The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) plans to aggressively police companies that use deceptive marketing to take advantage of consumers’ fears relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The FTC is focused on a broad range of potential deceptive practices, including unapproved or unsubstantiated health claims, work-at-home schemes, finance schemes, and misrepresentations as to the current availability of in-demand products, such as cleaning, household, and health or medical supplies. The FTC has already issued warning letters to seven sellers of unapproved and misbranded products who claimed that their products could treat or prevent the coronavirus, and additional warning letters or enforcement actions are likely to follow as the pandemic progresses and economic uncertainty increases. READ MORE
Cybercriminals are known to attack networks and individuals at inopportune times of crisis—and the coronavirus pandemic unfortunately presents just such an opportunity as millions are accessing corporate networks and databases from home. This past weekend New Jersey and Connecticut joined the growing list of jurisdictions (e.g., California, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Ohio, and New York) to issue orders effectively requiring non-essential workers to avoid the workplace, and in some cases, to shelter-in-place. READ MORE
Earlier this month, Andrew Smith, the FTC’s Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, announced that the Commission had made “three major changes” to its data security orders. Citing recent hearings at the FTC, as well as the Commission’s defeat in the closely watched LabMD case, Director Smith highlighted three key takeaways from seven consent orders announced against “an array of diverse companies.”
On August 21, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC, 2019 WL 3940917 (7th Cir. 2019) that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) lacks authority to obtain monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act. The FTC has relied on Section 13(b) to seek money relief in consumer protection enforcement actions, including privacy and cybersecurity matters, and had, prior to the Credit Bureau decision, suggested an intent to do so more frequently in the future. READ MORE
Amidst mounting pressure to pursue cybersecurity more aggressively, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), the federal government’s most active enforcer in the space, has recently imposed increasingly stringent cybersecurity requirements in its consent orders. Given that FTC consent orders typically carry 20-year terms and a potential fine of $42,530 (which the FTC may contend applies to each consumer subject to a breach), it is vital for companies faced with an FTC cybersecurity investigation to take every possible step to narrow the scope of relief requested by the FTC. Several recent FTC cybersecurity settlements illustrate an emerging pattern: a company that litigates may secure a better deal than it would have received in an initial settlement, if not defeat the action entirely. But when considering whether to settle or litigate with the FTC, companies must still balance the various legal, business, and reputational risks at stake.
In an increasing trend, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) joined other federal regulators seeking to hold individuals – not just companies – liable in enforcement proceedings. The most recent target was San Francisco-based UrthBox, Inc. and its principal, Behnam Behrouzi. Specifically, Urthbox and Behrouzi agreed to settle FTC allegations that UrthBox engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by: (1) failing to adequately disclose key terms of its “free trial” automatic renewal programs, and (2) misrepresenting that customer reviews were independent when, in fact, UrthBox provided customers with free products and other incentives to post positive reviews online.
In June 2018, medical laboratory LabMD obtained the first-ever court decision overturning a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) cybersecurity enforcement action. (The team directing that effort – led by Doug Meal and Michelle Visser – joined Orrick in January 2019). There, the Eleventh Circuit held that an FTC cease-and-desist order imposing injunctive relief requiring LabMD to implement “reasonable” data security was impermissibly vague. In the wake of LabMD, the FTC’s new Chairman, Joseph Simons, stated that he was “very nervous” that the agency lacked the remedial authority it needed to deter allegedly insufficient data security practices and that, among other things, the FTC was exploring whether it has additional untapped authority it could use in this space. In this regard, Chairman Simons and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter announced that the FTC is examining whether it can “further maximize its enforcement reach, in all areas, through strategic use of additional remedies” such as “monetary relief.” READ MORE
This past September Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 327, which is the first state law designed to regulate the security features of Internet of Things (IoT) devices. The bill sets minimum security requirements for connected device manufacturers, and provides for enforcement by the California Attorney General. The law will come into effect on January 1, 2020, provided that the state legislature passes Assembly Bill 1906, which is identical to Senate Bill 327. READ MORE
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA” or the “Act”), which we reported on here and here continues to make headlines as the California legislature fast-tracked a “clean up” bill to amend the CCPA before the end of the 2018 legislative session. In a flurry of legislative activity, the amendment bill (“SB 1121” or the “Amendment”) was revised at least twice in the last week prior to its passage late in the evening on August 31, just hours before the legislative session came to a close. The Amendment now awaits the governor’s signature.
Although many were hoping for substantial clarification on many of the Act’s provisions, the Amendment focuses primarily on cleaning up the text of the hastily-passed CCPA, and falls far short of addressing many of the more substantive questions raised by companies and industry advocates as to the Act’s applicability and implementation. READ MORE
Game-changing Calif. Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 puts statutory breach damages on the table
The recently-enacted California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 is a game-changer in a number of respects. The Act imports European GDPR-style rights around data ownership, transparency, and control. It also contains features that are new to the American privacy landscape, including “pay-for-privacy” (i.e., financial incentives for the collection, sale, and even deletion of personal information) and “anti-discrimination” (i.e., prohibition of different pricing or service-levels to consumers who exercise privacy rights, unless such differentials are “reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer of the consumer’s data”). Privacy teams will be hard at work assessing and implementing compliance in advance of the January 1, 2020 effective date. READ MORE