by Doug Pollack

This past week there have been a flurry of articles about the state of litigation pending against LifeLock. An AP article titled “ID protection ads come back to bite the pitchman” is illuminating relative to how this situation has expanded. The “pitchman” noted in this article is Todd Davis, CEO of LifeLock who proudly displays his real social security number in ads that run on TV, newspapers and elsewhere.

Per the article,

“Now, Lifelock customers in Maryland, New Jersey and West Virginia are suing Davis, claiming his service didn’t work as promised and he knew it wouldn’t, because the service had failed even him. Attorney David Paris said he found records of other people applying for or receiving driver’s licenses at least 20 times using Davis’ Social Security number, though some of the applications may have been rejected because data in them didn’t match what the Social Security Administration had on file.”

As one can discern reading this article, Mr. Davis remains totally unrepentant. He defends their advertising, the nature of the $1MM guarantee that is at issue as part of the “deceptive practices” claim in the lawsuits, and the efficacy of their identity theft protection product even in the face of evidence that brings into doubt its effectiveness.

In an interview yesterday with Matt Lauer on the NBC Today Show, he was asked about whether LifeLock does anything for their customers that they can’t do themselves. While acknowledging that consumers can set fraud alerts and “opt out” of credit card offers pretty easily on their own, he defended what LifeLock does do that consumers can do for themselves, noting that it monitors numerous databases on the internet, for instance in chatrooms, where identity theft can occur. What he didn’t mention is that this capability was only added to the LifeLock offering very recently. Since the class action lawsuits were filed.

So it would appear now that the courts will help assess whether LifeLock has engaged in deceptive advertising practices and made misleading claims about its identity theft service.