DataBreaches.Net

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

Administrative law judge denies LabMD's motion to sanction FTC

Posted on September 10, 2014 by Dissent

As I noted on August 28, the FTC had responded (pdf) to LabMD’s motion for sanctions (pdf) in FTC v. LabMD.

On September 5, Administrative Law Judge Chappell denied LabMD’s motion.

After summarizing the allegations and the FTC’s response, Judge Chappell writes:

To support its Motion, Respondent asserts as fact numerous matters that are disputed by Complaint Counsel. Moreover, the assertion as to Mr. Wallace’s testimony is, at present, mere allegation, given that Mr. Wallace has yet to testify. Resolving Respondent’s Motion would require fact finding on disputed evidentiary issues, and since the evidentiary hearing in this case has not been completed, it would be premature and speculative to rule on Respondent’s Motion at this time. For these reasons, Respondent’s Motion is DENIED.

Related posts:

  • Unfair enforcement? FTC vs. LabMD
  • FTC’s complaint against LabMD has spawned so much litigation – and for what?
  • House Oversight notifies FTC of investigation into Tiversa and "less than accurate" information it provided in LabMD case (Update 1)
  • Facing continued investigation and litigation, LabMD decides to wind down its operations (Updated)
Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← NY: Port Jefferson parents get wrong exam scores
Central Utah Clinic reports server containing 31,677 patients' information was breached in 2012 →

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

  • Horizon Healthcare RCM discloses ransomware attack in December
  • Disgruntled IT Worker Jailed for Cyber Attack, Huddersfield
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni

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

  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data

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.