Facebook claimed it was doing the world a favor when it updated how the site handles privacy settings earlier this month, but the change has done nothing but get the company in even more hot water. Amid heavy criticism from rights and privacy groups, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the changes that it says mislead users and "contradict Facebook’s own representations."

Facebook has always had pretty detailed (if not overly complex) privacy settings. As we detailed in our own guide to Facebook's privacy controls from earlier this year, these settings allow people to granularly control how each type of information is shared with others and who sees what at any given time. However, many users were painfully unaware that these settings existed, resulting in numerous embarrassments, job losses, and more—all because of misplaced Facebook postings.

In an attempt to draw more user attention to the fact that there are, in fact, privacy settings, Facebook made sweeping changes across its site at the beginning of December. The problem? Some of the changes urged users to share everything with everyone—pretty much the polar opposite of what most people would want to do. The privacy screen that every user had to click through (called the "transition tool") was unclear and asked users to choose between sharing wall posts, pictures, and more with everyone or... whatever you had set before. What did you previously set for, say, photos of you tagged by other people? Do you know off the top of your head without checking? Most people don't, and Facebook didn't outright tell you. Not only were they vague, but the default settings were set to the widest level of sharing possible.

It's this detail that has privacy advocates—and many Facebook users—up in arms. The Electronic Frontier Foundation was among the first to criticize Facebook for its choice of wording and default options, and now EPIC and nine other privacy organizations are asking for further investigation from the FTC. In its 29-page complaint, EPIC says far more user information became publicly available after the rollout of the transition tool. The organization also says that third-party developers have access to more user info than ever before, and criticizes the elimination of a setting that universally disallowed the sharing of information with third parties.

The basic premise of the complaint is that most users either don't understand the changes they are being prompted to make, or that the changes are so complex that even experienced users are confused by them. (These arguments are supported by numerous quotes from tech gurus around the Web discussing their frustration and confusion with the new settings.) As a result, EPIC believes users are being misled by Facebook into exposing more than they had ever intended. "Absent injunctive relief by the Commission, Facebook is likely to continue its unfair and deceptive business practices and harm the public interest," wrote EPIC.

Despite this onslaught of criticism, Facebook has largely held steady in its decision to enact these changes—for now. If we have learned anything from Facebook in the past, however, it's that the company usually stands behind its initial decision for a while, only to acknowledge user complaints some time later and eventually cave into demands to make default settings more geared towards user privacy. After all, that's what happened with the now-defunct Facebook Beacon.

Update: "We’ve had productive discussions with dozens of organizations around the world about the recent changes and we’re disappointed that EPIC has chosen to share their concerns with the FTC while refusing to talk to us about them," a Facebook spokesperson told Ars on Monday morning. The company noted that it was pleased that many users have already updated their privacy settings, demonstrating the effectiveness of the transition tool. "We discussed the privacy program with many regulators, including the FTC, prior to launch and expect to continue to work with them in the future."