DataBreaches.Net

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

$17.5 Million Settlement With Owner Of Ashleymadison.com In Joint Multi-State And FTC Agreement

Posted on December 14, 2016 by Dissent

Settlement Follows Investigation Finding That Adult Dating Website Maintained Lax Security Practices, Misled Consumers About Its Data Security, And Created Fake Female Profiles To Entice Male Users

In Addition to Penalties, Settlement Requires The Website To Implement Stronger Data Security Program And Cease Deceptive Practices 

NEW YORK—Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman joined twelve other states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Trade Commission Wednesday in announcing a $17.5 million settlement with ruby Corp., which owns the dating website AshleyMadison.com. The settlement follows an investigation into the July 2015 hack of the website that resulted in the online publication of user information for millions of AshleyMadison.com members, including photographs, usernames, email addresses, communications, and other profile information.

The settlement includes an immediate payment of $1,657,000 divided amongst the states and the Federal Trade Commission, of which New York will receive $81,330.94. The remainder of the $17.5 million payment is suspended based on ruby Corp.’s inability to pay. Up to 652,627 New York residents were members of Ashley Madison at the time of the security breach.

“This settlement should send a clear message to all companies doing business online that reckless disregard for data security will not be tolerated,” said Attorney General Schneiderman. “All companies have a responsibility to protect the privacy and personal information of consumers, and my office will continue to work with other state and federal authorities to protect consumers from online threats.”

The investigation found lax data security practices including a failure to (i) maintain documented information security policies or practices; (ii) utilize multi-factor authentication to secure remote access; and (iii) formally and adequately train company staff and management.

The Ashley Madison website also made several misrepresentations regarding its data security, including a “Trusted Security Award,” which appears to have been fabricated and had not been awarded by any certification entity; use of an emblem indicating “Certified Zero Risk TM,” which had not been awarded by any certification entity; and representations that it was a “100% Discreet Service” and “100% Secure.”

The Ashley Madison website also offered a “Full Delete” option to consumers.  The “Full Delete” option was advertised to consumers as the ability to “remove all traces of your usage for only $19.00” and it was the only option for consumers who wanted to permanently delete their account profiles. However, the website retained certain information of consumers who purchased the “Full Delete” option for up to twelve months in order to address requests for chargebacks. Additionally, the website did not delete all consumer information from its system, even after twelve months. In particular, the company failed to delete users’ photographs, and in some instances chat communications, nicknames, and sexual preferences. Many users whose information was disclosed in the July 2015 security breach had purchased the “Full Delete,” in some cases more than twelve months prior to the security breach.  As many as 7,989 New York residents had purchased the “Full Delete” option at the time of the breach.

Ashley Madison also created fake female profiles (which it called “engager profiles”) that they used to entice male users who were using Ashley Madison’s free services, to purchase credits to communicate with other members, including “members” with fake profiles. In some instances, it used portions of the profile photographs of actual users who had not had account activity within the previous year as the photographs in the fake profiles that it created, cropping or hiding users’ faces but not their bodies.

In addition to monetary penalties, ruby Corp. agreed to cease engaging in certain deceptive practices, to not create fake profiles, and to implement a stronger data security program. The multistate enforcement action consisted of Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Dakota, Nebraska, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.

New York was represented by Bureau of Internet and Technology Deputy Bureau Chief Clark Russell, under the supervision of Bureau Chief Kathleen McGee. The Bureau of Internet and Technology is overseen by Executive Deputy Attorney General for Economic Justice Manisha M. Sheth.

SOURCE: Attorney General Eric Schneiderman

Related: Consent Judgment. The terms and conditions begin on p. 9, following the complaint. Note that it includes 20-year monitoring, as is pretty common in FTC enforcement actions for data security.

Related: FTC press release


Related:

  • Another plastic surgery practice fell prey to a cyberattack that acquired patient photos and info
  • How a hacking gang held Italy’s political elites to ransom
  • NY: Gloversville hit by ransomware attack, paid ransom
  • UN Cybercrime Convention to be signed in Hanoi to tackle global offences
  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
  • Toys “R” Us Canada customers notified of breach of personal information
Category: Business SectorOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← Nearly half of education-vendor websites tested had security problems, audit reveals
Yahoo Discloses 1 Billion User Accounts Were Hacked in 2013 →

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

  • Report released on PowerSchool cyber attack
  • Sue The Hackers – Google Sues Over Phishing as a Service
  • Princeton University Data Breach Impacts Alumni, Students, Employees
  • Eurofiber admits crooks swiped data from French unit after cyberattack
  • Five major changes to the regulation of cybersecurity in the UK under the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill
  • French agency Pajemploi reports data breach affecting 1.2M people
  • From bad to worse: Doctor Alliance hacked again by same threat actor (1)
  • Surveillance tech provider Protei was hacked, its data stolen, and its website defaced
  • Checkout.com Discloses Data Breach After Extortion Attempt
  • Washington Post hack exposes personal data of John Bolton, almost 10,000 others

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

  • CIPL Publishes Discussion Paper Comparing U.S. State Privacy Law Definitions of Personal Data and Sensitive Data
  • India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 brought into force
  • Five major changes to the regulation of cybersecurity in the UK under the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill
  • Keeping Cool When ICE Arrives: Basic Raid Response Strategies for Laboratories
  • IRS Accessed Massive Database of Americans Flights Without a Warrant

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[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.