The FTC settled with InMarket Media for unlawfully collecting and using consumers' precise location data without adequate notice and consent. The order prohibits InMarket from selling or sharing precise location data, requires deletion of collected data, and mandates consumer consent mechanisms and privacy programs.
InMarket is banned from selling or sharing precise location data, must delete previously collected location data unless consent is obtained or data is deidentified, must provide a way for consumers to withdraw consent and request deletion, and must create sensitive location data and privacy programs.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor agreements (particularly those involving SDK integrations or third-party data sources), customer contracts, and data processing addendums. Focus on clauses governing data collection scope, consent mechanisms, data sharing/licensing rights, data retention, and breach notification. Changes will likely be needed to explicitly prohibit the collection, use, or sharing of 'precise location data' without granular, informed consent; mandate data deletion protocols; require robust privacy programs; and impose obligations on any third-party SDK providers to obtain valid consumer consent.
Entity
InMarket Media
Also known as: InMarket
Industry
Data BrokerOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/05/ftc-finalizes-order-inmarket-prohibiting-it-selling-or-sharing-precise-location-data
InMarketMedia Complaint
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/InMarketMedia-Complaint.pdf
InMarketMedia DecisionandOrder
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/InMarketMedia-DecisionandOrder.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"InMarket Media"
"failed to fully inform consumers about how their location data—which can include sensitive information about where they live, work and worship—would be used"
"failed to ensure that third-party apps that use its SDK obtained informed consent from consumers."
"precise location data"
"unlawfully collected and used consumers’ location data"
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.