{"id":7257,"date":"2024-02-22T07:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-02-22T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tvdelmarva.com\/?p=7257"},"modified":"2024-02-22T11:12:59","modified_gmt":"2024-02-22T16:12:59","slug":"ftc-order-will-ban-avast-from-selling-browsing-data-for-advertising-purposes-require-it-to-pay-16-5-million-over-charges-the-firm-sold-browsing-data-after-claiming-its-products-would-block-online-tr","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tvdelmarva.com\/wp\/ftc-order-will-ban-avast-from-selling-browsing-data-for-advertising-purposes-require-it-to-pay-16-5-million-over-charges-the-firm-sold-browsing-data-after-claiming-its-products-would-block-online-tr\/","title":{"rendered":"FTC Order Will Ban Avast from Selling Browsing Data for Advertising Purposes, Require It to Pay $16.5 Million Over Charges the Firm Sold Browsing Data After Claiming Its Products Would Block Online Tracking"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Federal Trade Commission will require software provider Avast to pay $16.5 million and prohibit the company from selling or licensing any web browsing data for advertising purposes to settle charges that the company and its subsidiaries sold such information to third parties after promising that its products would protect consumers from online tracking.<\/p>\n

In its complaint<\/a>,<\/strong> the FTC says that Avast Limited, based in the United Kingdom, through its Czech subsidiary, unfairly collected consumers\u2019 browsing information through the company\u2019s browser extensions and antivirus software, stored it indefinitely, and sold it without adequate notice and without consumer consent. The FTC also charges that Avast deceived users by claiming that the software would protect consumers\u2019 privacy by blocking third party tracking, but failed to adequately inform consumers that it would sell their detailed, re-identifiable browsing data. The FTC alleged Avast sold that data to more than 100 third parties through its subsidiary, Jumpshot.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cAvast promised users that its products would protect the privacy of their browsing data but delivered the opposite,\u201d said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC\u2019s Bureau of Consumer Protection. \u201cAvast\u2019s bait-and-switch surveillance tactics compromised consumers\u2019 privacy and broke the law.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Since at least 2014, the FTC says Avast has been collecting consumers\u2019 browsing information through browser extensions, which can modify or extend the functionality of consumers\u2019 web browsers, and through antivirus software installed on consumers\u2019 computers and mobile devices. This browsing data included information about users\u2019 web searches and the webpages they visited\u2014revealing consumers\u2019 religious beliefs, health concerns, political leanings, location, financial status, visits to child-directed content and other sensitive information.<\/p>\n

According to the complaint, not only did Avast fail to inform consumers that it collected and sold their browsing data, the company claimed that its products would decrease tracking on the Internet. For example, when users searched for Avast\u2019s browser extensions, they were told Avast would \u201cblock annoying tracking cookies that collect data on your browsing activities\u201d and promised that its desktop software would \u201cshield your privacy. Stop anyone and everyone from getting to your computer.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

After Avast bought Jumpshot, a competitor antivirus software provider, the company rebranded the firm as an analytics company. From 2014 to 2020, Jumpshot sold browsing information that Avast had collected from consumers to a variety of clients including advertising, marketing and data analytics companies and data brokers, according to the complaint.<\/p>\n

The company claimed it used a special algorithm to remove identifying information before transferring the data to its clients. The FTC, however, says the company failed to sufficiently anonymize consumers\u2019 browsing information that it sold in non-aggregate form through various products. For example, its data feeds included a unique identifier for each web browser it collected information from and could include every website visited, precise timestamps, type of device and browser, and the city, state, and country. When Avast did describe its data sharing practices, Avast falsely claimed it would only transfer consumers\u2019 personal information in aggregate and anonymous form, according to the complaint.<\/p>\n

The FTC says the company failed to prohibit some of its data buyers from re-identifying Avast users based on data that Jumpshot provided. And, even where Avast\u2019s contracts included such prohibitions, the contracts were worded in a way that enabled data buyers to associate non-personally identifiable information with Avast users\u2019 browsing information. In fact, some of the Jumpshot products were designed to allow clients to track specific users or even to associate specific users\u2014and their browsing histories\u2014with other information those clients had. For example, as alleged in the complaint, Jumpshot entered into a contract with Omnicom, an advertising conglomerate, which stated that Jumpshot would provide Omnicom with an \u201cAll Clicks Feed\u201d for 50% of its customers in the United States, United Kingdom, Mexico, Australia, Canada, and Germany. According to the contract, Omnicom was permitted to associate Avast\u2019s data with data brokers\u2019 sources of data, on an individual user basis.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In addition to paying $16.5 million, which is expected to be used to provide redress to consumers, the proposed order<\/a>, will prohibit Avast and its subsidiaries from misrepresenting how it uses the data it collects. Other provisions of the proposed order include:<\/p>\n