DataBreaches.Net

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

FTC Takes Action Against GoDaddy for Alleged Lax Data Security for Its Website Hosting Services

Posted on January 15, 2025 by Dissent
Proposed order will prohibit GoDaddy from misleading customers about its security protections and require it to establish a robust information security program

January 15, 2025

The Federal Trade Commission will require web hosting company GoDaddy to implement a robust information security program to settle charges that the company failed to secure its website-hosting services against attacks that could harm its customers and visitors to the customers’ websites.

The FTC alleges in its complaint that, since 2018, GoDaddy has failed to implement reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect and monitor its website-hosting environments for security threats, and misled customers about the extent of its data security protections on its website hosting services.

In its proposed settlement order, the FTC is requiring GoDaddy to establish a comprehensive data security program that is similar to those in other FTC cases, including the recent settlement with Marriott International.

“Millions of companies, particularly small businesses, rely on web hosting providers like GoDaddy to secure the websites that they and their customers rely on,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC is acting today to ensure that companies like GoDaddy bolster their security systems to protect consumers around the globe.”

Arizona-based GoDaddy Inc. and its operating subsidiary GoDaddy.com, LLC make up one of the world’s largest web hosting companies, with approximately five million web hosting customers.

GoDaddy’s unreasonable security practices include failing to: inventory and manage assets and software updates; assess risks to its shared hosting services; adequately log and monitor security-related events in the hosting environment; and segment its shared hosting from less-secure environments, according to the FTC’s complaint.

The FTC says that GoDaddy’s data-security failures resulted in several major security breaches between 2019 and 2022 in which bad actors gained unauthorized access to customers’ websites and data. These breaches exposed consumers visiting the websites to risks, including that consumers were redirected to malicious websites.

Additionally, the FTC alleges that GoDaddy misled customers, through claims on its websites and in email and social media ads, by representing that it deployed reasonable security and that it was in compliance with the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks, which require companies to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect personal information.

Proposed Order Requirements

The FTC’s proposed order will prohibit GoDaddy from misleading its customers about its security practices in the future and ensure that it has reasonable security going forward.

The order will:

  • Prohibit GoDaddy from making misrepresentations about its security and the extent to which it complies with any privacy or security program sponsored by a government, self-regulatory, or standard-setting organization, including the EU-U.S. and Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks;
  • Require GoDaddy to establish and implement a comprehensive information-security program that protects the security, confidentiality, and integrity of its website-hosting services; and
  • Mandate that GoDaddy hire an independent third-party assessor who conducts an initial and biennial review of its information-security program.

The Commission voted 5-0 to issue the administrative complaint and to accept the proposed consent agreement. Commissioner Melissa Holyoak concurred, but dissented on Count III in the complaint.

The FTC will publish a description of the consent agreement package in the Federal Register soon. The agreement will be subject to public comment for 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, after which the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Instructions for filing comments will appear in the published notice. Once processed, comments will be posted on Regulations.gov.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions. Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $51,744. The lead staff attorneys on this matter are Jarad Brown and David Walko from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers.  The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.

Source: FTC

Category: Business SectorFederalU.S.

Post navigation

← New Amazon Ransomware Attack—‘Recovery Impossible’ Without Payment
HHS Office for Civil Rights Settles HIPAA Ransomware Cybersecurity Investigation for $10,000 →

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

  • ConnectWise suspects cyberattack affecting some ScreenConnect customers was state-sponsored
  • Possible ransomware attack disrupts Maine and New Hampshire Covenant Health locations
  • HHS OCR Settles HIPAA Security Rule Investigation of BayCare Health System for $800k and Corrective Action Plan
  • UK: Two NHS trusts hit by cyberattack that exploited Ivanti flaw
  • Update: ALN Medical Management’s Data Breach Total Soars to More than 1.8 Million Patients Affected
  • Russian-linked hackers target UK Defense Ministry while posing as journalists
  • Banks Want SEC to Rescind Cyberattack Disclosure Requirements
  • MathWorks, Creator of MATLAB, Confirms Ransomware Attack
  • Russian hospital programmer gets 14 years for leaking soldier data to Ukraine
  • MSCS board renews contract with PowerSchool while suing them

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

  • Home Pregnancy Test Company Wins Dismissal of Pixel Wiretapping Suit
  • The CCPA emerges as a new legal battleground for web tracking litigation
  • U.S. Spy Agencies Are Getting a One-Stop Shop to Buy Your Most Sensitive Personal Data
  • Period Tracking App Users Win Class Status in Google, Meta Suit
  • AI: the Italian Supervisory Authority fines Luka, the U.S. company behind chatbot “Replika,” 5 Million €
  • D.C. Federal Court Rules Termination of Democrat PCLOB Members Is Unlawful
  • Meta may continue to train AI with user data, German court says

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.