FTC takes action against Gravy Analytics, Venntel for selling location data

Scope and Impact of the FTC Order

• Some readers argue the order is weak: it lacks obvious monetary penalties, doesn’t name the acquiring company (Unacast), and looks like paperwork and reporting rather than true punishment.
• Others counter that it is a binding consent decree: it explicitly prohibits selling or using “sensitive location data” tied to sensitive locations and applies to current and future officers/agents, effectively shutting down a line of business.
• Concern that retained “deidentified” or “non‑sensitive” historic data and “consented” data create large loopholes; skeptics expect little practical change and foresee ToS/EULA tweaks to manufacture consent.

Legal Basis and Chevron Deference

• One thread asks what concrete law requires “verifiable consent” for location tracking.
• Answer: the FTC is invoking Section 5 of the FTC Act (unfair and deceptive practices), as in many of its cases.
• Large subthread debates the end of Chevron deference:
  • One side: agencies can still regulate, but courts will now second‑guess technical interpretations, creating inconsistent, politicized rulings and heavier caseloads; this weakens agencies like the FTC/EPA.
  • Other side: Chevron enabled agencies to “make things up” beyond congressional delegations; its rollback is framed as restoring legislative authority and giving regulated parties more legal recourse.
  • Disagreement over whether agency experts or judges are more “political” and which arrangement better manages corruption and error.

Surveillance, Privacy, and Power

• Many see data brokers as a workaround for warrant requirements: law enforcement and intelligence agencies simply buy granular location and internet data. This is viewed as systemic, entrenched, and unlikely to be dismantled.
• Some argue focus should shift from corporations to government use of collected data, since the state has coercive power; others stress corporations also profit by selling to government, manipulating users, and entrenching monopolies.
• Calls for comprehensive, statutory privacy law (GDPR‑style), with real enforcement, revocable consent, provenance tracking, and possibly user royalties; frustration at piecemeal protections (e.g., special treatment for certain “sensitive” locations only).
• Additional concerns extend to automakers selling telematics/location data and to ubiquitous camera and facial‑recognition systems, raising broader questions about how “free” people really are in a heavily surveilled environment.