Plaintiff's Consent for Geolocation Tracking Didn't Extend to 3rd Party, Says FAC

and tracking consumers’ “precise geolocation data and other data through the use of XDK spyware and then profiting from the data by selling it to others without obtaining consent," said the FAC. Egan doesn’t challenge that the app that originally obtained her geolocation data obtained her consent to collect and share her data, but any purported consent was on behalf of the specific phone app “and did not apply to” X-Mode, it said. The data can include consumers’ movements to and from locations associated with medical care, reproductive health, religious worship, mental health, temporary shelters, such as shelters for the homeless, domestic violence survivors, addiction recovery or other “at-risk populations,” said the FAC. Neither X-Mode, nor any entity acting on its behalf, “ever attempted to obtain -- or did obtain -- consent for its subsequent sale or transfer of the data to other third parties after it acquired data from the phone applications,” said the FAC. Through the selling of Egan’s data without her consent, X-Mode has been “unjustly enriched” and has violated Egan’s privacy rights, state consumer protection and privacy statutes, and Section 5 of the FTC Act, it said. Egan claims unjust enrichment and violation of the Massachusetts Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act (see 2307260030).