LifeLock 2015 Annual Report Download - page 277

Case 3:15-cv-00258-HSG Document 49-1 Filed 11/04/15 Page 119 of 289
Vice President of Marketing; Amanda Mellon, Senior Manager; Brent Hazel, Manager; Melinda Keels, Finance; and Gregory Lim, Burke’s immediate
supervisor. According to Burke, he raised concerns to these officers and employees about the effects of not sending out alerts, specifically addressing that
“throttling” might violate the FTC Order. Burke also recommended that LifeLock “adjust its marketing messaging to reflect this diminished service.” Id. at ¶¶
16, 19.
49. In February 2014, LifeLock settled Burke’s wrongful termination suit for an undisclosed amount.
50. To further put all this into perspective, a LifeLock website reports that LifeLock “members receive over 20,000 alerts for potential identity fraud
on a weekly basis.” See http://www.lifelockbusinesssolutions.com/why-lifelock/trust-lifelock/. With an estimated three million members, this means that the
typical LifeLock member receives one alert every 150 weeks.
C. LifeLock Falsely Touts Its Patented Technology to Mislead Customers into Believing It Will “Stop Thieves Before They Do Damage”
51. In addition to the already described misdeeds, LifeLock falsely and/or misleadingly leads customers to believe that its patented technology will
“stop thieves before they do damage.” However, this is a guarantee that LifeLock cannot back, as either a legal or practical matter.
52. Via its website, LifeLock purports to “review each attempt to misuse your identity, and proactively contact you anytime we detect an exposure
or threat.” However, LifeLock’s representation gives customers a false sense of security because LifeLock’s technology, systems, and personnel are
inadequate to provide this level of protection.
53. First, and as previously noted, LifeLock’s network is far more limited than LifeLock represents and LifeLock’s “alert” services were so riddled
with problems that the Company instituted a code freeze, meaning that members did not receive notification of potential exposures or threats because
LifeLock routinely turned these services off. Thus, LifeLock’s technology cannot, as a practical matter, guarantee to “stop thieves before they do damage.”
1279432.1 - 13 - AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-258