New: a trial court in 1 of every 10 U.S. counties. Read the post
Court Rules
All enforcement actions
SettlementLow Risk

FTC Settles with Ring for $5.6M Over Video Security Failures

Penalty Amount

$5,600,000

Consumers Affected

117,044

Summary

The FTC settled with Ring for failing to secure consumer videos, allowing unauthorized access by employees and hackers. Ring agreed to provide $5.6 million in refunds to affected customers and implement security measures.

Remedy

Ring is required to provide refunds totaling over $5.6 million to affected consumers and implement security safeguards to protect customer videos.

Consumer Refunds

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review customer agreements (e.g., terms of service, privacy policies) for clauses governing data security, access controls, and video privacy, ensuring they impose obligations to secure consumer videos, restrict employee/contractor access, obtain consent for video use (such as algorithm training), and include breach notification procedures. Vendor agreements must be assessed for third-party security standards, and employee agreements should incorporate access control provisions. Potential changes include adding explicit security standards, mandatory consent mechanisms, enhanced breach response protocols, and refund or compensation terms for security failures.

Contract Search Terms

data security clauseaccess restriction policyemployee access controlsvideo privacy consentbreach notification requirementunauthorized access preventionsecurity safeguards obligationrefund mechanismdata processing consentsurveillance restrictions

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

Ring

Industry

Technology

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"Ring"
Violation Types
"Ring deceived its customers by failing to restrict employees’ and contractors’ access to its customers’ videos, using its customer videos to train algorithms without consent, and failing to implement security safeguards."
Consumers Affected
"117,044 PayPal payments"

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

REPS & Company Inc.

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.

FTC

Digital Forensics Corporation LLC

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.

FTC

Greenway Auto Group

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.

FTC

24 healthcare services companies (not individually named)

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.

FTC

Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC

$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.

FTC

Lens.com Inc.

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.