Penalty Amount
$16,500,000
Consumers Affected
3,690,813
The FTC settled with Avast for deceiving customers by claiming its antivirus software blocked tracking while secretly collecting and selling browsing data. Avast must pay $16.5 million in refunds and is banned from such practices. The FTC is now processing claims for affected consumers.
Avast is required to pay $16.5 million to a refund fund, is permanently banned from selling or licensing browsing data for advertising purposes and from misrepresenting data practices, and must comply with other requirements.
In-house legal teams should review all customer-facing agreements for antivirus/security software (end-user license agreements, terms of service) and vendor contracts where data is shared with third parties (e.g., analytics, advertising partners). Key clauses to scrutinize include: (1) data collection and use descriptions, ensuring they explicitly disclose if browsing data will be sold/licensed for advertising; (2) consent mechanisms, verifying they obtain affirmative, informed consent for such sales; (3) privacy policy representations, cross-checking marketing claims against permitted data practices; (4) data sharing permissions with subsidiaries or affiliates; and (5) data retention and deletion schedules. Changes may be needed to add clear, conspicuous disclosures about data sales, implement granular opt-out/opt-in consent, prohibit re-identification of data, and restrict advertising use of data from security products.
Entity
Avast
Industry
TechnologyOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/02/ftc-announces-refund-claims-process-avast-customers-impacted-deceptive-privacy-claims
ftc order will ban avast selling browsing data advertising p
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/02/ftc-order-will-ban-avast-selling-browsing-data-advertising-purposes-require-it-pay-165-million-over
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Avast"
"pay $16.5 million"
"deceived users by claiming that its software would protect consumers’ privacy by blocking third party tracking, but it failed to adequately inform consumers that it would collect and sell their detailed, re-identifiable browsing data."
"February 2024"
The FTC filed a complaint alleging that GovAssist LLC, Entry LLC, and Scott Zuckerman used deceptive paid search ads, misleading service and pricing claims, and fake reviews to deceive consumers seeking passport services. The complaint alleges violations of the FTC Act, the Impersonation Rule, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; the case will be decided by the court, and no penalty or remedy is reported as imposed.
The FTC issued its annual report to Congress describing fraud trends affecting older adults and the agency’s enforcement, education, and outreach efforts. The report is not a specific privacy enforcement action and announces no penalty or remedy.
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.
$106.8M
A federal court entered a $106.8 million default judgment against corporate defendants in an alleged debt-relief scheme that impersonated banks and government entities and targeted seniors and veterans. The judgment permanently bans the defendants from the debt-relief industry and imposes additional prohibitions, including on impersonation, telemarketing, and misrepresentations.
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.