Business Blog
Lock Mess
There’s lots of public information out there about people. So it’s no surprise there’s a booming business in the sale of data – and in the sale of services that promise to protect personal information. The FTC’s recent settlement with data broker US Search demonstrates that like any other advertising claims, representations about privacy and security must be substantiated.
US Search sells search services through a website. For a fee, people can enter someone’s name, address, or phone number and get additional information about them – like their age, address history, relatives, neighbors and associates, marriages and divorces, bankruptcies, tax liens, lawsuits, state criminal records, home value, and email addresses.
In addition to selling access to information, US Search sold a "PrivacyLock" service that claimed to block the appearance of buyers’ names and addresses in their search results. The company charged $10, but waived the fee for certain groups, like victims of identity theft who provided supporting documentation. The company claimed that buying PrivacyLock would "offer individuals the ability to lock their records on US Search in accordance with laws and US Search policy." The company further stated, "When you enroll in the US Search PrivacyLock Service, you are taking a valuable step in securing your personal information. While many information providers either don’t offer or don’t honor privacy solutions, US Search quickly processes each request and provides verifiable results that can be backed by our 1 year promise."
According to the FTC’s lawsuit, PrivacyLock didn’t function as advertised. For example, PrivacyLock didn’t block a person’s information from appearing in the results of a reverse search of their phone number or address or in a search of their address in real estate records. Furthermore, the FTC alleged that PrivacyLock didn’t block a buyer’s name from showing up as an associate of someone else. In addition, when buyers had multiple records – for example, Mary A. Smith and Mary Ann Smith – PrivacyLock may have applied to only one record.
The FTC’s proposed settlement requires the company to give refunds to people who bought PrivacyLock and bars it from misrepresenting the effectiveness of PrivacyLock or similar services in the future.
It is your choice whether to submit a comment. If you do, you must create a user name, or we will not post your comment. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes this information collection for purposes of managing online comments. Comments and user names are part of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) public records system, and user names also are part of the FTC’s computer user records system. We may routinely use these records as described in the FTC’s Privacy Act system notices. For more information on how the FTC handles information that we collect, please read our privacy policy.
The purpose of this blog and its comments section is to inform readers about Federal Trade Commission activity, and share information to help them avoid, report, and recover from fraud, scams, and bad business practices. Your thoughts, ideas, and concerns are welcome, and we encourage comments. But keep in mind, this is a moderated blog. We review all comments before they are posted, and we won’t post comments that don’t comply with our commenting policy. We expect commenters to treat each other and the blog writers with respect.
We don't edit comments to remove objectionable content, so please ensure that your comment contains none of the above. The comments posted on this blog become part of the public domain. To protect your privacy and the privacy of other people, please do not include personal information. Opinions in comments that appear in this blog belong to the individuals who expressed them. They do not belong to or represent views of the Federal Trade Commission.