MENU
What was unique about the action that the Federal Trade Commission took against B.J.'s Wholesale Club in 2005?
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium CIPP/US Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
Per the FTC Press Release in 2005, 'BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its failure to take appropriate security measures to protect the sensitive information of thousands of its customers was an unfair practice that violated federal law.'
31 comments · newest first
TA
Tamie
11 months ago
I think it was more about fairness than deception, right?
GR
Gregoria
11 months ago
It made user consent mandatory after any revisions of policy.
SH
Sheron
12 months ago
Wait, are we sure about that? Seems a bit off.
JO
Jonelle
12 months ago
Totally agree, that was a big deal!
ED
Eden
1 year ago
It was the first substantial U.S.-EU Safe Harbor enforcement.
EA
Earleen
1 year ago
I thought it was about user consent, but that seems too straightforward for the FTC. Maybe it was more about fairness?
EL
Elena
1 year ago
I feel like the audits were a big deal, but I might be mixing it up with another case.
LA
Lavera
1 year ago
I remember practicing a question about the Safe Harbor enforcement, but I can't recall if B.J.'s case was the first one.
AU
Audrie
1 year ago
I think the FTC's action was unique because it focused on fairness, but I'm not entirely sure if that's what they emphasized in 2005.
TE
Tenesha
1 year ago
Ah, I think I've got it! The unique aspect was that it was the first substantial U.S.-EU Safe Harbor enforcement. That's got to be the answer.
JO
Josephine
1 year ago
Okay, let me see here. I remember learning about this case, but I'm having trouble recalling the specific details that made it unique. I'll have to think it through.
TY
Tyra
1 year ago
Hmm, this question seems a bit tricky. I'll need to carefully read through the options and think about what made the FTC's action unique.
LO
Louis
1 year ago
I'm pretty confident I can figure this one out. The key is to focus on the unique aspects of the FTC's action against B.J.'s Wholesale Club.
CL
Clay
2 years ago
I'm just going to roll the dice on this one. Eenie, meenie, miney, moe... C it is! Though I hear the FTC has a real soft spot for wholesale clubs.
DA
Danica
2 years ago
B) It was based on matters of fairness rather than deception.
MI
Miles
2 years ago
A) It made third-party audits a penalty for policy violations.
HE
Henriette
2 years ago
C) It was the first substantial U.S.-EU Safe Harbor enforcement.
CR
Cristy
2 years ago
C is the way to go, folks. The FTC's action against B.J.'s was the first substantial enforcement under the Safe Harbor agreement. Easy peasy!
MA
Matthew
2 years ago
Hmm, this is a tough one. I'm going to guess D - the FTC made user consent mandatory after any revisions of policy. Sounds like something they would do.
WA
Wai
2 years ago
I remember reading about this, it was actually C - the first substantial U.S.-EU Safe Harbor enforcement.
AU
Audra
2 years ago
I'm not sure about that, I believe it was B - based on matters of fairness rather than deception.
MA
Maddie
2 years ago
I think it was actually A - it made third-party audits a penalty for policy violations.
CA
Carmelina
2 years ago
The question is a bit tricky, but I'm going with B. The FTC's action was based on matters of fairness rather than deception.
AL
Alecia
2 years ago
I think the answer is C. The FTC's action against B.J.'s Wholesale Club in 2005 was the first substantial enforcement under the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework.
LE
Lezlie
2 years ago
It was definitely a unique case.
IL
Ilene
2 years ago
That's interesting. I didn't know that.
AB
Abraham
2 years ago
Yes, you're right. The action against B.J.'s Wholesale Club was the first substantial U.S.-EU Safe Harbor enforcement.
GR
Gregg
2 years ago
I think the answer is C.
MA
Marquetta
2 years ago
I believe the FTC's decision to make third-party audits a penalty was also a significant aspect of the case.
WI
Wilson
2 years ago
I agree with Leatha, it's rare to see a case based on fairness rather than deception.
LE
Leatha
2 years ago
I think the action was unique because it focused on fairness.