SuperSmart← Back to DiscoverDiscover
RESEARCH DRAFT

Research draft. Conclusions may change; review the sources and limitations before relying on them.

RESEARCH DRAFT · NOT A VERIFIED CONCLUSION

The sensitive-location-data ban has exceptions—including federal national-security uses.

The final Gravy Analytics/Venntel order is narrower than a blanket ban on every use of precise location information.

research_draftUpdated 2026-09-080 recorded actions
Conceptual generated illustration of documents and civic architectureCONCEPTUAL ILLUSTRATION

Monitor this connection

Sign in to your account to monitor updates
2Recorded evidence rows
0Investigation actions
5Review limitations
0Recorded answers

What this page shows

The FTC's January 2025 final order restricts sensitive-location data. But its definition excludes data used for specified security purposes, federal national-security purposes, and federal law-enforcement responses to imminent death or serious bodily harm. That distinction matters: a restriction on a defined category is not necessarily a prohibition on every use of the underlying information. It also does not authorize conduct otherwise prohibited by law. The remaining research question is operational: what evidence demonstrates that a particular use actually qualifies for an exception?

Recorded evidence

Federal Trade Commission
Final consent package — definitions on PDF page 18; restrictions on page 192025-01-14 docket publication
↗
Federal Trade Commission
Gravy Analytics and Venntel — final-order docket2025-01-14
↗

Limitations & review notes

  • Research draft. Conclusions may change; review the sources and limitations before relying on them.
  • Restored archival research draft: not independently reverified for this republication and not actively monitored. Check the linked originals and dated scope before relying on it.
  • The order applies to the named respondents and successors, not all data brokers. No particular post-order sale or misuse of an exception is established.
  • This is a consent resolution, not a trial finding of all complaint allegations. Respondents neither admitted nor denied those allegations except specified jurisdictional facts.
  • The exceptions had prior coverage. The finding is their documented scope, not a newly discovered secret permission.

Questions this connection opens

  1. Which public contracts and compliance records identify the purpose, authorization and safeguards for purchases claimed to fall within these exceptions? Separate an asserted exception from evidence that its conditions were satisfied.
Go deeper

Ask a follow-up question, compare another company, or review the supporting evidence.

Ask a follow-up