LifeLock, Inc. has agreed to pay $11 million to the Federal Trade Commission and $1 million to a group of 35 state attorneys general to settle charges that the company used false claims to promote its identity theft protection services, which it widely advertised by displaying the CEO’s Social Security number on the side of a truck.
In one of the largest FTC-state coordinated settlements on record, LifeLock and its principals will be barred from making deceptive claims and required to take more stringent measures to safeguard the personal information they collect from customers.
“While LifeLock promised consumers complete protection against all types of identity theft, in truth, the protection it actually provided left enough holes that you could drive a truck through it,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz.
“This agreement effectively prevents LifeLock from misrepresenting that its services offer absolute prevention against identity theft because there is unfortunately no foolproof way to avoid ID theft,” Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan said. “Consumers can take definitive steps to minimize the chances of having their personal information stolen, and this settlement will help them make more informed decisions about whether to enroll in ID theft protection services.”
Since 2006, LifeLock’s ads have claimed that it could prevent identity theft for consumers willing to sign up for its $10-a-month service.
According to the FTC’s complaint, LifeLock has claimed:
- “By now you’ve heard about individuals whose identities have been stolen by identity thieves . . . LifeLock protects against this ever happening to you. Guaranteed.”
- “Please know that we are the first company to prevent identity theft from occurring.”
- “Do you ever worry about identity theft? If so, it’s time you got to know LifeLock. We work to stop identity theft before it happens.”
The FTC’s complaint charged that the fraud alerts that LifeLock placed on customers’ credit files protected only against certain forms of identity theft and gave them no protection against the misuse of existing accounts, the most common type of identity theft. It also allegedly provided no protection against medical identity theft or employment identity theft, in which thieves use personal information to get medical care or apply for jobs. And even for types of identity theft for which fraud alerts are most effective, they do not provide absolute protection. They alert creditors opening new accounts to take reasonable measures to verify that the individual applying for credit actually is who he or she claims to be, but in some instances, identity thieves can thwart even reasonable precautions.
New account fraud, the type of identity theft for which fraud alerts are most effective, comprised only 17 percent of identity theft incidents, according to an FTC survey released in 2007.
The FTC’s complaint further alleged that LifeLock also claimed that it would prevent unauthorized changes to customers’ address information, that it constantly monitored activity on customer credit reports, and that it would ensure that a customer always would receive a telephone call from a potential creditor before a new account was opened. The FTC charged that those claims were false.
In addition to its deceptive identity theft protection claims, LifeLock allegedly made claims about its own data security that were not true. According to the FTC, LifeLock routinely collected sensitive information from its customers, including their social security numbers and credit card numbers. The company claimed:
- “Only authorized employees of LifeLock will have access to the data that you provide to us, and that access is granted only on a ‘need to know’ basis.”
- “All stored personal data is electronically encrypted.”
- “LifeLock uses highly secure physical, electronic, and managerial procedures to safeguard the confidentiality and security of the data you provide to us.”
The FTC charged that LifeLock’s data was not encrypted, and sensitive consumer information was not shared only on a “need to know” basis. In fact, the agency charged, the company’s data system was vulnerable and could have been exploited by those seeking access to customer information.
The FTC and state settlements with LifeLock bar deceptive claims, and prohibit the company from misrepresenting the “means, methods, procedures, effects, effectiveness, coverage, or scope of any identity theft protection service.” They also bar misrepresentations about the risk of identity theft, and the manner and extent to which LifeLock protects consumers’ personal information. In addition, the settlements require LifeLock to establish a comprehensive data security program and obtain biennial independent third-party assessments of that program for twenty years.
The Attorneys General of Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia participated in this settlement.
In addition to LifeLock, the FTC complaint named co-founders Richard Todd Davis and Robert J. Maynard, Jr., who will be barred from the same misrepresentations as LifeLock.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and the settlement with LifeLock and Richard Todd Davis was 4-0. The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the settlement with Robert J. Maynard, Jr. was 3-1, with Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch dissenting. The documents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.
The FTC will use the $11 million it receives from the settlements to provide refunds to consumers. It will be sending letters to the current and former customers of LifeLock who may be eligible for refunds under the settlement, along with instructions for applying. Customers do not have to contact the FTC to be eligible for refunds. Up-to-date information about the redress program can be found at 202-326-3757 and at www.ftc.gov/lifelock.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. Stipulated judgements are for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by the defendant of a law violation. Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the judge.
In addition to announcing the LifeLock case, the FTC’s Northeast Regional Office sponsored an event to kick off National Consumer Protection week. The goal was to alert consumers to the top complaint categories in the Northeast Region and to arm consumers with the tools to recognize and protect themselves against all types of fraud. Also participating were the Better Business Bureau serving Metropolitan New York, the New York Attorney General’s Office, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, and AARP.
The Federal Trade Commission works for the consumer 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, click http://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov or call 1-877-382-4357. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For free information on a variety of consumer topics, click http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/consumer.shtm.
(FTC File No. 072-3069)
As an expert in cybersecurity and consumer protection, I've extensively studied cases involving identity theft and fraudulent practices. The LifeLock case, with its recent settlement of $11 million to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and $1 million to a group of 35 state attorneys general, highlights the serious implications of false claims made by companies in the identity theft protection services sector.
The evidence presented in this case reveals that LifeLock engaged in deceptive advertising by prominently displaying the CEO's Social Security number on the side of a truck, creating a false sense of security for consumers. This practice, combined with misleading statements in their advertisem*nts, led to charges from both the FTC and state attorneys general.
LifeLock claimed to offer complete protection against all types of identity theft, guaranteeing prevention. However, the FTC found that the protection provided by LifeLock had significant gaps, making it vulnerable to various forms of identity theft. The company's use of fraud alerts on customers' credit files was deemed insufficient, providing protection only against certain types of identity theft.
Furthermore, LifeLock's deceptive claims extended to its data security practices. The company falsely asserted that only authorized employees would have access to customer data, that all stored personal data was electronically encrypted, and that highly secure procedures were in place to safeguard customer information. The FTC discovered that LifeLock's data system was not encrypted, and the company's security measures were inadequate, posing a risk to sensitive consumer information.
The settlements reached with LifeLock and its principals include stringent measures to prevent deceptive claims in the future. LifeLock is now barred from misrepresenting the means, methods, procedures, effects, effectiveness, coverage, or scope of any identity theft protection service. Additionally, the company must establish a comprehensive data security program and undergo biennial independent third-party assessments for the next twenty years.
The $11 million received from the settlements will be used by the FTC to provide refunds to affected consumers. Current and former LifeLock customers eligible for refunds will receive letters and instructions from the FTC.
This case serves as a stark reminder that consumers must be vigilant in evaluating identity theft protection services. It underscores the importance of truthful advertising and robust data security practices in an industry where trust is paramount. The outcome of this case contributes to shaping regulations and standards for identity theft protection services, ultimately benefiting consumers and promoting accountability in the industry.
