you want to give it to the federal trade commission. why does the federal trade commission fall short? for a number of reasons. it has no rulemaking authority. rules are important. they prevent harm before it happens. harm to consumers and competition. number two, the fcc sees its authority is very narrow over unfair and deceptive trade practices meaning that if an internet service provider lies and says i'm not going to block or throttle or have fast lanes and goes ahead and does it, then it will go after the internet service provider. it's not going to do anything if let's say comcast decides to double its price one day. the fcc can do nothing about it. what if an isp blocks speech it doesn't like. the fcc and antitrust law can do nothing about it. now, even more importantly and this is something that really gets lost, there's a case right now pending in california in the ninth circuit court of appeals that would strip the fcc of all oversight of a broadband even if german pioneer fcc reclassified. i want to get into the weeds but this

let's talk about the federal trade commission. because as i said before, and as rob has confirmed, what chairman pai is trying to do is give over all oversight to broadband, broadband internet access, over to the federal trade commission. i find that remarkable. that the f.c.c. started in 1934, and it was told by congress that your job is to oversee networks. right? whether they be broadcast networks or cable networks or the telephone network. so this f.c.c. is saying, we don't want to have oversight to access to the most important network of our lifetime. i just find that remarkable. we want to give it to the federal trade commission. why does the federal trade commission fall short? it falls short for a number of reasons. number one, it has no rulemaking authority. rules are important. they prevent harm before it happens. to consume -- harm to consumers and harm to competition. that's number one. number two, the f.c.c. sees its authority as very narrow. over unfair and deceptive trade practices. meaning, that if an internet servi

the federal is, communications commission and the federal trade commission will be able to look at those disclosures and if they hurt or hurt competition, the f.t.c. is supposed to act and stop those. thinking here is, that hurt good services along with that. this way, the regulator will only go after the bad services. are questions about how effective the f.t.c. will be police broadband providers and i think that's what commissioner clyburn was getting at, the idea that in f.t.c. to act, there already has to be some kind of harm. former chairman tom wheeler pointed out that it's out of thee horse on barn but the barn burning down before the f.t.c. gets involved. one major issue with this. guest: you look at how the up, commissioner clyburn made the point that agencies like the federal communications commission is with telecom experts whereas, even though the federal trade commission has a talented technol gists, it's not necessarily as well equipped as the f.c.c. to police what are ultimately potentially very complicated business and legal arrangements that are being made between compan

now chairman pai claims the federal trade commission, not the federal communications commission, the commission of expertise, the federal trade commission somehow provides a sufficient backstop to bad behavior by the isps and that is simply not true. under the federal trade commission the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies, letting bullies develop their own playground rules. if the isp ones to block websites, slow down competitors websites, charge innovators and entrepreneurs, they will be free to do so. that is because the federal trade commission, a broadband provider violates the net neutrality policies, the policy created by the broadband itself. and internet fast lanes something the federal trade commission can do about it. it is wrong. allowing broadband industry to assess their own net neutrality protections is like letting the fox guard the hen house. the federal trade commission oversight will not work. chairman pai claims he has another solution called transparency. he argues if isps are transparent about net neutrality practices consumers

let's talk about the federal trade commission. as i talked about before and robert confirmed, with the chairman is string to do is give over all oversight for broadband to the federal trade commission. i find that remarkable. -- the started in 1934 1934 and itted in was told by congress that your job is to oversee networks. cable networks, telephone networks. this fcc is saying we don't want have oversight to access the most important network of our lifetime. i find that remarkable. why does the federal trade commission fall short? a number of reasons. number one, no rulemaking authority and rules are important. before itnt harm happens, ok? that is number one. itser two, the fcc sees authority is very narrow. meaning if an internet service provider lies and says i'm not going to block or throttle, i am not going to have fast lanes and goes ahead and does that, then it will go after the internet service provider. it is not going to do anything if, for example, let's say comcast doubles its prices one day. the fcc cannot do anything

broadband and basically takes broadband oversight of the fcc entirely and gives it to the federal trade commission which doesn't have a strong tool. number two, it eliminates the rules against like comcast and at&t blocking and throttling internet traffic and allowing for fast lanes, so in other words, charging the providers to get there faster with a better quality of service and third and this is important if preamps or prohibits the state from protecting consumers and competition with similar rules so this is a very radical departure from 20 years of democratic and republican chairs saying number one we think that they have the authority to protect consumers in competition and we think we should actually do something about it, so i disagree with the commissioners telling of the history. >> host: y. during your tenure at the fcc did it feel necessary to have title ii for the internet? >> guest: in january the court of appeals overturned the chairman's rules. he had net neutrality rules grounded in a different part of the act and they were pretty strong rules. i didn't agree with all of them but

now, chairman pai claims that the federal trade commission, not the federal communications commission, the commission of expertise over telecommunications but the federal trade commission, somehow provides a sufficient backstop to bad behavior by the isps. but that is simply not true. under the federal trade commission the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies. that is like letting the bullies develop their own playground rules. and if the isp wants to block websites, slown down competitors websites, charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their customers, they will be free to do so. and that's because the federal trade commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its own net neutrality policy, that is the policy created by the broadband company itself f a service provider has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes there is nothing the federal trade commission can do about it. that is ridiculous and it is wrong.lo allowing the broadband industry to set their own net neutrality protections is like letting the

the federal trade commission will save us, but the f.t.c. is not the expert agency for communications. it has authority under unfair and deceptive practices, but to evade f.t.c. review, all any broadband provider will need to do is add new provisions to the fine print in its terms of service. in addition, it is both costly and impractical to report difficulties to the f.t.c. by the time the f.t.c. gets around to addressing them in court proceedings or enforcement actions, it's fair to assume that the startups and small businesses wrestling with discriminatory treatment could be long gone. moreover, what little authority the f.t.c. has is now under question in the courts. we're told, don't worry. state authorities will save us. but at the same time, the f.c.c. all but clears the field with sweeping preemption of anything that resembles state or local consumer protection. if the substance that got us to this point is bad, the process is even worse. let's talk about the public record. the public has been making noise speaking up, raising a ruck

the federal trade commission is our nation's premiere consumer protection agency. in 2015, when the fcc voted to move to title ii that decision as a legal matter stripped the ftc of 100% of its authority to protect consumers with respect to isps. that was a loss for consumers that they're getting back as a result of this decision. second, the federal trade commission has been the nation's premiere privacy enforcement agency. it has brought over 500 enforcement cases, including against isps. again, when the fcc voted in 2015, it created a doughnut hole where consumers had immediately fewer online protections than they did before that decision. that doughnut hole is where we are today. after the vote on thursday, consumers are going to get back strong, online privacy protections that can be enforced by the ftc. third the federal antitrust law. the sherman act makes clear that an isp enters an agreement, that involves anti-competitively blocking or throttling websites, that's going to be per se unlawful under the sherman act. section two applies to vertically integrat

federal. trade commission they have both their antitrust authority you know unfair methods of competition and also consumer protection authority no unfair deceptive acts or practices so if an honest peer is doing something that's unfair either to other broader writers to consumers to edge writers the f.t.c. you can bring a case all they have to do is show that there is consumer harm either actual or likely consumer harm like the f.c.c. we have this you know notion of the virtuous cycle and that broadband providers will interfere with that and so we need to regulate them to prevent that that theory is a theory of likely harm to consumers anyone who supports virtuous cycle can take that to be able to see and say hey here's some evidence of a likely harm bring it bring a case let me explain why the federal trial automation is only just. let me to trade commission is not adequate and in fact if you go back just one week terrell mcsweeney who's an f.t.c. commissioner said in an op ed that her own agency does not have the proper tools to protect the public when it comes to any competitive end consu

and they are the sherman act, the clayton act and the federal trade commission act. there are also state protections. the order says it preempts the states from belittling -- being little f.c.c.'s and regulating the economics of broadband but it doesn't prevent states attorney generals, for instance, from suing providers if they harm consumers. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitals tour. we recently stopped in tallahassee, florida, asking folks, what's the most important issue in their state. >> the most important issue to my state is funding. a lot of times we talk about the lack of resources and the lack of -- the quality of the education at h.b.c. -- hbcu's, however it all starts at the source. the board of governors, everything. the amount of money they give us, it's important that we rally for us to get funding but it also has to do with the students who are attending our institutions. so i think it's very important for us to start at home where we're telling student, c

now chairman pai claims that the federal trade commission -- not the federal communications commission -- the commission of expertise over telecommunications, but the federal trade commission somehow provides a sufficient back stop to bad behavior by the i.s.p.'s. but that is simply not true. under the federal trade commission, the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies. that's like letting the bullies develop their own playground rules. and if the i.s.p. wants to block websites, slow down competitors' websites, charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their customers, they will be free to do so. and that's because the federal trade commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its own net neutrality policies. that is a policy created by the broadband company itself. but if an internet service provider has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes, there's nothing the federal trade commission can do about it. that is ridiculous, and it is wrong. allowing the broadband industry to set their own net neutrality protec

the item restores the authority of the federal trade commission to enforce consumer protection and antitrust laws. it also clarifies the effects of the return to a recent protest -- reclassification of a regulatory framework, including the need to apply a federal rigorous touring approach to information services like broadband internet access service. next, the report and order adopts a transparency rule that would require internet service providers to disclose information about their practices to consumers, punch partners, and other small businesses and the commission. item returns to the transparency rule the commission adopted with certain improvements to promote transparency. it would also eliminate the commissioners conduct rule. based on the record evidence, the item finds the conduct rules are unnecessary because the transparency requirements together with antitrust and consumer section laws, ensures internet service providers engaging in behavior in complicit with an open internet, can be held accountable. the actions taken in this item will advance the article work to broadband prom

the federal trade commission works after the fact and they go after companies for doing things that are unfair. the federal communications commission says you cannot do certain things. there is a forward-looking thing to the fcc that would be absent from the ftc. however, proponents say that the prospect of being whacked by the ftc is enough to make people behave. >> what do you say? >> it is ironic. to blockthe ftc wanted time warner for some of the reasons that net neutrality was created, yet they want to get rid of net utility roles and this is a disconnected thing. if we are looking at how much of the traffic on the internet is video it is 75%. services. is on video the question is how people use video services and if we can look at comparisons with mobile internet. all of the big carrier started packaging video services at no cost to subscribers as an incentive to get them to go to the service and i think that we will see a lot more of this and these kinds of packages. ironically, it makes the open internet into a cable television package with a limited choice of options. host: you

the sherman act, the federal trade commission act. the order prevents states from making sure the fcc is not trying to regulate the economics of broadband, but what it doesn't do is prevent state attorneys general from suing internet providers who harm consumers. there are protection laws at the state level. announcer: watch "the communicators," monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span's: this year, touring cities across the country, exploring american history. visita look at our recent to kansas city missouri. you are watching "american history tv," all weekend every weekend on c-span3. physically, kansas city

dollars now back in two thousand and twelve the federal trade commission they brought a case against google similar to the issue we're seeing in the u.k. and in that case federal trade commission won and google had to p.l.d. more than twenty million dollars which is a lot of money but in this case and google says that if it does come to california they will pursue legal action and they're looking to contest these claims however if google does lose once again experts are saying they're going to be out pilkins of dollars so this essential is a major deal are to correspondent national banks thanks so much for that story. time now for a quick break but stick around because when we were turned the tax cuts and jobs act is getting closer to reality but it still has a few hurdles to past and former u.s. trading to mr parker chilton reports on the best way to protect yourself against holiday scam artists as we go to break through the numbers closing bell. guys are one more of my guide to financial survival this. is a device used by professional value x. to earn money. that's right these are f

with the trade commission somehow provide a sufficient backstop for bad behavior by the isp but that is simply not true. under the federal trade commission and the of broad bad -- broadband would establish a tone that neutrality policy that is letting the of police develop their own playground rules and if the ideas he wants to block websites to slow downno competitors web sites or charge innovators to reach customers they will be free to do so because the ftc can only step bin if a broadband provider violates its own policy at that is created private company itself they have a written policy to charge for the fast lane there is nothing the ftc can do about it and that is ridiculous and it is wrong. along with a broad band industry to set their own and neutrality protection is like letting the fox guard the hen house. okay. day ftc oversight will not work and chairman by says he has another solution called transparency that i espy's are transparent of their neutrality practices that consumers and businesses can simply choose to use of broadband provider with neutrality. but what good is transparency when most americans h

the sherman act, the clayton act, and the federal trade commission act. the order preempts the states from making sure the fcc is not trying to regulate the economics of broadband, but what it doesn't do is prevent state attorneys general from suing internet providers who harm consumers. there are consumer protection laws at the state level. announcer: watch "the communicators," monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> american history tv is on cspan3 every weekend featuring museums, archival films, and programs on the presidency, the civil war, and more. here is a clip from a recent program. >> watergate was the watershed event. before that, stations and the public were divided over whether they needed more news and public affairs beyond what was on commercial television. the watergate hearings changed everything. the reason it changed was because of several individuals who had the courage to make tough decisions. was to broadcast gavel-to-gavel. not stations would broadcast live because they had educational tv on during the daytime. but somebody, and

federal trade commission could go after them also under section five of the federal trade commission act against the law between february 2015 and against the law today. >> why illegal for somebody to pay for faster service? that's what neutrality protected. >> prevents unreasonable discrimination. you can buy in bulk get a volume discount as you could with phone service. that's a myth. back to the -- anti-competitive, if you are raising rivals costs or entering into exclusive arrangements that harm's competition or consumers, those statutes i mentioned would all be triggered and against the law. why you have ---if you're an at&t customer, you get certain directv products, can stream hbo. you're saying, a lot of -- dropping a lot of legal names. it does happen. tell me that it's -- illegal to do that, that's not true. >> no. it is true. >> it's not true. it's not true. people bundle services they own. why does at&t offer directv for free as opposed to verizon tv for free? >> they can bundle services. they can't shut out other people. bake to wireless. everybody is zero rated. unlimit

second, the federal trade commission has been the premier privacy agency. brought over 500 enforcement cases when the fcc voted in 2015 created a donut hole for consumers had fewer online protections than they did before that. that is where we are today. after the vote on thursday consumers will get back strong online privacy that can be enforced by the ftc. there is federal antitrust laws. the sherman act makes clear that as it enters an agreement that am falls blocking or throttling websites that will be unlawful. section two applies to vertically integrated isp. will attempt to discriminate against another provided unaffiliated in terms of conte content, that's subject to be an unlawful. fourth, state attorney general's consumer protection laws and this is where there's been some confusion. the order makes clear state-level net neutrality laws are printed as a matter of law because it would conflict with a title i decision. it's clear that they are not preempted. consumers should benefit from those. finally a transparency role. they're adopting a rule th

thecrats in general oppose upcoming rejection of the rules and the acting chairwoman of the federal trade commissionwe can do it, but there is a catch. the federal trade commission works after the fact and they go after companies for doing things that are unfair. the federal communications commission sets rules and says you cannot do certain things. there is a forward-looking thing to the fcc that would be absent from the ftc jurisdiction. however, proponents say that the prospect of being whacked by the ftc is enough incentive to make companies behave. emily: what does this say for big tex companies? bob: it is ironic that on the one hand you have the ftc wanted to block time warner for some of the reasons that net neutrality was designed for. on the other hand, they want to rulesd of net neutrality and this is a disconnected thing. if we are looking at how much of the traffic on the internet is video it is 75%. the impact is on video services. how do people package video services and if we can look at comparisons with mobile internet. all of the big carrier started packaging video services at no c

claim and act and the federal trade commission act., the order says it preempts the state from being miniature fcc's, trying to regulate the economics of broadband, but it is not prevent a state attorney general from doing this for providers -- to hurt consumers. >> watch the communicators monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> the democratic party met over the past two days, considering changes to have -- the presidential candidate nomination process. this is the final day of the dnc commission meeting, just under three hours.

federal trade commission. they are tough on anti competitive practices.ity just means they will stop micromanaging the internet. but that is not true. it means that big business will be allowed to micromanage it. how is that going to be good for the consumer? bear in mind, nothing is set in stone. we feel it doesn't take effect until next year. it could be stopped by courts or by congress. all right. there are the facts. wake up. >> thank you, chris, for explaining that in excellent detail. so let's bring in our media experts to talk about it. brian stelter host of reliable sources. and the hot fudge. we will skip to dessert. here's how the late night comics framed it. >> fcc voted 3-2 to repeal obama air era net neutrality. if you don't know what that means, google it while you can. >> if you're watching the show right now online right now i just want to remind you that -- >> thank you, president trump. thanks to you and this jack hole you appointed to run the fcc, big corporations are about to take full control of the internet. so merry christmas, every

. >> if i could shed some light and facts talk about the federal trade commission because what chairman pai is trying to do is give overall oversight of broadband. first of all, i find that remarkable the sec started 1934 and was told by congress that your job is to oversee the networks the broadcast networks the telephone network so this fcc says rita one oversight to access and i find that remarkable so why does the ftc fall short? number one has no rulemaking authority. they prevent the harm before it happens. number two the sec cease its authority is very narrow. with internet service provider lives i will not have fast lanes or throttle and it will go after that isp. it will not do anything for example, if comcast doubles prices the sec will do nothing what if i esp box something it doesn't like? frankly they can do nothing about it. now even more importantly in this is something that really gets lost there is a case right now pending in california the ninth circuit court of appeals that will strip the fcc of all oversight of bribing and even if chairman pai reclassifies getting in

again, the federal trade commission is going to be fully empowered for the first time in two years toolice isps conduct with respect to consumers. the fcc's 2015 decision struck the federal trade commission of 100% of authority to protect consumers from isps. another piece of that is online privacy protections, which consumers care deeply about. the ftc is the nations premier destination's -- nation's premier consumer protection agency and has been prohibited from taking action because of the title to decision. the consumer is gaining protections. this is not a situation where there are no rules in place. emily: comcast has said they won't invoke paid prioritization, but let's say they do. what would happen? brendan: what happens here is there is a misconception about what title ii did. right now, it is not stopping providers from blocking websites, creating fast lanes, paid prioritization. there are reasons why that stuff is not taking place today. it is market forces regulating the conduct and after our decision, those forces stay in place. there are a lot of people who don't believ

the federal trade commission will be involved. there still be antitrust issues. i'm not sure the consumer will see a difference. but when these commercial relationships between the providers really chill? >> if they're using more bandwidth i think they ought to pay more. >> right, let the free market do what is supposed to. when you lower the free market some a lower their prices and some of have a new market. net neutrality in 2015 was a solution search of a problem. it's good to have free market. >> sensei this will have a chilling effect on startups. where most of these before 2015? >> they were, but i think it will have a chilling effect. retreating government regulation government guidelines for things and now have comcast in charge of everything. it's always convenient to say the free market will sorted out but it's not gonna sorted out. >> but if you live in new york and new jersey you only have two choices we talk about cable. the real issues cable. what you say is an attorney. he talk about regulations and legal issues, is the problem really access in te

additionally the federal trade commission would have control of it. at something very important that i talked about. where is the real -- free and open internet. it's not internet service providers, at some of the content companies that decide what you see on the internet and more importantly what you don't see. where is the transparency there? should we have a conversation that involves them as well? >> tucker: why don't we? you up to companies, google and facebook the control 90% of all digital ad dollars. that means that basically control all news on the internet. nobody ever says anything about it, nobody appears were the mic worried it. why is that? >> i'm not sure why. what you do see rum links on capitol hill, members of both parties in both houses are a little bit worried about what's going on in the internet in terms of transparency and how some of these decisions are being made. i have some of these externs, when twitter restricted congresswoman mark blackburn ma blackburn's video announcing her run for the senate. her pro-life views. dennis

the federal trade commission is out with a warning. people are getting threatening cause typically from a u.s. marshal. it threatens to arrest or fine a victim for missing jury duty and they say they'll come out right that minute. they're sending a pre paid debit card, or what i should say, is buy a pre paid debit card. itunes card or other gift card to pay their fine. if you get a call like, this it is a scam. hang up. you should never send money by pre paid card to anyone like this. that is a sure way to know you're dealing with a scamster. >> nearly half a million people will receive checks for buying into weight loss supplement checks. more than $8 million. the supplements were deceptively marked and used baseless weight loss claims. it is part of a settlement. they say it is a fake scam. the insurance commissioner wants to expand or take away the wells fargo's insurance license. an investigation found almost 1,500 unauthorized policies, reportedly sold from 2008 to 2016 from wells fargo kiosks. in some cases, customers gave their

it takes broadband oversight out of the fcc entirely and gives it to the federal trade commission whichnot have the strong tools. number two, it eliminates the rules against internet service providers like comcast and at&t, blocking internet traffic and allowing for what is called first lanes. in other words, charging internet providers to get to the commuter -- the consumer of faster quality of service. and thirdly, it preempts or prohibits the state from per hit protecting consumers and protecting competition with the rules.r >> they are very powerful, the sherman act, the clayton act and the federal trade commission act. they are all other states protections as well, what they do not do is prevent state attorney general's from suing internet service providers. announcer: watch "the communicators" monday night at eight p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> during question time on wednesday, british prime minister theresa

we empower the federal trade commission to ensure consumers and competition are protected. does go years ago, the title ii order stripped the ftc of jurisdiction over title ii providers. today, we're putting the cop back on the beat. the ftc will once again have authority to take action against providers that take action in unfair acts. as the ftc chair once said, the ability to the tech consumers in the broadband industry is not new and far-fetched. we have a long-established role in preserving the values that consumers care about online. as president obama's first ftc chair put it yesterday, the plan to restore ftc jurisdiction is good for consumers. the sky is not falling. consumers will remain protected and the internet will continue to thrive. let us be clear. following today's vote, americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. they will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. it will still be cops on the beat. this is the way things were prior to 2015. this is the way they will be, once again. our decisions today will also re

announcement -- announcement comes a year after they agreed to pay a $100 million to settle a federal trade commission lawsuit. that misled tens of thousands of students about their posts graduation job prospects. >>> they were inducted into the california hall of fame during a ceremony today. the hall of fame celebrates those who embodied the spirit of innovation and achievement.>> reporter: light, cameras, and plenty of action. as the california museum inducted their latest class of hall of famer's. stephen spielberg drew the largest crowd. >> i get to get a glimpse. >> reporter: these young fans got more than just the signature while waiting on the red carpet. >> they are exactly the same people we are and they are not aliens.>> reporter: they will consider this achievement out of this world, and nobel prize- winning, mario mulino, and michael thomas, former uc davis professor and poet, gary snyder. and former raiders quarterback. >> no matter what your background is, whatever nationality, you can succeed at whatever you set out to do. >> reporter: they are chosen by the governor and the first lady

reported incidents for the doll, but at least one consumer group timed a complaint with the federal trade commission, which regulates children's online safety. >> toy safety is the toy industry's number one priority that's not just the physical safety but the online safety of the child playing with the toy. >> reporter: the consumer product safety commission, or cpsc, regulates toys. >> cpsc is begins to look into this the internet of things what does it mean for the safety of the toy and security. >> reporter: another hot toy at the radar, fidget spinners found for sale at target, but loaded with lead. according to tests by cpsc, an accredited lab. >> one had a whopping 33,000 parts per million of lead. 330 times the league limit for lead allowed for children's products. >> reporter: get this. that spinner is legal because the label says 14 and above. so cpsc toy regulations don't apply. >> if fidget spinners are marketed to 14 or younger they have to immediate the standards. >> the manufacturer says safety is one of our top priorities our products are tested and comply with safety standards accord

. >> a quick thought here, there any antitrust or department of jue or federal trade commission hurdle that could be an impediment? >> it is a vertical merger. that being said, i've given you positive. it's also going to make it even harder for new firming to enter the insurance market. this coordinated -- the only way that benefits the consumer, though, is if insurers -- the premiums come down, so we still need a vital and competitive insurance market and really be a trade-off between the benefits we get between coordinating your care with the concerns we have that we don't have a competitive enough market. >> craig garthwait with northwestern's kellogg school of management. >> the dow moved higher today, as part of the senate's tax bill, and now the senate and the outs must reconcile that's two versions and hammer out any differences. ylan mui is on the story tonight. >> republica are now focused on resolving the key differences between the house an the senate bills. the three biggest individual rates, the house has four while expire after 2025.he corporate house cuts to 20% right aw

but at least one consumer group has filed a complaint, with the federal trade commission which regula. >> toy safety is the toy industry's number one priority. that not just the physical safety of the toy but the online safety of the child playing with their toy. >> reporter: the consumer product safety commission or cpsc regulates toys. >> cpsc is beginning to look into this. the internet of things. and what does it mean for the safety of the toy? and security. >> reporter: another hot toy on the agency's radar? fidget spinners found for sale at target. but loaded with lead. according to tests by cpsc accredited lab. >> one of them had a whopping 33,000 parts per million of lead. which is 330 times the legal limit for lead allowed for a prod >> repor but get this, that fidget spinner is perfectly legal because the label says 14 and above. so cpsc toy regulations don't apply. >> if fidget spin remembers marketed to 12-year-olds and younger, then they do have to meet our standards that are very stringent for children's toys. >> reporter: bull's-eye toys, who makes the spinner sold at t

announcement yesterday comes a year after devry university agreed to pay $100 million to settle a federal trade commissionlawsuit. the lawsuit alleged that it misled tens of thousands of students about their post- graduation job prospects. >>> two investigates has an update on bartz fleet of the future. as the timeline for putting the new cars and service keeps getting pushed back candace reports the latest promise of a december 15 debut does not seem likely. >> reporter: major problems with bart. more trouble coming to light as we approach the 2019 date when the last old bart car is supposed to stop carrying passengers. the bart $2.5 billion project replace the aging fleet has hit a snag where bart official seem to be increasingly hesitant to provide exact dates of when the new cars will be in service. in november bart failed a test run of the new 10 car lineup with the california public utilities commission. as a result, bart was required to write up what wrong to investigate the response. in detail the hardware and software errors. software wise, trains failed to identify seven of the 10 cars. hardware