Court Rules
All enforcement actions
Consent DecreeLow Risk

FTC Bans Gravy Analytics from Selling Sensitive Location Data

Gravy Analytics Inc. and Venntel Inc.December 3, 2024Federal Trade Commission

Summary

The FTC took action against Gravy Analytics Inc. and Venntel Inc. for unlawfully tracking and selling sensitive consumer location data without consent. The proposed consent order prohibits the sale or use of sensitive location data, requires deletion of historic data, and mandates compliance programs. This is part of the FTC's series of actions against data brokers selling sensitive location data.

Remedy

The companies are banned from selling, licensing, or using sensitive location data except for national security or law enforcement. They must delete all historic location data and inform customers to delete or de-identify it. They must establish a sensitive location data program and a supplier assessment program to ensure consent, and are prohibited from making misrepresentations about their data practices.

Consent DecreeBanCompliance ProgramData DeletionCorrective NoticeAudit Requirement

Contract Impact

In-house legal teams should review all vendor agreements with data brokers or analytics providers, customer agreements involving location-based services, and data processing addendums (DPAs). Focus on clauses governing data sharing, consent requirements, data retention/deletion, and breach notification. Specific changes needed include: (1) explicitly prohibiting the sale, disclosure, or use of 'sensitive location data' (e.g., data tied to healthcare facilities, places of worship, military sites, labor unions); (2) mandating verifiable, opt-in consent for any collection or commercial use of location data; (3) requiring deletion of all historic sensitive location data; and (4) obligating vendors to establish a formal 'sensitive data location program' with internal compliance safeguards.

Contract Search Terms

sensitive location dataverifiable user consentdata retention schedulesensitive locations listdata processing addendumbreach notification clausedata sharing restrictionsconsumer consent mechanismdeletion of historic datacompliance program

Laws Cited

FTC Act

Violation Types

Entity Details

Entity

Gravy Analytics Inc. and Venntel Inc.

Also known as: Gravy Analytics

Industry

Data Broker

Official Sources

Source Evidence

Entity Name
"Gravy Analytics Inc. and its subsidiary Venntel Inc."
Laws Cited
"violated the FTC Act"
Violation description
"violated the FTC Act by unfairly selling sensitive consumer location data, and by collecting and using consumers’ location data without obtaining verifiable user consent"

Related Enforcement Actions

FTC

Lens.com Inc.

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.

FTC

Online platforms

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.

FTC

Amazon.com, Inc.

$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.

FTC

Amway Corp.

$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.

FTC

FleetCor Technologies Inc. (now Corpay Inc.)

$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

Automobile industry (auto dealers) - no named respondent; industry-wide guidance publication

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.