# FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 1 of 61 * PUBLIC * > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3A8111d169f88f9b9e ## Record - **Collection:** Agency decision - **Document type:** Agency decision ## Text FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 1 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC GIBSON DUNN January 16, 2026 VIA EMAIL April J. Tabor Secretary Office of the Secretary Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20580 atabor@ftc.gov Re: FTC File No. 251-0061 Dear Madam Secretary: Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 2.10, enclosed please find NewsGuard Technologies, Inc.’s Petition to Quash the United States Federal Trade Commission’s Civil Investigative Demand dated May 20, 2025, in the above-referenced matter. Sincerely, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP /s/ Sophia A. Hansell Sophia A. Hansell Enclosures CC via email service: Office of the Secretary (electronicfilings@ftc.gov) Geoffrey Green (ggreen@ftc.gov) Justin Epner (jepner@ftc.gov) Theodore Zang (tzang@ftc.gov) FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 2 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC BEFORE THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION In the Matter of PUBLIC The Civil Investigative Demand dated May 20, 2025, to NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. FTC File No. 251-0061 PETITION TO QUASH CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND Pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 2.10(a), Petitioner NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. (“NewsGuard”) hereby respectfully requests that the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) quash the Civil Investigative Demand to NewsGuard dated May 20, 2025 (the “CID,” attached as Exhibit 1). The CID should be quashed in its entirety because it constitutes unconstitutional retaliation against NewsGuard for its protected First Amendment activities and because the CID’s unconstitutionally broad and intrusive demands impermissibly chill NewsGuard’s speech and associational rights. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY NewsGuard was founded in 2018 with the mission of providing internet users the context they need to make informed decisions about whether they can rely on online sources of news they encounter every day. 1 It is a nonpartisan media organization that uses “apolitical journalistic criteria” to rate the reliability of online news sources. Consortium for Indep. Journalism, Inc. v. United States, 2025 WL 919504, at *18 n.11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2025). From the beginning, NewsGuard’s guiding principle has been that no government entity should be in the business of deciding what news people consume, but neither should those decisions be left to secret, unaccountable Silicon Valley-generated algorithms or to partisan advocacy groups. Instead, 1 https://www.newsguardtech.com/press/announcing-newsguard/. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 3 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC people should be offered information based on transparent, apolitical criteria so that they have the information to make their own decisions. NewsGuard’s reliability ratings are used by advertisers to make informed decisions about the websites on which to place their ads and by individual NewsGuard subscribers to evaluate the accuracy of the information they encounter online. NewsGuard’s ratings are generated by a team of journalistically trained analysts. Each rating is accompanied by a thorough analysis explaining exactly how NewsGuard’s nine apolitical criteria were applied to determine each site’s score, with the publisher’s comments included so that readers can see both sides of the story and decide for themselves how much to trust a publication. The average programmatic advertising campaign runs on 44,000 websites, see ANA, ANA Provides “First Look” at In-Depth Programmatic Transparency Study, https://tinyurl.com/3fw6h7du, which is why agencies and brands value information about the nature of these websites so that they can avoid websites they consider what the industry terms “brand unsafe.” For example, NewsGuard reported that one year Warren Buffett through his investment in Geico was unintentionally the largest advertiser on the Russian government propaganda website Sputnik News. See L. Gordon Crovitz, Opinion, How Amazon, Geico and Walmart Fund Propaganda, N.Y. Times (Jan. 21, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/5d555bd5. Beyond its ratings of news outlets, NewsGuard has become a leading source of journalism about information reliability—from informing citizens about Russian, Chinese, and Iranian disinformation campaigns targeting Americans to exposing how violent Hamas propaganda videos were promoted to American teens on platforms such as TikTok, Facebook, and X during the war in Gaza. 2 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 4 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC For years, NewsGuard has faced baseless criticism from websites that get low reliability ratings, such as Newsmax, that it holds a bias against conservatives and “censors” conservative speech. It has also faced false bias claims from some on the opposite side of the aisle, resulting, in one case, in a defamation suit brought by the left-wing Consortium News website, which was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. See Consortium for Indep. Journalism, Inc., 2025 WL 919504, at *20. The misconception related to bias against conservatives has manifested in congressional investigations and hearings, and more recently a CID from the FTC, whose Chairman Andrew Ferguson has long been a vocal critic of NewsGuard. Even before becoming Chairman of the FTC, Chairman Ferguson promoted an ideologically motivated effort to censor and otherwise discriminate against NewsGuard based on the content of its journalism. In November 2024, thenCommissioner Ferguson responded to a post on X about the closure of the U.S. Department of State’s Global Engagement Center by referring to NewsGuard by name and declaring that NewsGuard had supposedly “led collusive ad-boycotts—possibly in violation of our antitrust laws—to censor the speech of conservative and independent media in the United States.” 2 The following month, then-Commissioner Ferguson stated that the FTC “ought to conduct . . . an investigation” into NewsGuard, incorrectly claiming that NewsGuard “seems to give a free pass to . . . major left-leaning outlets.” 3 Although biased ratings would still be protected by the First Amendment, then-Commissioner Ferguson’s statement was factually incorrect: Many major leftleaning outlets receive lower scores from NewsGuard than comparable right-leaning outlets. For 2 3 https://x.com/AFergusonFTC/status/1856152760850243905. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ferguson-goat-concurrence.pdf. 3 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 5 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC example, Fox News scores higher than MSNBC, the conservative Washington Examiner outscores the liberal Daily Beast, and the conservative Daily Caller outscores the liberal Daily Kos. NewsGuard has also been the subject of criticism from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who described NewsGuard as “Orwellian.” 4 In a November 2024 letter, then-Commissioner Carr alleged that NewsGuard was part of a “censorship cartel” alongside major technology companies and that NewsGuard “leverag[es] its partnerships with advertising agencies to effectively censor[] targeted outlets.” 5 Then-Commissioner Carr wrote that the incoming Trump Administration would investigate and take action against NewsGuard, prematurely and publicly declaring that the so-called “cartel” must be “completely dismantled.” 6 Following these statements, President Trump named Ferguson the Chairman of the FTC and Carr the Chairman of the FCC. True to their threats, the Trump Administration has targeted NewsGuard for oppressive and unfounded regulatory action in retaliation for the company’s First Amendment activities. In particular, on May 20, 2025, the FTC issued a sweeping CID—comprising 31 Specifications and dozens more sub-Specifications—to NewsGuard demanding vast numbers of confidential, highly sensitive documents, including “all documents relating to NewsGuard’s News Reliability Ratings and any other rating[s]”—a request that effectively encompassed virtually all of the company’s emails, reporters’ notes and drafts, texts, and other documents created since its founding in 2018— as well as communications with, and the identities of, NewsGuard’s subscribers. CID Specifications 5, 8, and 26. Despite NewsGuard’s serious concerns about the CID’s intrusion into 4 https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/DOC-407732A1.pdf. Id. 6 Id. 5 4 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 6 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC its First Amendment rights, NewsGuard has worked constructively with staff, in good faith, to provide information responsive to staff’s priority Specifications while maintaining certain objections to the scope and nature of the CID. As detailed in the attached statement under 16 C.F.R. § 2.10(a)(2), over the past seven months, NewsGuard has met and conferred with staff on ten occasions and has produced more than 40,000 pages of responsive documents as well as detailed written responses to a number of staff’s inquiries. See Statement of Matthew C. Parrott (attached as Exhibit 2). Nevertheless, staff has refused to provide assurance that NewsGuard has fully complied with the CID. To the contrary, staff continues to insist on additional document productions. Staff’s letter of January 15, 2026—which purports to be a “good-faith effort to reduce NewsGuard’s burden”—is, in reality, a doubling down on its unconstitutional demands that ignores NewsGuard’s meaningful compliance efforts and reiterates several of the CID’s most burdensome requests, including for productions encompassing (1) the identities of NewsGuard’s customers, (2) NewsGuard’s communications with its customers, (3) the identity of all entities to which NewsGuard has ever assigned a News Reliability Rating, (4) the ratings assigned to those entities over time, and (5) “documents sufficient to show the methodology by which NewsGuard determines” reliability ratings, including “internal correspondence about the process of developing the methodology”. Exhibit 3 at 1-2; see also id. at 1 (staff letter of January 15, 2026, requesting “additional information” as to Specifications 8, 11, 12, 15, and 26 “before we can accept a certification of compliance with the CID”). Staff’s January 15 letter makes clear that only total capitulation by NewsGuard will assuage the FTC’s demands. The FTC’s retaliatory campaign against NewsGuard has not stopped with the CID. On September 26, 2025, the FTC entered into a Consent Order with Omnicom Group Inc. 5 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 7 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC (“Omnicom”) and The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (“IPG”) that prohibits their merged company from using third-party services that evaluate “viewpoints as to the veracity of news reporting” and “adherence to journalistic standards or ethics.” In re Omnicom Group Inc. ¶¶ 1.D, 2.A, No. C-4823 (Sept. 26, 2025). The Consent Order—revised and finalized after the submission of a comment letter by the conservative news outlet Newsmax objecting to the proposed order on the ground that it did not reach NewsGuard 7 —effectively prohibits Omnicom from using NewsGuard’s services. Newsmax has a significantly lower reliability rating from NewsGuard than many rival conservative websites, including Fox News, the Washington Examiner, and National Review, that, unlike Newsmax, are on NewsGuard’s default “inclusion list” for advertisers. Although NewsGuard has sought, for months, to cooperate with the FTC, it is now clear that the FTC will only end its multifront campaign against NewsGuard when it has succeeded in silencing NewsGuard entirely by driving the company out of business. NewsGuard therefore has no choice but to move to quash the FTC’s onerous and unconstitutional CID. 8 ARGUMENT The CID should be quashed because it “presents a straightforward First Amendment violation.” Media Matters for Am. v. FTC, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2025 WL 2378009, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2025) (“Media Matters”). The unjustified and punitive CID represents unconstitutional retaliation against NewsGuard based on its protected First Amendment activities. And, even beyond the FTC’s unconstitutional campaign of retaliation against NewsGuard, the CID’s overbroad demands and impermissible requests for sensitive subscriber information, customer 7 https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2025-0066-0008. The petition to quash is timely because staff granted NewsGuard an extension of time until January 16, 2026, to file its petition. See Exhibit 4. 8 6 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 8 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC communications, and internal deliberative materials violate the First and Fourth Amendments’ restrictions on administrative subpoenas. I. The FTC’s Retaliatory CID Unconstitutionally Chills NewsGuard’s First Amendment Rights And Must Be Quashed. The CID must be quashed because it is part of the FTC’s unconstitutional retaliation campaign targeting NewsGuard’s protected First Amendment activities. To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, NewsGuard must show: “(1) [it] engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment; (2) the [FTC] took some retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness in [NewsGuard’s] position from speaking again; and (3) a causal link between the exercise of [NewsGuard’s] constitutional right and the adverse action taken [by the FTC].” Media Matters, 2025 WL 2378009, at *15. As in the Media Matters case preliminarily enjoining an equally unconstitutional CID, each of these factors is clearly met here. A. NewsGuard Engages In Activities Protected Under The First Amendment. NewsGuard’s activities—including its reliability ratings and its other journalistic endeavors—rest at the core of the First Amendment. NewsGuard provides its customers with transparent, nonpartisan, and apolitical reports regarding the reliability of news and information websites. NewsGuard’s “report[s] on public issues are quintessential First Amendment activities.” Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 138 F.4th 563, 584 (D.C. Cir. 2025); see N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 269 (1964) (“The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions.”). 7 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 9 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC NewsGuard is also a prominent source of journalism about foreign governments’ disinformation campaigns and other issues of information reliability. 9 It is beyond question that such “speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 452 (2011) (citation omitted). Without a doubt, NewsGuard is “engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment.” Paxton, 138 F.4th at 584. B. The FTC Engaged In Retaliatory Action Sufficient To Deter A Person Of Ordinary Firmness In NewsGuard’s Position From Speaking Again. The FTC’s draconian CID—which has already imposed substantial compliance costs on NewsGuard and exposed NewsGuard to the threat of an enforcement action for noncompliance— is plainly sufficient to chill NewsGuard’s First Amendment expression by deterring it from continuing to provide honest, nonpartisan, and apolitical assessments of news outlets and to report on online sources of disinformation. As a unanimous Supreme Court recently held, the government “cannot . . . use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024). But that is precisely what the FTC did when it issued its vindictive, unwarranted, and needlessly burdensome CID to NewsGuard. The FTC’s CID “cross[es] the line” established by the First Amendment because the investigation “come[s] with particularly adverse consequences,” including the significant costs of reviewing NewsGuard’s internal documents to 9 See, e.g., https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-disinformation-newsguard-2034104; https://www.newsguardtech.com/special-reports/violent-celebratory-hamas-videos-garnermillions-of-views-despite-bans-by-tech-platforms/. 8 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 10 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC identify material responsive to the FTC’s 31 sweeping Specifications, the diversion of internal resources away from NewsGuard’s core mission in order to respond to the CID, and the possibility that the CID will result in the disclosure of NewsGuard’s customer lists, thereby deterring current and prospective customers from doing business with NewsGuard. Media Matters, 2025 WL 2378009, at *18. It was precisely these types of burdens that led the court to find that the FTC’s CID to Media Matters had an impermissible chilling effect. See id. (preliminarily enjoining a CID that “has had plenty of knock-on effects,” including “driving additional costs,” causing “retention challenges,” and resulting in Media Matters’ “remov[al] from coalition communications about FTC actions”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, as in the Media Matters case, “[i]t is hard to imagine any media company not being chilled by this sweeping and sensitive CID.” Id. (emphasis in original). Moreover, as in Media Matters, “the fact that the CID is enforceable in federal court . . . bolsters the conclusion that someone of ordinary firmness would be deterred from speaking.” 2025 WL 2378009, at *16 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 49); see also Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 732 F. Supp. 3d 1, 28 (D.D.C. 2024) (“[P]ossible judicial intervention to enforce the CID[] make[s] Plaintiffs’ claim of chilled expression objectively reasonable.”). Although NewsGuard is confident in the strength of its First Amendment position, the mere possibility that the FTC will seek to enforce the CID in federal court raises the specter of additional legal expenses and resource diversions that NewsGuard can ill afford. Indeed, since the FTC issued the CID, the legal expense NewsGuard has incurred to comply with the FTC’s relentless demands has exceeded 28% of the revenue NewsGuard has derived from the advertising brand-safety services that are the subject of the FTC’s retaliatory harassment, with no end in sight. Parrott Statement ¶ 28. Exposing 9 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 11 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC NewsGuard to those litigation-related burdens is constitutionally impermissible because “the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the ‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion . . . to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 189 (quoting Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58, 67 (1963)). C. There Is A Causal Link Between NewsGuard’s First Amendment Activity And The FTC’s Adverse Actions. Finally, NewsGuard has established unconstitutional retaliation because there is an undeniable “causal link” between the FTC’s CID and NewsGuard’s protected First Amendment activity, which makes clear that the FTC’s “‘adverse action against [NewsGuard] would not have been taken absent the retaliatory motive.’” Paxton, 732 F. Supp. 3d at 28 (quoting Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019)). Specifically, “given the comments by Chairman Ferguson” and other administration officials about NewsGuard, “the timing of the CID,” and the further “evidence of pretext” provided by the Omnicom Consent Order targeting NewsGuard, it is clear that “retaliatory animus was the but-for cause of the FTC’s CID.” Media Matters, 2025 WL 2378009, at *2. First, as the district court found in Media Matters, Chairman Ferguson has made repeated comments that characterize similar investigations “in ideological terms” and that “indicate at a minimum that Chairman Ferguson saw the FTC’s investigation as having a partisan bent.” 2025 WL 2378009, at *19. “[B]efore he was chosen as the FTC Chairman, [then-Commissioner] Ferguson bolstered his candidacy by arguing that he had a ‘track record of standing up to . . . the radical left’ and insisting that he would ‘[i]nvestigate . . . advertiser boycotts’” of the type that the CID to NewsGuard purports to investigate. See id. (quoting FTC Commissioner Andrew N. Ferguson for FTC Chairman, Punchbowl News, https://perma.cc/A56K-Q4YM) (alterations in original). Additionally, the Media Matters district court highlighted a podcast appearance in 10 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 12 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC November 2024 where then-Commissioner Ferguson stated that “‘progressives’ who are ‘fighting “disinformation”’ were ‘not going to give up just because of the election,’ so ‘it’s really important that the FTC take investigative steps in the new administration under President Trump.’” Id. (quoting Andrew Ferguson, Bannon’s WarRoom, Show Clip Roundup 11/30/2-24 [AM], Bannon’s War Room (Nov. 30, 2024), https://perma.cc/ASE8-RZNJ). This evidence lays bare that Chairman Ferguson has been engaged in a long-running crusade against companies, such as NewsGuard, that supply advertisers with the tools to make informed online placement decisions and that provide members of the public with the tools to identify online misinformation. Even more probative are Chairman Ferguson’s statements expressly singling out NewsGuard as a potential target for FTC investigation. Chairman Ferguson has alleged that NewsGuard “led collusive ad-boycotts—possibly in violation of our antitrust laws—to censor the speech of conservative and independent media in the United States,” 10 and incorrectly claimed that NewsGuard “seems to give a free pass to . . . major left-leaning outlets.” 11 Moreover, when the Omnicom Consent Order was first proposed in June 2025, Chairman Ferguson released a statement explicitly calling out NewsGuard as an organization that “ha[s] publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals” and alleging that NewsGuard steers “advertising revenue with ‘an unavoidable partisan lens.’” 12 Chairman Ferguson is not the only Trump Administration official to air such false views about NewsGuard: FCC Chairman Carr alleged that NewsGuard “leverag[es] its partnerships with 10 https://x.com/AFergusonFTC/status/1856152760850243905. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ferguson-goat-concurrence.pdf. 12 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/omnicom-ipg-ferguson-statement_0.pdf. 11 11 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 13 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC advertising agencies to effectively censor[] targeted outlets.” 13 And both Chairman Ferguson and Chairman Carr publicly declared that the Trump Administration should investigate NewsGuard. See supra at 3-4. “These are precisely the sorts of comments that courts . . . have considered as evidence of retaliatory intent.” Media Matters, 2025 WL 2378009, at *20; see also Paxton, 732 F. Supp. 3d at 28 (finding that the Texas Attorney General’s “description of Media Matters as a ‘radical anti-free speech’ and ‘radical left-wing organization’ and his encouraging of other Attorneys General to look into Media Matters’ reporting is evidence of retaliatory intent”). Second, as the district court found as to Media Matters, “Chairman Ferguson wasted no time after taking office to initiate this investigation,” further demonstrating the “but-for” causation between the FTC’s retaliatory motive and the NewsGuard CID. Media Matters, 2025 WL 2378009, at *20. In fact, the FTC’s investigation into NewsGuard has followed the exact same timeline that the district court found troubling in Media Matters: “President-elect Trump announced on December 10, 2024, that he had chosen Mr. Ferguson to be the Chairman of the FTC. He became the Chairman in January 2025. And he announced an investigation into ‘tech [platform] censorship’ the very next month, in February 2025, and issued the CID to [NewsGuard] by May 2025.” Id. (first alteration in original; citations omitted). As the district court held, “[t]his fast-moving investigation—when combined with the above statements from Chairman Ferguson . . .—suggests that he was chomping at the bit to ‘take investigative steps in the new administration under President Trump’ to make [supposed] ‘progressives’ like [NewsGuard] ‘give up.’” Id. (quoting Andrew Ferguson, Bannon’s WarRoom, Show Clip Roundup 11/30/2-24 [AM], Bannon’s War Room (Nov. 30, 2024), https://perma.cc/ASE8-RZNJ). 13 To further underscore this point, https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/DOC-407732A1.pdf. 12 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 14 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC “Chairman Ferguson only gained the reins to the FTC in January 2025. And counting from that date, it becomes clear that he acted with expedition in issuing a CID to [NewsGuard]” four months later. Id. (citation omitted; emphasis in original). Third, “the scope of the CID suggests pretext on the part of the FTC, which is fatal” to any counterarguments regarding causation the FTC may offer. Media Matters, 2025 WL 2378009, at *21. The CID’s “demands . . . go well beyond the investigation’s purported scope,” which, as with the Media Matters CID, is apparently an effort by the FTC to determine whether NewsGuard “has information about the use of ‘brand suitable’ or ‘brand safe’ lists to ‘coordinate ad placement.’” Id. For example, the CID asked NewsGuard to “[p]rovide each financial statement, budget, profit and loss statement, cost center report, profitability report, and any other financial report regularly prepared by or for NewsGuard on any periodic basis,” and, “[f]or each such statement, budget, or report, [to] state how often it is prepared, and identify the employees responsible for its preparation.” CID Specification 27. The CID also sought granular financial information broken down by specific NewsGuard products and services. See CID Specification 28. 14 As these far-reaching requests show, “the sweeping scope of the FTC’s CID [does not] square with the proffered reason” behind the investigation. Media Matters, 2025 WL 2378009, at *21. Any conceivable doubt about the retaliatory nexus between the CID and NewsGuard’s protected First Amendment activity is eliminated by the Omnicom Consent Order. It is well-settled that the government “cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on [the 14 According to staff’s letter of January 15, 2026, NewsGuard “has satisfied its CID obligations” as to Specifications 27 and 28. Exhibit 3 at 2. But NewsGuard’s compelled compliance with these demands does nothing to cure their constitutional shortcomings, and they remain probative of the FTC’s retaliatory motive. 13 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 15 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC government’s] behalf.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 190. But that is exactly what the FTC has done with the Omnicom Consent Order, which, as a condition of permitting the Omnicom-IPG merger to move forward, bars the merged entity from using services—such as NewsGuard’s—that evaluate “viewpoints as to the veracity of news reporting” and “adherence to journalistic standards or ethics.” In re Omnicom Group Inc. ¶¶ 1.D, 2.A, No. C-4823 (Sept. 26, 2025). The FTC’s use of its coercive powers to prevent Omnicom from doing business with NewsGuard as a means of punishing NewsGuard for its First Amendment activity is unconstitutional on its own terms, see Vullo, 602 U.S. at 190, and when viewed together with the FTC’s CID, leaves no doubt that the FTC has embarked on an unconstitutional campaign of retaliation against NewsGuard. In sum, the evidence of unconstitutional retaliation is at least as strong here as in Media Matters, if not stronger. As the D.C. Circuit has recognized, “there can be no doubt that, as a general proposition,” the issuance of subpoenas or CIDs “in order to harass [private parties] in their journalistic information-gathering activities” “would constitute an abridgement of a journalist’s First Amendment rights.” Reps. Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. AT&T, 593 F.2d 1030, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Because the FTC issued its CID to NewsGuard for precisely that unconstitutional purpose, the CID must be quashed. II. The Overly Broad And Unnecessarily Intrusive CID Has An Unconstitutional Chilling Effect On NewsGuard’s Speech And Associational Rights. Even setting aside the FTC’s retaliatory animus, the CID must be quashed because its expansive terms and requests for sensitive customer information impose unconstitutional burdens on NewsGuard’s speech and associational rights. The Fourth Amendment imposes substantial restrictions on the reach of administrative subpoenas. See Okla. Press Publ’g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 208-11 (1946) (“The gist of the 14 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 16 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC protection is in the requirement . . . that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.”). In addition, the First Amendment affords NewsGuard a privilege that protects it from having to disclose information if doing so would chill its constitutional rights of free speech and free association. See Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1160 (9th Cir. 2009). These constitutional protections are interrelated; when an administrative subpoena seeks materials that could fall under First Amendment protection, courts require that the Fourth Amendment’s standards be met with “scrupulous exactitude.” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 564 (1978) (citing Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476, 485 (1965)); see also In re Grand Jury Subpoena: Subpoena Duces Tecum, 829 F.2d 1291, 1297 (4th Cir. 1987) (the Supreme Court “has made clear that the context of the [F]irst [A]mendment intensifies the [F]ourth [A]mendment concerns that may be present in a sweeping subpoena duces tecum”) (citing Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 708 (1972)). Where, as here, an administrative subpoena “implicates [F]irst [A]mendment concerns . . . the usual deference to the administration agency is not appropriate.” Fed. Election Comm’n v. Larouche Campaign, 817 F.2d 233, 234 (2d Cir. 1987). Instead, “protection of constitutional liberties of the target of the subpoena calls for a more exacting scrutiny of the justification offered by the agency.” Id. As longstanding First Amendment case law “makes clear,” “before a state or federal body can compel disclosure of information which would trespass upon [F]irst [A]mendment freedoms, a ‘subordinating interest of the State’ must be proffered, and it must be ‘compelling.’” Fed. Election Comm’n v. Machinists Non-Partisan Pol. League, 655 F.2d 380, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (quoting NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463 (1958)). 15 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 17 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC No such subordinating interest is present here. The current administration’s own statements demonstrate that it lacks any legitimate basis for intruding on NewsGuard’s First Amendment freedoms and that it is instead targeting NewsGuard based on a misperceived leftwing bias in NewsGuard’s ratings and other journalistic activities. See supra at 3-4. But even if such a bias were substantiated, it would still be a constitutionally insufficient justification for the CID. As the Supreme Court has warned, “[i]t is particularly important that the exercise of the power of compulsory process be carefully circumscribed when the investigative process tends to impinge upon such highly sensitive areas as freedom of speech or press.” Sweezy v. State of N.H. by Wyman, 354 U.S. 234, 245 (1957). The FTC’s expansive CID to NewsGuard is the polar opposite of “carefully circumscribed.” Indeed, Specification 8, even as modified by staff in their January 15 letter, is sufficiently broad to sweep in all of NewsGuard’s communications with its customers subscribing to its reliability ratings. See CID Specification 8 (“Provide all communications between NewsGuard and any advertiser, advertising agency, or any person acting as an agent of an advertiser, including but not limited to demand side platforms and supply side platforms, with whom NewsGuard had a commercial relationship relating to NewsGuard News Reliability Ratings.”) (as modified by Exhibit 3). The FTC’s requests regarding NewsGuard’s deliberative process and procedures for formulating ratings are equally intrusive. See CID Specifications 11, 12, 15 (requesting the identity of all entities to which NewsGuard has ever assigned a News Reliability Rating, the ratings assigned to those entities over time, and “documents sufficient to show the methodology by which NewsGuard determines” reliability ratings, including “internal correspondence about the process of developing the methodology”)) (as modified by Exhibit 3). As the district court found in 16 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 18 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC preliminarily enjoining the Media Matters CID, “[a] reporter of ordinary firmness would be wary of speaking again if she had to reveal the materials requested by this fishing expedition of a CID.” Media Matters, 2025 WL 2378009, at *16; see also Dow Chem. Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262, 1276 (7th Cir. 1982) (affirming decision not to enforce administrative subpoenas where “enforcement of the subpoenas carries the potential for chilling the exercise of First Amendment rights” because disclosure of the information sought “might well be both unnerving and discouraging”). The CID also targets information protected by NewsGuard’s First Amendment associational rights through its requests for information identifying NewsGuard’s customers. See CID Specification 8 (“Provide all communications between NewsGuard and any advertiser, advertising agency, or any person acting as an agent of an advertiser . . . with whom NewsGuard had a commercial relationship relating to NewsGuard News Reliability Ratings”) (as modified by Exhibit 3); CID Specification 26 (“Submit one or more Data Sets sufficient to show, for each customer (other than natural persons) of NewsGuard News Reliability Ratings . . . [t]he name of the customer”) (as modified by Exhibit 3). As courts have repeatedly emphasized when evaluating administrative subpoenas, “‘[i]mplicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment [is] a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.’” Brock v. Loc. 375, Plumbers Int’l Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 860 F.2d 346, 349 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984)). Accordingly, “before requiring that organizations reveal sensitive information about their members and supporters,” the government must satisfy “exacting scrutiny.” Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595, 609 (2021). 17 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 19 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC The FTC cannot possibly meet the demanding constitutional requirements for compelling disclosure of NewsGuard’s customer lists. NewsGuard is a journalistic organization with a First Amendment right to associate with its customers to engage in the free exchange of ideas protected by the Constitution. See NAACP, 357 U.S. at 460 (“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.”). Because “compulsory disclosure of organizational ties can constitute a significant encroachment on freedom of association,” Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 399 (5th Cir. 1980), it can only be justified if it is narrowly tailored to further a sufficiently important government interest, Ams. for Prosperity, 594 U.S. at 609-10. The FTC’s open-ended demand for customer identities untethered to any legitimate investigatory interest is the antithesis of a constitutionally tailored information request. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS By submitting this Petition to Quash, NewsGuard does not intend to—and does not—waive any rights to make additional arguments against the Commission’s investigation of NewsGuard, the CID, or both, including under the U.S. Constitution, the FTC Act, or any other statute or rule. CONCLUSION For all these reasons, the public interest does not support enforcement of the CID issued to NewsGuard because “enforcement of an unconstitutional [action] is always contrary to the public interest.” Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656, 668 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The FTC should therefore quash the CID in its entirety. 18 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 20 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC By: /s/ Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7000 TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com Amir C. Tayrani Sophia A. Hansell GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1700 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 955-8500 ATayrani@gibsondunn.com SHansell@gibsondunn.com Matthew C. Parrott GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (949) 451-3823 MParrott@gibsondunn.com Counsel for Petitioner NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. January 16, 2026 19 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 21 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on January 16, 2026, the foregoing Petition to Quash Civil Investigative Demand was served by electronic mail on the following: Office of the Secretary Federal Trade Commission 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20580 electronicfilings@ftc.gov April Tabor, Secretary of the Commission 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20580 atabor@ftc.gov Geoffrey Green 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20580 ggreen@ftc.gov Justin Epner 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20580 jepner@ftc.gov Theodore Zang 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20580 tzang@ftc.gov By: /s/ Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7000 Counsel for Petitioner NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. 20 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 22 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC EXHIBIT 1 L TRADE COMMISSION I OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 1 FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 23 of 61 • PUBLIC• United states of America Federal Trade Commission PUBLIC Civil Investigative Demand E] 1a. MATTER NUMBER 1. TO NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. 25 W. 52nd Street, 15th Floor New York, NY 10019 FTC File No. 251 -0061 This demand is issued pursuant to Section 20 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 57b-1, in the course of an investigation to determine whether there is, has been, or may be a violation of any laws administered by the Federal Trade Commission by conduct, activities or proposed action as described in Item 3. 2. ACTION REQUIRED D You are required to appear and testify. LOCATION OF HEARING YOUR APPEARANCE WILL BE BEFORE No appearance required. DATE AND TIME OF HEARING OR DEPOSITION 1v1 You are required to produce all documents described in the attached schedule that are in your possession, custody, or control, and to make them ~ available at your address indicated above for inspection and copying or reproduction at the date and time specified below. !vi You are required to answer the interrogatories or provide the written report described on the attached schedule. Answer each interrogatory or report ~ separately and fully in writing. Submit your answers or report to the Records Custodian named in Item 4 on or before the date specified below. □ You are required to produce the tangible things described on the attached schedule. Produce such things to the Records Custodian named in Item 4 on or before the date specified below. DATE AND TIME THE DOCUMENTS, ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES, REPORTS, AND/OR TANGIBLE THINGS MUST BE AVAILABLE 30 days from the Issued date below - June 19, 2025 by 5:00 pm ET 3. SUBJECT OF INVESTIGATION See attached. 4. RECORDS CUSTODIAN/DEPUTY RECORDS CUSTODIAN 5. COMMISSION COUNSEL Helder Agostinho, Deputy Assistant Director Justin Epner, Attorney DATE ISSUED COMMISSIONER'S SIGNATURE 5/20/2025 INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTICES YOUR RIGHTS TO REGu'C.ATORY ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS The delivery of this demand to you by any method prescribed by the Commission's Rules of Practice is legal service and may subject you to a penalty imposed by law for failure to comply. The production of documents or the submission of answers and report in response to this demand must be made under a sworn certificate, in the form printed on the second page of this demand, by the person to whom this demand is directed or, if not a natural person, by a person or persons having knowledge of the facts and circumstances of such production or responsible for answering each interrogatory or report question. This demand does not require approval by 0MB under the Paperwor16=?=?12=:7747=?1@1512QO:2QO:?6H?:JJ1:6/;IJ1H676H:=64/2RSO2QO:6=?=?1 B43362264/6=?6/74O2QO:156/:/9>:9=?:=62H4/262=1/=>6=?=?1B43362264/T2/115746=?=?1B43362264/ ?12QO:2QO:2QO:4651R ]R S2QO::00P1>2QO:6=? 6/;aP1>2U106:8606=9U:=6/;2:/5:/94=?12QO:2QO:411/ 24O2QO:2QO:2U106:8606=9U:=6/;2:/5:/94=?12QO:2QO:411/24O11/P1>2QO:2QO:24?1=?1:27O0760015R  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 25 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC 12324673892 238 8 7 8987428967  !"#$%&''$!()*%+,-%'&,#+.,!&+/(!*0'&#+,-,1&,2%3-4)&$ %(%#"%$ %'&,%$,!#,&(,#"#,#%-50!.&*-5! 0!'#(#%-5#+(')$#+.6),+!,'#*#,%$,!(!*0'&#+,-%.&$#+. 2%3-4)&$7-$%(#-#!+,!&00'/&%'#&6#'#,/ &,#+.,!&+/(!+,%+, 8 !"#$%&''(!**)+#(&,#!+-6%,3%%+2%3-4)&$&+$&+/&$"%,#-%5&$"%,#-#+.&.%+(/5 ! &+/0%-!+&(,#+.&-&+&.%+,!9&+&$"%,#-%5#+(')$#+.6),+!,'#*#,%$,!$%*&+$ -#$%0'&,9!*-&+$-)00'/-#$%0'&,9!*-5%'&,%$,!6&+$-&9%,/! &+/!9,1% 2%3-4)&$0!.&*-#$%+,#9#%$#+:0%(#9#(&,#!+;&+$#+.5(&,%.!#?#+.5*!+#,!#+.5&+&'/?#+.5%"&')&,#+.5! &,#+.+%3-5*%$#&5 -!)(%-5!),'%,-53%6-#,%-5! !,1%(!+,%+,0)6'#-1%%+,#,#%-9! @6&+$-)#,&6#'#,/5A @%'#&6#'#,/5A@*#-#+9!*&,#!+5A@1&,%-0%%(15A@9&'-%A! @$%(%0,#"%A(!+,%+,5! -#*#'& (&,%.!#%-B1#-%C)%-,#+(')$%-6),#-+!,'#*#,%$,!(!**)+#(&,#!+-6%,3%%+ 2%3-4)&$&+$&+/0%-!+(!++%(,%$,!,1%-%%+,#,#%-D! 0)0!-%-!9,1#:0%(#9#(&,#!+5-)(1%+,#,#%-#+(')$%6),&%+!,'#*#,%$,!E & B1%F!'$D%$%&,#!+!9G$"%,#-%-H@FDGAIJ 6 B1%4'!6&'G''#&+(%9! K%-0!+-#6'%L%$#&H@4GKLAIJ ( B1%4'!6&'M#-#+9!*&,#!+N+$%OH@4MNAIJ $ B1%N+,%&(,#"%G$"%,#-#+.P)%&)H@NGPAIJ % G$D!+,%-L%$#&5N+(J 9 B1%Q1%(>L/G$-N+-,#,),%J . N+,%.&'G$:(#%+(%H@NG:AIJ 1 M!)6'%R%#9/J # P&!*%,%J S L%$#&L&,,%-9! G*%#(&J > B1%Q%+,%9! Q!)+,%#+.M#.#,&'T&,%J ' 2%'%?J! *B1%L%$#&K!)+$,&6'% UV !"#$%&''$!()*%+,-5#+(')$#+.'%,,%-5+& &,#"%%-0!+-%-5&+$!,1%*&,%#&'-5 0!$)(%$6/2%3-4)&$,!,1%W+#,%$:,&,%-Q!+.%--&-0&,!9&(!+.%--#!+&' #+"%-,#.&,#!+#+,!*%$#&(%+-!-1#059%%$!*!9-0%%(15! 2%3-4)&$&(,#"#,#%-5 #+(')$#+.6),+!,'#*#,%$,!$!()*%+,-#+X!) 0!--%--#!+5()-,!$/5! (!+,!'%'&,#+.,! ! (#,%$#+E  FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 26 of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| OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 27 of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| OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 29 of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| OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 33 of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| OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 34 of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| OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 39 of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| OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 40 of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| OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 44 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC 012345ÿ738347ÿ9 ÿ8 4 2 8ÿ 4 9 4ÿ34ÿ454 8ÿ3 854ÿ9 277291ÿ 9 2772914 7ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ 1ÿÿ!ÿÿ "#"$$ÿ"%ÿ7&'"ÿ '"ÿ7ÿ(ÿÿ 8)ÿ ÿ"*%ÿ 47903291ÿ52 4 321+ÿ074ÿ9 ÿ9 079 ,ÿ 9 477ÿ 21ÿ19102 ÿ21-4732+832917ÿ9 ÿ9072-4ÿ 8 32 47ÿ ./01ÿ345ÿÿ67899:; ?@Aÿ=BCÿDEFGAÿFHÿIBJAK>LM=>LFBNÿ OFÿLBJAK>LM=>AÿPQA>QA@ÿ=BRÿGA@KFBKSÿG=@>BA@KQLGKSÿEF@GF@=>LFBKSÿF@ÿF>QA@KÿQ=JAÿABM=MACÿF@ÿ =@AÿABM=MLBMÿLBÿLBJL>LBMSÿLBL>L=>LBMSÿG=@>LELG=>LBMÿLBSÿF@ÿH=ELTL>=>LBMÿEFTT?KLFBÿF@ÿEFF@CLB=>LFBÿLBÿ =BRÿP=RÿPL>Qÿ=BRÿF>QA@ÿU=@VA>ÿG=@>LELG=B>SÿPQA>QA@ÿ>Q@F?MQÿG@LJ=>AÿEFUU?BLE=>LFBKSÿG?WTLEÿ K>=>AUAB>KSÿKQ=@LBMÿLBHF@U=>LFBSÿF@ÿF>QA@ÿ=E>LFBKSÿLBÿJLFT=>LFBÿFHÿDAE>LFBÿXÿFHÿ>QAÿYACA@=TÿO@=CAÿ ZFUULKKLFBÿ[E>Sÿ\Xÿ]^D^Z^ÿ_ÿ̀XSÿ=Kÿ=UABCACSÿF@ÿ=BRÿF>QA@ÿK>=>?>AKÿF@ÿ@?TAKÿABHF@EACÿWRÿ>QAÿ ZFUULKKLFBaÿ=BCÿ>FÿCA>A@ULBAÿ>QAÿ=GG@FG@L=>Aÿ=E>LFBÿF@ÿ@AUACRSÿLBET?CLBMÿPQA>QA@ÿLBb?BE>LJAÿ =BCÿUFBA>=@Rÿ@ATLAHÿPF?TCÿWAÿLBÿ>QAÿG?WTLEÿLB>A@AK>^ÿ OQAÿYACA@=TÿO@=CAÿZFUULKKLFBÿQA@AWRÿ@AKFTJAKÿ=BCÿCL@AE>Kÿ>Q=>ÿ=BRÿ=BCÿ=TTÿEFUG?TKF@Rÿ G@FEAKKAKÿ=J=LT=WTAÿ>FÿL>ÿWAÿ?KACÿLBÿEFBBAE>LFBÿPL>Qÿ=BRÿLBc?L@RÿPL>QLBÿ>QAÿB=>?@Aÿ=BCÿKEFGAÿFHÿ >QLKÿ@AKFT?>LFBÿHF@ÿ=ÿGA@LFCÿBF>ÿ>FÿAdEAACÿ>ABÿRA=@K^ÿOQAÿAdGL@=>LFBÿFHÿ>QLKÿ>ABeRA=@ÿGA@LFCÿKQ=TTÿ BF>ÿTLUL>ÿF@ÿ>A@ULB=>Aÿ>QAÿLBJAK>LM=>LFBÿF@ÿ>QAÿTAM=TÿAHHAE>ÿFHÿ=BRÿEFUG?TKF@RÿG@FEAKKÿLKK?ACÿ ÿZFUULKKLFBÿKGAELHLE=TTRÿ=?>QF@LfAKÿ>QAÿHLTLBMÿF@ÿ duringÿ theÿ ten-yearÿ period.ÿ Theÿ Federalÿ Trad~A ?TKF@RÿG@FEAKKÿ=H>A@ÿ>QAÿAdGL@=>LFBÿFHÿ>QAÿ>ABe continuationÿÿ of actionsÿÿ to enforceÿ anyÿ suchÿF cc UG ÿ ÿ ÿ year period. Authorityÿÿ to Conductÿ Investigation: ÿ TÿO@=CAÿZFUULKKLFBÿ[E>Sÿ\Xÿ]^D^Z^ÿ__ÿ̀gSÿ̀hSÿXiSÿ Sectionsÿÿÿ 6, 9, 10,ÿ andÿ 20ÿÿ of theÿ Feden= ÿ=BCÿm?TAKÿFHÿl@=E>LEASÿ\gÿZ^Y^m^ÿ_ÿ\^\ÿnoÿqnr^Sÿ=BCÿ andÿ 57b-ÿÿÿ 1, as amended; ÿ andÿ FTCÿ ProceduresK ÿ supplementsÿ thereto. ÿ Byÿ directionÿÿ of theÿ Commission. ÿ llUl lllllH Ul lCOlllllllalCO lllC, 111 VCO.'lUe,auuu Ul ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ Issued: July 1, 2022 Expires: July 1, 2032 lllC, [G@LTÿt^ÿO=WF@ÿ DAE@A>=@Rÿÿ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 45 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC EXHIBIT 2 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 46 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC BEFORE THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION In the Matter of PUBLIC The Civil Investigative Demand dated May 20, 2025, to NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. FTC File No. 251-0061 STATEMENT OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 16 C.F.R. § 2.10(a)(2) IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO QUASH CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND 1. Counsel for Petitioner NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. (“NewsGuard”) respectfully submits this Statement of Counsel pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 2.10(a)(2) in support of the Petition to Quash the Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) filed by NewsGuard on January 16, 2026 in this matter. Chronology of Cooperation 2. On May 20, 2025, the FTC issued a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) to NewsGuard containing 31 Specifications. 3. On May 28, 2025, NewsGuard’s counsel Sophia A. Hansell and Matthew C. Parrott and FTC staff attorneys Justin Epner and Theodore Zang (“Staff”) held a meet-and-confer to discuss the CID. 1 NewsGuard described its objections to the CID, including that the CID would chill NewsGuard’s First Amendment rights and that, as written, it would impose unreasonable burdens on NewsGuard. NewsGuard explained that it would attempt to respond to the CID in good faith in an effort to rectify any misperceptions about NewsGuard’s business and conduct, but that if Staff could not reasonably address NewsGuard’s objections, NewsGuard may need to move to quash the CID. NewsGuard and Staff agreed to discuss ways in which NewsGuard could 1 Unless otherwise mentioned, a combination of those attorneys participated in each meet-andconfer conference referenced in this Statement of Counsel. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 47 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC reasonably respond to the CID while balancing NewsGuard’s objections. And Staff assured NewsGuard that it would extend the deadline to move to quash the CID as long as NewsGuard made progress complying with the CID. During that conversation, Staff identified Specifications 9, 13, and 23 as its highest priority specifications. 4. On June 3, 2025, NewsGuard made its first production of documents responsive to the CID. This production contained 11,039 pages of documents and included NewsGuard’s Articles of Incorporation in response to Specification 1 and, in response to Specification 10, a complete reproduction of all documents and correspondence previously produced to the United States House of Representatives. 5. On June 4, 2025, NewsGuard and Staff held a meet-and-confer addressing the scope and priorities of the remaining Specifications in the CID. During that conversation, NewsGuard provided an update on Staff’s high-priority Specifications by informing Staff that NewsGuard was compiling documents responsive to Specification 9 and developing a modification proposal for responding to Specification 13. NewsGuard further informed Staff that it had no documents responsive to Specification 23 in its possession. 6. On June 12, 2025, NewsGuard sent a letter to Staff providing contextual information relevant to several Specifications and describing NewsGuard’s mission, methodology, and products. In particular, the letter described NewsGuard’s apolitical, criterion-based ratings methodology, the distinction between its Misinformation Fingerprints and site ratings, and the transparency and accountability features of its process (e.g., contacting publishers for comment, publishing “Nutrition Labels,” and disclosing rating criteria and staff authorship). The letter also explained that NewsGuard rates a diverse collection of news outlets across the perceived political spectrum. In addition, the letter included sample materials for Staff’s review. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 48 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC 7. On June 18, 2025, NewsGuard and Staff held a meet-and-confer during which NewsGuard answered Staff’s questions regarding NewsGuard’s previous submissions. 8. On June 27, 2025, NewsGuard sent a letter to Staff responding to various open questions from the June 18 meet-and-confer, as well as providing additional context relevant to several of the Specifications. 9. On July 10, 2025, NewsGuard and Staff held a meet-and-confer to discuss NewsGuard’s June 27, 2025 letter. Also at that time, Staff asked NewsGuard to prioritize Specification 12. 10. On July 17, 2025, NewsGuard made a second production of documents. The production contained 28,905 pages of documents responsive to Specification 9. 11. Also on July 17, NewsGuard sent a letter seeking modification of Specifications 11, 12, and 13. This letter explained that, as written, those Specifications were unreasonably broad and burdensome, effectively calling for nearly all of NewsGuard’s work product and journalistic materials. NewsGuard proposed a sampling methodology spanning approximately 40 publishers across categories and across the perceived political spectrum, with historical data from 2020 forward. 12. On July 18 and 31, 2025, NewsGuard and Staff held meet-and-confers to discuss NewsGuard’s July 17 letter. Staff asked questions about the proposed sampling methodology, and NewsGuard described its First Amendment concerns with producing more data, including the identity of clients. 13. On August 4, 2025, following a telephone conversation with NewsGuard, Staff sent NewsGuard an email claiming that NewsGuard had produced information responsive only to FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 49 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC Specifications 1, 9, and 10. Staff also requested that NewsGuard henceforth treat Specifications 8 and 21 as priorities. 14. On August 15, 2025, NewsGuard sent Staff a letter explaining that the information contained in NewsGuard’s prior productions and letters substantially complied with at least 16 of the Specifications. The letter also enumerated NewsGuard’s continuing objections to the CID. 15. On August 21, 2025, NewsGuard and Staff held a meet-and-confer to discuss NewsGuard’s August 15 letter. During that call, Staff acknowledged that NewsGuard had responded to more than three of the CID’s Specifications. Staff also requested that for Specification 9, NewsGuard produce communications with six additional entities not previously identified in Specification 9. 16. On September 8, 2025, NewsGuard and Staff held a meet-and-confer to discuss Staff’s additional request related to Specification 9. NewsGuard and Staff also discussed NewsGuard’s modification request related to Specifications 11 through 13 and a potential compromise related to disclosing NewsGuard’s customers. 17. On September 11, 2025, NewsGuard made its third production with nine pages of documents collected in response to Specifications 19 through 21. 18. On November 17, 2025—shortly after the Federal Government reopened after a 43- day shutdown—NewsGuard and Staff held a meet-and-confer to discuss the status of NewsGuard’s CID compliance. At that time, NewsGuard informed Staff that NewsGuard was prepared to make a further production with data related to Specifications 11 through 13 as well as anonymized customer information. NewsGuard also informed Staff that, in the spirit of cooperation, it was collecting and reviewing documents related to Staff’s expanded Specification 9 request. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 50 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC 19. The next day, on November 18, 2025, NewsGuard made its fourth production with an additional 40 pages of documents and a spreadsheet containing a large sampling of NewsGuard’s news ratings data spanning multiple years. 20. On December 3, 2025, NewsGuard sent a letter to Staff providing additional information and data responsive to questions posed by Staff during the November 17 meet-andconfer regarding the programmatic advertising ecosystem and NewsGuard’s business. 21. On December 8, 2025, NewsGuard made its fifth production of documents, which contained 1,187 pages of communications between NewsGuard and the Specification 9 entities identified by Staff on August 21. 22. On January 13, 2026, NewsGuard and Staff held a meet-and-confer. NewsGuard reiterated its objections to the CID, asked Staff for assurances that Staff would not request additional information or materials from NewsGuard, and stated that it was prepared to move to quash the CID as an ongoing unconstitutional retaliation against NewsGuard for its protected First Amendment activities and because the CID’s unconstitutionally broad and intrusive demands impermissibly chill NewsGuard’s speech and associational rights. Staff did not provide those assurances and, instead, asked for additional information related to NewsGuard’s December 3 letter. 23. On January 15, 2026, NewsGuard sent an email to Staff responding to the questions posed by Staff during the January 13 meet-and-confer. Later that day, Staff sent NewsGuard a letter purporting to “clarif[y]” NewsGuard’s “obligations under the” CID and offering various modifications. However, the proposed modifications abandoned the sampling approach the parties had been discussing for Specifications 11 and 12, and instead demanded all of NewsGuard’s reliability ratings. Staff also continued to request the identities of and communications with FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 51 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC NewsGuard’s customers, as well as documents reflecting NewsGuard’s journalistic methodologies. 24. On January 16, 2026, NewsGuard sent Staff an email explaining that the proposed modifications did not resolve NewsGuard’s constitutional objections to the CID and that NewsGuard would petition to quash the CID based on NewsGuard’s continuing objections. 25. Over the course of these months, Staff extended NewsGuard’s deadline to move to quash the CID several times. Staff provided the latest extension on November 26, 2025, thereby extending the petition to limit or quash deadline relating to the CID to January 16, 2026. Summary of CID Compliance 26. Having engaged in a good-faith effort to comply with the CID and cooperate with the FTC’s investigation, to date, NewsGuard has made productions totaling 41,180 pages of documents, submitted numerous substantive letters answering Staff’s questions, provided other information sought by the CID and Staff in emails and during phone calls, and engaged in at least ten substantive meet-and-confers regarding NewsGuard’s objections and compliance with the CID. As a result of NewsGuard’s good-faith effort, in the letter from Staff dated January 15, 2026, Staff confirmed that NewsGuard “has satisfied its CID obligations, except for” Specifications 8, 11, 12, 15, and 26. 27. NewsGuard has engaged with Staff on every one of the 31 Specifications in the CID and has substantially complied with most of them, as explained below. a. Specification 1 – Requesting Articles of Incorporation. NewsGuard provided the requested information. b. Specification 2 – Requesting NewsGuard’s office location. provided the requested information. NewsGuard FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 52 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC c. Specification 3 – Requesting organizational charts. NewsGuard informed Staff that it does not maintain historical organizational charts and that the current, complete list of NewsGuard employees appears on NewsGuard’s public website to which NewsGuard directed Staff. NewsGuard has responded to all follow-up questions from Staff regarding its historical staffing. d. Specification 4 – Requesting descriptions of NewsGuard’s products and services. NewsGuard described its products and services in correspondence, including letters dated June 12, 2025 and June 27, 2025. e. Specification 5 – Requesting all documents relating to NewsGuard’s news reliability ratings and any other ratings. NewsGuard explained to Staff that this Specification essentially requests every piece of work product ever generated by NewsGuard and NewsGuard’s journalistic materials, including reporting and gathering of information from sources. NewsGuard has continuously maintained that this Specification violates its First Amendment rights. f. Specifications 6, 7, 17, and 18 – Requesting communications regarding particular reliability ratings. NewsGuard explained to Staff that any feedback from publishers on the ratings NewsGuard assigns to them is published on publishers’ rating pages, and NewsGuard offered to provide a sample of such rating pages beyond what was included in the documents produced in the first production. NewsGuard also informed Staff that it does not keep a centralized record of communications from third parties about a particular publisher’s rating, and that searching for and producing all such communications would be FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 53 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC unreasonably burdensome. NewsGuard informed Staff that examples of such communications were included in its document productions. g. Specifications 8 and 26 – Requesting identification of and all communications with NewsGuard’s customers. NewsGuard informed Staff that it objects to providing information about its customers because doing so would be a violation of its First Amendment rights. NewsGuard has refused to comply with the demand that it disclose customer information, including the names of its subscribers. In an effort to protect its First Amendment rights relating to NewsGuard subscribers, NewsGuard was willing only to provide sample anonymized contracts and anonymized descriptions of customers, but has consistently remained unwilling to comply with the demand that it disclose its subscribers. h. Specification 9 – Requesting documents related to enumerated third parties. NewsGuard produced approximately 30,000 pages of communications responsive to this request. i. Specification 10 – Requesting all documents produced to the United States Congress. NewsGuard produced all requested documents. j. Specifications 11 through 13 – Requesting documents and data relating to NewsGuard’s ratings. After multiple conversations with Staff seeking to narrow these Specifications to information that would be most useful to Staff, NewsGuard produced a sampling of multiple years’ worth of ratings data. k. Specifications 14 and 15 – Requesting documents related to NewsGuard’s rating methodology. NewsGuard responded to these Specifications in its FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 54 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC substantive letters. Documents in its productions also provided further explanation of NewsGuard’s ratings and methodologies. l. Specifications 16, and 19 through 21 – Requesting analysis of the effect of NewsGuard’s reliability ratings. NewsGuard pointed Staff to public statements it has made relevant to these Specifications and provided further explanation in its letters and in documents produced. m. Specification 22 – Requesting all documents related to the purpose of NewsGuard’s ratings. NewsGuard provided detailed narrative descriptions of the mission and purpose of its ratings. And NewsGuard produced marketing materials explaining its mission and purpose. n. Specification 23 – Requesting all documents related to NewsGuard’s use of AI technology. NewsGuard explained to Staff that it has no documents in its possession responsive to this Specification because it does not use AI to generate ratings. o. Specification 24 – Requesting documents related to NewsGuard’s development of technology with third parties. NewsGuard explained to Staff that NewsGuard has not engaged any technology development company to develop any unique technology to further its purpose. Accordingly, no documents exist responsive to this Specification. p. Specification 25 – Requesting all studies related to social media or digital advertising. NewsGuard explained to Staff that it regularly publishes reports on topics of public interest, including on its website and in its Reality Check FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 55 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC newsletter. These reports cover a wide range of topics in the news. NewsGuard provided Staff URLs to all such reports, which are publicly available. q. Specifications 27 and 28 – Requesting NewsGuard’s financial information. While objecting to these requests as overbroad, in the spirit of cooperation, NewsGuard produced its P&L statement. r. Specification 29 – Requesting information related to data sets produced in response to the CID. NewsGuard provided detailed information about the data sets it has produced. s. Specification 30 – Requesting information regarding NewsGuard’s document preservation efforts. NewsGuard confirmed for Staff that shortly after receiving the CID, it issued a document retention notice to ensure that potentially relevant materials are preserved and otherwise implemented appropriate document preservation measures on centralized systems. t. Specification 31 – Requesting information on the source of information provided in response to the CID. NewsGuard informed Staff that the Specification responses in its substantive letters were drafted by or with the assistance of legal counsel at Gibson Dunn, at the direction of NewsGuard leadership, including its General Counsel. Because communications about the drafting of these letters are protected by privileges, NewsGuard did not disclose the substance of the communications. 28. Since the FTC issued the CID, the legal expense NewsGuard has incurred to comply with the CID and Staff’s requests has exceeded 28% of the revenue NewsGuard has derived from the advertising brand-safety services it offers clients. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 56 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on January 16, 2026, in Irvine, California. /s/ Matthew C. Parrott Matthew C. Parrott GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 92612 Tel: (949) 451-3823 MParrott@gibsondunn.com FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 57 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC EXHIBIT 3 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 58 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Federal Trade Commission WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 January 15, 2026 VIA EMAIL NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. c/o Sophia A. Hansell, Esq. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1700 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 SHansell@gibsondunn.com Re: FTC File No. 251-0061 Dear Ms. Hansell: This letter responds to your request for clarification in our January 13, 2025 teleconference as to NewsGuard Technologies, Inc.’s (“NewsGuard”) obligations under the May 20, 2025 Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) issued by the Commission. As staff have said consistently during multiple meet-and-confer teleconferences with NewsGuard, 1 this investigation seeks information regarding potential anticompetitive behavior by companies operating in the online digital advertising ecosystem, including whether certain companies may have colluded to deny advertising revenue to American political commentary publishers. While we appreciate the materials NewsGuard has produced to date, we require a discrete set of additional information before we can accept a certification of compliance with the CID. Therefore, consistent with staff’s good-faith effort to reduce NewsGuard’s burden consistent with the Commission’s need for information, this letter modifies the CID pursuant to FTC Rule 2.7(l) as follows: Specification 8. Modified to limit the Specification to communications between NewsGuard and any advertiser, advertising agency, or any person acting as an agent of an advertiser, including but not limited to demand side platforms and supply side platforms, with whom NewsGuard had a commercial relationship relating to NewsGuard News Reliability Ratings. Specification 11. Modified to limit the Specification to entities to whom NewsGuard has assigned a News Reliability Rating. May 28, 2025, June 4, 2025, June 18, 2025, July 10, 2025, July 18, 2025, July 31, 2025, August 21, 2025, September 8, 2025, November 17, 2025, and January 13, 2026. 1 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 59 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC Sophia Hansell, Esq. Page 2 Specification 12. Specification 12 remains outstanding. Specification 15. Modified to limit the Specification to documents sufficient to show the methodology by which NewsGuard determines NewsGuard’s News Reliability Ratings, including internal correspondence about the process of developing the methodology. Specification 26. Modified to limit the Specification to Data Sets sufficient to show, for each customer (other than natural persons) of NewsGuard News Reliability Ratings: the name of the customer; any unique identifier(s) used to identify the customer across NewsGuard’s databases or data sets; and any categorization of the customer type, including but not limited to whether the customer is educational, not-for-profit, governmental, and/or a business. As to the Specifications not specifically addressed in this modification letter, based on its prior productions NewsGuard has satisfied its CID obligations, except for Specification 12, for which NewsGuard owes a response. As you are aware, the modifications granted in this letter are substantial. In letters dated June 27, July 17, and August 15, 2025, as well as in meet-and-confer teleconferences, you objected to the CID as unduly burdensome. While we disagree, these modifications should serve to address any burden concerns that NewsGuard may have. If you have any questions concerning the CID or this letter, please contact Justin Epner at (202) 326-2942 or jepner@ftc.gov. As you know, modifications may only be made in writing and by a Commission representative. cc: Justin Epner Ted Zang Attorneys, Bureau of Competition /s/ Patricia Galvan Patricia Galvan Assistant Director Technology Enforcement Division Bureau of Competition FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 60 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC EXHIBIT 4 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 01/16/2026 OSCAR NO. 614709 -PAGE Page 61 of 61 * PUBLIC * PUBLIC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Federal Trade Commission WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 November 26, 2025 VIA EMAIL NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. c/o Sophia A. Hansell, Esq. Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1700 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 SHansell@gibsondunn.com Re: FTC File No. 251-0061 Dear Ms. Hansell: In connection with the May 20, 2025 Civil Investigative Demand issued by the Commission to NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. (“NewsGuard”) (“the CID”), you requested an extension of the return date. The current deadline is December 2, 2025. In light of NewsGuard’s ongoing engagement, including its recent production of documents responsive to CID Specifications 8, 11-13, and 29, and commitment to produce additional documents responsive to Specification 9, as well as with the expectation of, e.g., continued efforts to meet-and-confer regarding data responsive to Specifications 11-13, and taking into account the upcoming holidays, this letter extends the return date pursuant to FTC Rule 2.7(l), 16 C.F.R. § 2.7(l), to January 16, 2026. Pursuant to Federal Trade Commission Rule 2.10(a)(5), this letter extends the petition to limit or quash deadline relating to the CID to January 16, 2026. Sincerely, /s/ Justin Epner Justin Epner Attorney, Bureau of Competition APPROVED: /s/ Patricia Galvan Patricia Galvan Assistant Director Technology Enforcement Division Bureau of Competition --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/agency%3Aftc%3A8111d169f88f9b9e. Public record. Not legal advice.