The FTC issued warning letters to 13 data brokers reminding them of their obligations under the Protecting Americans' Data from Foreign Adversaries Act (PADFAA), which bans the sale or disclosure of sensitive personal data to foreign adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The letters cite instances where recipients offered data on Armed Forces members, which is protected under PADFAA. Non-compliance could result in civil penalties up to $53,088 per violation.
The data brokers are instructed to conduct a comprehensive review of their business practices to ensure compliance with PADFAA.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor and customer agreements where the company acts as a data broker or data recipient. Specifically examine data sharing, sale, or licensing clauses to ensure they explicitly prohibit the transfer of 'personally identifiable sensitive data' (as defined by PADFAA) to any foreign adversary (China, Russia, Iran, North Korea) or entities controlled by them. Clauses involving data about U.S. Armed Forces members require heightened scrutiny and must be barred. Agreements should be amended to incorporate PADFAA's restrictions, mandate recipient representations regarding foreign adversary status, and require compliance certifications. Data processing agreements and internal data handling policies must be updated to reflect the new legal boundaries on data dissemination.
Entity
13 data brokers
Also known as: Data Brokers
Industry
Data BrokerOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/02/ftc-reminds-data-brokers-their-obligations-comply-padfaa
military padfaa warning letter template
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/military-padfaa-warning-letter-template.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"13 data brokers"
"Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024 (PADFAA)"
"prohibits data brokers from selling, releasing, disclosing, or providing access to personally identifiable sensitive data about Americans to any foreign adversary"
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.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.