Penalty Amount
$5,000,000,000
The FTC charged Facebook with deceiving consumers about its privacy practices and violating a 2012 consent order. In July 2019, Facebook agreed to pay a $5 billion civil penalty and accept comprehensive new privacy restrictions.
Facebook must pay a $5 billion civil penalty and comply with injunctive relief that imposes sweeping new privacy restrictions.
In-house legal teams should review all customer agreements (e.g., terms of service), vendor contracts, and data processing addendums for clauses related to privacy promises, user consent for data collection and sharing, breach notification procedures, data retention and deletion policies, audit rights, and regulatory compliance. Given the FTC's findings of deceptive practices and violation of the 2012 Consent Order, contracts must be updated to ensure privacy representations are clear and non-misleading, incorporate explicit consent mechanisms for data sharing, mandate compliance with FTC orders, enhance security standards, and strengthen breach notification protocols. Specific changes may include adding language on FTC adherence, revising indemnification to cover privacy breaches, and ensuring data sharing is contingent on verifiable user consent.
Entity
Facebook, Inc.
Also known as: Meta
Industry
Social MediaOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/092-3184-182-3109-c-4365-facebook-inc-matter
182 3109 facebook complaint filed 7 24 19
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/182_3109_facebook_complaint_filed_7-24-19.pdf
182 3109 facebook order filed 7 24 19
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/182_3109_facebook_order_filed_7-24-19.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"In the Matter of Facebook, Inc., a corporation"
"FTC Imposes $5 Billion Penalty and Sweeping New Privacy Restrictions on Facebook"
"July 24, 2019"
"Stipulated Order for Civil Penalty, Monetary Judgment and Injunctive Relief"
"The FTC alleged that Facebook violated its privacy promises to consumers and subsequently violated a 2012 Commission order."
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.