United States: Marketing And Data Security Practices: The FTC v. LifeLock Settlement

Last Updated: May 24 2016
Article by Keith M. Gerver and Peter Carey

Most Read Contributor in United States, September 2017
  • The LifeLock settlement reinforces the FTC's emergence as a leading cybersecurity regulator.
  • The FTC is committed to enforcing its orders, including those involving data security.
  • The consequences of violating an FTC order can be severe.
  • Compliance with industry data security standards, although important, may not insulate companies from liability.
  • Companies should assess carefully their data security practices and their representations about such practices.

On December 17, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or the Commission) announced that LifeLock, Inc. (LifeLock) had agreed to settle contempt charges that the company violated the terms of a 2010 federal court order. That order requires LifeLock to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program and prohibits the company from misrepresenting its identity-theft protection services. The settlement, which is the largest monetary award obtained by the FTC in an order enforcement action, "demonstrates the Commission's commitment to enforcing the orders it has in place against companies, including orders requiring reasonable security for consumer data."1

The FTC action

In 2010, the FTC initiated an enforcement action against LifeLock in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that the company used false claims to promote its identity-theft protection services and made false claims about its own data security. On March 9, 2010, LifeLock and the FTC announced they had reached a settlement. As part of the settlement, LifeLock consented to a Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction (the 2010 Order), pursuant to which it: (1) agreed to pay $11 million to the FTC and $1 million to 35 state attorneys general; (2) is barred from making deceptive claims or misrepresentations about its services; and (3) must establish a comprehensive data security program, obtain biennial third-party assessments of that program, and abide by certain compliance monitoring and recordkeeping requirements.

In August 2013, LifeLock's former Chief Information Security Officer, Michael Peters, filed whistleblower complaints with the FTC, SEC, and U.S. Department of Labor relating to LifeLock's allegedly insufficient compliance with the 2010 Order. Accordingly, on January 17, 2014, LifeLock met with the FTC regarding regarding Peters' allegations. On February 4, 2015, LifeLock provided the FTC with a $20 million settlement offer; however, the FTC rejected this offer. LifeLock's CEO, Todd Davis, later told investors that the FTC action could result in LifeLock facing "hundreds of millions of dollars" in liability.

On July 21, 2015, the FTC filed under seal a motion for contempt against LifeLock in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The motion alleged that LifeLock violated the 2010 Order, and the FTC's sealing notice, which is public, explained the FTC's allegations that LifeLock: (1) failed to establish a comprehensive information security program; (2) made false claims about the security of its customers' data; (3) failed to meet the 2010 Order's record-keeping requirements; and (4) made false claims about how quickly it provided identity theft-related alerts to its customers.

On October 28, 2015, LifeLock announced that it had reached a comprehensive settlement agreement with the Commission and plaintiffs in a related class action lawsuit. Although LifeLock told investors it was setting aside $116 million to cover the two proposed settlements, the terms of the settlements, which still required approval from the Commission and relevant courts, were not released at the time. Those terms became public on December 17, 2015, when the FTC announced that LifeLock had agreed to pay $100 million to settle the contempt charges. Under the terms of the settlement, in which LifeLock neither admitted nor denied it had violated the 2010 Order, $68 million of the $100 million is to be used to pay redress to the plaintiffs as part of a settlement of a related class action lawsuit, discussed in more detail below. The remaining $32 million will fund consumer redress ordered by any state attorneys general, with any money not being used for that purpose reverting to the FTC for use in further consumer redress. In addition, LifeLock agreed to reporting, monitoring, and record-keeping requirements similar to those in the 2010 Order.

The Commission vote approving the settlement was 3-1, with Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen voting no. Commissioner Ohlhausen dissented on the grounds that there was not clear and convincing evidence that LifeLock failed to establish and maintain the required information security program. She pointed specifically to third-party certifications that LifeLock complied with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) and other data security standards. Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, Commissioner Julie Brill, and Commissioner Terrell McSweeny said that Commissioner Ohlhausen's focus on third-party certifications was misguided, referring to the Commission's "longstanding view that PCI DSS certification is insufficient in and of itself to establish the existence of reasonable security protections... . [T]he existence of a PCI DSS certification is an important consideration in, but by no means the end of, [the Commission's] analysis of reasonable security."2 In this case, the majority found that the evidence "fully justifie[d]" bringing contempt charges against LifeLock.

Related litigation and enforcement actions

In addition to the FTC's contempt charges, LifeLock has faced several other lawsuits and enforcement actions related to its marketing practices and alleged violation of the 2010 Order. These include a nationwide class action suit alleging deceptive marketing and sales practices, two purported securities fraud class actions, a whistleblower complaint brought by LifeLock's former Chief Information Security Officer, and state attorneys general investigations.

LifeLock's settlement of the FTC's contempt charges is part of a comprehensive settlement agreement that also resolves the nationwide class action (i.e., Ebarle v. LifeLock, Inc.), which alleged deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection with LifeLock's identity-theft protection services. On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that LifeLock's marketing and sales practices violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. The plaintiffs alleged, for example, that LifeLock could not place fraud alerts on customers' credit files as described in its advertising. As described above, $68 million of the $100 million LifeLock agreed to pay to resolve the FTC's contempt charges is authorized to fund an escrow account in Ebarle to pay redress to affected consumers.

On July 21, 2015, United States District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton dismissed with prejudice a purported securities class action filed against LifeLock in March 2014 in United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The consolidated amended complaint in that action (i.e., In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation) alleged that LifeLock and its senior executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of LifeLock's business, operational, and compliance policies, including with regard to certain of LifeLock's services, its data security program, and LifeLock's compliance with the 2010 Order. In dismissing the complaint, Judge Bolton found that the only statement the plaintiffs could identify relating to LifeLock's compliance with the 2010 Order ("[O]ur business is subject to the FTC [Order] . . . , as well as the companion orders with 35 states' attorneys general that we entered into in March 2010. We incur significant costs to operate our business and monitor our compliance with these laws, regulations, and consent decrees."3) was not misleading because it only described the costs LifeLock incurred in complying with the 2010 Order and did not "'affirmatively create an impression' that LifeLock was actually in compliance with the [2010] Order."4

But on July 22, 2015—the day after In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation was dismissed and the FTC contempt action was filed—a second class-action complaint was filed against LifeLock in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The complaint in this case, Avila v. LifeLock, Inc., alleges that LifeLock and its CEO and CFO violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts about LifeLock's business, operations, and prospects, including about LifeLock's information security program and its compliance with the 2010 Order. A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended class action complaint making substantially similar allegations to those in the July 22, 2015 complaint was filed on December 10, 2015. A hearing on LifeLock's motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint is scheduled for May 2, 2016. LifeLock's settlement of the FTC's contempt charges may improve the plaintiffs' case in Avila.

On March 20, 2014, Michael Peters, LifeLock's former Chief Information Security Officer, filed a complaint against LifeLock in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that LifeLock violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act by terminating his employment as a result of his disclosures to management about LifeLock's information security practices. Peters claimed to have performed an initial risk assessment that determined, inter alia, that "LifeLock's security vigilance (e.g. vulnerability testing, auditing, monitoring, awareness education, event logging, incident management, etc.) was at 0% of the minimum to protect LifeLock's customers and their sensitive information."5 LifeLock and Peters reached an undisclosed settlement in October 2015, and the case was dismissed on November 25, 2015.

In addition to the terms of the 2010 Order, LifeLock is bound by the companion orders it entered into with 35 states' attorneys general imposing injunctive provisions similar to those in the 2010 Order.


The FTC's expanding role in policing businesses' data security practices and the Commission's record of bringing contempt cases against parties who do not comply with the terms of their settlements with the FTC are two trends that have been publicized for several years. The LifeLock settlement stands out, however, as the Commission's most aggressive enforcement to date of an order requiring reasonable data security practices. As FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said, "This settlement demonstrates the Commission's commitment to enforcing the orders it has in place against companies, including orders requiring reasonable security for consumer data."6 There are several notable takeaways for businesses and practitioners tracking the FTC's evolving regulation of data security practices.

First, if a business violates an FTC order, the financial impact can be severe. The FTC made headlines in 2012 when it announced a then-record $22.5 million settlement with Google Inc. resolving claims that the company violated a 2011 settlement agreement by misrepresenting to users of the Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking "cookies" or serve targeted ads to those users. The LifeLock settlement significantly raises the bar. In addition to the record $100 million settlement, the terms of the agreement require that every LifeLock employee sign a statement acknowledging receipt of a copy of the 2010 Order and the December 17, 2015 settlement agreement. As the related litigation discussed above also demonstrates, an FTC enforcement action can result in significant fallout in other forums.

Second, the Commission has put businesses on notice that compliance with the PCI DSS "is insufficient in and of itself to establish the existence of reasonable security protections."7 The PCI DSS is the global data security standard adopted by the payment card brands for all entities that process, store, or transmit cardholder data. The Commission endorsed the PCI DSS in its recent settlement with Wyndham Hotels and Resorts,8 and Commissioner Ohlhausen noted in her statement dissenting from the Commission's approval of the LifeLock settlement that LifeLock obtained third-party certification that it complied with the PCI DSS and other data security standards. But in LifeLock, the Commission made clear that "PCI DSS certification is an important consideration in, but by no means the end of, [the FTC's] analysis of reasonable security."9 As to what additional steps the FTC might expect businesses to take beyond PCI DSS compliance, the Commission in LifeLock pointed to additional terms in the Wyndham settlement, including "the implementation of risk assessments, certification of untrusted networks, and certification of the assessor's independence and freedom from conflicts of interest."10


This most recent settlement between the FTC and LifeLock in relation to LifeLock's violation of the 2010 Order provides another important opportunity for businesses to evaluate their data security practices to ensure the protection of consumer data and the accuracy of their representations regarding those practices. As the Commission made clear, compliance with certain industry standards may not be sufficient to show that a business has established reasonable data security protections. The settlement also reinforces the FTC's emergence as a leading cybersecurity regulator, as it demonstrates that the Commission will keep a close watch over the actions taken and statements made by businesses with which it has settled data security-related actions. LifeLock's experiences further highlight the need for businesses to plan for the related actions that will likely follow in the wake of an FTC enforcement action. Companies should be prepared not only for the filing of class action lawsuits wherever they may find affected customers, but also for possible whistleblower actions related to the treatment of employees who internally report concerns about data security practices.


1. Federal Trade Commission press release: "LifeLock to Pay $100 Million to Consumers to Settle FTC Charges it Violated 2010 Order" December 17, 2015. Available at http://bit.ly/lifelock-to-pay

2. Statement of the Federal Trade Commission at 1-2, FTC v. LifeLock, Inc., December 17, 2015. Available at http://bit.ly/ftc-lifelock

3. LifeLock, Inc., Annual Report (Form 10-K) 12. February 26, 2013.

4. Bien v. LifeLock, Inc., No. CV-14-00416-PHX-SRB, at 4 (D. Ariz. Jul. 21, 2015).

5. Complaint at 5, Peters v. LifeLock, Inc., 2:14-cv-00576-ROS (D. Ariz. filed Mar. 20, 2014).

6. Ibid., supra note 1.

7. Ibid., supra note 2, at 2.

8. Federal Trade Commission, press release: "Wyndham Settles FTC Charge It Unfairly Placed Consumers' Payment Card Information at Risk" December 9, 2015. Availabe at http://bit.ly/Wyndham-Settles

9. Id.

10. Id.

Originally published by Compliance & Ethics Professional, April 2016

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.