Matt Cutts announced the feature in a very brief post on the Google Webmaster Central blog, saying, “Webmasters can now choose this option through our Webmaster Tools, and crawled content currently being displayed on Shopping, Advisor, Flights, Hotels, or Google+ Local search pages will be removed within 30 days.”

This is obviously not a feature that Google would want a ton of people to use, because the less content that appears in these services, the less useful they are. Perhaps that’s why Cutts hasn’t tweeted about the tool (maybe not, but perhaps). At least with the short announcement, they have something they can point to.

The feature is a direct response to an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission. When Google settled with the FTC, one of the voluntary concessions Google made was a feature that would let sites opt out of Google’s specialized search engines.

As Danny Sullivan notes, the feature doesn’t let you choose which search engines you wish to opt out of. If you use the feature, you’re opting out of all of those mentioned.

On a help page, Google says, “This opt-out option currently applies only to services hosted on google.com and won’t apply to other Google domains.”

Since 2000, the FTC has conducted an undercover shopper survey. The goal is to have kids try to buy mature entertainment (like R-rated films or M-rated games), and see how many are turned away. Early on, the video game industry had a bad track record as few stores enforced games ratings, but video game retailers started to comply after the Entertainment Software Ratings Board established the ESRB Retail Council in 2005.

These efforts have paid off as the video game industry has the highest level of compliance among all retailers with only 13 percent of underage teenagers being able to buy M-rated games from stores. Other industries, like music and movies, sell explicit content CDs and R-rated movie tickets to 47 and 24 percent of underage teenagers respectively.

Going by retailer, the study found that Walmart had the worst compliance with game ratings by selling M-rated games to 25 percent of underage teenagers. Target had the best compliance with zero percent of teenagers being able to purchase M-rated games at the retailer.

It would be easy to say the study proves something, but it really only suggests that game ratings are effective. At the very least, the game industry is more effective at self-policing than other industries, but that could be due to the fact that other industries are never put under the same amount of public scrutiny that the game industry is subjected to.

Regardless, the games industry is doing a good job of keeping mature games out of the hands of minors. Now if only parents could stop buying mature-rated titles for their children. It gets a little tiresome hearing parents say the industry is rotting their child’s morals when they were the ones who neglected to notice the M-rating and content descriptors on the back of the box.

[h/t: The Hill]

The new regulations add bits and pieces about all types of online ads – especially ads viewed from mobile devices. But it’s the new guidelines on “space-constrained” ads (most applicable form being ads inside tweets) that are really interesting.

Of course, the FTC reminds us that all of the ad guidelines for all types of media apply to social media ads. Advertisers can’t hide the small print, and they can’t make it seem like the ad is not really an ad. But there are some specific guidelines for shorter ads, like the ones that appear on Twitter, that social media marketers need to know about.

First off, the FTC says that you can link to all the fine print instead of having to say it all inside the 140-character limit. But if you do, the click-through page must contain all applicable information and it must get to the point pretty quickly:

“When a space-constrained ad requires a disclosure, incorporate the disclosure into the ad whenever possible. However, when it is not possible to make a disclosure in a space-constrained ad, it may, under some circumstances, be acceptable to make the disclosure clearly and conspicuously on the page to which the ad links,” says the FTC.

But about that link: the FTC warns that shortened links like “bit.ly/f56” or even shortened links with the world “disclose” in them like “bit.ly/f56/disclose[6]” could confuse consumers. Simply put, the link may direct the consumer to the product’s website, but they wouldn’t know exactly why. Plus, it may be hard to find the disclosure.

Additionally, “space-constrained” advertisers run into another problem if their product is available to be purchased offline:

“If a product promoted in a space-constrained ad can be bought in a brick and mortar store, consumers who do not click through to a linked website would miss any disclosure that was not in the space-constrained ad itself. If the disclosure needs to be in the ad itself but it does not fit, the ad should be modified so it does not require such a disclosure or, if that is not possible, that space-constrained ad should not be used.”

Basically, the FTC is saying that if you can’t provide the fine print in your Twitter ad, and there’s a chance that a customer could buy your product offline without having seen the fine print, it’s best to simply forgo the Twitter ad altogether.

Even if the ad tweet is able to achieve this, the advertiser still has to adequately disclose that the viewer is in fact looking at an ad. The FTC suggests that adding “Ad:” to the beginning of the message or “Sponsored” somewhere inside would be sufficient. But one popular Twitter trick, adding “#spon” to ad tweets, could not be enough according to the FTC.

They say that it “might confuse consumers and make it less likely that they would understand that it is a disclosure.”

Of course, we’re not talking about Twitter’s official ad product here. Sponsored tweets are clearly marked as ads by Twitter themselves. What we’re talking about are unofficial “third-party” ads that users are paid to post. Twitter already requires that these third-party ads properly disclose that they are ads. But the FTC has clearly decided that there needs to be some hyper-specific rules for these new space-constrained ads, which we’ll only see more and more of in the coming years.

Path is now required to establish a “comprehensive” privacy program, obtain independent privacy assessments every other year for the next 20 years (similar terms to what Google and Facebook have had to agree to in the past), and pay $800,000 for the COPPA violation.

The FTC charged that Path violated the COPPA rule by not spelling out its collection, use and disclosure policy for children’s personal info, not providing parents with direct notice of its collection, use and disclosure policy for children’s personal info, and not obtaining verifiable parental consent before collecting children’s personal info.

Path is also required to delete info collected from children under the age of 13. The company has already deleted the address book info that it collected during the time period for what the FTC calls its “deceptive practices” took place.

“Over the years the FTC has been vigilant in responding to a long list of threats to consumer privacy, whether it’s mortgage applications thrown into open trash dumpsters, kids information culled by music fan websites, or unencrypted credit card information left vulnerable to hackers,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “This settlement with Path shows that no matter what new technologies emerge, the agency will continue to safeguard the privacy of Americans.”

In related news, Leibowitz announced his resignation as FTC Chairman today. He will step down on February 15.

Path recently launched a new search feature, which lets you search “moments” your friends and family have shared on Path or other social networks like Facebook, Instagram and Foursquare.

Update: Path has issued its response to the FTC’s announcement. The company says:

Today the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it reached a settlement pending court approval with Path regarding alleged violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protections Act (COPPA). The gist of the FTC’s complaint is this: early in Path’s history, children under the age of 13 were able to sign up for accounts. A very small number of affected accounts have since been closed by Path.

As you may know, we ask users’ their birthdays during the process of creating an account. However, there was a period of time where our system was not automatically rejecting people who indicated that they were under 13. Before the FTC reached out to us, we discovered and fixed this sign-up process qualification, and took further action by suspending any under age accounts that had mistakenly been allowed to be created.
We want to share our experience and learnings in the hope that others in our industry are reminded of the importance of making sure services are in full compliance with rules like COPPA. From a developer’s perspective, we understand the tendency to focus all attention on the process of building amazing new things. It wasn’t until we gave our account verification system a second look that we realized there was a problem. We hope our experience can help others as a reminder to be cautious and diligent.

Throughout this experience and now, we stand by our number one commitment to serve our users first.

The Hill reports that the FTC has published a 169-page document detailing all the new rules that will be added to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act this year. The new rules represent the first major revision to the bill since its original passing in 1998. As expected, most of the additions have to deal with concerns that were not present last decade, like smartphones and social networks.

The FTC issued two major changes that will affect pretty much every service provider on the Internet that even remotely markets to children. The first is a definition change that files geolocation information under a child’s personal information. The change means that services can not track a child across various Web sites and other online services.

In the same vein, the second update extends privacy protections to modern Web applications apps, games and Web site plug-ins. The latter is the most interesting because some Web sites appeal to people both young and old. These plug-ins can be used to track the adults, but what about the children? How will a Web site know who’s a child and who isn’t?

The FTC’s response is that a Web site “whose primary target audience is children must continue to presume all users are children and to provide COPPA protections accordingly.” That’s easier said than done, however, in an age where social media is everywhere. Sure, children under the age of 13 can’t use Facebook, but some companies are concerned that they’ll be in violation of the new rules just by putting social share buttons on their Web site for teenagers or adults that visit the site.

Speaking of social media, social networks will probably be none too pleased that the new rules will be taking effect this year. Facebook has already been pretty vocal about its opposition to the new rules in a post from October of last year. The company took an especial offense to COPPA protections being extended to Web plug-ins. Here’s what Facebook had to say at the time:

As the Commission evaluates the further changes proposed in the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“SNPRM”), Facebook encourages the Commission to develop policies that take into account the significant impediments that a revised COPPA Rule could create for innovation and the ecosystem that shapes students’ online experiences. This social functionality, widely used by educational sites and apps, is dependent on plugins and could be threatened by a COPPA Rule that renders plugin providers responsible for the actions and motives of third parties and vice versa. Part of the value of many educational sites and services is that they are offered for little or no cost, which means that they often will not have the resources to meet burdensome compliance obligations.

To be honest, both sides have a valid point in this fight. Children’s privacy should be protected online just as it off. That being said, those who offer a free service to children should be given a bit of leeway so they can keep providing that service without having to ask for payment in return.

Despite criticisms from advertising and social media groups, the FTC’s new rules for COPPA will go into effect on July 1. You can expect some companies to raise a stink about it between now and then, but it’s unlikely to sway any minds in Washington. The Hill notes that the new rules are one of the few things in Washington to receive bipartisan support.

The Federal Trade Commission reportedly said that it has granted its approval of the deal. Reuters reports that the deal was one of several on a list of approved transactions that the FTC announced.

Priceline CEO said when the deal was announced, “Kayak has built a strong brand in online travel research and their track record of profitable growth is demonstrative of their popularity with consumers and value to advertisers. Kayak also has world class technology and a tradition of innovation in building great user interfaces across multiple platforms and devices. We believe we can be helpful with Kayak’s plans to build a global online travel brand.”

Kayak CEO Steve Hafner added, “Paul English and I started Kayak eight years ago to create the best place to plan and book travel. We’re excited to join the world’s premier online travel company. The Priceline Group’s global reach and expertise will accelerate our growth and help us further develop as a company.”

Both boards approved the transaction. Priceline had indicated in November that it expected the deal to close by late first quarter 2013.

Kayak will remain a separate entity under Priceline, and will keep its current management staff. Kayak processes over 100 million user queries per month.

It remains to be see whether Kayak will remain part of the FairSearch coalition, as Priceline is not a member. When asked about this initially, FairSearch would not comment on the matter.

Do you think Google got off to easy? Was the FTC too hard on Google? Let us know what you think.

Google has agreed to change some of the business practices to resolve the FTC’s concerns including those related to patents and what the FTC alls its “misuse of patent protection to prevent competition.”

“We stopped that abuse,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz at a press conference.

“The changes Google has agreed to make will ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of competition in the online marketplace and in the market for innovative wireless devices they enjoy,” said Leibowitz. “This was an incredibly thorough and careful investigation by the Commission, and the outcome is a strong and enforceable set of agreements.”

“We are especially glad to see that Google will live up to its commitments to license its standard-essential patents, which will ensure that companies willing to license these patents can compete in the market for wireless devices,” Leibowitz added. “This decision strengthens the standard-setting process that is at the heart of innovation in today’s technology markets.”

On search, Leibowitz said, “It doesn’t violate the American antitrust laws,” so the FTC has decided not to take action on search allegations, though Google had agreed to make a couple of adjustments.

“The evidence the FTC uncovered through this intensive investigation prompted us to require significant changes in Google’s business practices. However, regarding the specific allegations that the company biased its search results to hurt competition, the evidence collected to date did not justify legal action by the Commission,” said Beth Wilkinson, outside counsel to the Commission. “Undoubtedly, Google took aggressive actions to gain advantage over rival search providers. However, the FTC’s mission is to protect competition, and not individual competitors. The evidence did not demonstrate that Google’s actions in this area stifled competition in violation of U.S. law.”

Regarding search bias, the FTC says in a press release:

The FTC conducted an extensive investigation into allegations that Google had manipulated its search algorithms to harm vertical websites and unfairly promote its own competing vertical properties, a practice commonly known as “search bias.” In particular, the FTC evaluated Google’s introduction of “Universal Search” – a product that prominently displays targeted Google properties in response to specific categories of searches, such as shopping and local – to determine whether Google used that product to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. Similarly, the investigation focused on the allegation that Google altered its search algorithms to demote certain vertical websites in an effort to reduce or eliminate a nascent competitive threat. According to the Commission statement, however, the FTC concluded that the introduction of Universal Search, as well as additional changes made to Google’s search algorithms – even those that may have had the effect of harming individual competitors – could be plausibly justified as innovations that improved Google’s product and the experience of its users. It therefore has chosen to close the investigation.

Google addressed the close of the investigation in a post on its Public Policy Blog, where Chief Legal Officer David Drummond writes, “Larry and Sergey founded Google because they believed that building a great search experience would improve people’s lives. And in the decade-plus that’s followed, Google has worked hard to make it quicker and easier for users to find what they need. In the early days you would type in a query, we’d return 10 blue links and you’d have to click on them individually to find what you wanted. Today we can save you the hassle by providing direct answers to your questions, as well as links to other sites. So if you type in [weather san francisco], or [tom hanks movies], we now give you the answer right from the results page—because truly great search is all about turning your needs into actions in the blink of an eye.”

Drummond wrote a letter (pdf) to the FTC discussing two specific product changes. In the post, he summarizes them: “Websites can already opt out of Google Search, and they can now remove content (for example reviews) from specialized search results pages, such as local, travel and shopping,” and, “Advertisers can already export their ad campaigns from Google AdWords. They will now be able to mix and copy ad campaign data within third-party services that use our AdWords API.”

“We’ve always accepted that with success comes regulatory scrutiny,” says Drummond. “But we’re pleased that the FTC and the other authorities that have looked at Google’s business practices—including the U.S. Department of Justice (in its ITA Software review), the U.S. courts (in the SearchKing and Kinderstart cases), and the Brazilian courts (in a case last year)—have concluded that we should be free to combine direct answers with web results. So we head into 2013 excited about our ability to innovate for the benefit of users everywhere.”

Leibowitz said Google will stop scraping content of its rivals for use in its own specialized search results, and has made “legally enforceable commitments” including reporting requirements that will allow it to be monitored.

The decision to close the search investigation was reached with a unanimous vote. Leibowitz did acknowledge that they can always reopen investigation if they think they need to.

He also acknowledged that “some evidence” suggested that Google was trying to eliminate competition, but changes to the algorithm that the FTC looked at were deemed to have “plausible connection with improving search results,” especially when competitors tried to “game” the algorithm.

He also noted that Google’s search engine rivals engage in “many of the same product design choices” Google does. While not everything Google did was beneifcial, he said, “on balance,” the evidence did not support an FTC challenge to Google’s practices.

He went on to call Google “one of America’s great companies,” and mentioned the driverless cars and “augmented reality eyewear”.

Now, he said, Google can refocus on its business and products while understanding that it must compete fairly.

Shortly after the announcement, FairSearch released a statement about it. Here’s a sampling from that:

“The FTC’s decision to close its investigation with only voluntary commitments from Google is disappointing and premature, coming just weeks before the company is expected to make a formal and detailed proposal to resolve the four abuses of dominance identified by the European Commission, first among them biased display of its own properties in search results,” says the group made up of Google competitors (which includes a number of travel sites, as well as Microsoft and Oracle).

“The FTC’s settlement is by no means the last word in this case, leaving the FTC without a major role in the final resolution to the investigations of Google’s anti-competitive practices by state attorneys general and the European Commission,” FairSearch says. “The FTC’s inaction on the core question of search bias will only embolden Google to act more aggressively to misuse its monopoly power to harm other innovators.”

“State attorneys general who reportedly disagreed with today’s announcement by the FTC have an important role to play in ensuring both that Google is not allowed to continue practices that hurt every American business through artificially high advertising costs, and to demand that whatever changes Google is forced to make in Europe also apply for U.S. consumers who risk losing innovation because of Google’s aggressive abuse of its dominance,” the group continues.

Consumer Watchdog also weighed in on the decision. The group says the settlement fails to end Google’s “most anticompetitive practice,” and has called upon the Department of Justice and state attorneys general to “press forward to end the Internet giant’s monopolistic behavior in search results,” something the FTC found to not be violating U.S. antitrust laws.

“Google clearly skews search results to favor its own products and services while portraying the results as unbiased. That undermines competition and hurts consumers,” said John M. Simpson , director of the group’s Privacy Project. “The FTC rolled over for Google. They’ve accepted Google executives’ promises that they will change two practices without even requiring a consent agreement, but Google has a track record of broken promises. Don’t forget, this fall the FTC fined Google $22.5 million for violating its most recent consent agreement. Why would the FTC take Google at its word?”

Inc.com suggests that life will pretty much go on as normal for small businesses because of the decision, but that, “You can expect software and services to emerge that will let you more easily manage an online advertising campaign across multiple ad platforms.”

What do you think of the FTC’s decision? Let us know in the comments.

Consumer Watchdog, the consumer rights group, which also challenged Google’s FTC settlement over “Safari-gate,” has now spoken out against today’s announcement.

Consumer Watchdog says the settlement fails to end Google’s “most anticompetitive practice,” and has called upon the Department of Justice and state attorneys general to “press forward to end the Internet giant’s monopolistic behavior in search results,” something the FTC found to not be violating U.S. antitrust laws.

“Google clearly skews search results to favor its own products and services while portraying the results as unbiased. That undermines competition and hurts consumers,” said John M. Simpson , director of the group’s Privacy Project. “The FTC rolled over for Google. They’ve accepted Google executives’ promises that they will change two practices without even requiring a consent agreement, but Google has a track record of broken promises. Don’t forget, this fall the FTC fined Google $22.5 million for violating its most recent consent agreement. Why would the FTC take Google at its word?”

According to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz speaking at press conference this afternoon, because Google wouldn’t want to go through this again.

Consumer Watchdog says new Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, William J. Baer, whom Leibowitz praised during the press conference, should “make Google’s abuse of search a top priority”.

More from Consumer Watchdog’s statement:

The FTC’s settlement does require a consent agreement regarding so-called Standards Essential Patents held by Google’s Motorola subsidiary. Google is now required to license these patents to any company on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms – known as FRAND terms.

“This will help ensure competition in the manufacture of smartphones and tablets,” said Simpson, “but that was never the heart of the issue. Biased search and Google’s favoring its own properties do real consumer harm. Google is the gateway to the Internet for most people. When Google rigs the game, we all suffer. They need to be stopped.”

Consumer Watchdog has “expressed concern” that Leibowitz “may have rushed to finish the investigation so it could be concluded under his chairmanship,” as he is expected to step down soon.

The Commission vote to close the investigation related to Google’s search-related practices was a unanimous 5-0.

We knew we’d be hearing from one group in particular. The FairSearch Coalition has released its statement regarding today’s news, to inform the world that it is disappointed with the FTC’s decision to close its investigation, a decision the group calls “premature”.

“The FTC’s decision to close its investigation with only voluntary commitments from Google is disappointing and premature, coming just weeks before the company is expected to make a formal and detailed proposal to resolve the four abuses of dominance identified by the European Commission, first among them biased display of its own properties in search results,” says the group made up of Google competitors (which includes a number of travel sites, as well as Microsoft and Oracle).

“The FTC’s settlement is by no means the last word in this case, leaving the FTC without a major role in the final resolution to the investigations of Google’s anti-competitive practices by state attorneys general and the European Commission,” FairSearch says. “The FTC’s inaction on the core question of search bias will only embolden Google to act more aggressively to misuse its monopoly power to harm other innovators.”

“State attorneys general who reportedly disagreed with today’s announcement by the FTC have an important role to play in ensuring both that Google is not allowed to continue practices that hurt every American business through artificially high advertising costs, and to demand that whatever changes Google is forced to make in Europe also apply for U.S. consumers who risk losing innovation because of Google’s aggressive abuse of its dominance,” the group continues.

“FairSearch and its members will continue work with authorities in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere who are investigating Google,” FairSearch concludes. “Our members also plan to participate in the European Commission’s market testing of any proposed binding remedies to Google’s harms. FairSearch will continue to fight to restore truly competitive conditions to the market for search and related online services. No less than the future of innovation and small business on the Internet is at stake.”

Google agreed to make changes to its practices, including allowing sites to opt out of inclusion in its vertical search services without penalty in organic search results, and allowing advertisers to mix and copy campaign data within third-party services that use the AdWords API.

The FTC has determined that Google has not violated American antitrust law.

All Things D is reporting, citing “multiple sources” that the FTC will likely rule on its investigation this week “with a similar settlement to the one discussed before the December holidays”.

It had been expected that the FTC would announce its decision by the end of the year, but just ahead of the weekend before Christmas, reports came out that the decision would be delayed, while Google was reportedly sending an offer to EU regulators. Presumably, the FTC wanted to see how that went.

Earlier reports had indicated that Google would offer “voluntary concessions” that would end the FTC’s probe.

According to the All Things D report, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz (pictured) is calling for the FTC’s commissioners to vote this week.

This week, Joshua Wright, President Obama’s nominee for the FTC was confirmed by the Senate. Last month, Wright indicated he would recuse himself from Google-related cases for two years, to avoid any conflict of interest. He has written papers speaking out against antitrust regulation of Google in the past.

image: TheStreet (YouTube)