Posts tagged with "Samuel Levine"

CarShield ordered to pay $10 million federal settlement over deceptive repair coverage ads

August 2, 2024

CarShield—a company that sells vehicle service contracts to automobile owners that it claims will cover the cost of certain repairs—has agreed to pay $10 million in a settlement with federal regulators over charges that its marketing tactics were deceptive and misleading, reports NBC News.

In a statement released on Wednesday, July 31, the Federal Trade Commission said CarShield, which employs celebrity endorsers including rapper and actor Ice-T and sports commentator Chris Berman, had falsely lured customers with the promise of “peace of mind” and “protection” from the cost and inconvenience of vehicle breakdowns through its contracts.

The FTC also charged American Auto Shield, the administrator of CarShield’s vehicle service contracts, in the scheme.

The agency said that at least one ad, which ran 18,000 times on television, stated, “With CarShield’s administrators, they make sure you don’t get stuck with expensive car repair bills like this.” It also touted CarShield contracts as “your best line of defense against expensive breakdowns.”

Yet many purchasers discovered that their repairs were not covered, despite making payments of up to $120 per month for CarShield’s product, the FTC said.

“Instead of delivering the ‘peace of mind’ promised by its advertisements, CarShield left many consumers with a financial headache,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement.

“Worse still, CarShield used trusted personalities to deliver its empty promises,” Levine said. “The FTC will hold advertisers accountable for using false or deceptive claims to exploit consumers’ financial anxieties.”

In a statement, CarShield said that while it disagreed with “many” of the FTC’s assertions, it shares the agency’s “commitment to helping customers fully understand exactly what we provide and the value we offer.”

It said that its marketing efforts now include additional details about the elements of typically covered car repair and that full plans are now “easily viewed prior to making a purchase decision.”

And CarShield said that it had expanded its Shield Repair Network “by adding more than 10,000 preferred car repair shops, and added a concierge system to help customers quickly locate a repair facility convenient for them.”

A representative for AAS did not respond to a request for comment.

Research contact: @NBCNews

For the first time ever, the Federal Trade Commission fines an organization for ‘review hijacking’

April 13. 2023

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has slapped the maker of Nature’s Bounty vitamins with a $600,000 fine for “review hijacking” its products on Amazon, reports Fortune Magazine.

The Bountiful Company, says the FTC in a press release, deceived consumers “into thinking that its newly introduced supplements had more product ratings and reviews, higher average ratings, and ‘#1 Best Seller’ and ‘Amazon’s Choice’ badges.”

Beyond the fine, Bountiful also is prohibited from making similar types of misrepresentations and deceptive review tactics.

This represents the first time that the FTC has gone after a company for alleged review jacking. The practice takes advantage of a feature on Amazon that lets vendors create “variation” relationships between products that are similar; but differ in specific ways, such as color, size, or flavor. Those appear as alternative choices on the product detail page.

The FTC says Bountiful created variations with new products to boost their sales, citing internal emails that detailed a strategy of variating new products with top-selling ones “to essentially ‘borrow’ the bestselling flags, ratings, and reviews, and first page placement” of the top sellers. One company official said Bountiful was “using this strategy with all of our launches.”

“Boosting your products by hijacking another product’s ratings or reviews is a relatively new tactic, but is still plain old false advertising,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in February when the charges were announced.

A spokesperson for Bountiful, a division of Nestlé Health Science, downplayed the penalty in a statement to Fortune.

“The Bountiful Company has settled with the FTC on this matter to avoid a lengthy and costly legal challenge,” the spokesperson said. “We stand behind our products and business practices and are convinced that consumers were neither deceived nor harmed by the variation practices implemented to assist consumers in finding similar products. Bountiful is already complying with the terms of the order and will continue to do so.”

Research contact: @FortuneMagazine

GoodRx made money selling your health data. The FTC is making it pay.

February 2, 2023

GoodRx has not been very good at protecting your privacy. In fact, reports Vox, it’s more like BadRx.  And now the Federal Trade Commission has written an expensive prescription: a hefty fine and an agreement to implement various privacy protections.

If you’re one of the tens of millions of people who used GoodRx to find bargains on your medications, the drug discount and price-shopping website and app might have done a little more than you bargained for: It sent your sensitive health data to data brokers as well as tech companies like Meta and Google to use for advertising, according to the FTC.

The FTC announced on Wednesday, February 1, that GoodRx has agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine and take various steps to ensure that it no longer shares health data for advertising purposes, that it obtains user consent to share health data for other reasons, and that it makes an effort to get the third parties with whom it previously shared data to delete that data. The move shows how committed the FTC is to protecting people from digital privacy violations, even as

Indeed, Vox notes, America lacks federal privacy laws that would make that job a lot easier. It also shows just how leaky some of these services, which we entrust with our most private information, can be.

The FTC alleges that GoodRx shared the names of medications users were looking for on the app, which medications users redeemed GoodRx coupons for at pharmacies, and which conditions they were using GoodRx’s telehealth platform to get treatment for. GoodRx is also accused of sending lists, including identifying information, of users who purchased certain medications to Meta to then target those users with ads related to the conditions GoodRx knew they had.

“Digital health companies and mobile apps should not cash in on consumers’ extremely sensitive and personally identifiable health information,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. “The FTC is serving notice that it will use all of its legal authority to protect American consumers’ sensitive data from misuse and illegal exploitation.”

GoodRx did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some of GoodRx’s practices were first exposed in February 2020 by reports from Consumer Reports and Gizmodo, which detailed how user data was being sent to third parties. At the time, GoodRx apologized, said the data wasn’t used to target ads, and implemented some privacy controls. That seemed to be the end of it, as GoodRx operates in a digital privacy gray area. Although it may collect the same data that pharmacies, doctors, and health insurance companies do, in most cases it’s not beholden to the same health privacy laws — namely, HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Even when HIPAA didn’t apply to GoodRx, the FTC says that the company gave users the impression that it did by putting a little “HIPAA” icon on its website.

When websites and apps collect and mismanage health data that isn’t covered by HIPAA, that might be a job for the FTC’s consumer protection arm. When the period tracker app Flo Health sent users’ fertility information to data brokers despite promises that it wouldn’t, the FTC went after the company for deceiving users.

The FTC is also in the midst of an unfair or deceptive acts lawsuit against Kochava, a data broker that the agency has accused of making people’s personally identifiable and sensitive location data that could cause substantial harm easily available; while those people have no way of knowing that their data is being collected or used this way, let alone how to stop it.

With GoodRx, things are a little different, as the FTC is using a rule it has never invoked before. The Health Breach Notification Rule requires vendors of personal health records that aren’t covered by HIPAA to notify consumers if their data has been accessed by a third party without consumers’ authorization. It’s been on the books since 2009, but the FTC never enforced it until now. The agency signaled a move like this would be coming in 2021, when it issued a warning to health apps and connected devices that they must get their users’ permission before disclosing their health data to third parties.

This was both a clarification of the rule and a warning that the FTC was ready and willing to enforce it. Now it’s made good on that threat for the first time. It likely won’t be the last, given FTC Chair Lina Khan’s stated commitment to data privacy and the notoriously leaky nature of apps and websites. But it should prompt some of these companies to make an effort to either better secure their users’ health data—or to make it more clear to them how and why it’s being shared with someone else, lest the hammer come down on them, too.

The FTC’s new order has to be approved by a federal court before it goes into effect. Assuming it is, the $1.5 million fine won’t kill GoodRx, which reported revenue of $745.42 million in 2021, the most recent year for which that data is available.

But it’s not nothing, either; despite pulling in almost three-quarters of a billion dollars, GoodRx ended the year with a net loss of $25.25 million. There are also the added costs of setting up all the compliance measures the FTC requires per the order; as well as however much revenue GoodRx loses as a result of users deciding to take their business elsewhere because they don’t trust GoodRx to keep their data private.

Consumers pay, too. For some of them, GoodRx disclosed their most sensitive information when they were at their most vulnerable: searching for a way to get medication they otherwise couldn’t afford. They might not be so quick to use drug discount apps in the future now that they know at least one of them sent that data to Facebook.

Research contact: @voxdotcom