The FTC/CafePress Settlement as Guidance for Businesses
The framework provided in the CafePress settlement emphasizes that accuracy and honesty is the best policy when it comes to data security and privacy.
May 06, 2022 at 02:10 PM
8 minute read
CybersecurityOn March 15, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced a proposed settlement with online sales platform, CafePress, concerning its handling and "cover-up" of a 2019 data breach incident. As part of the process, the FTC evaluated CafePress' data security and privacy policies and practices, which the FTC criticized as inadequate and misleading. FTC Takes Action Against CafePress for Data Breach Cover Up (March 15, 2022) (Settlement). The Settlement, which imposes a litany of security and privacy requirements on CafePress, provides guidance to all businesses about data security and privacy best practices and how to respond when, despite those efforts, a data breach incident occurs. See, e.g., Lesley Fair, Data breach prevention and response: Lessons from the CafePress case (March 15, 2022). It serves as an important reminder that any business that overstates or inaccurately describes its security and privacy practices, fails to update its technology, or does not provide prompt notice when a data breach occurs may be charged with an "unfair or deceptive" act in violation of §5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
|The FTC Complaint and Settlement
It is alleged that in February 2019 hackers exploited multiple security failures by CafePress' to obtain sensitive consumer information, including millions of names, physical and email addresses, and security questions, 180,000 unencrypted Social Security numbers, and tens of thousands unencrypted payment cards' last four digits and expiration dates. The stolen information was later found for sale on the dark web. The Complaint alleged that a month after receiving notice about the hack, CafePress patched the vulnerability the hackers exploited, but did not notify affected consumers. Instead, CafePress recommended that its customers reset their passwords as part of an alleged update to its password policy. It was not until September 2019 that CafePress notified the affected consumers. Even then, CafePress' security practices did not reduce consumers' risks, such as by allowing their customers to reset their passwords by answering security questions associated with the customer's email address—the same information that the hackers stole.
It is alleged that CafePress was aware of issues concerning its security practices since January 2018, when it learned that shopkeeper accountants had been hacked. CafePress also allegedly knew of several malware infections to its network, but never investigated those attacks prior to the February 2019 data breach. The Complaint alleged that CafePress violated §5(a) in its handling of the breach and in its misleading policy statements regarding its data security and privacy practices.
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 AllThe Kids Online Safety Act Threatens Free Speech and Opens the Door to Political Weaponization
6 minute readNew Cybersecurity Regulations are Here. This Is What You Need to Know.
5 minute readThe Challenge of AI Governance: The Blessing and the Curse of Safeguarding Personal Data
13 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
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