ARTICLE
25 January 2022

FTC Fines Lead Generation Company $1.5M Citing Misuse Of Consumer Financial Data

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
A California-based lead generation company recently settled with the FTC for $1.5 million over alleged privacy violations. The FTC argued that the company deceptively acquired consumer personal information and...
United States California Privacy
Liisa M. Thomas’s articles from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • with Inhouse Counsel

A California-based lead generation company recently settled with the FTC for $1.5 million over alleged privacy violations. The FTC argued that the company deceptively acquired consumer personal information and improperly shared this information with various entities under the guise of connecting consumers with lenders. Information in question included Social Security numbers and bank account information.

As covered in our sister blog, according to the complaint, the company operates hundreds of websites encouraging consumers to complete online loan applications. It represented that it would send those applications only to a "trusted network of lenders." The company made many representations about the limits of its sharing. Despite these promises, the FTC alleged, the company sold consumers' information to non-lender marketers, debit card sellers, debt negotiation and credit repair services. This sharing constituted deception under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The company also failed to impose use restrictions on the information sold and, in many instances, was not aware of the purposes for which companies were purchasing the consumers' information. These acts constituted unfair practices under Section 5. The FTC's complaint also alleged that the company unlawfully obtained and resold the credit scores of consumers in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Putting it into Practice: This case highlights the FTC's ongoing focus on ensuring companies are following their stated practices, especially when it involves sharing sensitive information with third parties.

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.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More