Group items tagged

Enforcing Privacy Promises: Section 5 of the FTC Act A key part of the Commission's privacy program is making sure companies keep the promises they make to consumers about privacy, including the precautions they take to secure consumers' personal information. To respond to consumers' concerns about privacy, many Web sites post privacy policies that describe how consumers' personal information is collected, used, shared, and secured. Indeed, almost all the top 100 commercial sites now post privacy policies. Using its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices, the Commission has brought a number of cases to enforce the promises in privacy statements, including promises about the security of consumers' personal information. The Commission has also used its unfairness authority to challenge information practices that cause substantial consumer injury.

Federal regulators on Tuesday met to hear about whether the benefits of cloud computing justify increased regulation, as privacy activists claim, or whether such an approach would do more harm than good. "We need to be smarter about dealing with technology, and cloud computing is posing (a) risk for us," said Hugh Stephenson, deputy director for international consumer protection at the Federal Trade Commission's Office of International Affairs. The FTC convened the two-day meeting in its offices here, which follows a series of similar workshops held in previous years on topics like spam, privacy, and behavioral advertising. The agency may file lawsuits to halt "unfair or deceptive acts or practices," meaning that if cloud computing is not unfair or deceptive, the FTC would likely not have jurisdiction. To secure personal information on the cloud, regulators may have to answer questions such as which entities have jurisdiction over data as it flows across borders, whether governments can access that information as it changes jurisdiction, and whether there is more risk in storing personal information in data centers that belong to a single entity rather than multiple data centers. The current panoply of laws at the state, national, and international level have had insufficient results; FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones Harbour cited a 2008 PricewaterhouseCoopers information security survey (PDF) in which 71 percent of organizations queried said they did not have an accurate inventory of where personal data for employees and customers is stored. With data management practices that are not always clear and are subject to change, companies that offer cloud-computing services are steering consumers into dangerous territory, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Already, problems of identity theft are skyrocketing, he said, and without more regulation, data management services may experience a collapse analogous to that

On September 12, 2009, Maine's Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices Against Minors (the "Act") will take effect. The Act prohibits businesses from knowingly collecting or receiving a minor's health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes without first obtaining verifiable parental consent. Businesses are also prohibited from using any health-related information or personal information regarding a minor for the purpose of marketing a product or service to the minor. Pursuant to the Act, the use of information in such a manner is a predatory marketing practice, which may be sanctioned as an unfair trade practice. The law also allows individuals subject to unlawful data collection or predatory marketing practices to bring a private right of action against violators. For businesses, the implications of Maine's new data collection and marketing restrictions are far-reaching. The scope of the law covers both online and off-line marketing activities, and the broad definition of personal information includes a minor's name in combination with any information concerning the minor. In light of the Act's restrictive requirements and considerable scope, businesses would be well-advised to evaluate their current marketing practices and age verification mechanisms. The text of the law is available here.

Do you know what your data did last night? Almost none of more than 27 million people who took the RealAge quiz realized that their personal health data was sold to drug companies, who in turned used that information for targeted e-mail marketing campaigns. There's a basic consumer protection principle at work here, and it's the concept of "unfair and deceptive" trade practices. Basically, a company shouldn't be able to say one thing and do another: sell used goods as new, lie on ingredients lists, advertise prices that aren't generally available, claim features that don't exist, and so on. RealAge's privacy policy doesn't mention anything about selling data to drug companies, but buried in its 2,400 words, it does say that "we will share your personal data with third parties to fulfill the services that you have asked us to provide to you." They maintain that when you join the website, you consent to receiving pharmaceutical company spam. But since that isn't spelled out, it's not really informed consent. That's deceptive. Cloud computing is another technology where users entrust their data to service providers. Salesforce.com, Gmail, and Google Docs are examples; your data isn't on your computer -- it's out in the "cloud" somewhere -- and you access it from your web browser. Cloud computing has significant benefits for customers and huge profit potential for providers. It's one of the fastest growing IT market segments -- 69% of Americans now use some sort of cloud computing services -- but the business is rife with shady, if not outright deceptive, advertising.

To help parents better understand their childrens' online privacy rights, the Federal Trade Commission has developed a new article, Protecting Kids' Privacy. The article is posted at OnGuardOnline.gov, a Web site sponsored by the federal government and the technology industry to help users stay on guard against Internet fraud, secure their computers, and protect their personal information. Parents can learn what Web sites must do to protect the privacy of kids younger than 13 under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). For example, with very few exceptions, sites must get parents' permission if they want to collect or share their kids' personal information. Parents also will find tips for talking to their kids about online privacy, knowing what their kids are doing online, reporting a Web site that may be violating COPPA, and more. To learn more about online privacy for kids, view this article on OnGuardOnline.gov at www.OnGuardOnline.gov/topics/kids-privacy.aspx or view it as an FTC Facts for Consumers publication at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/tech/tec08.shtm. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC's online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC's Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Those who are superstitious may believe that bad things happen on Friday the 13th, but we will leave it to each individual and entity to formulate conclusions regarding the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the HITECH Act), which Congress passed late on Friday, February 13, 2009, and President Obama officially signed into effect on February 17, 2009. The HITECH Act addresses various aspects relating to the use of health information technology (H.I.T.), including providing for federal funding by way of grants and incentive payments in order to promote H.I.T. implementation. This Alert focuses, however, on Subtitle D of the HITECH Act, which includes important, new and far-reaching provisions concerning the privacy and security of health information that will materially and directly affect more entities, businesses and individuals in more diverse ways than ever before. These changes are further elaborated upon below, but this Alert can only highlight certain prominent issues under the HITECH Act and is by no means a comprehensive review of this lengthy and complex Act. For questions and additional guidance on the HITECH Act, contact your Fox Rothschild attorney or the authors of this Alert. New Privacy and Security Requirements * Security Breach Notification Requirements: Security breach notification requirements under the HITECH Act go into effect 30 days after the date that interim final regulations are promulgated, which will be no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the HITECH Act (August 16, 2009). Covered entities, business associates and vendors who handle personal health records are required to abide by breach notification requirements. Violations of this requirement by vendors would be treated as an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. If a breach affects more than 500 individuals of a particular state, notice also must be provided to prominent media outl

Until now, lawsuits seeking to recover significant damages based on the loss of, or unauthorized access to, sensitive personal information have not been especially successful for plaintiffs. Most companies suffering data breaches have escaped by offering affected consumers inexpensive credit monitoring services. But two recent cases show plaintiffs a way to expose many previously safe companies to substantial claims for damages. Any company that thinks there are no risks in employing less than best practices for data privacy and security needs a wake up call. The headlines are all too familiar. Some well known consumer services company (or less known wholesale data processor) announces that millions of individual records containing names, Social Security numbers, account numbers and other sensitive information were left in a dumpster, saved to a stolen, unencrypted laptop, or stored on a misplaced USB drive or backup tape. The press is terrible, the company's stock takes a temporary plunge, and sometimes the Federal Trade Commission enters into a consent decree where the company promises to never do it again. But when affected individuals or groups of consumers tried to sue for damages, they seldom recover significant amounts. These cases have not often succeeded because the plaintiffs have been unable to prove actual pecuniary losses resulting from the security breach. Sure, if identify theft occurs the affected individuals can suffer significant emotional trauma, loss of time, etc. But Courts have been unwilling to award damages for anxiety, fear, and other emotional harm that can result from a data breach, for the risk of future identify theft, or for actual identity theft when the plaintiff could not prove that the theft occurred as a direct result of a data breach at a particular source. Most companies facing claims based on data breaches have been able to settle cheaply by offering to provide credit monitoring services, which most consumers do not use, resu

A consumer reporting agency that failed to properly screen prospective customers and, as a result, sold at least 318 credit reports to identity thieves, has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law. Under the settlement, the company and its principal must ensure that they provide credit reports only to legitimate businesses for lawful purposes, use a comprehensive information security program, and obtain independent audits every other year for 20 years. The settlement also imposes a $500,000 penalty but suspends payment due to the defendants' inability to pay. According to the FTC, the defendants use sensitive financial data from other consumer reporting agencies to create reports that landlords use to assess potential renters. These reports contain consumers' names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, bank and credit card account numbers, credit histories, and other personal information. The Commission alleges that the company failed to properly screen new customers. The company allegedly requested only publicly-available information from applicants seeking credit reports, and it did not request supporting documentation to establish that an applicant was actually a landlord renting property. As a result, identity thieves posing as property owners were given an account with unlimited online access to credit reports, and the account was used to access at least 318 reports containing sensitive personal information. The FTC charged the defendants with violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by furnishing credit reports to persons who did not have a permissible purpose to obtain them, and by failing to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent such impermissible disclosures and to verify their customers' identities and how they intended to use the information. The agency also charged them with violating the FTC Act by failing to employ reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect sensitive consumer inform