U.S. FTC eyes rule to claw again cash from corporations that lie about gig employee earnings

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Federal Commerce Fee, which enforces shopper safety guidelines, voted on Thursday to embark on laws that may enable it to win again cash from corporations which are misleading concerning the earnings that employees could make.

The FTC has beforehand gone after corporations reminiscent of Uber Applied sciences Inc in 2017 and Amazon.com Inc final yr however has been prevented from tackling current comparable circumstances due to a Supreme Courtroom ruling in April 2021 that stated the company had inappropriately used its rule-making powers to claw again ill-gotten good points.

The fee – made up of two Democrats and two Republicans – voted unanimously to start the lengthy course of of making a rule relating to corporations which are misleading about how a lot a shopper may earn from a gig job, from a multilevel advertising firm, or a level from a for-profit college, amongst others.

Republican Commissioner Noah Phillips famous specifically the proliferation of multi-level advertising corporations throughout the coronavirus pandemic. “The issue doesn’t present indicators of waning any time quickly,” he stated.

However Democrats on the fee didn’t win wanted Republican assist for a research on pharmacy profit managers, like CVS Caremark, which function intermediaries between drug producers, medical health insurance plans and pharmacies to barter prescription drug costs. Different main corporations are UnitedHealth Group Inc’s OptumRx and Cigna Corp’s Specific Scripts.

“I’ve to say I’m actually upset by this end result,” Chair Lina Khan, a Democrat, stated after the 2-2 vote. A tie vote implies that the matter doesn’t go ahead.

Each Phillips and Christine Wilson, the opposite Republican, indicated a willingness to revisit the matter.

Impartial pharmacists have complained bitterly about PBMs, saying they steer sufferers to their pharmacies or to mail-order, and provide reimbursements which are generally lower than the price of the drug to the impartial pharmacist, amongst different considerations.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz in Washington; Enhancing by Matthew Lewis)