Original Story: nbcnews.com
WASHINGTON -- LifeLock is paying $100 million to settle charges by federal regulators that it failed to take adequate measures to protect customers' personal data under a court order.
The Federal Trade Commission announced the settlement Thursday with the provider of identity-theft protection. The agency says it's the largest settlement it has won in this type of enforcement case. A Minneapolis class action lawyer is following this story closely.
The 2010 order by a federal court required LifeLock Inc. to secure customers' data, such as credit card and Social Security numbers, and to avoid false advertising claims. The order resulted from an action brought by the FTC and attorneys general in 35 states, alleging that LifeLock used false claims to promote its services. The company paid $12 million in that settlement, which went mostly to customer refunds, and agreed to make changes to its business practices.
The FTC said that LifeLock violated the order by failing to maintain "a comprehensive information-security program" and to avoid deceptive advertising.
LifeLock is based in Tempe, Arizona. Company co-founder and CEO Todd Davis used to put his own Social Security number on business cards and company trucks to advertise LifeLock's services.
LifeLock noted Thursday that it neither confirms nor denies the government's allegations under terms of the new settlement. Once it is approved by the court, the settlement will help bring to a close the FTC case as well as a class-action lawsuit, the company said. A Newark class action attorney is reviewing the details of this case.
"The allegations raised by the FTC are related to advertisements that we no longer run and policies that are no longer in place," LifeLock said in a statement. "The settlement does not require us to change any of our current products or practices. Furthermore, there is no evidence that LifeLock has ever had any of its customers' data stolen, and the FTC did not allege otherwise."
In the latest action, the FTC alleged that LifeLock violated the 2010 order in 2012-14. For example, the company falsely advertised that it would send alerts to customers "as soon as" it saw signs of possible identity theft, the agency said.
Of the $100 million LifeLock is paying consumers, $68 million may be used to reimburse consumers for fees paid to LifeLock under the class-action suit. The remaining $32 million will go to the FTC and also could be used to reimburse customers as ordered by any of the state attorneys general who participated in the action. An Atlanta class action lawyer provides legal counsel in many types of class action suits.
LifeLock's shares fell 30 cents, or 2.1 percent, to end at $13.99 in trading Thursday.
Showing posts with label Federal Trade Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Trade Commission. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 6, 2016
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
LINGERING IN ANTITRUST LIMBO
Original Story: morningstar.com
Mergers and acquisitions have accelerated sharply since the financial crisis faded, but the government's pace for reviewing proposed deals is slowing.
The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are taking more time to investigate their most intensely scrutinized mergers, according to data compiled by antitrust lawyer Paul Denis of Dechert LLP. A Kansas City antitrust lawyer is following this story closely.
In such deal reviews concluded this year, more than 10 months elapsed, on average, between the transaction's announcement and a yes-or-no decision by the government. That's an increase from an average of seven months in recent years.
As time passes, merging firms can become increasingly worried about completing a deal. They have to ensure financing remains in place, and that can cost money. They can begin to lose employees nervous about the future, as well as customers. A Richmond mergers and acquisitions lawyer is knowledgeable in all areas of M&A and general acquisitions law, including but not limited to leveraged buyouts and company reorganizations.
"When you go from seven months of that to 10 months, it's different," Mr. Denis said. "No one wants their deals to hang out there very long. You're taking market risk. All kinds of things can happen."
Companies in a number of recent mergers have been waiting upward of a year -- or longer -- for a final verdict, and some deals have fallen apart because of government concerns.
Comcast Corp.'s bid for Time Warner Cable Inc. was pending for 14 months before it was dropped in April in the face of opposition from the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission.
Days later, Applied Materials Inc. walked away from its deal to acquire Tokyo Electron Ltd. 19 months after it was announced, citing Justice Department objections. The FTC spent more than a year examining Sysco Corp.'s planned acquisition of rival food distributor US Foods Inc. before bringing a lawsuit in February challenging the deal.
Other reviews still pending after more than a year include the merger of medical-device makers Zimmer Holdings Inc. and Biomet Inc., and AT&T Inc.'s deal to acquire DirecTV.
Government officials say companies play a significant role in determining the duration of antitrust reviews. A Boston M&A lawyer represents clients in business divestitures, leveraged buyouts, and company reorganizations.
"There are ways the parties can help themselves in the process," said Deborah Feinstein, head of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. It matters how long companies take to provide data and documents, to offer divestitures when appropriate, and to find buyers for assets that need to be sold off to get approval.
Ms. Feinstein also said companies can choose to come to the agency early after a deal is announced to walk through the transaction and highlight areas of business overlap between the merger partners. "Sometimes that can significantly speed things up," she said.
Bill Baer, the Justice Department's antitrust chief, said the average review is taking longer this year due to a couple of particularly lengthy ones. "In those cases, the parties weren't pushing for a decision, either because they wanted more time to convince us or because they wanted to align the process with a sister agency," he said.
Mr. Denis's statistics focus on merger deals that resulted in a government lawsuit, a settlement, abandonment by the firms, or a closing statement from antitrust officials explaining why the transaction should be allowed.
Not all significant recent merger reviews have taken so long. The FTC cleared the merger of medical-supply companies Medtronic Inc. and Covidien PLC, with conditions, about five months after the deal was announced in June 2014.
External factors explain the length of some antitrust probes. Telecom mergers, such as the Comcast and AT&T deals, require an added layer of FCC review. And deals with a strong international component can take longer as firms coordinate with antitrust agencies overseas.
But antitrust lawyers say the U.S. agencies have gotten more demanding in asking firms for long periods to conduct exams.
By law, merging parties can put the agencies on a 30-day decision clock once they have complied with requests for detailed data about a merger, a process that can take months. In reality, firms almost always agree to give more time, with officials sometimes asking for 90 days or more, antitrust lawyers say.
The antitrust agencies are operating from a position of strength. Companies need the government's cooperation, particularly on narrowing the scope of agency information requests, because producing large volumes of documents is costly.
More important, firms prefer not to get sued, so they are usually willing to give the government more time if it might make a difference between a suit and a settlement. "If parties are unwilling to litigate, the agencies will sense it, and it can give the agencies greater leverage to lengthen investigations," said lawyer Joshua Soven of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, who has worked at Justice and the FTC.
The Justice Department's Mr. Baer said it is mutually beneficial to have an endgame to talk through potential antitrust concerns. "If there's a way to get to a meeting of the minds before we have to litigate, most companies want to do that," he said.
Even when the risk of a lawsuit fades, the process of completing divestitures and other settlement conditions can push back a closing date. Some lawyers say the time it takes the government to sign on the dotted line has increased, particularly at the FTC.
"The agencies want to make sure they get it right. The last thing they want to do is a lengthy investigation and then not fully replicate the competition being lost," said Matt Reilly, a former FTC lawyer now at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. "It's going to take a long time. And it is going to be a little bit of a roller coaster."
Mergers and acquisitions have accelerated sharply since the financial crisis faded, but the government's pace for reviewing proposed deals is slowing.
The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission are taking more time to investigate their most intensely scrutinized mergers, according to data compiled by antitrust lawyer Paul Denis of Dechert LLP. A Kansas City antitrust lawyer is following this story closely.
In such deal reviews concluded this year, more than 10 months elapsed, on average, between the transaction's announcement and a yes-or-no decision by the government. That's an increase from an average of seven months in recent years.
As time passes, merging firms can become increasingly worried about completing a deal. They have to ensure financing remains in place, and that can cost money. They can begin to lose employees nervous about the future, as well as customers. A Richmond mergers and acquisitions lawyer is knowledgeable in all areas of M&A and general acquisitions law, including but not limited to leveraged buyouts and company reorganizations.
"When you go from seven months of that to 10 months, it's different," Mr. Denis said. "No one wants their deals to hang out there very long. You're taking market risk. All kinds of things can happen."
Companies in a number of recent mergers have been waiting upward of a year -- or longer -- for a final verdict, and some deals have fallen apart because of government concerns.
Comcast Corp.'s bid for Time Warner Cable Inc. was pending for 14 months before it was dropped in April in the face of opposition from the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission.
Days later, Applied Materials Inc. walked away from its deal to acquire Tokyo Electron Ltd. 19 months after it was announced, citing Justice Department objections. The FTC spent more than a year examining Sysco Corp.'s planned acquisition of rival food distributor US Foods Inc. before bringing a lawsuit in February challenging the deal.
Other reviews still pending after more than a year include the merger of medical-device makers Zimmer Holdings Inc. and Biomet Inc., and AT&T Inc.'s deal to acquire DirecTV.
Government officials say companies play a significant role in determining the duration of antitrust reviews. A Boston M&A lawyer represents clients in business divestitures, leveraged buyouts, and company reorganizations.
"There are ways the parties can help themselves in the process," said Deborah Feinstein, head of the FTC's Bureau of Competition. It matters how long companies take to provide data and documents, to offer divestitures when appropriate, and to find buyers for assets that need to be sold off to get approval.
Ms. Feinstein also said companies can choose to come to the agency early after a deal is announced to walk through the transaction and highlight areas of business overlap between the merger partners. "Sometimes that can significantly speed things up," she said.
Bill Baer, the Justice Department's antitrust chief, said the average review is taking longer this year due to a couple of particularly lengthy ones. "In those cases, the parties weren't pushing for a decision, either because they wanted more time to convince us or because they wanted to align the process with a sister agency," he said.
Mr. Denis's statistics focus on merger deals that resulted in a government lawsuit, a settlement, abandonment by the firms, or a closing statement from antitrust officials explaining why the transaction should be allowed.
Not all significant recent merger reviews have taken so long. The FTC cleared the merger of medical-supply companies Medtronic Inc. and Covidien PLC, with conditions, about five months after the deal was announced in June 2014.
External factors explain the length of some antitrust probes. Telecom mergers, such as the Comcast and AT&T deals, require an added layer of FCC review. And deals with a strong international component can take longer as firms coordinate with antitrust agencies overseas.
But antitrust lawyers say the U.S. agencies have gotten more demanding in asking firms for long periods to conduct exams.
By law, merging parties can put the agencies on a 30-day decision clock once they have complied with requests for detailed data about a merger, a process that can take months. In reality, firms almost always agree to give more time, with officials sometimes asking for 90 days or more, antitrust lawyers say.
The antitrust agencies are operating from a position of strength. Companies need the government's cooperation, particularly on narrowing the scope of agency information requests, because producing large volumes of documents is costly.
More important, firms prefer not to get sued, so they are usually willing to give the government more time if it might make a difference between a suit and a settlement. "If parties are unwilling to litigate, the agencies will sense it, and it can give the agencies greater leverage to lengthen investigations," said lawyer Joshua Soven of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, who has worked at Justice and the FTC.
The Justice Department's Mr. Baer said it is mutually beneficial to have an endgame to talk through potential antitrust concerns. "If there's a way to get to a meeting of the minds before we have to litigate, most companies want to do that," he said.
Even when the risk of a lawsuit fades, the process of completing divestitures and other settlement conditions can push back a closing date. Some lawyers say the time it takes the government to sign on the dotted line has increased, particularly at the FTC.
"The agencies want to make sure they get it right. The last thing they want to do is a lengthy investigation and then not fully replicate the competition being lost," said Matt Reilly, a former FTC lawyer now at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. "It's going to take a long time. And it is going to be a little bit of a roller coaster."
Thursday, February 19, 2015
SENATORS WANT LAW TO PROTECT VEHICLES FROM HACKING
Original Story: detroitnews.com
Two senators unveiled legislation Wednesday to force the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to set rules protecting driver security and privacy.
Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., proposed the bill after Markey released a report Sunday that raised concerns about vehicles being hacked.
Markey’s report said millions of cars and trucks are vulnerable to hacking through wireless technologies that could jeopardize driver safety and privacy. A Detroit automotive lawyer is following this story closely.
As vehicles grow increasingly connected through wireless networks and become more dependent on sophisticated electronic systems, Congress and federal regulators are worried about the potential for hackers to interfere with vehicle functions. The report says vehicles are vulnerable to hacking through wireless networks, smartphones, infotainment systems like OnStar — even a malicious CD popped into a car stereo.
“We need the electronic equivalent of seat belts and airbags to keep drivers and their information safe in the 21st century,” Markey said. “There are currently no rules of the road for how to protect driver and passenger data, and most customers don’t even know that their information is being collected and sent to third parties. An Atlanta data privacy lawyer assists clients with privacy, data protection, information security, and consumer protection issues. These new requirements will include a set of minimum standards to protect driver security and privacy in every new vehicle. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to advance this important consumer protection legislation.”
Blumenthal said automakers need to do more.
“Connected cars represent tremendous social and economic promise, but in the rush to roll out the next big thing automakers have left the doors unlocked to would-be cybercriminals,” Blumenthal said. “This common-sense legislation would ensure that drivers can trust the convenience of wireless technology, without having to fear incursions on their safety or privacy by hackers and criminals.”
The bill would require that all wireless access points in the car are protected against hacking attacks, evaluated using penetration testing; all collected information is appropriately secured and encrypted to prevent unwanted access; and that automakers or third-party feature provider be able to detect, report and respond to real-time hacking events.
The legislation will also call for new cars to be evaluated by a rating system — a “cyber dashboard” — to inform consumers “about how well the vehicle protects drivers beyond those minimum standards. This information will be displayed on the label of all new vehicles — just as fuel economy is today.”
Its release comes after CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday aired a segment showing how vehicles can be subjects of remote hacking. Just last month, BMW AG said it had fixed a security flaw that could have allowed up to 2.2 million vehicles to have their doors remotely opened by hackers.
One automaker told Markey that some owners have attempted to reprogram the vehicle’s onboard computer to increase the horsepower of vehicles or torque through the use of “performance chips.”
In November, two major auto trade associations representing nearly all automakers unveiled a set of principles to protect driver privacy and security. A Detroit automotive lawyer assists automotive clients with technological developments and restructuring the industry.
Wade Newton, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers — the trade group representing Detroit’s Big Three automakers, Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen AG and others — said he had not seen the report.
But he said automakers believe strong consumer data privacy protections and strong vehicle security are essential.
“Auto engineers incorporate security solutions into vehicles from the very first stages of design and production — and security testing never stops.
“The industry is in the early stages of establishing a voluntary automobile industry sector information sharing and analysis center — or other comparable program — for collecting and sharing information about existing or potential cyber-related threats.”
Automakers noted that the Society of Automotive Engineers has created a Vehicle Electrical System Security Committee to draft standards that help ensure electronic control system safety.
NHTSA spokesman Gordon Trowbridge said Sunday the agency is “engaged in an intensive effort to determine potential security vulnerabilities related to new technologies and will work to ensure that manufacturers cooperate and address issues in order to keep motorists safe.”
Two senators unveiled legislation Wednesday to force the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to set rules protecting driver security and privacy.
Sens. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., proposed the bill after Markey released a report Sunday that raised concerns about vehicles being hacked.
Markey’s report said millions of cars and trucks are vulnerable to hacking through wireless technologies that could jeopardize driver safety and privacy. A Detroit automotive lawyer is following this story closely.
As vehicles grow increasingly connected through wireless networks and become more dependent on sophisticated electronic systems, Congress and federal regulators are worried about the potential for hackers to interfere with vehicle functions. The report says vehicles are vulnerable to hacking through wireless networks, smartphones, infotainment systems like OnStar — even a malicious CD popped into a car stereo.
“We need the electronic equivalent of seat belts and airbags to keep drivers and their information safe in the 21st century,” Markey said. “There are currently no rules of the road for how to protect driver and passenger data, and most customers don’t even know that their information is being collected and sent to third parties. An Atlanta data privacy lawyer assists clients with privacy, data protection, information security, and consumer protection issues. These new requirements will include a set of minimum standards to protect driver security and privacy in every new vehicle. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues to advance this important consumer protection legislation.”
Blumenthal said automakers need to do more.
“Connected cars represent tremendous social and economic promise, but in the rush to roll out the next big thing automakers have left the doors unlocked to would-be cybercriminals,” Blumenthal said. “This common-sense legislation would ensure that drivers can trust the convenience of wireless technology, without having to fear incursions on their safety or privacy by hackers and criminals.”
The bill would require that all wireless access points in the car are protected against hacking attacks, evaluated using penetration testing; all collected information is appropriately secured and encrypted to prevent unwanted access; and that automakers or third-party feature provider be able to detect, report and respond to real-time hacking events.
The legislation will also call for new cars to be evaluated by a rating system — a “cyber dashboard” — to inform consumers “about how well the vehicle protects drivers beyond those minimum standards. This information will be displayed on the label of all new vehicles — just as fuel economy is today.”
Its release comes after CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday aired a segment showing how vehicles can be subjects of remote hacking. Just last month, BMW AG said it had fixed a security flaw that could have allowed up to 2.2 million vehicles to have their doors remotely opened by hackers.
One automaker told Markey that some owners have attempted to reprogram the vehicle’s onboard computer to increase the horsepower of vehicles or torque through the use of “performance chips.”
In November, two major auto trade associations representing nearly all automakers unveiled a set of principles to protect driver privacy and security. A Detroit automotive lawyer assists automotive clients with technological developments and restructuring the industry.
Wade Newton, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers — the trade group representing Detroit’s Big Three automakers, Toyota Motor Corp., Volkswagen AG and others — said he had not seen the report.
But he said automakers believe strong consumer data privacy protections and strong vehicle security are essential.
“Auto engineers incorporate security solutions into vehicles from the very first stages of design and production — and security testing never stops.
“The industry is in the early stages of establishing a voluntary automobile industry sector information sharing and analysis center — or other comparable program — for collecting and sharing information about existing or potential cyber-related threats.”
Automakers noted that the Society of Automotive Engineers has created a Vehicle Electrical System Security Committee to draft standards that help ensure electronic control system safety.
NHTSA spokesman Gordon Trowbridge said Sunday the agency is “engaged in an intensive effort to determine potential security vulnerabilities related to new technologies and will work to ensure that manufacturers cooperate and address issues in order to keep motorists safe.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)