I had previously reported that LifeLock was negotiating to settle FTC charges that it had violated a 2010 consent order. Now it’s official. From the FTC:
LifeLock will pay $100 million to settle Federal Trade Commission contempt charges that it violated the terms of a 2010 federal court order that requires the company to secure consumers’ personal information and prohibits the company from deceptive advertising. This is the largest monetary award obtained by the Commission in an order enforcement action.
“This settlement demonstrates the Commission’s commitment to enforcing the orders it has in place against companies, including orders requiring reasonable security for consumer data,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez. “The fact that consumers paid Lifelock for help in protecting their sensitive personal information makes the charges in this case particularly troubling.”
The FTC’s filing in the case alleged that LifeLock violated four components of the 2010 order. First, the FTC alleged that from at least October 2012 through March 2014, LifeLock failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect users’ sensitive personal information including their social security, credit card and bank account numbers.
Second, the filing alleged that during this period LifeLock falsely advertised that it protected consumers’ sensitive data with the same high-level safeguards used by financial institutions. Third, the FTC alleged that, from January 2012 through December 2014, LifeLock falsely advertised that it would send alerts “as soon as” it received any indication that a consumer may be a victim of identity theft. Finally, the FTC alleged that the company failed to abide by the order’s recordkeeping requirements.
Under the terms of the settlement, LifeLock must deposit $100 million into the registry of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Of that $100 million, $68 million may be used to redress fees paid to LifeLock by class action consumers who were allegedly injured by the same behavior alleged by the FTC. These funds, however, must be paid directly to and received by consumers, and may not be used for any administrative or legal costs associated with the class action.
Any money not received by consumers in the class action settlement or through settlements between LifeLock and state attorneys general will be provided to the FTC for use in further consumer redress.
In addition to the settlement’s monetary provisions, recordkeeping provisions similar to those in the 2010 order have been extended to 13 years from the date of the original order.
The Commission vote approving the stipulated final order was 3-1, with Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen voting no. Commissioner Ohlhausen issued a dissenting statement. The FTC filed the proposed order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
NOTE: Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
Update:
- Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen In the Matter of FTC v. LifeLock, Inc. (30.71 KB). In her dissent, Commissioner Ohlhausen also notes that filings in this matter remain sealed, which is a serious problem. Why won’t the FTC be more transparent?
- [Proposed] Stipulated Order Resolving FTC’s Allegations of Contempt and Modifying Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction (185.68 KB)
- Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission’s Consent Motion For Entry of Proposed Stipulated Order Resolving FTC’s Allegations of Contempt and Modifying Stipulated Final Judgment and Order For Permanent Injunction (36.56 KB)