Two online marketers of acai berry products recently settled the FTC's charges that the marketers engaged in deceptive practices by operating "fake news" sites directly and through affiliates to promote acai berry products. Although these cases are extreme examples of deceptive practices, they should serve as an important reminder for companies engaging in affiliate marketing that the FTC actively enforces in this area using the FTC Act, and that companies marketing through affiliates and affiliate marketers must understand and address the FTC's Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which were updated in 2009 ("Guides"). As discussed further below, this can pose a challenge for companies of all types advertising through affiliate marketing programs
On February 8, 2012, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) asked the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia to compel the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce the terms of the agency's Google Buzz privacy settlement with Google. EPIC seeks to compel the FTC to stop Google's planned consolidation of user data from across the company's services into a single profile for each user under a single privacy policy. EPIC has alleged that the proposed changes and the way Google seeks to implement the changes violate the Google Buzz consent order. The District Court will hear the case before March 1, 2012.In this post, we discuss the highlights of EPIC's complaint, Google's response and lessons learned.
On May 3, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Ceridian Corporation and Lookout Services, Inc. agreed to settle the FTC's allegations that the companies failed to safeguard their business customers' employee personal information. Ceridian's services include payroll processing, payroll-related tax filing, benefits administration and other human resource services for business customers. Lookout provides a web-based computer product that is designed to help employers comply with their obligations under federal law to complete and maintain a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Form I-9 about each employee in order to verify that the employee is eligible to work in the United States.
The Google Buzz settlement that the Federal Trade Commission announced on March 30, 2011 is the latest in the line of the Commission's numerous Section 5 actions related to privacy and data security violations. The Google Buzz settlement, however, is unique in several important ways. The settlement represents (i) the first FTC settlement order has requires a company to implement a comprehensive privacy program to protect the privacy of consumers' information, and (ii) the Commission's first substantive U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework enforcement action. Let's dive in (make sure to read the "Action Item" at the conclusion of the post!).
As we have previously reported on our blog, 2011 has seen a whirlwind of privacy enforcement activity. The FTC, NLRB, EEOC, HHS and FINRA have all taken privacy enforcement actions this year. This March, the FTC has announced privacy settlements with Chitika and Twitter.
Many of you probably read earlier this month that California's Office of Administrative Law approved the California Department of Insurance's proposal to repeal certain privacy regulations. The California changes actually have greater significance than may be apparent on a quick glance. Although rarely noted in the media coverage, State insurance privacy regulations across the country (not just in California) find their roots in the federal Gramm Leach Bliley Act, so California's decision to make such changes provides a helpful illustration of the extraordinarily complex and confusing web of privacy regulation that governs even small organizations in this country. Also, California's move with respect to these changes contravenes the conventional wisdom that California is a renegade pro-consumer state when it comes to privacy regulation. Many of our followers have asked me to break down this newest California development, so here goes.
In early May, Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) introduced a long anticipated "discussion draft" of a bill "[t]o require notice to and consent of an individual prior to the collection and disclosure of certain personal information relating to that individual." You have probably heard that industry and consumer groups alike are not happy with the discussion draft. What exactly is the Boucher Bill and what would it mean for almost every company engaged in the collection, use or disclosure of personal information (not just companies engaged in online behavioral advertising)? Following is a FAQ. Comments on the draft legislation are due June 4 (mark your calendars).
Today's New York Times Media Decoder Blog features an "on-the-record" discussion with Federal Trade Commission chairman Jon Leibowitz and Bureau of Consumer Protection chief David Vladeck. The question presented: "Has Internet Gone Beyond Privacy Policies?" The FTC (and Congress, for that matter) continue to signal that change may be imminent in the world of online privacy policies and traditional notions of opt-out consent.