The FTC's TRUSTe case: When seals help seal the deal

Share This Page

People who aren’t into marketing jargon might not know a “credence claim” from a Creedence Clearwater Revival, but experts tell us it’s a representation about a product that consumers aren’t in a position to evaluate for themselves. One example is what websites say about their privacy practices. Because consumers can’t test the accuracy of those claims, they often rely on third-party seals trusted for their expertise and independence. The FTC just settled a case alleging that one of those seal programs – TRUSTe – misrepresented key aspects of its certifications.

TRUSTe’s Certified Privacy Seals are pretty much everywhere you look on the web. Advertising itself as “the #1 privacy brand,” TRUSTe says its Certified Privacy Seal is “recognized globally by consumers, businesses, and regulators as demonstrating privacy best practices.” To display the TRUSTe icon, sites must meet requirements about the transparency and verification of their privacy practices, as well as consumer choice about how personal information is collected and used. TRUSTe uses a variety of tools to test and verify compliance.

So how does the complaint allege TRUSTe violated Section 5 of the FTC Act? Count 1 charges that TRUSTe said that “Participant shall undergo recertification to verify ongoing compliance with these Program Requirements annually,” but then didn’t conduct any kind of recertification in more than 1,000 instances between 2006 and January 2013. The complaint charges that TRUSTe’s failure to follow up made that statement false or misleading.

Count 2 centers on the representation that TRUSTe is a non-profit organization. That was true when TRUSTe was formed in 1997. Its non-profit status was so important to TRUSTe that it provided sites bearings its logo with model language to use in their privacy policies: “TRUSTe is an independent, non-profit organization whose mission is to build users’ trust and confidence in the Internet by promoting the use of fair information practices.” In 2008, TRUSTe became a for-profit company. However, in numerous instances since then, it has recertified sites that state – falsely now – that TRUSTe is a non-profit. The complaint charged that by originally mandating that language and then recertifying sites since 2008 that conveyed that now-false statement, TRUSTe provided those sites with the “means and instrumentalities” to deceive consumers.

The proposed settlement in the case prohibits a broad range of misrepresentations about TRUSTe’s certification (and recertification) practices, corporate status, and independence. The order also imposes $200,000 in disgorgement and additional reporting requirements regarding TRUSTe’s COPPA safe harbor, which the FTC approved in 2001.  You can file an online comment about the proposed settlement by December 17, 2014.

What’s the message for other companies? Seals and certifications are persuasive to consumers, especially for credence claims. So it’s important that representations conveyed by those marks are truthful. Furthermore, as is the case for any other advertising claim, compliance isn’t a one-and-done exercise. This is especially true for entities that tout their own trustworthiness in certifying the practices of others.



I like the fact that the TRUSTe certification was researched by the government but I feel that the fine was too high. A shot across the bow that had a warning would have probably sufficed to get the company to audit and correct the problem.
As much as the acts are there to protect the companies as much as consumers it should be the responsibility of the state to revisit all companies to see and enforce the laws otherwise there will always be those who continue misleading the consumers unless enforcement is complied with from time to timme.
The FTC were far too easy on this company. The fine should have been a lot higher, and there should have been greater restrictions. Is it coincidence that a number of staffers have left the FTC to join Truste? Or that the Truste logo actually appears on the FTC complaints website? What happened to being impartial?

Add new comment

Comment Policy

Privacy Act Statement

It is your choice whether to submit a comment. If you do, you must create a user name, or we will not post your comment. The Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes this information collection for purposes of managing online comments. Comments and user names are part of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) public records system (PDF), and user names also are part of the FTC’s computer user records system (PDF). We may routinely use these records as described in the FTC’s Privacy Act system notices. For more information on how the FTC handles information that we collect, please read our privacy policy.