Penalty Amount
$49,500
Consumers Affected
2,432
The FTC settled with genetic testing company 1Health.io for failing to secure sensitive genetic and health data, deceiving consumers about data deletion, and unfairly changing its privacy policy without notice or consent. The settlement includes refunds totaling over $49,500 to 2,432 affected consumers.
The company must provide refunds to affected consumers totaling more than $49,500.
In-house legal teams should review vendor agreements (if 1Health.io is a service provider), customer/consumer agreements, and data processing addendums. Key clauses to examine include data security obligations (ensuring they specify industry-standard protections for sensitive genetic/health data), data deletion procedures (verifying enforceable deletion guarantees and processes), privacy policy modification terms (checking for requirements around notice and consent before changes), and data inventory maintenance commitments. Potential changes needed: add explicit security requirements with audit rights, mandate verifiable deletion processes with confirmation, require advance notice and affirmative consent for policy updates, and include provisions for regular security assessments and inventory upkeep.
Entity
1Health.io
Industry
HealthcareOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/09/ftc-sends-refunds-consumers-deceived-genetic-testing-firm-1healthio-over-data-deletion-security
ftc says genetic testing company 1health failed protect priv
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/06/ftc-says-genetic-testing-company-1health-failed-protect-privacy-security-dna-data-unfairly-changed
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"1Health.io"
"left sensitive genetic and health data unsecured"
"deceived consumers about their ability to get their data deleted"
"without notifying consumers or obtaining their consent"
"genetic and health data"
$75K
The FTC finalized an order against 1Health.io for failing to secure genetic data and unfairly changing its privacy policy. The company must pay $75,000 for consumer refunds, destroy DNA samples, and implement security measures. It deceived consumers about data deletion and shared data without proper consent.
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.