Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · Legal & Compliance · Legal decision · 2012–2019

Facebook broke its own 2012 privacy promise to the FTC — the fine was $5 billion

Facebook let developers keep pulling Friends' data past its 2014 cutoff and misused 2FA phone numbers for ads. The record penalty was 9% of its 2018 revenue.

Meta Platforms · 2019-07-24

What happened

In 2012 Facebook settled with the FTC over an earlier privacy complaint and agreed to an order requiring clear disclosure of how user data was shared and used. In 2019 the FTC found Facebook had violated that order in multiple ways: misrepresenting how much control users actually had over their privacy settings, and misrepresenting what data it made accessible to third-party app developers.

The clearest violation was continuing to let app developers pull data on a user's Facebook Friends well past 2014, the date Facebook had told the FTC this access would end — in some cases the access lasted through June 2018. The FTC also found Facebook enforced its own developer policies inconsistently, going easier on developers who generated significant revenue, and that it had taken phone numbers users provided for two-factor authentication and used them for ad targeting instead.

The FTC's order, filed 24 July 2019, imposed a $5 billion civil penalty — a record at the time and equivalent to about 9% of Facebook's 2018 revenue — plus new privacy-governance requirements including outside assessment of its data practices. The order affected roughly 210 million American Facebook accounts.

Why it happened

  • Facebook told the FTC in 2012 that Friends' data access for app developers would end by a set date, then continued granting that access for years afterward.
  • It enforced its data-sharing policies unevenly, applying looser standards to developers who brought in more revenue.
  • Data collected for a security purpose — two-factor authentication phone numbers — was repurposed for advertising without users being told.
  • A prior FTC order created a specific, checkable commitment, which made the 2019 penalty a violation finding rather than a first-time infraction.
What it cost$5B civil penaltycostly

The lesson

A regulatory settlement is a standing commitment, not a one-time event — violating it years later carries the weight of breaking a promise on the record, not just a fresh complaint.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →