Everalbum, Inc. settled FTC allegations that it deceived consumers about its use of facial recognition technology in its photo storage app and failed to delete photos when users deactivated their accounts. The settlement requires Everalbum to obtain express consent before using facial recognition, delete user photos and derived face embeddings, and delete developed models and algorithms. It also prohibits misrepresentations about data practices and requires consent for biometric data use if marketing software to consumers.
Everalbum must delete photos and videos of users who deactivated accounts, delete face embeddings from non-consenting users, and delete any facial recognition models or algorithms developed with user content. It must obtain express consent before using facial recognition technology and is prohibited from misrepresenting its data collection, use, and deletion practices.
In-house legal teams should review vendor, customer, and data processing agreements for clauses related to biometric data processing, facial recognition features, and data retention/deletion obligations. Specifically, examine consent mechanisms for sensitive technologies, data deletion requirements upon account termination, and representations about data practices. Updates may be needed to mandate express opt-in consent for facial recognition, enforce deletion of both user content and derived models/embeddings, and revise privacy policies to prevent deceptive statements about data handling.
Entity
Everalbum, Inc.
Also known as: Everalbum
Industry
TechnologyOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/01/california-company-settles-ftc-allegations-it-deceived-consumers-about-use-facial-recognition-photo
everalbum order
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/everalbum_order.pdf
everalbum complaint
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/everalbum_complaint.pdf
updated final chopra statement on everalbum for circulation
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1585858/updated_final_chopra_statement_on_everalbum_for_circulation.pdf
everalbum inc analysis of proposed consent order to aid publ
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01430/everalbum-inc-analysis-of-proposed-consent-order-to-aid-public-comment
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Everalbum, Inc."
"Everalbum allegedly enabled facial recognition by default for all mobile app users"
"Everalbum promised users that the company would delete the photos and videos of Ever users who deactivated their accounts. The FTC alleges, however, that until at least October 2019, Everalbum failed to delete the photos or videos"
"Everalbum combined millions of facial images that it extracted from Ever users’ photos with facial images that Everalbum obtained from publicly available datasets to create four datasets for use in the development of its facial recognition technology."
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.
The FTC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on whether ad-optimization tools offered by online platforms may help scammers impersonate businesses and government agencies. This is a proposed regulatory inquiry, not an enforcement action against a named company; no penalty or remedy was imposed.
$2.5B
A federal court approved a revised order in the FTC's Amazon Prime case under which Amazon will accelerate and expand redress payments under the September 2025 $2.5 billion settlement, which resolved allegations that Amazon enrolled millions of consumers in Prime subscriptions without their consent and knowingly made cancellation difficult. More consumers now qualify for refunds, the maximum payment cap rises from $51 to $200, and all future payments will be distributed automatically starting October 1, 2026, with potential supplemental $149 payments by April 2027. Amazon has already issued more than $845 million in redress payments as of September 2026.
$225.0M
The FTC and the state of Washington filed a joint complaint and proposed stipulated order requiring Amway Corp. and two affiliates—World Wide Group, L.L.C. (WWG) and Leadership Team Development Inc. (LTD)—to pay a $225 million judgment, the largest monetary recovery ever obtained from an MLM in an FTC action, over allegations that they used deceptive earnings claims and unfair tactics to recruit Independent Business Owners. The complaint alleges the companies falsely promised substantial income and recruitment success, pressured IBOs to buy products they could not resell, and instructed IBOs to falsely report sales. Nearly all of the judgment will be used as redress for IBOs who lost money, and the proposed order imposes structural reforms including a 70% resale requirement, independent audits of sales records, and a ban on approved providers charging new IBOs for first-year training.
$100.0M
FleetCor Technologies Inc. (now Corpay Inc.) and its CEO Ronald Clarke agreed to pay $100 million to settle an FTC administrative action alleging the company charged small business customers hidden and unauthorized fees for fuel cards and misrepresented gas savings, fraud-control features, and fees. A federal district court granted the FTC summary judgment on all counts in 2023, and a federal appeals court upheld that judgment and the permanent injunction in 2026. The settlement funds will be used to provide redress to harmed business customers.
FTC staff published FAQs on price transparency to help the automobile industry comply with the FTC Act, reiterating that an advertised vehicle price must be the actual price any consumer can pay, excluding only government-required charges. The guidance follows warning letters the FTC sent to 97 auto dealership groups earlier in 2026 and signals continued litigation against dealers that advertise one price but charge more through undisclosed fees. No specific entity was charged and no penalty was imposed.