Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court of New Jersey ruled today that a Section 5 action brought by the FTC was sustainable against Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham Worldwide”) as well as various corporate affiliates primarily involved in the franchise side of its business. This decision re-affirmed the FTC ‘s power to regulate “unfair trade practices” based on the failed data security of companies. Judge Salas denied a motion to dismiss a FTC action based on the alleged violation of both the deception and unfairness prongs of Section 5(a) “in connection with Defendants’ failure to maintain reasonable and appropriate data security for consumers’ sensitive personal information.” Wyndham Worldwide also looked to dismiss the action given the consumer representations made by some corporate affiliates were not intended to be applicable to all corporate affiliates.
In what Wyndham Worldwide considered a matter of first impression, the Court rejected Wyndham Worldwide’s position that the FTC does not have authority to bring an unfairness claim involving lax data security. Another allegedly unique aspect of this case turns on the fact the corporate affiliate who initially sustained the data incident and also made most of the representations in question (Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC) was able to implicate its corporate parent.
This decision is a rare judicial affirmation of the FTC’s broad power to assert itself in the data protection activities of companies. Typically, the FTC simply obtains consent as a byproduct of a settlement agreement. Hacked companies routinely acknowledge the FTC’s power in this regard.
Although this decision merely resolves a motion to dismiss — with liability issues left unresolved, privacy practitioners who visit with the FTC should review Judge Salas’ opinion and continue to track this matter. Given the hard public positions taken by Wyndham and the FTC, this case may very well end up in the Third Circuit or even the Supreme Court — eventually leading to an appellate court potentially defining the exact contours of the FTC’s authority to regulate hacked companies.