FTC distributes $5.6 million in refunds to Ring customers from privacy settlement

zohaibahd

Posts: 235   +5
Staff
What just happened? Ring, the smart home security company owned by Amazon, found itself in the crosshairs of the Federal Trade Commission back in 2023 over some serious privacy missteps. Now, over twelve months later, the commission is sending $5.6 million in refunds to customers as part of the settlement Ring agreed to last year.

The settlement stems from charges that Ring failed to properly safeguard video footage from its popular doorbell cameras and indoor security cams. According to the FTC's complaint, Ring employees and contractors were able to access customers' private videos without consent for purposes like training AI algorithms.

Even more concerning, the earlier regulators found that Ring neglected to implement basic security practices, allowing hackers to breach customer accounts and gain control over cameras and videos between 2016 and 2020. The FTC didn't mince words, calling it an "egregious violation of users' privacy."

Under the terms of the settlement, Ring had to delete any unlawfully obtained video content and agree to much stronger security measures going forward. But the biggest immediate impact is the $5.6 million the company paid as fine to the FTC, which is now being refunded to affected customers.

This week, the FTC announced it is distributing over 117,000 PayPal payments to eligible Ring owners who had devices during the timeframe when unauthorized access occurred. Customers have 30 days to redeem the payments before they expire.

While Ring seemingly downplayed the incident, telling The Associated Press that bad actors took emails and passwords "stolen from other companies to unlawfully log into Ring accounts of certain customers" who reused the same credentials across multiple sites back in 2019, the revelations paint a troubling picture of lax security and oversight at the company.

Previously, there were reports that revealed not only did Ring give broad video access to staff and contractors, but some employees even took advantage, viewing thousands of video clips from female customers in private settings like bedrooms and bathrooms.

One particularly disturbing case involved an employee who was only caught and fired after another co-worker noticed their inappropriate snooping on customer videos.

For consumers considering Ring or other smart home cameras and security products, this saga underscores the importance of vendors establishing rigorous safeguards and earning trust. After all, you're effectively giving these companies a window into your private spaces.

Permalink to story:

 
I know it's a bit more work but... anyone using security cams in their homes really should be storing everything LOCALLY. If you must have remote access, configure router settings accordingly - setup a NAS and maybe forgo bedroom locations (or any other place you or family members would prefer NOT to be seen).
 
Oh wow. Glad those people are getting about $50 each and that such a large company like Amazon (that owns Ring) is valued at $1.87 trillion.

Amazon acquired Ring back in 2018 so it was under them that this whole issue happened and they're only getting slapped with $5.6mil fine?

Even if you were to say well, the issue is with Ring and not Amazon. That's fine. Ring is worth about $1 billion. $5.6 mil is still small potatoes (only about .005% of the companies value) where they screwed up.

What a joke. It just goes to show these corporations that crime does pay. Why change their ways spending more money to keep things like this from happening when they can just skate on by and pay out small fines if they're ever caught.
 
I watched in mildly amused surprise this past decade as people who can't be bothered to make informed decisions eagerly paid for and installed data gathering hardware in their own homes. Anything with a camera or microphone that sends data outside of your home is not your buddy device. This includes your phone.
 
I know it's a bit more work but... anyone using security cams in their homes really should be storing everything LOCALLY. If you must have remote access, configure router settings accordingly - setup a NAS and maybe forgo bedroom locations (or any other place you or family members would prefer NOT to be seen).
Plus it’s a more financially sound option even if it’s a slightly larger cost up front, since there’s no ongoing subscription.
 
Oh wow. Glad those people are getting about $50 each....
Sarcasm noted, but if you didn't suffer $50 in actual damages, why do you feel you should get even that sum, much less a far larger amount? Civil lawsuits exist to compensate people for actual financial loss, but somewhere in the last few decades, conniving tort attorneys have made them about "pain and suffering", "mental anguish", and even more abstract concepts. It makes these lawyers wealthy, but it harms the rest of us, especially when one realizes that every such settlement a company pays eventually gets worked back into the prices we pay.

If a lapse in Ring security allowed thieves into your home to steal $1M in jewelry, you should be recompensed $1M. But if all that happened were some employees giggled over videos of you dancing in your tighty whities, you're not owed a penny.
 
Plus it’s a more financially sound option even if it’s a slightly larger cost up front, since there’s no ongoing subscription.
It's also not hard to make your own personal cloud and isolated it on your network so non of the other devices can see it. I go as far as having a seperate 16 port router connected to Comcasts modem/router and making sure everything connected to the Comcast router can see each other. I wired my whole house with CAT6 and only later, reluctantly, added a wireless router. So I already have 2 physically seperate networks and adding a 3rd, now that I know how to do it, wouldn't be that hard. I always had trouble with networking, it just never clicked like other things did for me.
 
It's also not hard to make your own personal cloud and isolated it on your network so non of the other devices can see it. I go as far as having a seperate 16 port router connected to Comcasts modem/router and making sure everything connected to the Comcast router can see each other. I wired my whole house with CAT6 and only later, reluctantly, added a wireless router. So I already have 2 physically seperate networks and adding a 3rd, now that I know how to do it, wouldn't be that hard. I always had trouble with networking, it just never clicked like other things did for me.
Yeah I don't go that far by physically separating everything, I just have a couple of managed switches with a decent router and VLAN things off, I've got a homelab server running game servers and what not, then an IoT VLAN for washing machine, fans, Lighting and other IOT things.
 
Yeah I don't go that far by physically separating everything, I just have a couple of managed switches with a decent router and VLAN things off, I've got a homelab server running game servers and what not, then an IoT VLAN for washing machine, fans, Lighting and other IOT things.
Well the reason for me physically separating the wifi is that I couldn't use Mac addressing for everyone who comes over my house and I live in an urban area with LOTS of people around. Once I discovered how easy it was to hack wifi networks I wanted nothing to do with it if I couldn't use MAC addressing. So I just have a seperate network with basic password protection and capped the speed at 50Mbps. I don't think I'll ever have "smart" devices in my house
 
I admit I do have some Ring cameras. I use them on the outside of the house only. Not sure why people are putting cameras in their bathrooms and bedrooms???
My thoughts exactly. I too have a couple out in the car port but nothing INSIDE! And if I did..it would be stored locally with no access from the outside world. Basically the inside cameras would only be turned on when I wasn't home or away on va-cay
 
Back