Foreign governments can pressure U.S. technology companies through their laws and demands, but the FTC’s August 21, 2025 letters did not give the agency a final ruling that companies must refuse those demands. FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson warned that weakening promised security or censoring Americans in response to foreign pressure could expose a company to liability under the FTC Act. The letters were warnings about possible consumer-protection consequences—not enforcement orders or findings that any recipient had violated the law.
What did the FTC tell technology companies?
On August 21, 2025, FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters to more than a dozen firms. The Federal Trade Commission said the letters reminded companies of their obligations to protect U.S. consumers’ privacy and data security despite pressure from foreign governments. It also warned that censoring Americans at a foreign power’s behest might violate U.S. law.
The release names 14 recipients: Akamai, Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, GoDaddy, Meta, Microsoft, Reddit, Signal, Snap, Slack, and X. The companies provide services including cloud computing, data security, social media, and messaging.
Ferguson described several foreign laws as examples of the risks the agency was concerned about. The FTC release characterized the EU Digital Services Act and the UK Online Safety Act as laws that incentivize worldwide censorship, and the UK Investigatory Powers Act as a law that can require companies to weaken encryption to enable access to stored user data. Those are the FTC’s characterizations in this dispute, not a complete account of how each law works or a judicial interpretation of its reach.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Why did the FTC connect encryption and content moderation to consumer protection?
The chairman’s model letter points to Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Ferguson’s theory is that a company could mislead consumers if it promises secure or encrypted communications but then weakens those protections in response to foreign pressure. He also argued that censoring Americans to comply with foreign laws or demands—or failing to disclose that foreign pressure prompted a policy—might be unfair or deceptive.
The letter states: “Weakening encryption or other security measures to comply with the laws, demands, or expected demands of a foreign government may also violate Section 5.” The word “may” matters: this is the chairman’s asserted legal theory, not a finding that a particular company’s conduct violated the law or a blanket prohibition on responding to foreign legal requirements.
Rank #2
The FTC situated its warning within its past privacy and security enforcement, including cases involving companies’ security promises and allegations about Zoom’s encryption representations. The agency’s release says it has brought “dozens of cases over the past two decades” involving companies that failed to keep consumer security promises; it does not give an exact case count.
What is disputed about the chairman’s legal position?
In a September 3, 2025 letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, Rep. Jamie Raskin challenged the FTC chairman’s legal analysis. Raskin raised questions about whether the FTC Act supports the position Ferguson outlined, whether government pressure on platforms’ content moderation implicates the First Amendment, and whether foreign laws can apply extraterritorially in the United States. That letter is a member of Congress’s argument, not a court decision or agency ruling.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The disagreement is not only about what a foreign government can demand. It also concerns how existing U.S. law applies when a company responds, what consumers were told about security, and whether government pressure to restrict speech crosses constitutional limits. The cited letters do not settle those questions.
| Issue | FTC chairman’s position | Raskin’s challenge |
|---|---|---|
| FTC Act | A company that breaks consumer-facing security promises or censors Americans under foreign pressure might engage in unfair or deceptive conduct. | Whether the FTC Act supports that theory is disputed. |
| Encryption and public safety | Weakening encryption can undermine privacy and security commitments made to consumers. | The congressional letter challenges the legal analysis; it does not resolve the separate policy question of lawful access. |
| Geographic reach | The FTC warned against foreign pressure leading to censorship of Americans or weaker protections for U.S. consumers. | Raskin raised whether foreign laws apply extraterritorially in the United States. |
| Content moderation and speech | The FTC warned that censoring Americans at foreign powers’ behest might violate the law. | Raskin questioned whether government influence over platforms’ moderation implicates the First Amendment. |
Why do some governments argue for access to encrypted content?
Governments have also advanced a public-safety case for lawful access. A 2020 international statement signed by officials from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada urged technology companies to work with governments to enable access to encrypted content when it is lawfully authorized, necessary and proportionate, and subject to safeguards and oversight.
That statement represents a competing policy position: officials argued that encryption should not make access impossible in qualifying investigations. It does not decide whether a foreign demand is lawful in a particular case, whether a company’s response would violate its promises to U.S. consumers, or whether the FTC’s 2025 interpretation would prevail.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What should U.S. users take away?
The letters put companies on notice of the FTC chairman’s view that foreign pressure does not automatically excuse conduct that could conflict with U.S. consumer-protection obligations. But they do not establish that every foreign demand is unlawful, that a company must ignore a foreign legal order, or that the FTC has resolved the constitutional and cross-border questions raised in response. The outcome would depend on the facts, the company’s consumer-facing representations, the action taken, and how the relevant law is interpreted.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
