Commissioner Swindle objected to the order provisions requiring defendants to post a privacy policy. At its core, the complaint alleges that defendants made an implied representation that they would use the credit card information only to verify age and that this representation was false because defendants also used their customers' billing information to place unauthorized charges on their credit cards. I object to the privacy provisions in the order because they are not reasonably related to the complaint allegations, which do not implicate privacy concerns but merely involve misrepresentations and unauthorized billing violations. In the absence of a transfer of information to a third party, I do not believe that a false claim as to how billing information will be used internally is sufficient to justify imposing privacy requirements. A stipulated final judgment and order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by defendants of a law violation.
Consent judgments have the force of law when signed by the judge.