|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
|
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
![]() |
DSW Settles FTC ChargesCompany Failed to Protect Sensitive Customer Data |
||||||||||||||
|
December 5, 2005
According to the FTC, DSW's data-security failure allowed hackers to gain access to the sensitive credit card, debit card, and checking account information of more than 1.4 million customers. The settlement will require DSW to implement a comprehensive information-security program and obtain audits by an independent third-party security professional every other year for 20 years. Columbus, Ohio-based DSW operates approximately 190 stores in 32 states. In 2004, DSW generated $961 million in net sales and sold approximately 23.7 million pairs of shoes. According to the FTC's complaint, DSW uses computer networks to obtain authorization for credit card, debit card, and check purchases at its stores and to track inventory. For credit and debit card purchases, DSW collects information, such as name, card number, and expiration date, from the magnetic stripe on the back of the cards. This magnetic stripe information is particularly sensitive because it contains a security code that can be used to create counterfeit cards that appear genuine in the authorization process. For check purchases, DSW collects information such as routing number, account number, check number, and the consumer's driver's license number and state. In each case, the information was wirelessly transmitted to a computer network located in the store, and from there was sent to the appropriate bank or check processor. The FTC charges that until at least March 2005, DSW engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for sensitive customer information. Specifically, the agency alleges that DSW:
The FTC charges that a total of approximately 1.4 million credit and debit cards and 96,000 checking accounts were compromised, and that there have been fraudulent charges on some of these accounts. Further, some customers whose checking account information was compromised have incurred out-of-pocket expenses in connection with closing their accounts and ordering new checks. Some checking account customers have contacted DSW to request reimbursement for their expenses, and DSW has provided some amount of reimbursement to these customers. According to DSW's SEC filings, as of July 2005, the company's exposure for losses related to the breach ranges from $6.5 million to $9.5 million. The FTC alleges that DSW's failure to secure customers' sensitive information was an unfair practice because it caused substantial injury that was not reasonably avoidable by consumers and not outweighed by offsetting benefits to consumers or competition. The settlement requires DSW to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program that includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards. It also requires DSW to obtain, every two years for the next 20 years, an audit from a qualified, independent, third-party professional to assure that its security program meets the standards of the order. DSW also will be subject to standard record keeping and reporting provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance. This is the FTC's seventh case challenging faulty data security practices by retailers and others. If you've had a bad experience -- or a good one -- with a consumer product or service, we'd like to hear about it. All complaints are reviewed by class action attorneys and are considered for publication on our site. Knowledge is power! Help spread the word. File your consumer report now.
|
|
|||||||||||||
Back to the top | |
|||||||||||||||
Advertisement
|
|
|||||
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2010 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|