ARTICLE
14 March 2016

The CFPB Joins Privacy And Security Enforcement Arena With Action Against Dwolla

B
BakerHostetler

Contributor

BakerHostetler logo
Recognized as one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler is a leading national law firm that helps clients around the world address their most complex and critical business and regulatory issues. With five core national practice groups — Business, Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property, Litigation, and Tax — the firm has more than 970 lawyers located in 14 offices coast to coast. BakerHostetler is widely regarded as having one of the country’s top 10 tax practices, a nationally recognized litigation practice, an award-winning data privacy practice and an industry-leading business practice. The firm is also recognized internationally for its groundbreaking work recovering more than $13 billion in the Madoff Recovery Initiative, representing the SIPA Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC. Visit bakerlaw.com
The CFPB took issue with Dwolla's claims that its payment platform was safe and that its customers' personal information was secure.
United States Finance and Banking
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced on March 2, 2016, that it had entered into a consent order with online payment platform Dwolla to resolve the CFPB's claims regarding statements made by Dwolla about the privacy and security of customer data. Under the consent order, Dwolla agreed to pay a $100,000 fine and implement, to the extent not already in place, reasonable and appropriate security measures to protect customers' personal information. The consent order is notable because it is the first privacy- and security-related action by CFPB and because the basis for bringing the claim was the CFPB's UDAAP authority to declare practices "unfair, deceptive, or abusive" under 12 U.S.C. § 5531(a) even though there was no finding of any actual consumer harm. This approach closely tracks enforcement actions brought by the Federal Trade Commission under Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The CFPB took issue with Dwolla's claims that its payment platform was safe and that its customers' personal information was secure. When individuals register for an account to use Dwolla's online payment services, they are required to provide personal information, including their name, address, date of birth, phone number, and Social Security number. Customers can also link a bank account to fund payment transfer requests. The CFPB alleged that Dwolla failed to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect this customer data. In addition to general statements about the network and transactions being "safe" and "secure," specific representations that the CFPB claimed to be false included:

  • Dwolla transactions are "safer [than credit cards] and less of a liability for both consumers and merchants."
  • Dwolla's data security practices "exceed industry standards" or "surpass industry security standards."
  • Dwolla "sets a new precedent for the industry for safety and security."
  • With regard to encryption, "all information is securely encrypted and stored," and Dwolla "encrypt[s] data in transit and at rest."
  • Dwolla is "PCI compliant."

The CFPB also found, according to the consent order, that Dwolla (1) was late to adopt data security policies and procedures – having failed to implement policies and procedures for two years after launching its services; (2) failed to conduct regular risk assessments; (3) failed to implement reasonable data security employee training; (4) encouraged consumers to submit Social Security numbers and scans of drivers' licenses and passports by email to expedite the registration process; and (5) failed to test the security of its apps prior to releasing them publicly. The consent order gave, as an example, a December 2012 email phishing test where more than half the tested Dwolla employees clicked the link in the phishing email and 25 percent then provided their user names and passwords.

In addition to paying the fine, Dwolla agreed to implement and maintain a comprehensive data security plan, adopt and implement reasonable and appropriate data security policies and procedures, designate a qualified person to be responsible for the data security program, perform data security risk assessments twice a year, conduct annual audits, conduct regular employee training, and develop a process for selecting and overseeing vendors. The consent order also included obligations related to involvement and oversight by Dwolla's board of directors.

Dwolla published an article on its blog describing the "meaningful protections we've implemented up, down, and across the company" and including this apology:

"Dwolla was incorporating new ideas because we wanted to build a safer product, but at the time we may not have chosen the best language and comparisons to describe some of our capabilities. It has never been the company's intent to mislead anyone on critical issues like data security. For any confusion we may have caused, we sincerely apologize."

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More