According to the law firm press release, LifeLock provides identity theft protection services for consumers and fraud and risk solutions for enterprises. LifeLock's threat detection, proactive identity alerts, and comprehensive remediation services purportedly provide peace of mind for consumers amid the growing threat of identity theft. In 2010 the Company entered into a settlement order with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and purportedly changed its marketing and business practices in connection with this settlement.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among others: (1) that the Company had failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect its users' sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security, and bank account numbers; (2) that the Company falsely advertised that it protected consumers' sensitive data with the same high-level safeguards as financial institutions; (3) that the Company failed to meet the 2010 settlement order's recordkeeping requirements; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On October 9, 2015, the Court issued an Order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving lead counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 10.
On August 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs were allowed to seek leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint was filed on October 14.
On August 21, 2017, the Court dismissed this case with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of this decision on September 19, 2017. On August 29, 2019, the Court of Appeals issued an Order affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the District Court. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
On April 3, 2020, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement and entered Final Judgment on July 21. On July 27, the Court issued an Order awarding attorneys' fees and expenses.