US regulators have issued a sharp reminder to major technology companies: their responsibility to protect American privacy doesn’t disappear when operating overseas.
On August 21, 2025, Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew N. Ferguson sent formal letters to more than a dozen of the biggest names in tech, including Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta.
We obtained an example of the letter for you here.
The notices made clear that US privacy obligations remain in force even when foreign governments push for compliance with their own surveillance or censorship laws.
Any weakening of privacy protections for Americans, no matter the reason, could trigger action from the FTC.
This comes at a time when regulatory efforts in Europe and the United Kingdom are placing heavy pressure on digital platforms to fall in line with dangerous new demands. Those laws could force firms into situations where foreign access to user data and speech restrictions run directly counter to protections expected in the US.
Under the European Union’s Digital Services Act, online platforms face steep penalties if they fail to remove what the EU classifies as illegal content or misinformation. The EU is also plotting new Chat Control rules that would effectively ban end-to-end encryption.
In the UK, the Online Safety Act takes a similar approach, giving the government broad authority to suppress content.
The UK’s Investigatory Powers Act raises even greater concerns by allowing authorities to demand that firms dismantle encryption or build tools to bypass it. That puts private communications at risk, including services such as iMessage and WhatsApp that are widely used by Americans.
This conflict came into public view when UK officials pressured Apple to create a backdoor into its iCloud service.
Apple refused, removing its Advanced Data Protection feature from the UK market and challenging the requirement in court.
In August 2025, the UK government backed off, following months of resistance from Apple and warnings from American officials, including Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.
Though the immediate threat faded, the British legal framework enabling surveillance remains intact. Ferguson’s letters stressed that companies cannot use foreign legal demands as a justification to lower their standards for US users.
The FTC made it clear that if a firm claims to offer end-to-end encryption but secretly dilutes those protections in other countries, and those changes affect American users, the agency will consider it a deceptive act. Ferguson emphasized that compliance abroad does not excuse violations of American law.
Weakening encryption under foreign pressure exposes Americans to a greater risk of surveillance, data theft, and fraud.
Ferguson also warned that following censorship orders from foreign governments undermines the rights of US users and the freedoms they rely on.
The letters targeted a broad range of tech firms, including cloud infrastructure providers like Amazon as well as social media platforms like Meta and X. These companies are increasingly stuck between demands for more access and control from regulators overseas and firm expectations around privacy and free speech from users in the US.
The FTC has a history of pursuing companies that mislead users about privacy protections. Over the years, the agency has secured multimillion-dollar settlements from firms that failed to properly secure user data or falsely marketed their encryption standards.
Ferguson’s recent action signals that weakening protections to satisfy foreign rules will not shield companies from US consequences if Americans are affected. A software update introduced globally to meet UK or EU demands can still land a company in legal trouble at home if it compromises American privacy.
The FTC’s stance is simple. Companies cannot adopt one standard in Washington and another in London. US consumers are entitled to the security and privacy they were promised. If tech firms intend to preserve trust, they must resist efforts to erode those commitments, regardless of pressure or penalties from abroad.
