FTC Settlement: Office Depot Could Have Saved $25M by Heeding Employees' Concerns
Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot Inc. and its subsidiary Support.com agreed to pay $25 million and $10 million, respectively, to settle allegations that they tricked customers into spending millions of dollars on repairs by deceptively claiming that they had found malware symptoms or infections on consumers' computers, an alleged scheme first flagged by store employees, the FTC said.
March 28, 2019 at 03:57 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
The Federal Trade Commission has a message for general counsel and their companies stemming from a recent settlement with Office Depot: Don't ignore employees' concerns about questionable business practices.
Boca Raton, Florida-based Office Depot Inc. agreed to pay $25 million to settle allegations that the office supply retailer tricked customers into spending millions of dollars on repairs by deceptively claiming it had found malware symptoms or infections on consumers' computers. Support.com, which is owned by Office Depot, agreed to pay another $10 million for its role in the alleged scheme, which, according to the FTC, was first flagged by store employees.
Office Depot executive vice president, chief legal and administrative officer and corporate secretary David Bleisch, who joined the company in the fall of 2017, was not available for comment on Thursday. A Support.com representative did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment.
In an emailed statement, an Office Depot representative said the settlement resolves an investigation into a computer diagnostic system that was offered to Office Depot and OfficeMax customers before December 2016 and that the $25 million is “to provide equitable relief for affected customers.”
“While Office Depot does not admit to any wrongdoing regarding the FTC's allegations, the company believes that the settlement is in its best interest in order to avoid protracted litigation,” according to the statement.
Office Depot, under the terms of the agreement, also is required to provide regular compliance reports, create and retain certain records, and submit to compliance monitoring.
William MacLeod of Kelley Drye & Warren, along with Katrina Lindsey, senior vice president and deputy GC at Office Depot, represented the company in the case. Claire Wack, Sung Kim, Colleen Robbins and Thomas Biesty represented the FTC, the legal department of which is overseen by GC Alden Abbott.
Since at least 2009, according to the complaint, Support.com provided Office Depot with software called PC Health Check that offered, via advertising in Office Depot stores, on the radio and in print publications, free PC checkups.
When consumers were in the store, employees allegedly installed the software program on their computers in their presence. The defendants, however, had configured the PC Health Check program to report that the scan had found malware symptoms, even in the absence of such, via a pop-box that asked the consumer to identify if the computer had any of four generic symptoms, the FTC said.
Despite the emergence of complaints by store employees beginning in 2012, Office Depot allegedly told employees to continue advertising the service and to continue to run the program on consumers' computers, and paid extra commissions to store managers and employees who met their weekly goals for PC Health Check runs and tech service sales while reproaching those who did not.
It wasn't until a Seattle television station in late 2016 aired a segment reporting that Office Depot stores were claiming to detect malware on brand-new computers that the company suspended the program, the FTC said.
In providing lessons from the case, the agency noted that “clarity begins at home,” adding “when employees express concern about a questionable business practice, savvy executives pay attention. Heeding in-house early warnings and responding appropriately may be able to prevent a more serious predicament.”
Other tips from the agency include a reminder that service promises, not just product claims, are subject to the FTC act and that it's “unwise” for companies to exploit consumers' fears about computer security falsely for their own economic benefit.
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 AllHow Kirkland Litigators and Restructuring Lawyers Partner on Bankruptcy Work
Litigators of the Week: Hitting Walmart With a $100M Verdict in Its Own Backyard
Litigator of the Week: Standing Strong for Under Armour's Trademarks Without Going Overboard Against Upstart Armorina
How a Luxury Designer Made the Case 'Adidas Does Not Own Stripes'
Trending Stories
- 1'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
- 2Attorney Sanctioned for Not Exercising Ordinary Care: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 3$1.9M Settlement Approved in Class Suit Over Vacant Property Fees
- 4Former Wamco Exec Charged With $600M 'Cherry-Picking' Fraud
- 5Stock Trading App Robinhood Hit With Privacy Class Action 1 Month After Alleged Data Breach
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