The FTC finalized an order against IntelliVision Technologies Corp. for making deceptive claims about its facial recognition software's accuracy and lack of bias. The company must now back up any claims with competent testing and is prohibited from misrepresenting the software's performance. No monetary penalty was imposed.
IntelliVision is prohibited from making false or unsubstantiated claims about its facial recognition software's accuracy, bias, and anti-spoofing capabilities. The company must rely on competent and reliable testing before making any representations about the technology.
In-house legal teams should review vendor and customer agreements, particularly those involving AI or biometric software licensing or services, for clauses related to representations, warranties, and performance standards. Focus on terms governing accuracy claims, bias testing, and validation requirements. Agreements may need amendments to mandate competent testing to substantiate any claims about software accuracy or lack of bias, explicitly prohibit misrepresentations, and incorporate specific validation protocols. Additionally, ensure compliance clauses align with FTC standards to avoid deceptive practices, and consider adding audit rights for verifying claims.
Entity
IntelliVision Technologies Corp.
Also known as: IntelliVision Technologies
Industry
TechnologyOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/232-3023-intellivision-matter
2323023c4809intellivisionfinalconsent
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2323023c4809intellivisionfinalconsent.pdf
2323023c4809intellivisionfinalorder
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2323023c4809intellivisionfinalorder.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"IntelliVision Technologies Corp."
"lacked evidence to back up its claims that its software had one of the highest accuracy rates on the market and performs with zero gender or racial bias."
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.