The FTC settled with Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. for misleading consumers about its participation in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework. The company allowed its certification to lapse in 2018 but continued to claim participation. The settlement prohibits such misrepresentations and requires compliance with Privacy Shield obligations for data collected or deletion of such data.
Ortho-Clinical is prohibited from misrepresenting its participation in privacy frameworks, must comply with Privacy Shield obligations for data collected while participating, or return or delete such data.
In-house legal teams should review all agreements involving the transfer of personal data from the European Union to the United States, including vendor contracts, customer agreements, and data processing addendums. Focus on clauses that (1) represent compliance with specific data transfer frameworks like the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, (2) warrant the accuracy of certification or participation status in such frameworks, (3) outline obligations for data protection, audit rights, and (4) specify data retention, deletion, or return requirements upon termination or lapse of certification. Changes may be needed to ensure representations accurately reflect current certification status, incorporate fallback data transfer mechanisms (e.g., Standard Contractual Clauses), and explicitly require data deletion or return if a framework like Privacy Shield is no longer valid.
Entity
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc.
Also known as: Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics
Industry
HealthcareOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/07/ftc-finalizes-privacy-shield-settlement-ortho-clinical
medical diagnostic device maker settles allegations it misle
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/03/medical-diagnostic-device-maker-settles-allegations-it-misled-consumers-about-its-participation-eu
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc."
"The FTC alleged that New Jersey-based Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. claimed that it participated in the Privacy Shield framework and complied with the program’s requirements, even though the company had allowed its certification to lapse in 2018."
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.