GoodRx emailed customers Wednesday advising them the FTC alleged the company shared their personal identifiable information July 2017-April 2020 without their permission. Information included details about drug and health conditions customers searched for and their prescription medications. “We shared this information with third parties, including Facebook,” said the prescription discount drug firm. In some cases, GoodRx used the information to target customers with health ads, it said. “The Federal Trade Commission alleges we broke the law by sharing your health information without your permission,” it said, and to resolve the case, GoodRx agreed to an FTC order that it would tell third parties like Facebook to delete information it received from GoodRx, never share customers’ health information with third parties for advertising purposes, or without their permission, and put in place a comprehensive privacy program. The program will have “heightened procedures and controls” to protect personal and health information, and an auditor will review the program every two years for 20 years, it said. The FTC last month ordered GoodRx to pay a $1.5 million civil penalty for failing to notify consumers and others of its unauthorized disclosures of consumers’ personal health information to Facebook, Google and other companies in violation of its health breach notification rule. A class action filed last week in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Francisco alleges GoodRx’s representations that it complies with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act privacy rules and follows the Digital Advertising Alliance “Sensitive Data Principle” are false (see Ref:2302220043).
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Court of International Trade on Feb. 24 denied plaintiff Norca Industrial's motion to reconsider the trade court's order staying proceedings of an Enforce and Protect Act case pending resolution of a covered merchandise referral to the Commerce Department. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied the order after holding a status conference the same day (Norca Industrial Co. v. United States, CIT # 21-00192).
The Court of International Trade should deny a motion for a preliminary injunction by two plaintiff-intervenors because granting that injunction would expand the case beyond its original issues in violation of Supreme Court rulings, DOJ argued in its Feb. 28 response at the Court of International Trade. By requesting an injunction that covers entries not initially subject to the proceeding filed by Jilin Bright, plaintiff-intervenors seek to expand the issues covered by the proceeding, DOJ argued (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. United States, CIT # 22-00336).
The Commerce Department failed in its obligation to calculate an accurate rate for a Kazakh exporter in a countervailing duty investigation when it unjustifiably rejected the exporter's questionnaire response, despite the response being only two hours late, the exporter, Tau-Ken Temir, said in the opening brief of its appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Tau-Ken Temir v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 22-2204).
The Court of International Trade should grant the government's motion to reconsider its decision to send back the Commerce Department's use of a transaction-specific margin for an adverse facts available rate it assigned to an antidumping duty respondent, the American Manufacturers of Multilayered Wood Flooring (AMMWF) argued in a Feb. 27 response (Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group v. United States, CIT Consol. # 19-00144).
The Court of International Trade in a Feb. 27 decision denied importer Crown Cork & Seal USA's bid to dismiss fraud and gross negligence claims in a customs penalty case. Judge M. Miller Baker ruled that, contrary to Crown Cork's characterization, the fraud claim is sufficiently specific and both claims clear the notice requirements of Rule 8 as set in the Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal cases.
The Court of International Trade rejected the Commerce Department's imposition of a total adverse facts available rate of 154.33% on antidumping duty respondent Oman Fasteners as the result of one 16-minutes-late submission, in a Feb. 15 opinion made public Feb. 27. Judge M. Miller Baker said the lawsuit was "not a close case," blasting Commerce's inadequate explanation for why one late submission due to a filing difficulty was enough to conclude that Oman Fasteners failed to cooperate to the best of its ability or why the company deserved the punitive rate.
The following lawsuit was recently filed at the Court of International Trade:
The Commerce, State and Justice departments fined an American 3D printing company more than $25 million combined after it committed a range of export violations, including illegal shipments of aerospace technology and metal alloy powder to China and controlled design documents to Germany.