Penalty Amount
$20,000,000
The FTC settled with Vivint Smart Homes, Inc. for $20 million over allegations that the company misused consumer credit reports to secure financing for unqualified customers, harming consumers' credit. The FTC is now distributing approximately $500,000 in refunds to affected consumers.
Vivint was ordered to pay $20 million in penalties and is distributing refunds to harmed consumers.
In-house legal teams should review all customer financing agreements, vendor contracts with third-party lenders, and service agreements involving credit-based financing. Key clauses to examine include those governing the authorization and scope of credit report pulls, requirements for obtaining explicit cosigner consent, data sharing permissions with financing partners and debt collectors, and representations regarding applicant eligibility. Contracts may need amendments to mandate strict verification of applicant identity before credit pulls, prohibit the use of unrelated third parties' credit data, require clear disclosure of cosigner obligations, and establish procedures for promptly correcting credit reporting errors and addressing identity theft claims.
Entity
Vivint Smart Homes, Inc.
Also known as: Vivint
Industry
TechnologyOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/12/ftc-sends-payments-consumers-harmed-vivints-misuse-consumer-credit-reports
smart home monitoring company vivint will pay 20 million set
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/04/smart-home-monitoring-company-vivint-will-pay-20-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misused-consumer
RefundsbyCase
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/federal.trade.commission/viz/Refunds_15797958402020/RefundsbyCase
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Vivint Smart Homes, Inc."
"Will Pay $20 Million"
"obtained financing for unqualified customers by using the credit history of an unrelated third party with the same or similar name, or adding cosigners without their permission."
"in April 2021"
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.