After convening its Spyware Workshop, the Federal Trade Commission staff put together a summary report [in PDF format] indicating their own perceptions of spyware, adware and what sorts of behavior may warrant regulation and enforcement. The 62-page document discusses at length the differences between adware and spyware, coming to the conclusion that spyware can be reasonably defined as "software that aids in gathering information about a person or organization without their knowledge and that may send such information to another entity without the consumer's consent, or that asserts control over a computer without the consumer's knowledge." The FTC also sought to stiffen the standard to meet the definition of spyware, adding that "to avoid inadvertently including software that is benign or beneficial, the term 'spyware' should be limited to software that causes some harm to consumers."

Adware seems to have been the sticking point in differences among the FTC's panel members, the speakers putting forth "a range of views as to whether and when adware should be classified as spyware." Some put some adware firms into the spyware bucket based on disclosure practices. Some took adware firms out of the category because the applications didn't monitor behavior. Others seemed to think anything that generated pop-up ads, "regardless of whether consumers are bombarded with such ads or just occasionally receive such ads," must be spyware.

Importantly, the FTC defined what it saw as actions that warranted enforcement actions. Taking its role as a consumer protector, the Commission's staff put on notice those firms making deceptive claims or omissions that are "likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably in the circumstances, to their detriment." It also said that disclosures "must be clear and prominent if consumers are to be able to notice, read, and comprehend them," all of which would be required to provide a defense against claims of omission.