking at all of our strategic alternatives, including maintaining Yahoo! as an independent company.

A review process like this is fluid and can take quite a bit of time, so while there’s not much we can say right now, we did want to refer you to this brief FAQ for more information.

Nicki Dugan
Blog Editor

Tagged: microsoft, news

In a media response to a frequently asked question about whether Yahoo would seek proposals from other companies, Yahoo! press room said it was going to evaluate all options.

Yahoo!’s Media Response:

FAQ: Unsolicited Proposal From Microsoft

Q1. How is Yahoo! responding to Microsoft’s proposal?
The Yahoo! Board is undertaking a deliberate review process. They’re going to take time to thoroughly evaluate the proposal in the context of Yahoo!’s strategic plans. This will include evaluating all of the Company’s strategic alternatives – including maintaining Yahoo! as an independent company. That process will take some time, but the Board will ultimately pursue the option that it believes can best maximize value for our shareholders.

Q2. How long will the Board’s review process take?
A review process like this is fluid, and it can take quite a bit of time.

Q3. Will the Board seek proposals from any other companies?
The Board is going to evaluate all of Yahoo!’s strategic alternatives and pursue the option that it believes can best maximize value for our shareholders.

Q4. What would a deal like this mean for Yahoo!’s users, advertisers, publishers, partners and people?
Yahoo!’s Board is going to evaluate all aspects of this proposal carefully and promptly in the context of the company’s strategic plans and alternatives. So it wouldn’t be appropriate to speculate about the potential benefits or challenges of a deal. But the review process that’s underway won’t have any impact on our efforts to deliver value to all of our users, advertisers, publishers and partners – as well as new and exciting opportunities to our employees.

Citing analysts, Reuters reported that, “Comcast Corp, Viacom Inc and General Electric Co among possible bidders, although they also said few companies had the balance sheet to compete with Microsoft or were as natural a fit for Yahoo.”

More at Yahoo! here and here.

Below is the text of the letter that Microsoft sent to Yahoo!’s Board of Directors:

January 31, 2008

Board of Directors
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Attention: Roy Bostock, Chairman
Attention: Jerry Yang, Chief Executive Officer

Dear Members of the Board:

I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of Microsoft to make a proposal for a business combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!. Under our proposal, Microsoft would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Yahoo! common stock for per share consideration of $31 based on Microsoft’s closing share price on January 31, 2008, payable in the form of $31 in cash or 0.9509 of a share of Microsoft common stock. Microsoft would provide each Yahoo! shareholder with the ability to choose whether to receive the consideration in cash or Microsoft common stock, subject to pro-ration so that in the aggregate one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be exchanged for shares of Microsoft common stock and one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be converted into the right to receive cash. Our proposal is not subject to any financing condition.

Our proposal represents a 62% premium above the closing price of Yahoo! common stock of $19.18 on January 31, 2008. The implied premium for the operating assets of the company clearly is considerably greater when adjusted for the minority, non-controlled assets and cash. By whatever financial measure you use - EBITDA, free cash flow, operating cash flow, net income, or analyst target prices - this proposal represents a compelling value realization event for your shareholders.

We believe that Microsoft common stock represents a very attractive investment opportunity for Yahoo!’s shareholders. Microsoft has generated revenue growth of 15%, earnings growth of 26%, and a return on equity of 35% on average for the last three years. Microsoft’s share price has generated shareholder returns of 8% during the last one year period and 28% during the last three year period, significantly outperforming the S&P 500. It is our view that Microsoft has significant potential upside given the continued solid growth in our core businesses, the recent launch of Windows Vista, and other strategic initiatives.

Microsoft’s consistent belief has been that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! clearly represents the best way to deliver maximum value to our respective shareholders, as well as create a more efficient and competitive company that would provide greater value and service to our customers. In late 2006 and early 2007, we jointly explored a broad range of ways in which our two companies might work together. These discussions were based on a vision that the online businesses of Microsoft and Yahoo! should be aligned in some way to create a more effective competitor in the online marketplace. We discussed a number of alternatives ranging from commercial partnerships to a merger proposal, which you rejected. While a commercial partnership may have made sense at one time, Microsoft believes that the only alternative now is the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! that we are proposing.

In February 2007, I received a letter from your Chairman indicating the view of the Yahoo! Board that “now is not the right time from the perspective of our shareholders to enter into discussions regarding an acquisition transaction.” According to that letter, the principal reason for this view was the Yahoo! Board’s confidence in the “potential upside” if management successfully executed on a reformulated strategy based on certain operational initiatives, such as Project Panama, and a significant organizational realignment. A year has gone by, and the competitive situation has not improved.

While online advertising growth continues, there are significant benefits of scale in advertising platform economics, in capital costs for search index build-out, and in research and development, making this a time of industry consolidation and convergence. Today, the market is increasingly dominated by one player who is consolidating its dominance through acquisition. Together, Microsoft and Yahoo! can offer a credible alternative for consumers, advertisers, and publishers. Synergies of this combination fall into four areas:

Scale economics: This combination enables synergies related to scale economics of the advertising platform where today there is only one competitor at scale. This includes synergies across both search and non-search related advertising that will strengthen the value proposition to both advertisers and publishers. Additionally, the combination allows us to consolidate capital spending.

Expanded R&D capacity: The combined talent of our engineering resources can be focused on R&D priorities such as a single search index and single advertising platform. Together we can unleash new levels of innovation, delivering enhanced user experiences, breakthroughs in search, and new advertising platform capabilities. Many of these breakthroughs are a function of an engineering scale that today neither of our companies has on its own.

Operational efficiencies: Eliminating redundant infrastructure and duplicative operating costs will improve the financial performance of the combined entity.

Emerging user experiences: Our combined ability to focus engineering resources that drive innovation in emerging scenarios such as video, mobile services, online commerce, social media, and social platforms is greatly enhanced.

We would value the opportunity to further discuss with you how to optimize the integration of our respective businesses to create a leading global technology company with exceptional display and search advertising capabilities. You should also be aware that we intend to offer significant retention packages to your engineers, key leaders and employees across all disciplines.

We have dedicated considerable time and resources to an analysis of a potential transaction and are confident that the combination will receive all necessary regulatory approvals. We look forward to discussing this with you, and both our internal legal team and outside counsel are available to meet with your counsel at their earliest convenience.

Our proposal is subject to the negotiation of a definitive merger agreement and our having the opportunity to conduct certain limited and confirmatory due diligence. In addition, because a portion of the aggregate merger consideration would consist of Microsoft common stock, we would provide Yahoo! the opportunity to conduct appropriate limited due diligence with respect to Microsoft. We are prepared to deliver a draft merger agreement to you and begin discussions immediately.

In light of the significance of this proposal to your shareholders and ours, as well as the potential for selective disclosures, our intention is to publicly release the text of this letter tomorrow morning.

Due to the importance of these discussions and the value represented by our proposal, we expect the Yahoo! Board to engage in a full review of our proposal. My leadership team and I would be happy to make ourselves available to meet with you and your Board at your earliest convenience. Depending on the nature of your response, Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo!’s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.

We believe this proposal represents a unique opportunity to create significant value for Yahoo!’s shareholders and employees, and the combined company will be better positioned to provide an enhanced value proposition to users and advertisers. We hope that you and your Board share our enthusiasm, and we look forward to a prompt and favorable reply.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Steven A. Ballmer

Steven A. Ballmer

Chief Executive Officer

Microsoft Corporation

More at Microsoft.

WASHINGTON — Feb 01, `08 — US and European antitrust regulators aren’t likely to prevent Microsoft from buying Yahoo, analysts said Friday, though scrutiny of the deal could drag on for months, the AP reported.

A major factor weighing in Microsoft’s favor, analysts said, is Google’s dominance in the online search and advertising businesses — the two areas regulators are likely to focus on when weighing market power issues raised by the nearly $45 billion unsolicited bid.

The Justice Department said it is “interested” in reviewing competition issues raised by Microsoft’s surprise offer. The Federal Trade Commission and European Union officials declined to comment. If the deal goes through, analysts expect Congress and European regulators to review the combined company’s increased competitive edge.

“I don’t see this just sailing through, regulators will look at it,” Ted Henneberry of the London law firm Heller Ehrman said. But even after a review that could take up to six months, he said a Microsoft-Yahoo combination isn’t likely to be stopped because the new entity’s share of the online ad space would still be dwarfed by Google, which already controls nearly 60 percent of the U.S. search market.

“The fact that Google dominates this business will be a big factor in (Microsoft’s) favor in trying to get this approved by the regulators,” said Keith Hylton, a professor of antitrust law at Boston University. More at AP.

WASHINGTON — Dec 20, `07 — The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday approved Google’s $3.1 billion purchase of advertising rival DoubleClick, saying the deal would not substantially lessen competition.

The deal, which combines Google’s dominance in pay-per-click Internet advertising with DoubleClick’s market-leading position in flashier display ads, is also being scrutinized by European antitrust officials.

In a 4-1 vote, the FTC decided to end its eight-month investigation of the transaction.

Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour dissented and issued a separate statement expressing reservations, arguing that the deal “may substantially lessen competition.”

She said the takeover “will affect the evolution of the entire online advertising market” as this evolves and have wide-ranging implications for consumers. “The transaction will combine not only the two firms’ products and services, but also their vast troves of data about consumer behavior on the Internet,” she said.

European antitrust authorities are expected to rule on the deal sometime next year. The European Commission last month launched a probe and said the merger “would raise competition concerns.” The European Commission declined to comment on the FTC’s decision, spokesman Jonathan Todd said.

Microsoft and other critics argue the deal would enable Google to dominate two aspects of the Internet advertising market — ad sales and ad-serving tools.

The FTC said in a report on its investigation that both the online ad sales and ad-serving markets have numerous competitors, several of which have been bolstered by recent acquisitions.

Those include Microsoft’s $6 billion purchase of DoubleClick rival aQuantive, the acquisition of online advertising provider Tacoda by Time Warner’s AOL, and Yahoo’s purchase of Internet advertising exchange Right Media for $680 million.

Other competitors include ValueClick and 24/7 Real Media, which was purchased by London-based advertising giant WPP Group PLC for $649 million in May, the FTC said.

Privacy advocates say the combined company will have access to a huge amount of data on individual Web-surfing habits. The FTC said it lacked the legal authority to block the deal on any grounds except on antitrust matters.

However, in an apparent nod to these concerns, the FTC on Thursday proposed a set of privacy guidelines for the online advertising industry, describing them as something that “clearly transcend” the Google-DoubleClick deal. It remains to be seen how such guidelines would be enforced.

Google has a dominant position in pay-per-click ads, which are based on a computer user’s searches. Its ads are usually in the form of text and are shown on the right-hand side of the screen.

DoubleClick is a market leader in the display ads preferred by many corporate advertisers. More at FTC.

WASHINGTON — Dec 14, ‘07 — The head of the Federal Trade Commission said Friday she won’t remove herself from an antitrust review of Google’s purchase of online advertising company DoubleClick, rebuffing requests from privacy groups opposed to the transaction.

Deborah Platt Majoras, chairwoman of the FTC, said she has reviewed a petition from the groups with the agency’s ethics official and other staff, and determined that “the relevant laws and rules…neither require nor support recusal.”

The Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy said in a petition Wednesday that Majoras’ husband, John M. Majoras, is a partner at the Jones Day law firm. The groups alleged that DoubleClick hired Jones Day to represent the company before the FTC on its acquisition by Google, the leading Internet search company.

The Majoras’ relationship “calls into question the ability of the commission to render decisions that are fair and just,” the groups said.

Deborah Majoras said Friday that Jones Day hasn’t appeared before the FTC on the transaction, and is only representing DoubleClick before the European Commission, which is also scrutinizing the deal. John Majoras said Wednesday that he has not been involved in any aspect of the transaction.

In a statement, Deborah Majoras said that her husband was no longer an equity partner in the firm.

“Any decisions that I may make in any case in which Jones Day represent a party cannot be said to directly and predictably affect my husband’s interest in Jones Day. Hence, I do not have a financial conflict in this matter,” Majoras said in a statement.

Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and Jeff Chester, of the Center for Digital Democracy, said in a statement that “we do not believe that the chairman has made a persuasive case against recusal.” The two groups requested the recusal on Wednesday.

They argued that, contrary to what Majoras said, Jones Day had advertised on its Web site that it represented DoubleClick at the FTC. But, they said, that information was pulled off the site after their recusal request.

Statement of Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras

More at FTC.

Related:

Senators Urge FTC to Review Google-DoubleClick Deal Closely

EU Opens In-Depth Investigation of Google’s DoubleClick Purchase

AUSTIN, Texas — Dec 05, ‘07 — Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today took legal action against two Web sites that cater to children but fail to adequately protect their privacy and safety. Texas is the first state to file an enforcement action under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), a federal law that generally prohibits Web sites from unnecessarily collecting personal information from children under 13.

According to Attorney General investigators, TheDollPalace.com and Gamesradar.com unlawfully collect personal information such as names, ages, and home addresses from children. Investigators also discovered that the sites’ parental consent features were easily manipulated and circumvented. The lack of reasonable controls readily allow children to access the sites’ various features, including interactive chat rooms and forums, without their parents’ knowledge.

“These defendants are charged with operating child-oriented Web sites that violate the law by failing to protect young users,” Attorney General Abbott said. “Federal law provides important protections to prevent children from divulging sensitive personal information and to shield them from inappropriate sexual or violent content online. The Office of the Attorney General will continue aggressively enforcing laws to protect young Internet users.”

Both Web sites violate COPPA by failing to include necessary disclosures and failing to obtain parental consent before collecting personal information from children. TheDollPalace.com, for example, simply asks young users who are attempting to register, “Is a parent with you right now?” Children who click “Yes” are directed to a page that allows them to simply click “OK” to vague disclosures regarding information collection and use. Gamesradar.com similarly fails to properly obtain parental consent.

Under COPPA, these Web sites must make a greater effort to ensure that parents consent to their children providing personal information online. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) offers several options for Web site operators to obtain verifiable parental consent. Among them, the FTC recommends that Web sites maintain a toll-free telephone number staffed by trained personnel for parents to call in their consent or provide a form for the parent to print, complete, sign, and mail or fax back to Web site operators.

On The Doll Palace Web site, kids who join a “friends” forum are encouraged to fill out a lengthy questionnaire and are given drop-down lists of possible answers. Under “smoking habits,” for example, kids can select answers such as “I occasionally smoke good cigars.” Among the choices for eye color are “sexy hazel” and “evening black.”

Children can also say, “I would like to meet someone older than myself” or “I like to talk about sexual issues.” One of the answers under “dress preference” allows kids to respond: “I prefer to be nude.”

More at AG,Texas.

WASHINGTON — Dec 04, ‘07 — US antitrust authorities said on Tuesday they have approved IBM’s purchase of software maker Cognos for $5 billion, Reuters reported.

IBM’s proposal to buy Canada-based Cognos, the last major independent maker of business intelligence software, was on a list of approved deals that the Federal Trade Commission releases periodically.

Cognos makes software that combs through vast amounts of data to analyze business trends. For example, Harrah’s Entertainment uses a Cognos program to keep frequent gamblers coming back to its casinos.

Software is IBM’s fastest-growing and most profitable division. IBM also uses software products to get customers to buy its consulting services and hardware. More at Reuters.

WASHINGTON — Nov 19, ‘07 — Two U.S. senators on the antitrust subcommittee urged the Federal Trade Commission’s chairman to only approve Google’s purchase of Internet advertising company DoubleClick Inc. if it concludes there will be no adverse impact on competition in the Web advertising market as a result of the transaction.

In a letter, Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, told FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras that the outcome of the agency’s review of the proposed merger would have far-reaching impact.

Senators argued that Google had a dominant position in a form of Internet advertising called contextual ads while DoubleClick was a market leader in display advertising. They said industry experts believed the deal could harm competition on the Web.

“While we have not reached any definitive conclusion regarding this issue, we urge that you only approve the merger if you determine that it will not cause any substantial lessening of competition with respect to Internet advertising,” they wrote.

Kohl and Hatch also raised questions about privacy implications since both Google and DoubleClick collect information about Web usage. “We believe that this deal raises fundamental consumer privacy concerns worthy of serious scrutiny,” the letter said.

FTC spokeswoman Nancy Judy said Chairman Deborah Majoras had received the letter but that it would inappropriate for her to comment on it.

Kohl is the chairman of the Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights subcommittee, while Hatch is the ranking minority member of the panel. The committee held a hearing on the deal in September where Google’s top lawyer and Microsoft’s general counsel testified about the merger.

“Antitrust regulators need to be wary to guard against the creation of a powerful Internet conglomerate able to extend its market power in one market into adjacent markets, to the detriment of competition and consumers,” said the letter.

It also referred to the privacy concerns opponents to the deal have raised, saying the sheer amount of private information both companies hold about individuals Web habits is a cause for concern.

The Google-DoubleClick merger is the subject of a number of antitrust reviews globally. In addition, to the FTC investigation, the European Union recently announced it was launching a detailed review of the deal.

Full text of the letter is available at Sen. Hatch’s Press Releases.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — XM Satellite Radio has been notified by the Federal Trade Commission that the FTC is closing its inquiry into XM’s marketing and customer service practices.

The FTC launched this inquiry in April 2006, and has decided to close it without any action. XM remains committed to providing strong customer service to its over 8.5 million subscribers.

Six Settlements Require Payment of Nearly $7.7 Million in Civil Penalties;  Additional Complaint Charges Telemarketer with Multiple DNC-Related Violations.

November 07, 2007 — The Federal Trade Commission today announced a law enforcement crackdown on companies and individuals accused of violating the requirements of the National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry, resulting in six settlements collectively imposing nearly $7.7 million in civil penalties, along with an additional complaint that will be filed in federal district court.

The actions, brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the FTC’s behalf, are against companies ranging from adjustable bed seller Craftmatic Industries, Inc. (Craftmatic) to alarm-monitoring provider ADT Security Services (ADT) and lender Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Ameriquest), and bring to 34 the number of cases filed by the FTC to enforce the DNC Rule, which was implemented in 2003. To date, more consumers have put more than 145 million numbers on the Registry, indicating they do not want to receive calls from telemarketers at home.

“Consumers have made clear that they greatly value the Do Not Call Registry, and they must be able to depend on its privacy protection,” said FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras. “By bringing enforcement actions, like those announced today, we will ensure that the small number of bad actors pay a price for not adhering to the law and respecting consumers’ privacy requests.”

Recognizing its importance to consumers, the Commission recently announced that it will not remove telephone numbers from the Registry, pending final Congressional or agency action regarding whether to make registration permanent.

Since the DNC Registry was established in 2003, the FTC and DOJ have filed 34 law enforcement actions against individuals and companies that allegedly have violated the Registry provisions. In total, the two agencies have collected more than $16 million in civil penalties – the largest of which was $5.3 million from satellite television provider DirectTV in 2005 – as well as $8 million for consumer restitution or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. DNC enforcement actions are part of the Commission’s enforcement of the Telemarketing Sales Rule, under which the FTC has brought complaints and filed orders on behalf of consumers for more than 20 years. More at FTC.

Washington–Nov 01, ‘07–U.S. antitrust authorities are reviewing Google’s purchase of advertising company DoubleClick as quickly as possible, Federal Trade Commissioner Jon Leibowitz said on Thursday.

Reuters further reports, “”Our staff is working through the matter as expeditiously as possible given the complexity of the matter,” Leibowitz said. The agency’s antitrust review of the deal began in May.

But Leibowitz warned that privacy advocates could be disappointed. U.S. privacy and technology groups have raised questions about the deal because Google stores information on the Internet-surfing habits of users and uses it to sell ads. DoubleClick connects ad agencies, marketers and Web site publishers.” More at Reuters.

Privacy and Consumer Groups Recommend “Do Not Track List” and Other Policy Solutions to Offer Consumers More Control Over Online Behavioral Tracking.

Washington–Oct 31, ‘07– A group of nine privacy organizations asked the Federal Trade Commission today to provide needed consumer protections in the behavioral advertising sector. The groups have asked the FTC to implement a “Do Not Track List” intended to protect consumers from having their online activities unknowingly tracked, stored, and used by marketers and advertising networks.

The Do Not Track List, which would function much like the national “Do Not Call” list, is one of several consumer privacy protections the group asked the FTC to adopt as part of a broad effort to correct a privacy imbalance that has deprived Americans of the ability to control their own valuable personal information.

The groups offered the recommendations in a letter to the Commission in advance of its two-day town hall, “Ehavioral Advertising: Tracking, Targeting, and Technology,” slated to start November 1. The letter is online at http://www.cdt.org/privacy/20071031consumerprotectionsbehavioral.pdf and http://www.worldprivacyforum.org/permalink/ConsumerProtectionsOct2007.html.

The Do Not Track List would require advertising entities that place persistent tracking technologies on consumers’ computers to register with the FTC all domain names of the servers involved in such activities. Developers of browser applications would be encouraged to create plug-ins allowing users to download the Do Not Track list onto their computers. Having the list accessible via a browser application would allow users to prevent any site from tracking behavioral data.

The Do Not Track List would still allow companies to place ads. The list would merely allow consumers to block servers on the list from tracking their online activities. More at Center for Democracy & Technology.

Rochester, NY–BUSINESS WIRE—Oct 31, ‘07–Not only does the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Do-Not-Call Registry continue to have great success, but the agency has also succeeded in alerting people that their registration expires and a renewal is necessary.

Just under three-quarters (72%) of Americans have registered their telephone numbers for the “Do-Not-Call Registry.” Of those who have registered, very few people say they get as many telemarketing calls as before they signed up (6%) and only one percent say they get more than before they signed up. One in five (18%) report that they currently get no telemarketing calls with three in five (59%) reporting that they still get some, but far less than before they signed onto the Registry and 14 percent saying they get some, but a little less than before they registered.

These are the some of the results of a Harris Poll of 2,565 U.S. adults aged 18 or over surveyed online between October 9 and 15, 2007 by Harris Interactive.

Expiration of the Do Not Call Registry

While seven in ten of those who are registered (71%) say they know that the “Do-Not-Call Registry” expires and they will have to renew their registration, 29 percent unaware of this fact. Interestingly, those in the West and those who have Post-Graduate degrees are less likely to be aware they will have to renew their registration (33% for both).

What is a true testament to the success of the ‘Do-Not-Call Registry” is the overwhelming response when those who are signed up are asked if they will renew their registration. Almost everyone (96%) says that they already have or will renew their registration. One-quarter (25%) have already done so and 71 percent plan on renewing their registration. Just two percent say they will not and an additional two percent are unsure.

With the pessimistic attitude toward a great deal of what Washington does, it is rare to see a government agency enjoying such a success as the FTC and this Registry. When very strong majorities of Americans not only sign up for something that the government proposes, but then also say it is working, that is worth noting. Further evidence of how well Americans regard this program is in the 96 percent who plan to renew. DoNotCall.Gov

The Associated Press reports, “An e-mail warning consumers that cell phone numbers will soon be released to telemarketers is making the rounds again, and government officials have a key detail they’d like to add: it’s totally bogus. The e-mails say that recipients must add their cell phone numbers to the federal government’s Do Not Call registry by a certain deadline in order to avoid being deluged by telemarketing calls.

But there is no deadline, cell phone numbers aren’t about to be released to telemarketers and it is already illegal for most telemarketers to call mobile phones, the Federal Trade Commission said Friday. It’s against the law for telemarketers to use automated dialing to reach cell phones, pagers or any other service in which the recipient has to pay for the call. Automated dialing is used by most telemarketers.

The Federal Communications Commission said in a statement on its Web site earlier this year that the rumors may stem from discussions by leading telecommunications companies - including AT&T Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. - about creating a wireless 411 information directory.

But that idea hasn’t yet been implemented, the FCC said, and would require consumers to choose to be included in the directory. In addition, the directory wouldn’t be released to telemarketers and wouldn’t change the fact that automated telemarketing calls to cell phones are illegal, the Federal Trade Commission said.

More at AP