Court Rules
All enforcement actions
SettlementCritical RiskMultistate

FTC, DOJ Ban MyLife's Negative Option Marketing, Secure $21M for Consumers

MyLife.com, Inc.December 15, 2021Federal Trade Commission

Penalty Amount

$33,900,000

Summary

The FTC and DOJ settled with MyLife.com, Inc. and its CEO for deceiving consumers with misleading background reports that falsely implied criminal records and for engaging in difficult-to-cancel subscription practices. MyLife violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, and Telemarketing Sales Rule. The settlement includes a permanent ban on negative option marketing, $33.9 million in judgments for consumer refunds, and a monitoring program.

Remedy

Permanent ban on negative option marketing, $33.9 million in judgments for consumer refunds (with $16 million partially suspended), and requirement for MyLife to implement a monitoring program for FCRA compliance.

BanMonetary PenaltyConsent DecreeCompliance ProgramConsumer Refunds

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review all customer-facing subscription agreements, service terms, and any vendor/data provider contracts where background reports are involved. Key clauses to scrutinize include: negative option/auto-renewal provisions, cancellation and termination procedures (ensuring they are simple and not 'difficult-to-cancel'), disclosures related to report content and limitations (especially regarding criminal/arrest records), billing and payment terms, refund policies, and any representations about data accuracy. Given the FCRA violation, contracts involving consumer reports must include robust compliance warranties and indemnification clauses. Changes may be needed to simplify cancellation processes, add clear, non-misleading disclosures about what reports contain (or do not contain), implement explicit consent for billing cycles, and strengthen FCRA-related obligations and audit rights.

Contract Search Terms

negative option marketingauto-renewing subscriptioncancellation mechanismbackground report disclosureFCRA complianceteaser reportbilling transparencysubscription termsconsumer consent for billingrefund policy

Laws Cited

Fair Credit Reporting ActRestore Online Shoppers’ Confidence ActTelemarketing Sales Rule

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

MyLife.com, Inc.

Also known as: MyLife.com

Industry

Data Broker

Multistate Coalition

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"MyLife.com, Inc."
Fine Amount
"Tinsley and MyLife agreed to separate judgments totaling $33.9 million."
Laws Cited
"violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)"
Laws Cited
"violated the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act"
Laws Cited
"violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule"
Violation Types
"deceived consumers with misleading 'teaser background reports'"

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

MyLife.com, Inc.

The FTC filed a complaint against MyLife.com, Inc. and its CEO for deceiving consumers with 'teaser background reports' that falsely claimed to include criminal and arrest records, and for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to ensure accuracy and permissible purpose. The company also engaged in misleading billing practices under the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act and Telemarketing Sales Rule.

FTC

CMG Media Corporation

$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.

FTC

Federal Trade Commission

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.

FTC

Chase Nissan LLC

$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.

FTC

Credit Glory LLC

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.

FTC

Federal Trade Commission

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.