[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Page 51899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18566]



[File No. 1623034, Docket No. C-4580]

Very Incognito Technologies, Inc., Doing Business as Vipvape

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.


SUMMARY: The Commission has approved a final consent order in this 
matter, settling alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public 
Comment describes both the allegations in the Complaint and the terms 
of the Decision and Order.

DATES: Issued on June 21, 2016.


Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') has 
approved a final consent order applicable to Very Incognito 
Technologies, Inc. dba Vipvape (``Vipvape'').
    The consent order was placed on the public record for thirty (30) 
days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received 
during this period became part of the public record. After the public 
comment period, the Commission reviewed the agreement and the comments 
received, and determined to make the proposed order final.
    This matter concerns allegedly false representations that Vipvape 
made to consumers concerning its participation in the Asia-Pacific 
Economic Cooperation (``APEC'') Cross Border Privacy Rules (``CBPR'') 
system. The APEC CBPR system is a voluntary, enforceable mechanism that 
certifies a company's compliance with the principles in the CBPR and 
facilitates privacy-respecting transfers of data amongst APEC member 
economies. The APEC CBPR system is based on nine data privacy 
principles: Preventing harm, notice, collection limitation, use choice, 
integrity, security safeguards, access and correction, and 
accountability. Companies that seek to participate in the APEC CBPR 
system must undergo a review by an APEC-recognized Accountability 
Agent, which certifies companies that meet the standards.
    Companies under the FTC's jurisdiction are eligible to apply for 
APEC CBPR certification. The names of certified companies are posted on 
a public-facing Web site, www.cbprs.org. Companies must re-apply 
annually in order to retain their status as current participants in the 
APEC CBPR system. A company that falsely claims APEC CBPR participation 
may be subject to an enforcement action based on the FTC's deception 
authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act.
    Vipvape makes and distributes hand-held vaporizers. According to 
the Commission's complaint, Vipvape has set forth on its Web site, 
https://www.vipvape.com/content/legal/warranty/privacy, privacy 
policies and statements about its practices, including statements 
related to its participation in the APEC CBPR system.
    The Commission's complaint alleges that Vipvape falsely represented 
that it was a participant in the APEC CBPR system when, in fact, it 
never sought or obtained certification.
    Part I of the order prohibits Vipvape from making 
misrepresentations about its participation in any privacy or security 
program sponsored by a government or any self-regulatory or standard-
setting organization, including, but not limited to, the APEC CBPR 
    Parts II through VI of the order are reporting and compliance 
provisions. Part II requires acknowledgment of the order and 
dissemination of the order now and in the future to persons with 
responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order. Part III 
ensures notification to the FTC of changes in corporate status and 
mandates that Vipvape submit an initial compliance report to the FTC. 
Part IV requires Vipvape to retain documents relating to its compliance 
with the order for a five-year period. Part V mandates that Vipvape 
make available to the FTC information or subsequent compliance reports, 
as requested. Part VI is a provision that ``sunsets'' the order on June 
21, 2036, with certain exceptions.
    The purpose of this analysis, which was placed on the Commission 
Web site on May 4, 2016, was to facilitate public comment on the 
proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official 
interpretation of the complaint or order or to modify the order's terms 
in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
[FR Doc. 2016-18566 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]