This
story appeared on Network World Fusion at
http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2000/0724bradner.html
'Net
Insider:
Toysmart,
privacy dumb
By Scott Bradner
Network World, 07/24/00
It
would have been hard to manufacture a more perfect test case to find out if
companies have to tell the truth in their privacy policies.
Toysmart,
a failed e-commerce company, put an ad in The Wall Street Journal offering to
sell its customer database as part of its bankruptcy process even though the
company had promised not to share the information with any third party. This
caused most privacy advocates to go nonlinear, and the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission filed a complaint in a U.S. federal court to stop the sale of the
information.
The story of Toysmart was a sad tale even before the
recent privacy-related developments. The company started out quite well,
focusing on nonviolent and educational toys, and managed to get a major
investment from Disney, which wound up owning 60% of the company. But things
quickly deteriorated when Disney had trouble coming up with a rational Web
strategy, and Toysmart had to file for bankruptcy protection in June. This was
the case of a company with a great deal of promise wiped out because an
old-line retailer could not come to grips with the new Web-based e-commerce
environment.
As in all bankruptcy cases, the company's assets are
being put up for sale to try to get some money for the creditors. But in this
case, one of the items offered for sale was Toysmart's "customer
files." These files were being offered in spite of a Toysmart privacy
policy that is still on the company's Web site. It says, "When you
register with toysmart. com, you can rest assured that your information will
never be shared with a third party." Toysmart's Web site also displays the
TRUSTe (www.truste.com) seal of approval indicating that Toysmart will abide by
the stated privacy policy.
When TRUSTe heard about the attempted sale
of customer information, it contacted the Federal Trade Commission, which has
now challenged the sale on the grounds that Toysmart had engaged in deceptive
trade practices by promising one thing in its privacy policy, then doing
something different. Disney, in an apparent good-guy move, offered to buy and
then "retire" the database, but the real effect of such a move would
be to establish the precedent that this type of violation of a written promise
is OK.
On the surface, this seems like a very simple case - written
promises mean something or they do not. But the assumption that creditors will
get the maximum return during bankruptcy processes makes the outcome hard to
predict. The database has value, and at this point may be the most valuable
thing the shell of Toysmart has to offer.
I sure hope the FTC succeeds
in establishing the precedent that companies have to live up to their promises
even in the face of bankruptcy. It is hard to overestimate the damage to the
future of e-commerce if the commission fails. Meanwhile, I will not give my
name and address to the clerk at Radio Shack when he asks for it.
Disclaimer:
Harvard's promises are its students and they are unpredictable, but the above
refusal to supply a name is mine.
All contents copyright 1995-2002
Network World, Inc. http://www.nwfusion.com