Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Andrew Ferguson has found a novel use for consumer protection laws: violating the First Amendment rights of online news sites. Chair Ferguson’s target is pioneering technology company Apple. On February 12th, 2026, Ferguson sent a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook warning him that the company could face a formal investigation into whether Apple was using “unfair or deceptive practices” in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The alleged deception is that Apple’s news service is marketed as a neutral aggregator that simply compiles and posts the top stories from the top news sites—without political or ideological biases. Ferguson alleges that Apple “has systematically promoted news articles from left-wing news outlets and suppressed news articles from more conservative publications.” Ferguson states that if Apple’s favoring of left-wing news sites is “inconsistent with terms of service or reasonable expectations”, then the company may be violating federal anti-fraud laws.
Ferguson’s claims are drawn from studies by conservative media watchdogs—particularly one by the Media Research Center (MRC). The MRC analyzed 620 stories featured on Apple News this January. According to the study, Apple featured 63 articles from the Washington Post and 59 articles from NBC—sites the MRC labels as having a left-wing (or at least pro-Democrat) bias. In contrast, Apple did not run a single story from conservative sites like Breitbart or the Daily Wire.
Apple’s defense is that the decision of which stories to feature involves editorial judgment and is thus entitled to the same First Amendment protections enjoyed by print publications. After all, the FTC is not investigating the New York Times to determine if it really publishes all the news that’s fit to print. Ferguson’s letter acknowledges that the FTC cannot act as the speech police. However, investigating media companies for supposedly violating their terms of service will turn the FTC into—if not a speech police—then at least a speech regulator.
Conservatives who support Ferguson’s investigation of Apple should consider how the precedent could be used by a future Democratic FTC Chair against conservative news sites. The result will be news sites continuously manipulating their algorithms to ensure their postings match the current administration’s ideological leanings.
Ferguson’s complaint that Apple is misleading their conservative readers relies on several flawed assumptions. First, he assumes that Apple News readers cannot figure out for themselves that the site promotes left-wing news sources while ignoring stories from conservative sites. Therefore, Apple’s conservative readers need the FTC to protect them from media bias. Secondly, Ferguson assumes that Apple’s conservative readers lack right-of-center alternatives. The fact is that there are numerous conservative news and commentary sites—including the Washington Times, National Review, the American Conservative and libertarian Reason and LewRockwell.com.
There are also numerous conservative, libertarian, and MAGA blogs and podcasts. Most think tanks also have an online presence for their scholars to comment on current events. The internet offers access to various strains of conservatism—many of which disagree with their fellow conservatives.
For example, the libertarians at Reason and LewRockwell.com disagree with the nationalists at the American Conservative. They both also disagree with the neoconservatives at National Review. Some antiwar conservatives even appear on progressive sites promoting a left-right anti-war alliance. As this brief survey shows, anyone interested in politics can easily find content that matches their philosophy. The worst thing that could happen to online political discourse is for the FTC to try to regulate content in the name of consumer protection.
For years the federal government tried to ensure that broadcast media was open to all points of view via The Fairness Doctrine. This doctrine was opposed by President Ronald Reagan who said,“this type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Reagan also supported the repeal of the Fairness Act because the rise of cable television demolished the argument that the government must regulate broadcasters to ensure that all voices are heard. Reagan’s counsel is even more true today in the age of the internet. Next time Chair Ferguson wants to investigate an online news service’s ideological bias, he should ask himself, “what would Reagan do?”
