Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

IAPP CIPP/US Exam - Topic 4 Question 66 Discussion

What was unique about the action that the Federal Trade Commission took against B.J.'s Wholesale Club in 2005?
B) It was based on matters of fairness rather than deception.
A) It made third-party audits a penalty for policy violations.
C) It was the first substantial U.S.-EU Safe Harbor enforcement.
D) It made user consent mandatory after any revisions of policy.

IAPP CIPP/US Exam - Topic 4 Question 66 Discussion

Actual exam question for IAPP's CIPP/US exam
Question #: 66
Topic #: 4
[All CIPP/US Questions]

What was unique about the action that the Federal Trade Commission took against B.J.'s Wholesale Club in 2005?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

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.'


by Bernadine at Sep 15, 2024, 10:09 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CIPP/US Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Tamie
10 months ago
I think it was more about fairness than deception, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregoria
10 months ago
It made user consent mandatory after any revisions of policy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sheron
10 months ago
Wait, are we sure about that? Seems a bit off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jonelle
10 months ago
Totally agree, that was a big deal!
upvoted 0 times
...
Eden
11 months ago
It was the first substantial U.S.-EU Safe Harbor enforcement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Earleen
11 months ago
I thought it was about user consent, but that seems too straightforward for the FTC. Maybe it was more about fairness?
upvoted 0 times
...
Elena
11 months ago
I feel like the audits were a big deal, but I might be mixing it up with another case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lavera
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Audrie
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tenesha
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Josephine
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tyra
11 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Louis
12 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
Danica
2 years ago
B) It was based on matters of fairness rather than deception.
upvoted 0 times
...
Miles
2 years ago
A) It made third-party audits a penalty for policy violations.
upvoted 0 times
...
Henriette
2 years ago
C) It was the first substantial U.S.-EU Safe Harbor enforcement.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
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!
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
Wai
2 years ago
I remember reading about this, it was actually C - the first substantial U.S.-EU Safe Harbor enforcement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Audra
2 years ago
I'm not sure about that, I believe it was B - based on matters of fairness rather than deception.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maddie
2 years ago
I think it was actually A - it made third-party audits a penalty for policy violations.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
Lezlie
2 years ago
It was definitely a unique case.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ilene
2 years ago
That's interesting. I didn't know that.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gregg
2 years ago
I think the answer is C.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wilson
2 years ago
I agree with Leatha, it's rare to see a case based on fairness rather than deception.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leatha
2 years ago
I think the action was unique because it focused on fairness.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel