LifeLock Class Action Challenges Identity Theft Protection Promise

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A new class action lawsuit alleges that LifeLock, an identity theft protection service, fails to deliver on the promises it makes to consumers in its TV, radio, and online advertising.

The LifeLock class action states that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has even brought legal action against the company on two separate occasions, but LifeLock continues to misstate the services it purports to provide to consumers.

Plaintiffs Joe Weingarten and Darrell Hunter allege that they each paid hundreds of dollars to LifeLock based on advertising that promised protection from identity theft; however, the company did not live up to its promises.

Weingarten says he discovered that his Social Security number and personal credit were being used fraudulently. Further, LifeLock failed to notify him that his address had been changed with the United States Postal Service without his knowledge.

Hunter alleges that he paid for LifeLock services in 2014 and 2015, but when he tried to use LifeLock to resolve a credit inquiry, the company failed to do anything about the problem even months later.

“In fact, it is typical of LifeLock service, as the company monitors only a tiny percentage of all sources of credit applications – i.e., banks, credit cards, retail. As a result, LifeLock has no ability to deliver upon the advertising promises it makes because the vast majority of credit applications (and thus fraudulent account openings) are not monitored by LifeLock,” the LifeLock class action states.

LifeLock offers three levels of identity theft protection, say the plaintiffs in the LifeLock class action lawsuit. The price of these services range from $9.99 to $29.99 a month. The advertising for these services promise to provide varying levels of identity theft protection and victim assistance, but the plaintiffs say LifeLock cannot keep its promises.

The LifeLock class action lawsuit further accuses LifeLock of violating an injunction issued after the FTC and 35 state Attorneys General filed a lawsuit against the company over its alleged false promises. The plaintiffs say that under that injunction, to continue to operate, LifeLock had to agree to modify its advertising; however, the company still allows marketing affiliates to falsely advertise LifeLock services.

“These affiliates sign agreements with LifeLock to receive a commission in exchange for driving web traffic to LifeLock’s website to sign up as new customers,” states the LifeLock class action lawsuit.

“LifeLock approves the content on those websites. However, LifeLock allows those affiliates to make patently false representations about the scope and quality of the product that LifeLock offers,” allege the plaintiffs. “As a result, LifeLock maintains the ability to continue to perpetuate false statements about its ability to monitor and prevent identity theft in violation of the FTC Permanent Injunction, Arizona consumer protection law, and the terms of the contract with consumers.”

Weingarten and Hunter seek to represent a nationwide Class of LifeLock subscribers starting Jan. 21, 2016. The plaintiffs are seeking damages as well as a court order declaring LifeLock’s alleged false advertising is illegal.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul L. Stoller and Lincoln Combs of Gallagher & Kennedy PA, Randall K. Pulliam and E. Lee Lowther III of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC, and Irwin B. Levin, Richard E. Shevitz, Vess A. Miller, and Lynn A. Toops of Cohen Malad LLP.

The LifeLock False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Weingarten, et al. v. LifeLock Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01013-JAT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.