Lawsuits Against Lifelock
13 consolidated lawsuits have been selected to be heard by U.S. District Judge Mary Murguia against Lifelock.
“We’re pleased the court consolidated these 13 cases allowing us to efficiently move claims forward and help correct these wrongful practices,” said lead attorney Rob Carey. “This is a first victory for plaintiffs, and the fact that several top-tier firms recognized LifeLock’s conduct is deficient indicates we have a strong case - we look forward to preparing for trial.”
Cases from around the country make up the 13 suits moving forward, including plaintiffs from New Jersey, Arizona, Maryland, Illinois, West Virginia, Florida, Texas, and California.
The suits claim that LifeLock uses aggressive advertising to entice consumers to sign up for its $10 a month service knowing that the sevice it offers is flawed because the social security number they use in the ads has been used to illegally obtain at least 20 driving licenses and a payday loan in CEO Todd Davis’ name.
As you are probably aware, Lifelock describes it’s service as “proactive identity theft protection, offering a proven solution that prevents your identity from being stolen before it happens.”
The lawsuit further claims that the LifeLock “proven solution” that it heavily and aggressively markets consists of illegally placing and renewing fraud alerts under consumers’ names with the credit bureaus.
It seems that under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, corporations such as LifeLock are not allowed to place fraud alerts on a consumers’ behalf and further more according to the complaint, the law was written so as to specifically prevent credit repair companies from improperly using fraud alerts.
Through the lawsuits plaintiffs also claim LifeLock miss-states its legal obligations to customers and what its protection service covers if a loss occurs. In marketing campaigns the company touts a $1 million guarantee, yet a closer examination at the fine print reveals that LifeLock will not pay any losses directly to the consumer and does not cover consequential or incidental damages to identity theft, plaintiffs claim. You can read more on that more than a little misleading Lifelock guarantee.
The first and original suit filed by HBSS claims LifeLock violated Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Insurance Code, and seeks to have all members’ fees refunded due to the illegality of the contract and LifeLock’s misrepresentations about its service.
Are you a Lifelock customer present or past? Click here to join this suit and learn more about the case.
