Ring Customers Get $5.6 Million In Refunds In Privacy Settlement (apnews.com) 9
The FTC is issuing more than $5.6 million in refunds to Ring customers as part of a privacy settlement. The Associated Press reports: In a 2023 complaint, the FTC accused the doorbell camera and home security provider of allowing its employees and contractors to access customers' private videos. Ring allegedly used such footage to train algorithms without consent, among other purposes. Ring was also charged with failing to implement key security protections, which enabled hackers to take control of customers' accounts, cameras and videos. This led to "egregious violations of users' privacy," the FTC noted.
The resulting settlement required Ring to delete content that was found to be unlawfully obtained, establish stronger security protections and pay a hefty fine. The FTC says that it's now using much of that money to refund eligible Ring customers. According to a Tuesday notice, the FTC is sending 117,044 PayPal payments to impacted consumers who had certain types of Ring devices -- including indoor cameras -- during the timeframes that the regulators allege unauthorized access took place. Eligible customers will need to redeem these payments within 30 days, according to the FTC -- which added that consumers can contact this case's refund administrator, Rust Consulting, or visit the FTC's FAQ page on refunds for more information about the process.
The resulting settlement required Ring to delete content that was found to be unlawfully obtained, establish stronger security protections and pay a hefty fine. The FTC says that it's now using much of that money to refund eligible Ring customers. According to a Tuesday notice, the FTC is sending 117,044 PayPal payments to impacted consumers who had certain types of Ring devices -- including indoor cameras -- during the timeframes that the regulators allege unauthorized access took place. Eligible customers will need to redeem these payments within 30 days, according to the FTC -- which added that consumers can contact this case's refund administrator, Rust Consulting, or visit the FTC's FAQ page on refunds for more information about the process.
PayPal? WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
How did they land that gig?
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcemen... [ftc.gov]
According to their FAQ:
"If you are requesting a check instead of a PayPal payment, it will be at least 45 days from the initial payment date before we can issue the check. We must wait for PayPal to return the payment before we can begin processing check reissues."
It's not clear to me... is it a blind drop to PayPal using your email address, under the assumption you "must" have a PayPal account? If so, I wonder if the delay puts you in the "second tier" of payments, which may or may not happen depending on the balance of the refund pool.
Whose dick did PayPal have to suck to land this gig?
Re: PayPal? WTF? (Score:2)
I would argue that many who get the email that says "you have a PayPal payment coming to you, click here to collect" will chuck this into the spam folder (if it doesn't get filtered automatically). The whole description of how the payments will be made reads to me like an example of phishing my IT department may use for training on the recognition of phishing.
$5.60 per subscriber (Score:3, Insightful)
$47 (Score:3)
>"is sending 117,044 PayPal payments"
So that is $47.86 per impacted customer, and sent automatically. Hmm. At least it is not like those ridiculous class-action suits where you have to fill out a bunch of forms, MAIL it in, wait several months or years, and then get a whopping $2 or $5 or something stupid for all that effort.
Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
What about the people the cameras recorded? Innocent folks who just walked up to the door? Trick or treating minors you recorded without permission? The pizza guy and the mailman?
Aren't THEY the ones whose privacy was actually invaded? When do they get paid?
Re: (Score:3)
The barrier to entry is too high. It's basically impossible to widen the search that way. It would cost more per person identified than you could ever extract. So, when do they get paid?
Never.
Re: (Score:3)
Definitely. But to find out who they are, Ring will have to run all the video through facial recognition.
Re: (Score:2)
>"What about the people the cameras recorded? Innocent folks who just walked up to the door? Trick or treating minors you recorded without permission? The pizza guy and the mailman?"
Unfortunately, you have no expectation or "right" to privacy being out in public. And you don't need anyone's "permission" to record them.
>"Aren't THEY the ones whose privacy was actually invaded?"
Technically, no. The person who owns the device is. Plus, it is likely that person (owner) is captured by the camera far, fa
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't THEY the ones whose privacy was actually invaded?
They were in a public space where there is no expectation of privacy.
Despite common sense, though, Ring subscribers seemed to believe they had some expectation of privacy when uploading their recordings to someone else's servers. It's a truly bizarre situation. It's a bit like someone running naked down the street and then suing everyone who looked.