Lifelock is one of the largest providers of life insurance underwritten plans in the United States. In late 2021, it was sued by the Federal Trade Commission for a variety of reasons. The suit itself names LifeLock, Inc., LifePoint Lending, LLC, and L’Union Financial Corporation as three of the parties responsible for the alleged deceptive advertising and the lack of disclosure that went along with that advertising. The class action lawsuit also names MetLife, Assurant Life, and Fortis Life as four of the parties who did not adequately advise their clients of the risks associated with their product and services.
Class Action Lawsuit Against Lifelock
The class action lawsuit against Lifelock points out several instances where they advertised their products in a manner that was deceptive. For example, Lifelock marketed its policies in the fine print at the top of the ad. The fine print contained statements such as, “Your premium goes up as you age” and, “No medical exam required”.
As the class action lawsuit points out, no consumer or member ever experience these types of dangers and in fact, any person who purchases this product is automatically dinged with an “unlimited” lifetime premium because of their age. It should be noted that the statement regarding the lack of medical exam required applies exclusively to persons who purchase the plan directly from the LifeLock website, and those who meet all of the other required enrollment requirements.
In addition to the above deceptive advertising and language, the class action lawsuit also charges Lifelock with repeatedly failing to provide material information to its members about certain specific events which occurred in their company’s history and which may have caused them to lose money.
These include information regarding a substantial drop in gross profit , a net loss in revenue during the fourth quarter of calendar year 2021, and an audit by an independent accountant in January of this year. Prior to the audit, Lifelock provided the auditor with a letter from one of its brokers which contained inaccurate information about the firm’s financial health. No member or customer has been able to explain how or why this fraudulent activity occurred.
Furthermore, the class action lawsuit further charges Lifelock with deceptive advertising and failure to warn its members and clients of the problems which resulted in its first fraudulent insurance policy claim and subsequent bankruptcy .
At the time of filing this lawsuit, Lifelock was facing a class action lawsuit filed by an individual who claimed that he had been the victim of identity fraud and had paid over one thousand dollars in claims for services which he did not receive. According to the facts presented in this lawsuit, the plaintiff did not report that he had been the victim of this type of fraud for three years. He finally informed Lifelock about his story when he suffered a stroke which left him with limited mobility and as a result lost his ability to work.
The second class action lawsuit against Lifelock further alleges that the company failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the conduct cited in the first lawsuit.
The second lawsuit further contends that the insurance company did not provide adequate warnings about the potential consequences of its policies. These lawsuits were brought forth by the Direct Relief Services, Inc. (DR), a direct marketing association whose stated purpose is “providing direct support and counseling to companies and direct employers to alleviate the financial hardships resulting from identity theft.” One of these lawsuits further alleges that Lifelock misrepresented to its members and clients the benefits of its insurance policies and the risks which may be involved in its operation.
The class action lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the acts or omissions which resulted in the first set of claims which caused the company to become bankrupt.
Also, the class action lawsuit further alleges that the defendants failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the further acts or omissions that resulted in the second set of claims which resulted in the company becoming greatly injured and its financial future ruined.
Finally, the class action lawsuit against Lifelock further alleges that the defendants failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the further acts or omissions that resulted in the third set of claims which caused the company to incur much more debt and substantially lose its business and the business of its associates.