Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Analytics Company Settles Charges For User Tracking

Posted by samzenpus on from the don't-track-me-bro dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A web analytics company has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated federal law by using its web-tracking software that collected personal data without disclosing the extent of the information that it was collecting. The company, Compete Inc., also allegedly failed to honor promises it made to protect the personal data it collected. KISSmetrics, the developer and seller of the homonymous tool, has agreed to pay up to make the suit go away, but the the two plaintiffs will get only $5,000 each, while the rest of the money — more than half a million dollars — will go to their lawyers for legal fees."

8 of 43 comments (clear)

  1. And the real crime... by macbeth66 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but the the two plaintiffs will get only $5,000 each, while the rest of the money — more than half a million dollars — will go to their lawyers for legal fees."

    Posted at the end of the submission.

    1. Re:And the real crime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Already modded, but wanted to add something, so posting anonymously. In cases such as this, as well as class actions, lawyer fees really need to be set as a percentage, maybe 10-15%, of what the plaintiffs/class receive. This ensures both that the party causing the harm gets punished, and the part(y)(ies) that experienced the harm receive restitution as well. Because as it currently sits, these types of cases seem to be more of a welfare program for lawyers than anything else.

    2. Re:And the real crime... by retchdog · · Score: 2

      well, when you put it like that, i guess you should have been a lawyer.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    3. Re:And the real crime... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      sn't the case many times that the lawyers bare the cost of the lawsuit

      No. Attorneys only take cases such as these when they know they will win. What would be the point of taking a case where they, the attorney, bore the expenses without being compensated?

      This was a clear cut case so the attorneys took it knowing they could get bundles of money for themselves while making it seem like the plaintiffs won a victory.

      An instructor for one of my legal classes made the following statement when dealing with trials: Never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

      The same applies to cases such as this: Never take a case which you know you won't win.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  2. Re:Lawyers by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Justice. Seriously, they did.

  3. Re:Who should really win? by Desler · · Score: 2

    Then don't hire a lawyer on contingency if you don't like their terms. No one forces these people to sign the contract with the lawyer.

  4. These are two separate suits. by scdeimos · · Score: 3, Informative

    The summary doesn't make it clear: these are two separate suits. From TFA:

    1. Compete failed to remove personal data before transmitting it; failed to provide reasonable and appropriate data security; transmitted sensitive information from secure websites in readable text; failed to design and implement reasonable safeguards to protect consumers’ data; and failed to use readily available measures to mitigate the risk to consumers’ data. The proposed settlement order requires Compete and its clients to fully disclose the information they collect and get consumers’ express consent before they collect consumers’ data in the future, that the company delete or anonymize the use of the consumer data it already has collected, and that it provide directions to consumers for uninstalling its software. The settlement bars misrepresentations about the company’s privacy and data security practices and requires that it implement a comprehensive information security program with independent third-party audits every two years for 20 years.

    2. KISSmetrics has also agreed to settle a lawsuit that charged them with using a tool that would "resuscitate" cookies deleted by privacy-minded users in order to surreptitiously track their online behavior. KISSmetrics has agreed to pay up to make the suit go away, but the two plaintiffs will get only $5,000 each, while the rest of the money - more than half a million dollars - will go to their lawyers for legal fees. The settlement does not contain an admission of guilt from KISSmetrics, but just a promise that it will not track users without their permission in the future.

  5. Re:Half a million dollars is a speed bump by Kalriath · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's nothing like that actually. There's two completely different lawsuits mentioned in TFA which the editor (oh. Samzenpus.) managed to compress into one when doing the summary. Compete doesn't actually have to pay a cent, but their settlement with the FTC requires them to complete third party audits every two years, immediately cease the infringing activity, delete (or anonymize) any data it already collected, and get express consent before ever collecting info again. KISSmetrics has to pay half a million dollars for developing their platform in such a way that it resurrected deleted cookies so that you couldn't escape tracking. They also didn't admit guilt, so there's nothing stopping them carrying on doing it.

    --
    For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".