Consumers Affected
2,500,000
The FTC finalized an order against Drizly and its CEO for security failures that led to a data breach exposing 2.5 million consumers' personal information. Drizly failed to implement basic security measures despite prior alerts. The order requires Drizly to destroy unnecessary data, implement a security program, and publicly detail data collection practices.
Drizly must destroy personal data not necessary for services, refrain from unnecessary data collection, implement an information security program, and publicly disclose data collection practices on its website. CEO James Cory Rellas must implement an information security program at future companies where he has a majority ownership or senior security role if the business collects data from over 25,000 individuals.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor, customer, and data processing agreements for clauses related to data security, data retention, and data collection practices. Specifically, examine security standards, data minimization obligations, retention schedules, and audit rights. Contracts may need amendments to mandate specific security controls (e.g., encryption, access controls), require regular security assessments, enforce strict data retention limits aligned with 'necessary for specific purposes,' and include robust breach notification and cooperation provisions. Additionally, agreements should incorporate rights to audit the vendor's security program and require transparency about data collection purposes, mirroring the FTC's order for public disclosure.
Entity
Drizly
Industry
RetailOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/01/ftc-finalizes-order-online-alcohol-marketplace-security-failures-exposed-personal-data-25-million
2023185 drizly combined consent
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2023185-drizly-combined-consent.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Drizly"
"failed to implement basic security measures"
"data breach exposing the personal information"
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.