DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

FTC enforcement of data protection

Posted on May 11, 2009 by Dissent

Since 2001, the FTC has filed charges against 25 businesses for failure to protect consumers’ information. The cases were cited in their May 5th testimony and comments (pdf) in Congress about two bills being considered: H.R. 2221, the Data Accountability and Protection Act, and H.R. 1319, the Informed P2P User Act.

The cases fall into five major types:

  1. Businesses that allegedly misrepresented their own security procedures by claiming that they had strong security protection when they failed to employ even basic security protections: Microsoft, Petco, Tower Records, Life is good, and Premier Capital Lending.
  2. Businesses that failed to protect consumer data from simple and well-known type of attacks such as an SQL injection (Genica Corp., Guidance Software) or businesses that failed to implement simple technologies to counteract basic security threats (TJX, Reed Elsevier and Seisint).
  3. Businesses that failed to use reasonable procedures to verify the legitimacy of
    its customers or those accessing consumer data: Choicepoint.
  4. Businesses that retained sensitive consumer information that they no longer needed:
    BJ’s Warehouse, DSW Shoe Warehouse, and CardSystems Solutions.
  5. Businesses that did not dispose of sensitive consumer information properly: CVS Caremark.

The 25 cases were:

  • United States v. Rental Research Svcs., No. ________ (D. Minn. Mar. 5, 2009);
  • Federal Trade Commission v.  Navone, No. 2:08-CV-001842 (D. Nev. Dec. 30, 2008);
  • United States v. ValueClick, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-01711 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2008);
  • United States v. American United Mortgage, No. 1:07-CV-07064 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2007);
  • United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc., No. 1:06-CV-0198 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2006);
  • In the Matter of CVS Caremark Corporation, File No. 072 3119 (Feb. 19, 2009) (accepted for public comment);
  • In the Matter of Genica Corp., File No. 082 3113 (Feb. 5, 2009) (accepted for public comment);
  • In the Matter of Premier Capital Lending, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4241 (Dec. 10, 2008);
  • In the Matter of The TJX Cos., FTC Docket No. C-4227 (July 29, 2008);
  • In the Matter of Reed Elsevier Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4226 (July 29, 2008);
  • In the Matter of Life is good, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4218 (Apr. 16, 2008);
  • In the Matter of Goal Fin., LLC, FTC Docket No. C-4216 (Apr. 9, 2008);
  • In the Matter of Guidance Software, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4187 (Mar. 30, 2007);
  • In the Matter of CardSystems Solutions, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4168 (Sept. 5, 2006);
  • In the Matter of Nations Title Agency, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4161 (June 19, 2006);
  • In the Matter of DSW, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4157 (Mar. 7, 2006);
  • In the Matter of Superior Mortgage Corp., FTC Docket No. C-4153 (Dec. 14, 2005);
  • In the Matter of BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4148 (Sept. 20, 2005);
  • In the Matter of Nationwide Mortgage Group, Inc., FTC Docket No. 9319 (Apr. 12, 2005);
  • In the Matter of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4133 (Mar. 4, 2005);
  • In the Matter of Sunbelt Lending Servs., Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4129 (Jan. 3, 2005);
  • In the Matter of MTS Inc., d/b/a Tower Records/Books/Video, FTC Docket No. C-4110 (May 28, 2004);
  • In the Matter of Guess?, Inc., FTC Docket No. C-4091 (July 30, 2003);
  • In the Matter of Microsoft Corp., FTC Docket No. C-4069 (Dec. 20, 2002);
  • In the Matter of Eli Lilly & Co., FTC Docket No. C-4047 (May 8, 2002).
Category: Breach Incidents

Post navigation

← Pointer: Heartland CEO Vows To Fight MasterCard Breach Fines Of $6 Million-Plus
A few more breaches that didn’t make the news →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Plastic surgeons often store nude photos of patients with their identity information. When would we call that “negligent?”
  • India: Servers of two city hospitals hacked; police register FIR
  • Ph: Coop Hospital confirms probe into reported cyberattack
  • Slapped wrists for Financial Conduct Authority staff who emailed work data home
  • School Districts Unaware BoardDocs Software Published Their Private Files
  • A guilty plea in the PowerSchool case still leaves unanswered questions
  • Brussels Parliament hit by cyber-attack
  • Sweden under cyberattack: Prime minister sounds the alarm
  • Former CIA Analyst Sentenced to Over Three Years in Prison for Unlawfully Transmitting Top Secret National Defense Information
  • FIN6 cybercriminals pose as job seekers on LinkedIn to hack recruiters

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe
  • Would you — or wouldn’t you?
  • New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
  • Synthetic Data and the Illusion of Privacy: Legal Risks of Using De-Identified AI Training Sets
  • States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe
  • AI tools collect and store data about you from all your devices – here’s how to be aware of what you’re revealing
  • 23andMe Privacy Ombudsman Urges User Consent Pre-Data Sale

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.