Penalty Amount
$2,950,000
Consumers Affected
150,000
Verkada, a security camera company, failed to secure customer data, leading to a hacker accessing over 150,000 cameras and sensitive health information. The company also violated the CAN-SPAM Act by sending spam emails without proper opt-out mechanisms. To settle, Verkada will pay $2.95 million and implement a comprehensive security program with audits.
Verkada must pay $2.95 million, implement a comprehensive information security program with third-party audits, and is prohibited from making misrepresentations about its privacy practices and from violating the CAN-SPAM Act.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor agreements with healthcare providers (hospitals, clinics) and customer contracts for security camera services, as Verkada's failures involved inadequate protection of health data viewed via cameras. Key clauses to scrutinize include data security standards, HIPAA compliance obligations, breach notification timelines and procedures, and limitations of liability for data incidents. For marketing-related agreements, review email marketing terms, consent requirements, and opt-out mechanisms to ensure CAN-SPAM Act compliance. Contracts may need amendments to mandate specific technical safeguards (e.g., encryption, access controls), require regular security audits, incorporate HIPAA business associate terms, and strengthen email compliance provisions with clear unsubscribe functionality and record-keeping.
Entity
Verkada
Industry
TechnologyOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/ftc-takes-action-against-security-camera-firm-verkada-over-charges-it-failed-secure-videos-other
2123068verkadajtmtnstipulatedorder
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2123068verkadajtmtnstipulatedorder.pdf
2123068verkadacomplaint
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/2123068verkadacomplaint.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Verkada"
"pay a $2.95 million monetary penalty"
"CAN-SPAM Act"
"Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)"
"EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework"
"Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework"
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.