Authored by Shane Olafson
The Internet of Things (or “IoT”) is a hot topic in privacy circles, given its rapid expansion among everyday consumer products. Broadly referring to Internet-connected-devices, the IoT encompasses a variety of consumer goods, such as kitchen appliances (smart ovens and refrigerators), home security, window blinds, light bulbs, and lawn care equipment. Many personal devices are now connected as well, including toothbrushes, a smart hairbrush that measures hair density and brushing habits, a pillow that monitors snoring and analyzes sleeping habits, and even sexual devices — which brings us to the present story.
The company Standard Innovation Corp. sells a personal vibrator product called the We-Vibe. According to the class complaint: “To fully operate the We-Vibe, users download Defendant’s ‘We-Connect’ application from the Apple App Store or the Google Play store and install it on their smartphones. With We-Connect, users can ‘pair’ their smartphone to the We-Vibe, allowing them—and their partners—remote control over the vibrator’s customizable settings and features.” However, “[u]nbeknownst to its customers . . . Defendant designed We-Connect to (i) collect and record highly intimate and sensitive data regarding consumers’ personal We-Vibe use, including the date and time of each use and the selected vibration settings, and (ii) transmit such usage data—along with the user’s personal email address—to its servers in Canada.” The plaintiffs also allege that the company misrepresented the security of the app, as evidenced by two hackers at the 2016 Def Con conference being able to hack into and control someone else’s device. The proliferation of IoT hacking has led some to suggest that a better name might be IoTTCBH, or Internet of Things That Can Be Hacked.
As part of the settlement, in addition to monetary compensation for the class, the company agreed to implement or change many of its privacy practices. Specifically, the company agreed to (1) not collect email addresses through its We-Connect app, (2) update its privacy notice to specifically disclose its data collection and use practices, (3) provide users with a method to opt out of their data being provided to third parties, (4) take various steps to ensure that all users with the We-Connect app receive notice of the company’s privacy policies, and (5) purge certain consumer privacy information already collected.
As more devices are interconnected, concerns over the security of those devices and the data collection/use practices of IoT device makers are growing. The We-Vibe class action highlights the importance of appropriate privacy policies and practices, as well as technical device security.
Tags: Data Privacy and CybersecurityAbout This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- Salma G. Granich
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam