The FTC settled with Ascension Data & Analytics, LLC for violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's Safeguards Rule by failing to ensure its vendor properly protected consumer data. The company must strengthen its security safeguards and increase oversight of vendors. No monetary penalty was imposed.
The company is required to implement and maintain a comprehensive information security program, ensure third-party vendors have adequate safeguards, and increase oversight of vendors.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor and data processing agreements, particularly those involving financial or consumer data. Focus on clauses addressing data security standards, third-party vendor oversight, compliance with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) Safeguards Rule, encryption requirements, access controls, regular risk assessments, audit rights, and breach notification procedures. Changes may be needed to mandate that vendors implement specific security measures (e.g., encryption, password protection), require annual security audits or certifications of GLBA compliance, include indemnification for data breaches, and grant termination rights for non-compliance with security obligations.
Entity
Ascension Data & Analytics, LLC
Also known as: Ascension Data & Analytics
Industry
Financial ServicesOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/12/ftc-finalizes-order-mortgage-analytics-firm-requiring-it-strengthen-security-safeguards-increase
mortgage analytics company settles ftc allegations it failed
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/mortgage-analytics-company-settles-ftc-allegations-it-failed
1923126ascensionslaughterdissent
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1599131/1923126ascensionslaughterdissent.pdf
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
Ascension Data & Analytics, LLC, a mortgage analytics company, settled FTC allegations that it violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act's Safeguards Rule by failing to ensure its vendor adequately protected consumer data. The vendor stored sensitive mortgage information in plain text on a cloud server, leading to unauthorized access. Ascension must implement a data security program, undergo biennial assessments, and report future breaches.
$930K
The FTC finalized orders requiring CMG Media Corporation (doing business as Cox Media Group), MindSift LLC, and 1010 Digital Works LLC to pay a total of $930,000 for falsely claiming they offered an AI-powered service that could target ads based on conversations captured from consumers' smart devices, and that consumers had opted into such targeting. The orders also prohibit the companies from making misrepresentations about their advertising services, voice data collection, and consumer consent.
The FTC announced it is seeking public comment on a proposed enforcement policy statement regarding personalized pricing, which is the use of personal data to set prices based on what a company believes an individual consumer is willing to spend. The statement warns that undisclosed collection or use of personal data for personalized pricing could violate the FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive practices. The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the Federal Register notice.
$4.0M
The FTC and Connecticut secured a $4 million settlement with Chase Nissan LLC (doing business as Manchester City Nissan) over allegations the dealership charged consumers unauthorized fees, including double-charging for 'certified pre-owned' vehicles and inserting charges like total loss protection into financing agreements without consent. The settlement requires $4 million in consumer redress, prohibits misrepresentations about vehicle certification and warranties, mandates prominent disclosure of the maximum total vehicle price, and requires express informed consent for all charges.
The FTC filed a complaint against Credit Glory LLC and related entities for deceptive credit repair practices, including false promises, impersonating debt collectors, charging illegal upfront fees, and using negative option billing without consent. A federal court temporarily halted the operation.
The FTC issued a policy statement abandoning disparate-impact liability, stating it will no longer bring claims based on this theory. It also modified compliance obligations for several companies based on past decisions.