LifeLock complaints and the FTC settlement: What’s the real story?
There’s an interesting blog post at GuardMyCreditFile.com regarding LifeLock’s recent settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. The website belongs to the American Consumer Credit Education Support Services (ACCESS), a non-profit consumer advocacy organization whose primary purpose is to disseminate credit education information and assistance to the public.
In the article, the ACCESS author addresses the FTC’s principle complaints against LifeLock: That LifeLock’s CEO, Todd Davis, assured their 1.6 million members that LifeLock provides ironclad, absolute protection against identity theft. Secondly, the FTC took exception to Davis’ flagrant display of his personal Social Security number in print ads, TV commercials, the company website—even on the side of a truck in Manhattan. The FTC asserts Davis misused his own Social Security number.
Both of these allegations are feeble. If LifeLock presented its services as absolute protection against identity theft, why would the company include a $1,000,000 Total Service Guarantee to assist in a members’ recovery and identity restoration if they become identity theft victims while they are LifeLock members? Doesn’t that constitute an admission of their service’s potential fallibility as well as their confidence in its quality?
The author details an instance in which LifeLock applied their Total Service Guarantee in the ID theft recovery of a member whose identity was stolen years before becoming a member. (Statement of full disclosure: I am a LifeLock member, and decided to become one after hearing similar stories that portray the company’s policy of doing what’s right, not just what’s promised.)
The second complaint regarding Davis’ misuse of his own Social Security number is equally bewildering. The level of consumers’ identity theft risk resulting from a data breach is determined by the specific compromised information.
For instance, if only names and addresses have been improperly accessed, the risk level is considered minor. The most serious risk occurs if consumers’ personally identifying information, i.e., Social Security numbers, are disclosed.
When it comes to personally identifying information, Social Security numbers are penultimate; they are the mother lode, the keys to the castle, the one bit of information we are advised to protect most vigorously. As such, is there any other bit of personally identifying information more personal? Is there any other bit of personally identifying information consumers “own” and are entitled to disclose or not?
Upon thoughtful consideration of the FTC’s complaints, the ACCESS writer is led to question the impetus of the FTC’s case. There have been millions of complaints against other companies—specifically, credit reporting agencies—that also offer identity theft protection services, compared to the 200 the FTC claims to have received from dissatisfied LifeLock members Why was LifeLock singled out?
Tags: Federal Trade Commission, FTC, LifeLock complaints, LifeLock Reviews
