NewsGuard Sues FTC, Claims Omnicom/IPG Merger Condition Unconstitutional
The FTC “is brazenly using its power not for any issue concerning trade or commerce, but rather to censor speech,” NewsGuard alleges in a complaint filed Friday in federal court. NewsGuard launched in 2020 to help people spot fake news online.
The Federal Trade Commission violated the First Amendment by prohibiting Omnicom from contracting with news ratings services as a condition of its merger with Interpublic Group, NewsGuard claims in a lawsuit filed Friday.
The FTC “is brazenly using its power not for any issue concerning trade or commerce, but rather to censor speech,” NewsGuard, which rates news sites for reliability, alleges in its complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C.
“It has done so simply out of disagreement with NewsGuard’s First Amendment-protected journalistic judgments about the reliability of news sources,” the company adds.
Court TV founder Steven Brill and Wall Street Journal former publisher Gordon Crovitz launched NewsGuard six years ago to help people spot fake news online. At launch, the company was backed by investors led by Publicis Groupe.
Related Knowledge Center: Free speech and public protest
The First Amendment is facing challenging times: Crackdowns on campus protests prompted both-sides claims of intolerance. Attempts to head off dangerous health misinformation have been characterized as violations of free speech. Donald Trump is publicly punishing news outlets that deviate from his administration’s version of events while privately suing some outlets into submission.
The White House vs. the press | Voiceless America
Related Knowledge Center: Media and the law
Toxic politics and vast shifts in the technology landscape have created a plethora of thorny issues — both legal and ethical — for newsrooms, courts, and regulators.
The Meta-FTC trial | Section 230
Related Knowledge Center: Fact-checking and its detractors
Fact-checking has become a familiar tool for political reporters to hold office-holders and candidates accountable. But critics ask if fact-checkers sometimes miss the forest for the trees, and if the practice often struggles with false equivalency the way conventional political coverage does.