Page 1 of 13 

 1823189 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Joseph J. Simons, Chairman 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rohit Chopra

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Christine S. Wilson

In the Matter of

DOCKET NO. 9386 

RagingWire Data Centers, Inc., 

a corporation. 

COMPLAINT

 The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), having reason to believe that RagingWire Data 

Centers, Inc., a corporation, has violated the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), and it 

appearing to the Commission that this proceeding is in the public interest, alleges:

1. Respondent RagingWire Data Centers, Inc. (“RagingWire”) is a Nevada corporation with 

its principal office or place of business at 200 S. Virginia Street, 8th Floor, Reno, NV 89501.

2. RagingWire provides data colocation services. Specifically, RagingWire offers 

specialized storage facilities—often referred to as “data centers”—that are designed to house and 

protect servers owned and operated by other businesses, along with various complementary 

services including on-site technical support, network connectivity, and physical security. 

3. The acts and practices of RagingWire as alleged in this complaint have been in or 

affecting commerce, as “commerce” is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act.

4. As described in more detail below, RagingWire has made deceptive statements on its 

website, https://www.ragingwire.com/content/online-privacy-policy, and in its marketing 

materials, about its participation in and compliance with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework 

and/or EU-U.S. Safe Harbor Framework. 
Page 2 of 13 

Personal Data Transfers Under European Union Law 

 

5. The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (“Privacy Shield”) was negotiated by the

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) and the European Commission (“EC”) to provide a

mechanism for companies to transfer personal data from the European Union (“EU”) to the U.S. 

in a manner consistent with the requirements of European Union law on data protection. Enacted 

in 1995, the EU Data Protection Directive set forth EU requirements for the protection of 

personal data. Among other things, it required EU Member States to implement legislation that 

prohibits the transfer of personal data outside the EU, with exceptions, unless the European 

Commission has made a determination that the recipient jurisdiction’s laws ensure the protection 

of such personal data. This determination is referred to commonly as meeting the EU’s 

“adequacy” standard. 

6. The EU has since enacted a new data protection regime, the General Data Protection 

Regulation (“GDPR”), which took effect as of May 25, 2018, and contains similar provisions on 

data transfers. The GDPR explicitly recognizes EC adequacy determinations in effect as of that 

date. Unlike the Directive, the GDPR is directly applicable and generally does not require 

member states to enact implementing legislation. 

7. To satisfy the EU adequacy standard for certain commercial transfers, Commerce and the 

European Commission negotiated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, which the European 

Commission determined was adequate by written decision in July 2016, and took effect August 

1, 2016. Thus, the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework allows for the transfer of personal data 

lawfully from the EU to those companies in the United States that participate in Privacy Shield. 

8. The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework replaced the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework 

(“Safe Harbor Framework”), in effect from 2000-2016, as a lawful mechanism under EU law for 

transferring data from the EU to the United States. 

9. To join the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, a company must self-certify to 

Commerce that it complies with the Privacy Shield Principles, and to related requirements that 

have been deemed to meet the EU’s adequacy standard. Participating companies must annually 

recertify their compliance.

10. The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework expressly provides that while decisions by 

organizations to “enter the Privacy Shield are entirely voluntary, effective compliance is 

compulsory: organizations that self-certify to the Department and publicly declare their 

commitment to adhere to the Principles must comply fully with the Principles.” (Emphasis 

added.) 

 

11. To comply with the Privacy Shield Principles, companies must, among other things, 

ascertain that any third-party agents to which they transfer data received pursuant to Privacy 
Page 3 of 13 

Shield are obligated to provide at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by the 

Principles, as required by Privacy Shield Principle 3, “Accountability for Onward Transfer.” One 

way to meet this requirement is to use an agent that is also a Privacy Shield participant.

12. Companies under the jurisdiction of the FTC are eligible to join the EU-U.S. Privacy 

Shield Framework. The framework expressly warns companies that claim to have self-certified 

to the Privacy Shield Principles that failure to comply or otherwise to “fully implement” the 

Privacy Shield Principles “is enforceable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” 

13. The European Commission’s adequacy decision expressly notes that, “to ensure the 

proper application of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework, interested parties, such as data 

subjects, data exporters and the national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs), must be able to 

identify those organisations adhering to the Principles.” To that end, Commerce maintains a 

public website, https://www.privacyshield.gov, where it posts the names of companies that have 

self-certified to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework. The listing of companies, available at 

https://www.privacyshield.gov/list, indicates whether the company’s self-certification is current. 

A U.S. company may only benefit from the EC adequacy decision while it is on the Department 

of Commerce’s Privacy Shield list. 

14. Under Article 83 of GDPR, transfers of personal information from the European 

Economic Area (“EEA”) to the United States without the benefit of an authorized mechanism 

such as Privacy Shield are subject to severe penalties, including administrative fines of up to 

20,000,000€ or 4% of the transferor’s worldwide annual turnover from the preceding financial 

year, whichever is greater. 

15. RagingWire is under the jurisdiction of the FTC. 

RagingWire’s Business Practices

16. RagingWire offers colocation services that store customer data at one of three data 

centers located in the United States. RagingWire customers that collect or process personal 

information from the EEA and want to transfer that data to RagingWire in the U.S. can comply 

with GDPR and/or their own Privacy Shield obligations if RagingWire participates in Privacy 

Shield. 

17. RagingWire originally participated in the Safe Harbor Framework, and submitted its final 

annual recertification for the Safe Harbor Framework on June 16, 2016. 

18. RagingWire submitted a Privacy Shield self-certification application in approximately 

October 2016. It obtained Privacy Shield certification in January 2017. 

19. One year later, RagingWire did not complete the steps necessary to renew its Privacy 

Shield certification, and its Privacy Shield certification lapsed in January 2018. 
Page 4 of 13 

20. From approximately January 2017 until October 2018, RagingWire disseminated or 

caused to be disseminated the following representations in its online privacy policy, available at

https://www.ragingwire.com/content/online-privacy-policy, including, but not limited to, 

statements that it participated in and complied with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield (the “Privacy 

Shield Statements”): 

EU-U.S. Privacy Shield 

RagingWire complies with the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework as set forth by 

the US Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and retention of 

personal information from European Union member countries. RagingWire has 

certified that it adheres to the Privacy Shield Principles of Notice, Choice, 

Accountability for Onward Transfer, Security, Data Integrity and Purpose 

Limitation, Access, and Recourse, Enforcement and Liability. If there is any 

conflict between the policies in this privacy policy and the Privacy Shield 

Principles, the Privacy Shield Principles shall govern. To learn more about the 

Privacy Shield program, and to view our certification page, please visit 

https://www.privacyshield.gov/

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has jurisdiction over RagingWire’s 

compliance with the Privacy Shield.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

In compliance with the EU-US Privacy Shield Principles, RagingWire commits to 

resolve complaints about your privacy and our collection or use of your personal 

information. . . .If you have an unresolved privacy or data use concern that we 

have not addressed satisfactorily, please contact our U.S.-based third party dispute 

resolution provider (free of charge) at https://feedbackform.truste.com/watchdog/request. Please note that if your complaint is not 

resolved through these channels, under limited circumstances, a binding 

arbitration option may be available before a Privacy Shield Panel. 

21. RagingWire also has disseminated or caused to be disseminated sales materials 

containing representations that RagingWire was a participant in Privacy Shield and/or the Safe 

Harbor Framework after it was no longer participating in the frameworks. For example, 

RagingWire’s marketing slides, the “Sales Tour Deck,” represented in 2018 that RagingWire 

participated in the Safe Harbor Framework when, in fact, RagingWire no longer participated in 

the Safe Harbor Framework or Privacy Shield as of January 2018. A copy of this representation 

is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

22. Following the lapse of RagingWire’s Privacy Shield certification in January 2018, 

Commerce warned the company in February 2018, and again in May 2018, to take down its 

claims that it participated in Privacy Shield unless and until such time as it completed the steps 

necessary to renew its participation in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework.
Page 5 of 13 

23. RagingWire did not remove its Privacy Shield Statements until October 2018, after 

RagingWire was contacted by the FTC. 

24. In June 2019, RagingWire again obtained Privacy Shield certification. 

RagingWire’s Privacy Shield Non-Compliance 

25. At least during the January 2017-18 period that RagingWire was a Privacy Shield 

participant, RagingWire failed to comply with the Privacy Shield Principles. 

RagingWire’s Failure to Verify Compliance

26. Supplemental Principle 7 of the Privacy Shield Principles requires any company that 

participates in Privacy Shield to annually verify, through self-assessment or outside compliance 

review, that the assertions it makes about its Privacy Shield privacy practices are true and that 

those privacy practices have been implemented. 

27. Participants must also prepare a statement, signed by a corporate officer or outside 

reviewer, that such assessment or outside compliance review has been completed. Participants 

must make their annual verification statements available on request to the FTC or Department of 

Transportation, whoever has unfair and deceptive practices jurisdiction over the company. 

28. During the 2017-18 period that RagingWire participated in Privacy Shield, RagingWire

did not verify, through self-assessment or outside compliance review, that its assertions about its 

Privacy Shield privacy practices were true and that those privacy practices had been 

implemented.

29. During the 2017-18 period that RagingWire participated in Privacy Shield, RagingWire

also did not complete a verification statement signed by an officer or outside compliance 

reviewer that the assertions it had made about its Privacy Shield privacy practices during the 

time it participated in the program were true and that those privacy practices had been 

implemented. 

RagingWire’s Failure to Maintain an 

Independent Recourse Mechanism

30. Principle 7(a)(i) of the Privacy Shield Principles requires, among other things, that 

organizations participating in Privacy Shield provide “readily available independent recourse 

mechanisms by which each individual’s complaints and disputes are investigated and 

expeditiously resolved at no cost to the individual and by reference to the Principles.” 

Supplemental Principle 11(a) specifies that participating organizations may comply with 

Principle 7(a)(i) by using a qualifying private-sector program.
Page 6 of 13 

31. TRUSTe LLC (“TRUSTe”), a subsidiary of TrustArc Inc., offers a qualifying Privacy 

Shield dispute resolution mechanism. Privacy Shield participants may satisfy the requirements of 

Principle 7(a)(i) and Supplemental Principle 11(a) by participating in TRUSTe’s dispute 

resolution program. 

32. RagingWire contracted with TRUSTe to provide dispute resolution services. 

33. Under the heading “Dispute Resolution,” RagingWire’s Privacy Shield Statements 

included a hyperlink to the private sector program developed by TRUSTe LLC. RagingWire’s 

Privacy Shield Statements directed consumers to use that link to submit “unresolved privacy or 

data use concern[s]” to RagingWire’s “U.S.-based third party dispute resolution provider.” 

34. However, RagingWire’s subscription with TRUSTe was terminated as of October 1, 

2017, and TRUSTe ceased providing dispute resolution services to RagingWire as of that date. 

RagingWire did not renew its dispute resolution subscription with TRUSTe until June 2018. 

RagingWire’s Failure to Properly Withdraw 

and Affirm Its Ongoing Compliance

35. Supplemental Principle 6(f) of the Privacy Shield Principles requires that any participant 

that withdraws from Privacy Shield affirm to Commerce that it will either continue to apply the 

Privacy Shield Principles to any data received pursuant to Privacy Shield or will delete or return 

all such data. Supplemental Principle 7 requires organizations to respond promptly to inquiries 

and other requests for information from Commerce relating to the organization’s adherence to 

the Privacy Shield Principles. 

36. In February 2018, Commerce informed RagingWire that, because its certification had 

lapsed, it was required to complete a questionnaire verifying whether the company would recertify or withdraw from the program and, if the latter, whether RagingWire would return and 

delete the data it had received under Privacy Shield or would continue to apply the Privacy 

Shield Principles to that data.

37. RagingWire did not complete the questionnaire. 

Count 1-Privacy Shield Participation Misrepresentation

38. As described in Paragraphs 20-21, RagingWire has represented, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, that it was a current participant in the EU-U.S Privacy Shield 

Framework and/or the Safe Harbor Framework from at least January 2017 until at least October 

2018. 

39. In fact, as described in Paragraphs 17 and 19, RagingWire’s Privacy Shield and Safe 

Harbor Framework certifications had lapsed and it was not a current participant in the EU-U.S. 

Privacy Shield Framework or the Safe Harbor Framework from at least January 2018 until 
Page 7 of 13 

approximately June 2019. Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraphs 38 were false or

misleading.

Count 2-Misrepresentation Regarding Verification

40. As described in Paragraphs 20-21, RagingWire has represented, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, that it complies with the Privacy Shield Principles. 

41. In fact, as described in Paragraphs 26-29, RagingWire failed to comply with the 

verification requirements during the time it participated in Privacy Shield. Therefore, the 

representations set forth in Paragraph 40 were false or misleading.

Count 3-Misrepresentation Regarding Dispute Resolution

42. As described in Paragraphs 20-21, RagingWire has represented, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, that it complies with the Privacy Shield Principles.

43. In fact, as described in Paragraphs 30-34, RagingWire failed to comply with the Privacy 

Shield Principles’ requirement that it maintain a readily available independent recourse 

mechanism for the period from approximately October 1, 2017 through June 19, 2018. 

Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 42 were false or misleading.

Count 4-Misrepresentation Regarding Continuing Obligations

44. As described in Paragraphs 20-21, RagingWire has represented, directly or indirectly, 

expressly or by implication, that it complies with the Privacy Shield Principles. 

45. In fact, as described in Paragraphs 35-37, RagingWire let its certification lapse and did 

not affirm or verify to Commerce that it would either delete or return personal information that it 

received during the time it participated in the program or would continue to apply the principles 

to such information. Therefore, the representations set forth in Paragraph 44 were false or 

misleading.

Violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act 

46. The acts and practices of RagingWire as alleged in this complaint constitute deceptive 

acts or practices, in or affecting commerce, in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act.
Page 8 of 13 

NOTICE

You are notified that on the seventh day of July, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., at the Federal Trade 

Commission Headquarters Building, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 532-H, Washington, 

DC 20580, an Administrative Law Judge of the Federal Trade Commission, will hold a hearing 

on the charges set forth in this Complaint. At that time and place, you will have the right under 

the Federal Trade Commission Act to appear and show cause why an order should not be entered 

requiring you to cease and desist from the violations of law charged in this Complaint.

You are notified that you are afforded the opportunity to file with the Federal Trade 

Commission (“Commission”) an answer to this Complaint on or before the 14th day after service 

of the Complaint upon you. An answer in which the allegations of the Complaint are contested 

must contain a concise statement of the facts constituting each ground of defense; and specific 

admission, denial, or explanation of each fact alleged in the Complaint or, if you are without 

knowledge thereof, a statement to that effect. Allegations of the Complaint not thus answered 

will be deemed to have been admitted.

If you elect not to contest the allegations of fact set forth in the Complaint, the answer 

should consist of a statement that you admit all of the material facts to be true. Such an answer 

will constitute a waiver of hearings as to the facts alleged in the Complaint and, together with the 

Complaint, will provide a record basis on which the Commission may issue a final decision 

containing appropriate findings and conclusions and a final order disposing of the proceeding. In 

such answer, you may, however, reserve the right to submit proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law under FTC Rule § 3.46. 

Failure to answer timely will be deemed to constitute a waiver of your right to appear and 

contest the allegations of the Complaint. It will also authorize the Commission, without further 

notice to you, to find the facts to be as alleged in the Complaint and to enter a final decision 

containing appropriate findings and conclusions and a final order disposing of the proceeding. 

The Administrative Law Judge will hold an initial prehearing scheduling conference to be 

held not later than 10 days after the answer is filed by the Respondent. Unless otherwise directed 

by the Administrative Law Judge, the scheduling conference and further proceedings will take 

place at the Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 532-H, 

Washington, DC 20580. Rule 3.21(a) requires a meeting of the parties’ counsel as early as 

practicable before the prehearing scheduling conference, but in any event no later than five (5) 

days after the answer is filed by the Respondent. Rule 3.31(b) obligates counsel for each party, 

within five (5) days of receiving a Respondent’s answer, to make certain initial disclosures 

without awaiting a formal discovery request. 
Page 9 of 13 

The following is the form of the order which the Commission has reason to believe 

should issue if the facts are found to be as alleged in the Complaint. If, however, the 

Commission concludes from record facts developed in any adjudicative proceedings in this 

matter that the proposed order provisions as to Respondent might be inadequate to fully protect 

the consuming public, the Commission may order such other relief as it finds necessary and 

appropriate. 

ORDER

Definitions

For purposes of this Order, the following definition applies: 

1. “Respondent” means RagingWire Data Centers, Inc., a corporation, and its successors 

and assigns. 

Provisions 

I. Prohibition against Misrepresentations about 

Participation in or Compliance with Privacy Programs

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent and its officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, 

and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual 

notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with the advertising, 

marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of any product or service must not misrepresent 

in any manner, expressly or by implication, the extent to which Respondent is a member of, 

adheres to, complies with, is certified by, is endorsed by, or otherwise participates in any privacy 

or security program sponsored by a government or any self-regulatory or standard-setting 

organization, including but not limited to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework and the SwissU.S. Privacy Shield Framework and the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. 

II. Requirement to Meet Continuing

Obligations Under Privacy Shield

IT IS ORDERED that Respondent and its officers, agents, employees, and attorneys, 

and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them, who receive actual 

notice of this Order, whether acting directly or indirectly, in connection with the advertising, 

marketing, promotion, offering for sale, or sale of any product or service, must affirm to the 

Department of Commerce, within thirty (30) days after any withdrawal or lapse in its 

certification to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework or the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield 

Framework, and on an annual basis thereafter for as long as it retains such information, that it 

will:

1. Continue to apply the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework Principles to the 

personal information it received while it participated in the Privacy Shield; or 
Page 10 of 13 

2. Protect the information by another means authorized under EU (for the EU-U.S. 

Privacy Shield Framework) or Swiss (for the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield 

Framework) law, including by using a binding corporate rule or a contract that 

fully reflects the requirements of the relevant standard contractual clauses adopted 

by the European Commission; or 

3. Return or delete the information.

III. Acknowledgments of the Order

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent obtain acknowledgments of receipt of 

this Order:

A. Respondent, within ten (10) days after the effective date of this Order, must submit to the 

Commission an acknowledgment of receipt of this Order.

B. For twenty (20) years after the issuance date of this Order, Respondent must deliver a 

copy of this Order to: (1) all principals, officers, directors, and LLC managers and 

members; (2) all employees having managerial responsibilities for conduct related to the 

subject matter of the Order and all agents and representatives who participate in conduct 

related to the subject matter of the Order; and (3) any business entity resulting from any 

change in structure as set forth in the Provision titled Compliance Report and Notices. 

Delivery must occur within ten (10) days after the effective date of this Order for current 

personnel. For all others, delivery must occur before they assume their responsibilities.

C. From each individual or entity to which Respondent delivered a copy of this Order, 

Respondent must obtain, within thirty (30) days, a signed and dated acknowledgment of 

receipt of this Order.

IV. Compliance Report and Notices

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent make timely submissions to the 

Commission:

A. Sixty (60) days after the effective date of this Order, Respondent must submit a 

compliance report, sworn under penalty of perjury, in which Respondent must: (a) 

identify the primary physical, postal, and email address and telephone number, as 

designated points of contact, which representatives of the Commission, may use to 

communicate with Respondent; (b) identify all of Respondent’s businesses by all of their 

names, telephone numbers, and physical, postal, email, and Internet addresses; (c) 

describe the activities of each business; (d) describe in detail whether and how 

Respondent is in compliance with each Provision of this Order; and (e) provide a copy of 
Page 11 of 13

each Acknowledgment of the Order obtained pursuant to this Order, unless previously 

submitted to the Commission.

B. Respondent must submit a compliance notice, sworn under penalty of perjury, within 

fourteen (14) days of any change in the following: (1) any designated point of contact; or 

(2) the structure of Respondent or any entity that Respondent has any ownership interest 

in or controls directly or indirectly that may affect compliance obligations arising under 

this Order, including: creation, merger, sale, or dissolution of the entity or any 

subsidiary, parent, or affiliate that engages in any acts or practices subject to this Order.

C. Respondent must submit notice of the filing of any bankruptcy petition, insolvency 

proceeding, or similar proceeding by or against Respondent within fourteen (14) days of 

its filing.

D. Any submission to the Commission required by this Order to be sworn under penalty of 

perjury must be true and accurate and comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, such as by 

concluding: “I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of 

America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on: _____” and supplying the 

date, signatory’s full name, title (if applicable), and signature.

E. Unless otherwise directed by a Commission representative in writing, all submissions to 

the Commission pursuant to this Order must be emailed to Debrief@ftc.gov or sent by 

overnight courier (not the U.S. Postal Service) to: Associate Director of Enforcement, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The subject line must begin: In re RagingWire Data 

Centers, Inc., FTC Docket No. 9386. 

V. Recordkeeping

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent must create certain records for twenty 

(20) years after the issuance date of the Order, and retain each such record for five (5) years. 

Specifically, Respondent must create and retain the following records:

A. accounting records showing the revenues from all goods or services sold; 

B. personnel records showing, for each person providing services, whether as an employee 

or otherwise, that person’s name, addresses, telephone numbers, job title or position,

dates of service, and (if applicable) the reason for termination;

C. all records necessary to demonstrate full compliance with each provision of this Order, 

including all submissions to the Commission; and

D. a copy of each widely disseminated representation by Respondent making any 
Page 12 of 13

representation subject to this Order, and all materials that were relied upon in making the 

representation.

VI. Compliance Monitoring

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the purpose of monitoring Respondent’s

compliance with this Order:

A. Within ten (10) days of receipt of a written request from a representative of the 

Commission, Respondent must submit additional compliance reports or other requested 

information, which must be sworn under penalty of perjury, and produce records for 

inspection and copying.

B. For matters concerning this Order, representatives of the Commission are authorized to 

communicate directly with Respondent. Respondent must permit representatives of the 

Commission to interview anyone affiliated with Respondent who has agreed to such an 

interview. The interviewee may have counsel present.

C. The Commission may use all other lawful means, including posing through its 

representatives as consumers, suppliers, or other individuals or entities, to Respondent or 

any individual or entity affiliated with Respondent, without the necessity of identification 

or prior notice. Nothing in this Order limits the Commission’s lawful use of compulsory 

process, pursuant to Sections 9 and 20 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 49, 57b-1.

VII. Order Effective Dates

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the final and effective date of this Order is the 60th

day after this Order is served. This Order will terminate twenty (20) years from the date of its 

issuance (which date may be stated at the end of this Order, near the Commission’s seal), or 

twenty (20) years from the most recent date that the United States or the Commission files a 

complaint (with or without an accompanying settlement) in federal court alleging any violation 

of the Order, whichever comes later; provided, however, that the filing of such a complaint will 

not affect the duration of:

A. any Provision in this Order that terminates in less than twenty (20) years;

B. this Order’s application to any respondent that is not named as a defendant in such 

complaint; and

C. this Order if such complaint is filed after the order has terminated pursuant to this 

Provision. 

Provided, further, that if such complaint is dismissed or a federal court rules that Respondent did 

not violate any provision of the Order, and the dismissal or ruling is either not appealed or 
Page 13 of 13 

upheld on appeal, then the Order will terminate according to this Provision as though the 

complaint had never been filed, except that the Order will not terminate between the date such 

complaint is filed and the later of the deadline for appealing such dismissal or ruling and the date 

such dismissal or ruling is upheld on appeal. 

THEREFORE, the Federal Trade Commission, this fifth day of November, 

2019, has issued this Complaint against Respondent. 

By the Commission.

April J. Tabor 

Acting Secretary

SEAL: