New FTC Data Analysis Shows Bank Impersonation is Most-Reported Text Message Scam

[ad_1]

A new analysis from the Federal Trade Commission shows that bogus bank fraud warnings were the most common form of text message scam reported to the agency, and that many of the most common text scams impersonate well-known businesses.

In a newly issued data spotlight, the FTC ranks the top five types of text message scam reported in 2022, with examples of each showing the ways that scammers craft messages designed to deceive consumers. Consumers reported losing $330 million to text message scams in 2022, more than doubling what was reported in 2021.

The analysis looked at a random sample of 1,000 text messages reported to the FTC, finding that fake bank security messages, often supposedly from large banks like Bank of America and Wells Fargo, were the most common type. These texts are designed to create a sense of urgency, often by asking people to verify a large transaction they did not make. Those who respond are connected to a fake bank representative. Reports of texts impersonating banks have increased nearly twentyfold since 2019.

After bank impersonation, the most frequently reported text scams were: messages claiming to offer a free gift, often from a cell phone carrier or retailer; fake claims of package delivery issues from the USPS, UPS, or FedEx; phony job offers for things like mystery shopping and car wrapping; and bogus Amazon security alerts.

The spotlight includes tips for consumers on how to spot text message scams and how to report the bogus text messages to their cell phone companies, device makers, and to the FTC.

[ad_2]

Source link

New FTC Data Analysis Shows Bank Impersonation is Most-Reported Text Message Scam Read More »

FTC Staff Provides Annual Report to CFPB On 2022 Activities Regarding Financial Acts

[ad_1]

The staff of the Federal Trade Commission has provided its annual report to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on its enforcement and related activities in 2022 on the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), and Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA).

The report highlights the FTC’s enforcement actions related to the acts and their implementing regulations, including in the areas of automobile purchases and financing, payday lending, credit repair and debt relief, other credit, and electronic fund transfers:

  • Automobile Purchase and Financing: The report notes the FTC’s settlement with Illinois-based dealership group Napleton in April 2022, for violating the FTC Act by charging junk fees to consumers for unwanted add-ons such as payment insurance and paint protection costing consumers hundreds or thousands of dollars, and for violating TILA by advertising $90 down on mailers without disclosing or clearly and conspicuously disclosing the terms of repayment or APR. Among other things, the settlement led to $9.8 million in redress being sent to consumers in November 2022. The report also notes the Commission’s ongoing litigation against Traffic Jam Events, and refund payments sent to consumers in 2022 in the Bronx Honda and Tate’s Auto cases.
     
  • Payday Lending: The report highlights the $970,000 refund mailing as a result of the FTC’s case against Harvest Moon Financial for overcharging consumers millions of dollars, deceiving them about the terms of their loans and failing to make required loan disclosures, in violation of the FTC Act and TILA, and with making withdrawals from consumers’ checking accounts without authorization, in violation of the FTC Act and EFTA.
     
  • Credit Repair and Debt Relief: The report discusses the FTC’s $822,000 refund mailing as a result of its action against Student Advocates Team, a student loan debt relief scheme charged with falsely promising consumers it could lower or eliminate student loan balances, illegally imposing upfront fees for credit repair services, and signing consumers up for high-interest loans to pay the fees without making required loan disclosures, in violation of the FTC Act and TILA.
     
  • Other Credit: The report notes the FTC’s case with 18 state partners against Harris Jewelry, charged with cheating military families with illegal financing and sales practices that violated the FTC Act, TILA, Military Lending Act (its first such case), EFTA, and numerous other federal and state requirements. The complaint charged the company with deceptively claiming that financing jewelry purchases through Harris would raise servicemembers’ credit scores, misrepresenting that its protection plans were not optional or were required, and adding the plans to purchases without consumers’ consent, in violation of the FTC Act; with failing to disclose or clearly and conspicuously disclose certain required written disclosures including the payment schedule; with advertising “$50 per payday,” without disclosing or clearly and conspicuously disclosing required credit terms including the downpayment, full terms of repayment and APR, in violation of TILA; and with using authorization forms with terms that were not clear and readily understandable for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from consumers’ accounts, in violation of EFTA. The case led to a settlement that requires the company to stop collection of millions of dollars in debt, provide approximately $10.9 million in refunds for purchased protection plans, provide refunds for overpayments, and assist with the deletion of any negative credit entries pertaining to debt in consumers’ credit reporting files. The settlement also requires the company to cease operations and dissolve pursuant to applicable state laws.

The report also highlights multiple rulemakings currently under way, including a proposed rule to ban junk fees and bait-and-switch advertising tactics that can plague consumers throughout the car-buying experience, as well as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking exploring a rule to crack down on junk fees proliferating throughout the economy. The report also notes the 2022 FTC staff report on dark patterns.

The report also highlights the agency’s Military Task Force, which comprises a cross-section of FTC representatives and focuses on various initiatives to assist military consumers. The report further outlines the FTC’s consumer and business education efforts on truth in lending and electronic fund transfer issues, including updates about vehicle purchases and financing and  add-on products and services that can cost consumers thousands of extra dollars, and information about how debit and prepaid cards differ from other cards.

The FTC also provided a copy of the report to the Federal Reserve Board.

The lead attorney on this matter for the FTC was Carole Reynolds in the Bureau of Consumer Protection.

[ad_2]

Source link

FTC Staff Provides Annual Report to CFPB On 2022 Activities Regarding Financial Acts Read More »

Commission Seeks Public Comment on Collaboration with State Attorneys General

[ad_1]

The Federal Trade Commission is seeking public comments and suggestions on ways it can work more effectively with state attorneys general nationwide to help educate consumers about, and protect them from, potential fraud. The request for public information (RFI) announced today comes at the direction of the FTC Collaboration Act of 2021, which President Biden signed into law last October.

Explore Data with the FTC: Consumer Fraud

The Collaboration Act directs the FTC to “conduct a study on facilitating and refining existing efforts with State Attorneys General to prevent, publicize, and penalize frauds and scams being perpetrated on individuals in the United States.” It further requires the Commission to consult directly with interested stakeholders, as well as provide the opportunity for public comment and advice relevant to the production of the study.

“State attorneys general have long been valued partners of the FTC as we carry out our shared mission to protect consumers and ensure fairness in the marketplace,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC welcomes this opportunity to deepen our relationship with attorneys general, and I am grateful to our Western Region Los Angeles team for taking the lead on this important initiative.”

As part of the RFI, the FTC is asking for comment on three specific topics that the study will address: 1) the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and state attorneys general that best advance collaboration and consumer protection, 2) how resources should be dedicated to best advance such collaboration and consumer protection, and 3) the accountability mechanisms that should be implemented to promote collaboration and consumer protection between the FTC at state attorneys general.

Specifically, the FTC is asking consumers and other interested stakeholders to weigh in on a wide array of issues affecting federal and state consumer protection collaboration, including:

  • consumers’ views of the respective roles and responsibilities of the Commission and state attorneys general as they relate to consumer protection and preventing, publicizing, and penalizing frauds and scams;
  • how, in practice, do the FTC and state attorneys general effectively collaborate and support each other’s consumer protection missions in several contexts;
  • how the work of state and local consumer protection law enforcement agencies outside of state attorneys general facilitate and refine efforts between the Commission and state attorneys general;
  • the extent to which federal law preempting state jurisdiction has affected the ability of state attorneys general to protect consumers from unlawful business practices;
  • how the FTC can maximize use of, and contributions to, the Consumer Sentinel Network, through which law enforcers nationwide submit and receive consumer complaints;
  • how resources should be dedicated to best advance collaboration and consumer protection missions between the FTC and state attorneys general in a variety of contexts;
  • the effectiveness of the current exchange of technical or subject matter expertise between the FTC and state attorneys general when collaborating on consumer protection matters;
  • resources or new authorities and information-sharing practices that may be needed or improved to enhance law enforcement collaboration; and
  • additional performance indicators or metrics that the Commission should consider reporting, or other mechanism that should be implemented to measure the effectiveness of the FTC’s consumer protection collaboration with state attorneys general.

The Commission vote approving the RFI and publication of the related notice in the Federal Register was 3-0, with Chair Lina Khan issuing a separate statement, in which she was joined by Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro M. Bedoya. The public will have 60 days to submit comments at Regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments will be posted to Regulations.gov.

The lead staff attorneys on this matter are Robert Quigley and Miles Freeman in the FTC’s Western Region Los Angeles.

[ad_2]

Source link

Commission Seeks Public Comment on Collaboration with State Attorneys General Read More »

FTC Issues Annual Report on Refunds to Consumers; Agency Returned $392M in 2022

[ad_1]

Federal Trade Commission law enforcement actions resulted in more than $392 million in refunds to consumers in 2022, the agency said in its annual report on refunds. More than 1.9 million consumers benefited from FTC refund payments. 

Explore Data with the FTC: Refunds

The FTC Annual Report on Refunds to Consumers provides a breakdown of the total amount refunded by the FTC nationally, as well as the amount mailed to each state. The report also includes a list of cases in which the agency sent first distribution payments in 2022. For example, the largest first distribution resulted in $149 million sent to consumers allegedly harmed by AdvoCare’s illegal pyramid scheme.  In addition to statistics about each distribution in 2022, the report also includes information about how the FTC provides refunds and determines who is eligible for a refund in cases where there is money to return to consumers.

More than 90% of the $392 million that the FTC returned to consumers came from cases resolved before the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, which stripped the FTC of its ability to recover redress for consumers pursuant to Section 13(b) of the FTC Act.  By comparison, in the four years preceding AMG, the FTC returned more than $11 billion to consumers using its Section 13(b) authority.

Refunds to consumers will likely continue to decrease in future years as the FTC completes distributing money obtained from pre-AMG enforcement actions such as AdvoCare. For example, because of AMG, the courts could not order defendants to pay refunds in actions such as Cardiff/Redwood Scientific, which involved $18 million in consumer harm, or Zycal Bioceuticals, which involved approximately $6.5 million in consumer losses.

The FTC also has interactive dashboards online with more detailed information about consumer refunds at ftc.gov/exploredata. The dashboards include the ability to search for the number of refunds issued by state for each case as well as breakdowns of the forms of payment used to provide refunds in various cases.

[ad_2]

Source link

FTC Issues Annual Report on Refunds to Consumers; Agency Returned $392M in 2022 Read More »

FTC Will Require Microsoft to Pay $20 million over Charges it Illegally Collected Personal Information from Children without Their Parents’ Consent

[ad_1]

Microsoft will pay $20 million to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting personal information from children who signed up to its Xbox gaming system without notifying their parents or obtaining their parents’ consent, and by illegally retaining children’s personal information.

 “Our proposed order makes it easier for parents to protect their children’s privacy on Xbox, and limits what information Microsoft can collect and retain about kids,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “This action should also make it abundantly clear that kids’ avatars, biometric data, and health information are not exempt from COPPA.”

As part of a proposed order filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, Microsoft will be required to take several steps to bolster privacy protections for child users of its Xbox system. For example, the order will extend COPPA protections to third-party gaming publishers with whom Microsoft shares children’s data. In addition, the order makes clear that avatars generated from a child’s image, and biometric and health information, are covered by the COPPA Rule when collected with other personal data. The order must be approved by a federal court before it can go into effect.

The COPPA Rule requires online services and websites directed to children under 13 to notify parents about the personal information they collect and to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting and using any personal information collected from children. According to a complaint also filed by DOJ, Microsoft violated the COPPA Rule’s notice, consent and data retention requirements.

Microsoft’s Xbox gaming products allow users to play and chat with other players through its Xbox Live service. To access and play games on an Xbox console or use any of the other Xbox Live features, users must create an account, which requires users to provide personal information including their first and last name, email address and their date of birth. Even when a user indicated that they were under 13, they were also asked, until late 2021, to provide additional personal information including a phone number and to agree to Microsoft’s service agreement and advertising policy, which until 2019 included a pre-checked box allowing Microsoft to send promotional messages and to share user data with advertisers, according to the complaint.

It wasn’t until after users provided this personal information that Microsoft required anyone who indicated they were under 13 to involve their parent. The child’s parent then had to complete the account creation process before the child could get their own account. According to the complaint, from 2015-2020 Microsoft retained the data—sometimes for years—that it collected from children during the account creation process, even when a parent failed to complete the process. COPPA prohibits retaining personal information about children for longer than is reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected.

After a child makes an account, they can create a profile that will include their “gamertag,” which is the primary identifier visible to the user and other Xbox Live users, and can also upload a picture or include an avatar, which is a figure or image that represents the user. According to the complaint, Microsoft combined this information with a unique persistent identifier it creates for each account holder, even children, and could share this information with third-party game and app developers. Microsoft allowed—by default—all users, including children to play third-party games and apps while using Xbox Live, requiring parents to take additional steps to opt out if they don’t want their children to access them.

According to the complaint, Microsoft failed to fully comply with COPPA’s notice provisions. For example, Microsoft failed to disclose to parents all the information it collected, such as a child’s profile picture.

In addition to the monetary penalty, Microsoft will be required under the proposed order to:

  • Inform parents who have not created a separate account for their child that doing so will provide additional privacy protections for their child by default;
  • Obtain parental consent for accounts created before May 2021 if the account holder is still a child;
  • Establish and maintain systems to delete, within two weeks from the collection date, all personal information that it collects from children for the purposes of obtaining parental consent if it has not obtained parental consent and to delete all other personal data collected from children after it is no longer necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected; and
  • Notify video game publishers when it discloses personal information from children that the user is a child, which will require the publishers to apply COPPA’s protections to that child.

The Commission voted 3-0 to refer the complaint and proposed federal order to the Department of Justice. The DOJ filed the complaint and stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington state.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendant is violating or is about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The lead FTC attorneys on this matter are Megan Cox and Peder Magee from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

This is the Commission’s third COPPA action within the last few weeks, following an announcement in mid-May against ed tech provider Edmodo and one last week involving Amazon.

[ad_2]

Source link

FTC Will Require Microsoft to Pay $20 million over Charges it Illegally Collected Personal Information from Children without Their Parents’ Consent Read More »

At FTC’s Request, Florida District Court Permanently Bars Deceptive COVID-19 PPE Marketer from Selling Any Protective Goods or Services to Consumers

[ad_1]

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, issued an order permanently banning defendant Frank Romero from offering for sale or selling any protective goods or services, after granting the FTC’s motion for summary judgment.

The order also includes two monetary judgments against Romero, who has done business under the names Trend Deploy and Uvenux. The first judgment is for $989,483.69, to be returned to consumers harmed by Romero’s violations of the FTC Act and the Commission’s Mail Order Rule. The court also entered a second civil penalty judgment of $2,562.21 for Romero’s violations of the FTC Act with regards to the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.

In a complaint filed in June 2021, the FTC alleged that Romero preyed upon consumers’ fear of COVID-19 by advertising the availability and quick delivery of PPE, including N95 facemasks, even though he had no basis to make those promises.

The complaint stated that Romero failed to deliver PPE on time (if at all), failed to notify consumers of delayed shipments, failed to offer the cancellations and refunds required by the Commission’s Mail Order Rule, and failed to honor refund requests. When Romero eventually did deliver the products, he often sent supplies that were inferior in quality to what consumers ordered. Based on this conduct, the complaint alleged that Romero’s deceptive and unfair conduct violated the Mail Order Rule, the FTC Act, and the FTC Act with regards to the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act.

The court found Romero violated the Mail Order Rule, the FTC Act, and the FTC Act with regards to the COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act. In issuing the order for permanent injunction, the court wrote that Romero “ha[d] no reasonable basis to expect he would be able to ship ordered merchandise to the buyer within the times he … stated within his solicitations,” “fail[ed] to ship goods within the timeframe required by [the Mail Order Rule],” “fail[ed] to allow consumers to consent to a delay in shipping or to cancel their orders and receive a prompt refund,” and “fail[ed] to provide consumers with a prompt refund” upon their request.

The court also found Romero violated the FTC Act because he lacked a reasonable basis for his claims about: 1) when his facemasks would ship, 2) whether his facemasks were certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or the Food and Drug Administration, and 3) the filtration efficiencies possessed by his facemasks. Notably, the court found Romero lacked a reasonable basis to claim the masks he sold were proper N95 facemasks.

The final judgment and order for permanent injunction was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, on May 15, 2023. The staff members on this case are Christopher Erickson and Michael Mora in the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

[ad_2]

Source link

At FTC’s Request, Florida District Court Permanently Bars Deceptive COVID-19 PPE Marketer from Selling Any Protective Goods or Services to Consumers Read More »

FTC Finalizes Order Against Motocross and ATV Parts Maker Cycra for False Made in USA Claims

[ad_1]

The Federal Trade Commission has finalized its order against motocross and ATV parts maker Cycra and its officer, Chad James, for falsely claiming that the company’s products were manufactured in the U.S. The FTC’s order, first announced in April, 2023 would stop Cycra and James from making deceptive claims about products being “Made in USA” and require them to pay a monetary judgment.

The FTC’s order against Cycra and James includes a number of requirements about the claims the defendants make:

The order includes a monetary judgment of $872,577, which is partially suspended based on an inability to pay. Cycra and James will be required to pay $221,385.66.

The Commission vote to finalize the order was 3-0. The lead staff attorney on this matter was Julia Solomon Ensor in the Bureau of Consumer Protection.

[ad_2]

Source link

FTC Finalizes Order Against Motocross and ATV Parts Maker Cycra for False Made in USA Claims Read More »

FTC and DOJ Charge Amazon with Violating Children’s Privacy Law by Keeping Kids’ Alexa Voice Recordings Forever and Undermining Parents’ Deletion Requests

[ad_1]

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice will require Amazon to overhaul its deletion practices and implement stringent privacy safeguards to settle charges the company violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA Rule) and deceived parents and users of the Alexa voice assistant service about its data deletion practices.  

According to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC, Amazon prevented parents from exercising their deletion rights under the COPPA Rule, kept sensitive voice and geolocation data for years, and used it for its own purposes, while putting data at risk of harm from unnecessary access.

“Amazon’s history of misleading parents, keeping children’s recordings indefinitely, and flouting parents’ deletion requests violated COPPA and sacrificed privacy for profits,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “COPPA does not allow companies to keep children’s data forever for any reason, and certainly not to train their algorithms.”

Under the proposed federal court order also filed by DOJ, Amazon will be required to delete inactive child accounts and certain voice recordings and geolocation information and will be prohibited from using such data to train its algorithms. The proposed order must be approved by the federal court to go into effect.

According to the complaint, Amazon prominently and repeatedly assured its users, including parents, that they could delete voice recordings collected from its Alexa voice assistant and geolocation information collected by the Alexa app. The company, however, failed to follow through on these promises when it kept some of this information for years and used the data it unlawfully retained to help improve its Alexa algorithm, according to the complaint.

Amazon, one of the world’s biggest retailers, collects vast amounts of data about consumers ranging from their geolocation data via the company’s Alexa app to their voice recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa voice assistant service. The company claims that its Alexa service and Echo devices are “designed to protect your privacy” and that parents and other users can delete geolocation data and voice recordings.

Amazon also offers Alexa-enabled devices and services targeted to children and collects personal data, including voice recordings, from children. Amazon retained children’s recordings indefinitely—unless a parent requested that this information be deleted, according to the complaint. And even when a parent sought to delete that information, the FTC said, Amazon failed to delete transcripts of what kids said from all its databases.

The COPPA Rule requires, among other things, that an operator of a commercial website or online service directed to children under 13 years of age notify parents about the information they collect from children, obtain parents’ consent for the collection of that data, and allow them to delete that information at any time. In addition, such a service is prohibited from retaining the information collected from children under 13 for longer than is reasonably necessary to provide the service.

Amazon claimed it retained children’s voice recordings in order to help it respond to voice commands, allow parents to review them, and to improve Alexa’s speech recognition and processing capabilities, according to the complaint. Children’s speech patterns and accents differ from those of adults, so the unlawfully retained voice recordings provided Amazon with a valuable database for training the Alexa algorithm to understand children, benefitting its bottom line at the expense of children’s privacy.

The FTC said the company failed to put in place an effective system to ensure that it honored users’ data deletion requests and to give parents meaningful notice about deletion. Even when Amazon discovered its failures to delete geolocation data, the FTC said that Amazon repeatedly failed to fix the problems.

Proposed Order

In addition to the data deletion requirement in the proposed order, Amazon will be required to pay a $25 million civil penalty. Other provisions of the proposed order:

  • Prohibit Amazon from using geolocation, voice information, and children’s voice information subject to consumers’ deletion requests for the creation or improvement of any data product;
  • Require the company to delete inactive Alexa accounts of children;
  • Require Amazon to notify users about the FTC-DOJ action against the company;
  • Require Amazon to notify users of its retention and deletion practices and controls;
  • Prohibit Amazon from misrepresenting its privacy policies related to geolocation, voice and children’s voice information; and
  • Mandate the creation and implementation of a privacy program related to the company’s use of geolocation information.

The Commission voted 4-0 to refer the complaint to the Department of Justice for filing. The Commission vote closed on a date prior to Commissioner Christine S. Wilson’s departure from the agency. She issued a concurring statement on the matter before departing the agency. Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya also issued a separate statement, joined by FTC Chair Lina M. Khan and Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. 

The Department of Justice filed the complaint and the stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendant is violating or is about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The lead staff attorneys on this matter are Elisa Jillson, Andy Hasty, and Julia Horwitz from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Today’s announcement underscores the FTC’s commitment to protecting not only children’s privacy but the privacy of all consumers. Earlier today, the FTC announced an action against Amazon’s subsidiary, Ring, over charges that the home security camera company compromised its customers’ privacy by allowing any employee or contractor to access consumers’ private videos and by failing to implement basic privacy and security protections, enabling hackers to take control of consumers’ accounts, cameras, and videos.

[ad_2]

Source link

FTC and DOJ Charge Amazon with Violating Children’s Privacy Law by Keeping Kids’ Alexa Voice Recordings Forever and Undermining Parents’ Deletion Requests Read More »

FTC Says Ring Employees Illegally Surveilled Customers, Failed to Stop Hackers from Taking Control of Users’ Cameras

[ad_1]

The Federal Trade Commission charged home security camera company Ring with compromising its customers’ privacy by allowing any employee or contractor to access consumers’ private videos and by failing to implement basic privacy and security protections, enabling hackers to take control of consumers’ accounts, cameras, and videos.

Under a proposed order, which must be approved by a federal court before it can go into effect, Ring will be required to delete data products such as data, models, and algorithms derived from videos it unlawfully reviewed. It also will be required to implement a privacy and security program with novel safeguards on human review of videos as well as other stringent security controls, such as multi-factor authentication for both employee and customer accounts.

“Ring’s disregard for privacy and security exposed consumers to spying and harassment,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC’s order makes clear that putting profit over privacy doesn’t pay.”

California-based Ring LLC, which was purchased by Amazon in February 2018, sells internet-connected, video-enabled home security cameras, doorbells, and related accessories and services. The company has marketed its products as offering greater home security and providing its users with peace of mind. For example, in promoting its indoor security cameras, which can be placed in individual rooms, Ring touts the ability of purchasers to “See your home. Away from home” alongside a picture of a Ring camera monitoring a child’s bedroom.

In a complaint, the FTC says Ring deceived its customers by failing to restrict employees’ and contractors’ access to its customers’ videos, using customer videos to train algorithms, among other purposes, without consent, and failing to implement security safeguards.

According to the complaint, these failures amounted to egregious violations of users’ privacy. For example, one employee over several months viewed thousands of video recordings belonging to female users of Ring cameras that surveilled intimate spaces in their homes such as their bathrooms or bedrooms. The employee wasn’t stopped until another employee discovered the misconduct. Even after Ring imposed restrictions on who could access customers’ videos, the company wasn’t able to determine how many other employees inappropriately accessed private videos because Ring failed to implement basic measures to monitor and detect employees’ video access.

The FTC also said Ring failed to take any steps until January 2018 to adequately notify customers or obtain their consent for extensive human review of customers’ private video recordings for various purposes, including training algorithms. Ring buried information in its Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, claiming it had a right to use recordings obtained in connection with its services for “product improvement and development,” according to the complaint.

Security failures

According to the complaint, Ring also failed to implement standard security measures to protect consumers’ information from two well-known online threats—“credential stuffing” and “brute force” attacks—despite warnings from employees, outside security researchers and media reports. Credential stuffing involves the use of credentials, such as usernames and passwords, obtained from a consumer’s breached account to gain access to a consumer’s other accounts. In a brute force attack, a bad actor uses an automated process of password guessing—for example, by cycling through breached credentials or entering well-known passwords—hundreds or thousands of times to gain access to an account.

Despite experiencing multiple credential-stuffing attacks in 2017 and 2018, Ring failed, according to the complaint, to implement common tactics—such as multifactor authentication—until 2019. Even then, Ring’s sloppy implementation of the additional security measures hampered their effectiveness, the FTC said.

As a result, hackers continued to exploit account vulnerabilities to access stored videos, live video streams, and account profiles of approximately 55,000 U.S. customers, according to the complaint. Bad actors not only viewed some customers’ videos but also used Ring cameras’ two-way functionality to harass, threaten, and insult consumers—including elderly individuals and children—whose rooms were monitored by Ring cameras, and to change important device settings, the FTC said. For example, hackers taunted several children with racist slurs, sexually propositioned individuals, and threatened a family with physical harm if they didn’t pay a ransom.

In addition to the mandated privacy and security program, the proposed order requires Ring to pay $5.8 million, which will be used for consumer refunds. The company also will be required to delete any customer videos and face embeddings, data collected from an individual’s face, that it obtained prior to 2018, and delete any work products it derived from these videos. The proposed order also will require Ring to alert the FTC about incidents of unauthorized access or exposure of its customers’ videos and to notify consumers about the FTC’s action.

The Commission voted 3-0 to authorize the staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order. The FTC filed the complaint and final order in the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of Columbia.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The lead staff attorneys on this matter are Elisa Jillson, Andy Hasty, and Julia Horwitz from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

[ad_2]

Source link

FTC Says Ring Employees Illegally Surveilled Customers, Failed to Stop Hackers from Taking Control of Users’ Cameras Read More »

Federal Court Finds James D. ‘Jay’ Noland, Jr., Operator of ‘Success By Health’ and ‘VOZ Travel,’ in Contempt of Court Order Barring Pyramid Schemes

[ad_1]

A federal court sided with the Federal Trade Commission, ruling that James D. Noland, Jr. illegally owned and operated two pyramid schemes—Success By Health (SBH) and VOZ Travel—in violation of the FTC Act and that Noland violated a previous federal court order barring him from pyramid schemes and from misrepresenting multilevel marketing participants’ income potential.

The FTC sued Noland (also known as Jay Noland, J.D. Noland, and J. Noland), his wife Lina Noland, Scott Harris, and Thomas Sacca, in connection with SBH in January 2020 and added charges related to VOZ Travel in September 2020. The FTC alleged that they operated the businesses as pyramid schemes, making outlandish claims that “the masses” could be making more than $1 million each month by following Noland’s system, when in fact very few consumers made any money, and most lost significant sums. 

In its ruling, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona found that the Nolands, Harris, and Sacca violated the FTC Act by operating SBH and VOZ Travel as pyramid schemes and using false promises of “financial freedom.” In addition, the court found Harris and Sacca were aware of the order against Noland stemming from a prior FTC case, and thus, they and Noland were in contempt of that order. In its ruling, the court cited the “sheer volume of deceptive tactics and statements associated with” both SBH and VOZ Travel.

“The court’s order holding these defendants in contempt and barring them from the multilevel marketing business should send a strong message that FTC orders should not be ignored,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “The FTC will not hesitate to act with the full force of the law to protect the American public and hold recidivists accountable.”

The court also noted that Harris told an audience at one private SBH marketing event, “Is this one of those pyramid things? Hell, yeah it is. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t be doing it. Do I look dumb enough to go get a job again?”

In addition, the court ruled that the defendants’ false claims about Noland’s own wealth in selling the pyramid schemes were “outrageous.” Noland, for example, told SBH and VOZ Travel members, “I’ve been financially free, completely time and money free since I was 36.”  In fact, as the court found, at the age of 36, Noland “was living (or was about to start living) off credit cards.” 

Additionally, although Noland told SBH and VOZ members he was a multi-millionaire, the court explained that “[i]n his January 2020 sworn financial statement, Noland reported he had a negative net worth.” Similarly, at a deposition in this case, “Noland was unable to identify a time he ever had a positive net worth.”

The defendants used these and other false claims to boost their promises that SBH affiliates would achieve their own financial freedom, like becoming millionaires, or having an income stream of $20,000 per month. Instead, the court found “the great majority of SBH affiliates were net losers” of money, and “the few who may have eked out a net positive outcome did not obtain anything close to the ‘financial freedom’ that was being offered.”  The court, for example, found that one “top retailer” in SBH earned less from those sales “than what an individual would earn from a full-time minimum wage job.”

The court’s ruling permanently bans Noland, his wife Lina Noland, Harris and Sacca from any participation in multi-level marketing. In its ruling, the court said they “…have found themselves to be utterly incapable of operating an MLM business in a lawful manner.”

The ruling also imposes a $7.3 million judgment on Noland, Harris, and Sacca, the full amount sought by the FTC. Any amount recovered by the FTC will be used to redress consumers. The court also found that the defendants committed multiple “acts of dishonesty,” including “destroying evidence, violating court orders, giving false under-oath testimony, and taking no accountability for the misconduct after being caught.”

The FTC’s suit against SBH and VOZ Travel also named a number of corporate entities behind the two pyramid schemes; the case against those entities is ongoing. The FTC has extensive information and guidance for consumers about multi-level marketing and pyramid schemes on its website, as well as guidance for businesses.

[ad_2]

Source link

Federal Court Finds James D. ‘Jay’ Noland, Jr., Operator of ‘Success By Health’ and ‘VOZ Travel,’ in Contempt of Court Order Barring Pyramid Schemes Read More »

Scroll to Top