FCC Issues Largest Ever Fine To Verizon For Hiding Ability To 'Opt-Out' Of Selling Customer Info To Marketers
from the still-a-slap-on-the-wrist dept
The big telcos don't exactly have particularly good records protecting your privacy. And now the FCC has reached an agreement with Verizon to pay the largest ever fine to the FCC to settle a long-term practice of hiding the fact that customers could opt-out of having their private info shared with marketers. Even as the "largest" ever such fine, it's still pennies for Verizon at $7.4 million.At issue was that Verizon is required to have either an opt-in system for sharing information on users with marketers or an opt-out system. But if they have an opt-out system, they have to clearly tell new customers that they can opt-out and how to do so. Not surprisingly, Verizon chose the "opt-out" method... and then conveniently left out the part where they tell customers they have the right to opt-out. And they did this for several years. To approximately two million customers. Oh, and to make matters worse, the company is required to let the FCC know of any violation within five business days of becoming aware of it. Verizon finally "noticed" it's own failure to tell people about the opt-out in September of 2012, but forgot to say anything to the FCC for... 126 days. That's a bit longer than five.
For many of its customers, Verizon has used an opt-out process, sending opt-out notices to customers either as a message in their first bill or in a welcome letter. During its investigation, the Enforcement Bureau learned that, beginning in 2006 and continuing for several years thereafter, Verizon failed to generate the required opt-out notices to approximately two million customers, depriving them of their right to deny Verizon permission to access or use their personal information for certain marketing purposes. Moreover, the Enforcement Bureau learned that Verizon personnel failed to discover these problems until September 2012, and the company failed to notify the FCC of these problems until January 18, 2013, 126 days later. Under the terms of the Consent Decree the FCC announced today, Verizon must take significant steps to improve how it protects the privacy rights of its customers. For example, Verizon will now include opt-out notices on every bill, not just the first bill, and it will put systems in place to monitor and test its billing systems and opt-out notice process to ensure that customers are receiving proper notices of their privacy rights. Any problems detected that are more than an anomaly must be reported to the Commission within five business days, and any noncompliance must be reported as well.The fine is a slap on the wrist, but this once again suggests the rather cavalier attitude the telcos have concerning privacy and the ways in which they clearly are not particularly concerned about obeying FCC regulations.
To resolve the matter, Verizon will pay $7.4 million to the U.S. Treasury, which is the largest such payment in FCC history for settling an investigation related solely to the privacy of telephone customers’ personal information.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: fcc, fine, marketing, opt out, privacy
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rich people don't use Verizon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rich people don't use Verizon?
Point is (can't believe it needs explanation) apparently this is only a concern when rich people's info is stolen, leaked, sold, whatever.
Rich people evil? I have no idea where you get this - wtf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rich people don't use Verizon?
"A criminal is a person with predatory instincts without sufficient capital to form a corporation."
-- Howard Scott
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rich people don't use Verizon?
"it certainly does seem that a disproportionate number of evil people--and especially of evil people who get away with it--are rich."
It might seem that way without it being true because evil people who are wealthy are much more likely to actually affect your life than evil people who are poor.
However, I happen to strongly suspect that the percentage of people who are evil is greater in the "rich" group than "poor" group. I suspect this for two reasons:
1) You pretty much have to engage in unethical or illegal behavior in order to amass a huge amount of wealth. It's how the system is designed, and
2) Evil is attracted to power, and in our society money is power. Therefore, on the whole, evil people are more likely to desire great wealth enough to work to attain it than non-evil people are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you ask me, the fine isn't large enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That way the fine amount is directly connected to the profits Verizon made from 'forgetting' to tell their customers how to opt out, it's large enough to completely eliminate any gain they might have made from doing so, and those affected get at least some repayment for what's been done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At the very least, journalists need to stop reporting the absolute dollar amount and report fines in terms of % of income. It's the only measure that actually matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The default setting on most anything should be opt-in.
Telemarketers tell tales about how people WANT their calls, so put your money where your mouth is make those customers clearly opt in.
My tears when that industry collapses won't be real.
Charities, Political, etc etc... make that all opt-in.
I bet you those notices would be in every bill, free texts every month, and they would offer extras to get people to do it. It is clear they failed at their responsibilities with opt-out so fine them every damn cent they earned for that failure and set the default to opt-in.
Why anyone thinks that opt-out is the best possible practice is beyond me. You are forcing customers to jump through all sorts of hoops and high pressure tactics to not do it. With opt-in those who are interested would have a super easy way to say yes by all means call me at dinnertime and tell me all about how you can fix this problem in my life.
Sure call me 14 times a day and tell me the lies about how this candidate wants to sell the country to the russians.
Trick someone into doing it... the fine is every cent you earned from selling that data that year... twice.
Problem - actual solution.
I have a right to not be bothered if I don't want to be.
You do not have a right to sell access to bother me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good on them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good on them!
Business as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good on them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good on them!
BofA Grabs $12 Billion Tax Write-Off From $17 Billion Mortgage Settlement
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/21/bofa-grabs-12-billion-tax-write-off-from -17-billion-mortgage-settlement/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good on them!
Settlements with government agencies shouldn't be tax write-offs.
F'ing idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC needs to set rules to make those "Opt-In" only
Modify all programs like that for Cellular / Internet / Telephone companies to be Opt-In, with everyone's status immediately reverted to Opt-Out, then wait for the users to call to be added back if they wish to be.
That's the only "right" way for things to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Fine Is Not the Punishment
Of course, since the Supreme Court gutted class actions in the name of arbitration, this likely no longer applies. I'll bet Verizon didn't "accidentally" forget to include a class action waiver / arbitration clause in their form contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No problem, I have $7.4 in my wallet
There are two ways this will play out:
1) This fine is so low (which it is) that they'll consider it a cost of doing business, pay it, and keep doing it until they're caught again... and pay that fee.
2) They take the fine seriously and charge their customers more money to cover this "loss".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
=$0.62 per person per year.
The fine should be at a minimum, $1 per user per year, plus a multiplier of how many times over the required reporting limit they are, 126days/5days
= 25.2
5 days is pretty tight tho, so give them a grace period of 1 month, so it's (126 days - 30 days) /5
= 19
final fine 1*2000000people*6years*19 = $228million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fairness in fines
Corporations should face the same consideration. Every instance of each person affected should result in a cumulative fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]