FTC May Increase Enforcement of Connected Devices After Smart Lock Company's Security Slipup
"You need to be increasingly careful about whether words that could be viewed as puffery could, in context, be viewed as a statement of the level of security being provided," Scott Pink, former general counsel at Prima Games and currently of counsel at O'Melveny & Myers in Silicon Valley, said.
April 07, 2020 at 06:27 PM
4 minute read
Tapplock Inc., a Canadian company that makes a fingerprint-enabled padlock that can connect to smartphones, settled claims with the Federal Trade Commission on Monday that it allegedly made misrepresentations on how secure its locks are and failed to properly secure consumers' personal information.
Experts say the FTC will likely continue to ramp up enforcement on companies that make the Internet of Things products if they do not include information security in the initial design of their products and work to more carefully market those products.
"IoT cases are important because they bridge the divide between the online and physical world. Security vulnerabilities in IoT devices affect not only data security but also physical safety and property," Jared Ho, a senior attorney in the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement to Corporate Counsel.
Tapplock said its smart lock has an "unbreakable design" and that it is "bold," "sturdy" and "secure."
The FTC alleged the lock could be bypassed by simply unscrewing the back panel in "a matter of seconds." The agency further alleged that researchers were able to bypass the account authentication process to gain access to consumers' personal information.
Tapplock agreed to implement a security program and the FTC banned the company from making deceptive statements about the security of its devices. It has also agreed to a third-party review of its security program. There is no monetary fine. However, the company faces a fine of $43,280 for each instance that it violates the settlement agreement. A representative for Tapplock did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
Scott Pink, formerly the general counsel of Prima Games and currently of counsel at O'Melveny & Myers in Silicon Valley, said companies need to consider exactly how their products are advertised to avoid FTC investigations.
"You need to be increasingly careful about whether words that could be viewed as puffery could, in context, be viewed as a statement of the level of security being provided," Pink said.
He said especially in instances such as this where companies are proclaiming to secure personal belongings, companies need to test their claims and document that testing.
False or misleading statements on the security of products are what allows the FTC to investigate a company under the Federal Trade Commission Act, Michelle Hon Donovan, a partner at Duane Morris in San Diego, said.
"I think these companies historically have not been known to have substantial information security protections in place for these devices," Donovan said. "We're seeing a paradigm shift in how legislatures and regulators view and enforce security requirements."
Donovan said that companies making these kinds of devices must implement a "security by design" process to mitigate the risk of an investigation.
"Someone who is an information security expert needs to be on the design team for anything that is going to be connected to the internet," Donovan said.
It is likely that the FTC will file more complaints against companies who fail to take consumer data seriously. In July, the FTC ordered Facebook to pay $5 billion over how it collected user data.
"That order that came out last year was unprecedented in its depth and breadth," Donovan said. "The FTC has said to expect to see more of this."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250