Court Rules
All enforcement actions
Consent DecreeLow Risk

FTC Settles with GoDaddy Over Data Security Failures

GoDaddy Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLCMay 21, 2025Federal Trade Commission

Summary

The FTC settled charges against GoDaddy Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLC for misleading customers about their data security protections and failing to adequately secure their website hosting services. The company allegedly did not implement reasonable security measures, leaving customer websites vulnerable to attacks that could harm both the customers and visitors to those sites. The case resulted in a consent order requiring GoDaddy to improve its security practices.

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review all vendor and customer agreements where GoDaddy provides website hosting or related services. Specifically examine clauses covering security representations, warranties, and standards; audit and inspection rights; breach notification procedures; indemnification terms related to security incidents; and limitations of liability for data breaches or service vulnerabilities. Given the FTC's findings, contracts must accurately reflect the actual security practices and avoid overpromising protections. Consider adding or strengthening requirements for vulnerability testing, patch management, and customer-specific security controls, and ensure breach notification timelines align with regulatory expectations. Updates may be needed to align with the consent order's mandated security program improvements.

Contract Search Terms

security representations and warrantiessecurity measures clauseaudit rightsbreach notification clauseindemnification for security failuresservice level agreement securitydata protection addendumvulnerability management programincident response planlimitation of liability security

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

GoDaddy Inc. and GoDaddy.com, LLC

Also known as: GoDaddy

Industry

Technology

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"In the Matter of GoDaddy Inc., a corporation, and GoDaddy.com, LLC, a limited liability company."
Violation Types
"Case settles charges that GoDaddy misled customers about the extent of its data security protections and failed to secure its website hosting services against attacks that could harm its customers and visitors to the customers' websites."
Remedy Types
"Agreement Containing Consent Order"

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

Vanilla Chip LLC

$750K

The FTC finalized an order against Vanilla Chip LLC (doing business as TruHeight) and its principals for deceptively advertising height-enhancing supplements for children and teens without scientific evidence. The company also used fake reviews and incentivized 5-star ratings. The order requires a $750,000 payment and prohibits false health claims and deceptive review practices.

FTC

RentGrow Inc.

$2.3M

The FTC alleged that RentGrow, a tenant screening company, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of its reports, including by reporting duplicate records and failing to disclose data sources. RentGrow agreed to pay a $2.25 million penalty and is prohibited from further FCRA violations and from misrepresenting dispute outcomes.

FTC

Handy Technologies

The FTC and New York Attorney General took action against Handy Technologies for deceptive earnings claims and failure to disclose fees and fines that led to millions of dollars being withheld from workers' wages. The FTC is sending over $2.7 million in refunds to 62,893 affected consumers.

FTC

Hopper Inc.

$35.0M

The FTC alleged that Hopper, a travel booking app, charged consumers hidden and pre-selected fees (Tip and VIP Support) without their consent, misrepresented the benefits of VIP Support and Price Freeze services, and failed to clearly disclose total prices. Hopper agreed to pay $35 million for consumer redress and is prohibited from misrepresenting fees under a proposed order.

FTC

Publishing.com LLC

$1.5M

The FTC finalized a settlement with Publishing.com LLC and its principals for misleading consumers about potential earnings from self-publishing products. The company will pay $1.5 million and is prohibited from making unsubstantiated earnings claims, failing to disclose refund terms, and misrepresenting endorsements and reviews.

FTC

Federal Trade Commission

The FTC is seeking public comment on a proposed policy statement addressing concerns that AI companies may be manipulating AI system outputs contrary to consumer expectations for objectivity and accuracy. The statement explains that such conduct could be considered deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The public comment period runs until July 31, 2026.