Potential FTC Facebook Fine Could Signal Stricter Enforcement of Tech Privacy Policies
A new report says Facebook is negotiating a multibillion-dollar privacy violation fine with the Federal Trade Commission over its privacy policies. The fine would be the FTC penalty against a tech company, and could mark a shift in the agency's privacy enforcement.
February 19, 2019 at 01:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Facebook is negotiating a multibillion-dollar privacy violation fine with the Federal Trade Commission, the Washington Post reported Thursday.
It would be the largest FTC penalty issued to a tech company and could mark a new era of privacy enforcement for the tech industry, privacy lawyers and professionals said. Google Inc. currently holds the tech industry record for largest FTC penalty, settling charges it violated a privacy agreement with the agency for $22.5 million in 2012.
In March 2018, the acting director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection Tom Pahl issued a statement confirming the agency was conducting a nonpublic investigation into Facebook's privacy practices and that it was “firmly and fully committed to using all of its tools to protect the privacy of consumers.”
The FTC declined to comment on the latest reports. Facebook did not immediately respond to comment.
“While the agency has agreed to larger monetary settlements for other types of legal regulatory violations, to date, the FTC's largest fine for data privacy violations has been just over $20 [million]. If the FTC is indeed seeking max recovery under the 2011 consent order with Facebook, the amount at play for alleged violations of the consumer privacy-related obligations and restrictions would be precedent setting,” said Richard Newman, an FTC investigations and defense lawyer at Hinch Newman, in an email. “Federal, state and international privacy regulators are sending a clear message that it is time for those in the tech industry to be responsible with data and ensure that proper protocols are implemented.”
Andrew Gordon, a privacy lawyer at Gordon Law Group in Illinois, said that, if Facebook is fined, it could send a signal that the FTC will increasingly use its enforcement power to protect consumer privacy rights. Which, Chris Hoofnagle, a professor of information and law at University of California, Berkeley, said could be a good thing for the U.S. tech industry.
Facebook's privacy practices have come under international scrutiny. The Menlo Park, California-based company is currently being investigated by the Irish Data Protection Commission over potential General Data Protection Regulation violations in the European Union. If Facebook is found to have violated GDPR, it could face fines up to 4 percent of its global revenue.
“From a big picture perspective, a multibillion-dollar fine [from the FTC] will be good for the U.S. industry. If the FTC does not fine Facebook severely, its deterrence narrative loses credibility, and U.S. companies will face more intervention from less flexible, foreign regulators,” Hoofnagle said in an email. “Thus, the FTC remedy is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is medicine against worse regulatory approaches technology companies will face from Europe if the FTC loses its credibility.”
Privacy lawyers said companies who don't want to face FTC fines should check their privacy policies and procedures. David Vladeck, faculty director of Georgetown Law Center's Center on Privacy and Technology, said in most cases the FTC can't impose civil penalties on first violations, noting there was no penalty imposed in the agency's first enforcement action against Facebook.
“Once a company is under an FTC order, simply comply with it,” Vladeck said in an email. “The FTC has hundreds of companies and individuals under order, and order violations are quite rare.”
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
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Avantia Publicly Announces Agentic AI Platform Ava
- 2Shifting Sands: May a Court Properly Order the Sale of the Marital Residence During a Divorce’s Pendency?
- 3Joint Custody Awards in New York – The Current Rule
- 4Paul Hastings, Recruiting From Davis Polk, Continues Finance Practice Build
- 5Chancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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