DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

FTC responds to LabMD's motion for sanctions in FTC v. LabMD

Posted on August 28, 2014 by Dissent

The FTC’s response to LabMD’s motion for sanctions (pdf) is now available online. FTC’s response begins:

Respondent’s Motion, which exceeds the applicable word limit and regarding which counsel never met-and-conferred with Complaint Counsel, seeks relief that the Commission’s Rules do not authorize. If there were a legal basis for Respondent’s relief, its baseless claims regarding Complaint Counsel’s evidence ignores its own admissions regarding practices that cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers, including its admission that a 1,718-page LabMD document containing Social Security numbers, health information, and other sensitive personal information for more than 9,300 consumers (“1718 File”) was available for sharing through LimeWire installed on a LabMD computer.

You can access the full filing on FTC’s site (99 pp, pdf).


Related:

  • Maintenance Note
  • CISA Alert: Reported Supply Chain Compromise Affecting XZ Utils Data Compression Library, CVE-2024-3094
  • System Status Note
  • System Status Note
  • Fraudster's fake data breach claims should remind media to be careful what we report
  • "Pompompurin" taken into custody after violating conditions of pre-sentencing release on bond (1)
Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← Racing Post pulls up short on IT security
Texas Demands Medical Records From Xerox (updated to include Xerox response) →

4 thoughts on “FTC responds to LabMD's motion for sanctions in FTC v. LabMD”

  1. Anonymous says:
    August 29, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    Multiple IP addresses???

    1. Anonymous says:
      August 29, 2014 at 7:07 pm

      I think Tiversa’s CEO testified that there were about four IPs (or maybe more). That has been disputed by LabMD’s CEO who says that they were not able to find the 1718 file anywhere when they searched. He also alleges that FTC never independently verified claims about where the file was found. His position has been that the file was hacked or stolen from his server. The FTC’s position is that if the file was available for sharing on P2P (Limewire), that is sufficient for them to pursue a data security enforcement as it put thousands of patients at risk of significant harm.

      1. Anonymous says:
        August 29, 2014 at 9:32 pm

        Heh… 😉
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnutella This does not help eh?

        In practice, this method of searching on the gnutella network was often unreliable. Each node is a regular computer user; as such, they are constantly connecting and disconnecting, so the network is never completely stable. Also, the bandwidth cost of searching on gnutella grew exponentially to the number of connected users,[12] often saturating connections and rendering slower nodes useless. Therefore, search requests would often be dropped, and most queries reached only a very small part of the network. This observation identified the gnutella network as an unscalable distributed system, and inspired the development of distributed hash tables, which are much more scalable but support only exact-match, rather than keyword, search.[citation needed]

        1. Anonymous says:
          August 29, 2014 at 9:40 pm

          http://www.gnutellaforums.com/limewire-wireshare-tips-tricks/81811-how-force-ultrapeer-better-searches-whether-using-pro-basic.html

          I wonder if the CEO of LabMD performed this trick.

Comments are closed.

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Scattered Spider Hijacks VMware ESXi to Deploy Ransomware on Critical U.S. Infrastructure
  • Hacker group “Silent Crow” claims responsibility for cyberattack on Russia’s Aeroflot
  • AIIMS ORBO Portal Vulnerability Exposing Sensitive Organ Donor Data Discovered by Researcher
  • Two Data Breaches in Three Years: McKenzie Health
  • Scattered Spider is running a VMware ESXi hacking spree
  • BreachForums — the one that went offline in April — reappears with a new founder/owner
  • Fans React After NASCAR Confirms Ransomware Breach
  • Allianz Life says ‘majority’ of customers’ personal data stolen in cyberattack (1)
  • Infinite Services notifying employees and patients of limited ransomware attack
  • The safe place for women to talk wasn’t so safe: hackers leak 13,000 user photos and IDs from the Tea app

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • White House ordered to restore Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood clinics
  • California Attorney General Announces $1.55M CCPA Settlement with Healthline.com
  • Canada’s Bill C-2 Opens the Floodgates to U.S. Surveillance
  • Wiretap Suits Pit Old Privacy Laws Against New AI Technology
  • Action against tiny Scottish charity sparks huge ICO row
  • Congress tries to outlaw AI that jacks up prices based on what it knows about you
  • Microsoft’s controversial Recall feature is now blocked by Brave and AdGuard

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.