Back in September, I wrote about Lifelock and how their advertising is brilliant.
But ever since then, I’ve had my doubts about the company. And my research (which has taken quite some time) has turned up some interesting details.
Let me back up for a second. The whole reason I started doubting the company’s business practices in the first place was because of some comments left on my old copywriting blog.
A commenter dubbed ID Thief wrote, “Oh, and that SS number is not really issued to a Todd Davis. Its a phony number set up with the DOJ to try to catch stupid people. Five minutes online could have told you that.”
Then an anonymous commenter wrote: “Hello, my name is Butthead and my social security number is [457-55-5462]. Looks real enough? Any real businessman knows to NEVER use your own product… and that a lie works as easy as the truth.”
These comments alone caused me some concern over Lifelock’s advertising, but then the Long Island Sleuth showed up and wrote this:
Powerful ad, yes. Truthful, very doubtful.
For fifteen years I was a criminal investigator for NY State and we were trained in spotting phony Social Security numbers as the majority of our fraud investigations were in Unemployment Insurance.
Now, unless the Social Security people have changed the rules since I was employed in the field, this SS # does not exist in their system. Their rules are that you cannot have an odd number in the middle two numbers unless the first digit is zero, ergo, having the middle numbers of his SS # as 55 is impossible.
If that is still true, then the FTC ought to go after this guy for false advertising. Besides, I don’t care how secure his system is, no one in his right mind would broadcast his real SS# to the world.
So I couldn’t help myself. I had to discover whether Todd Davis’s SSN (as advertised) was real or not.
Now, I did find a few sources confirming that the two middle digits of a SSN must be even numbers, but my SSN uses one even and one odd number (and the first of the two numbers isn’t zero). So this rule may have been true in the past, but doesn’t seem to be true today.
Nevertheless, Joe R. claims the Todd Davis SSN is fake. He writes on Yahoo Answers:
I work for a company and can run a “social search,” and that social belongs to several different people, not one of them Todd Davis. In essence, the social is fake and several people have been reported using it. It makes me question LifeLock as a company.
Again, I wouldn’t bank on this source 100%, but it certainly makes me wonder.
But it gets worse. Because earlier this year, Experian filed a lawsuit against LifeLock. The Union (a Nevada news source) writes:
Lifelock has at least one major detractor. Credit reporting agency Experian has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, accusing Lifelock of fraud, unfair business practices and violations of federal law.
Furthermore, Robert Maynard, Jr., one of Lifelock’s founding partners, has filed bankruptcy multiple times, committed identity theft against his own father, and been caught in lies about his past. You can verify these claims in this excellent article by Phoenix New Times reporter Ray Stern:
==> What Happened in Vegas: An In-Depth Look at Robert Maynard, Jr. and Lifelock
Although Maynard, Jr., supposedly resigned from Lifelock a year ago amidst this controversy, he is still a part-owner in the company and still handles the marketing. Wired Magazine reports:
[Todd] Davis acknowledged that Maynard, Jr., still owns 10 percent equity in LifeLock and that he is launching a marketing company. When asked if Maynard will work as a contractor for LifeLock doing the same marketing work he was until now doing as a staff member, Davis said yes.
Hmmm… So is Lifelock advertising a fake SSN or not? Better yet, should the company be trusted?
After doing a lot of digging, I’d say Lifelock’s business practices are, at best, suspect. Possibly even outright deceptive.
What’s your opinion? If you have any more evidence, would you mind leaving a comment below? Thanks.
-Ryan M. Healy
Popularity: 80% [?]
Pssst! Did you know you can get automatic blog updates when you join my email list or subscribe to my RSS feed?
12 comments ↓
Very interesting. I had a Lifelock ad on my site for a short time. Guess I might turn out to be glad I removed it.
I too have a SSN with an odd number and no 0 in the middle as does my wife, so I don’t put faith in Long Island Sleuth’s analysis.
All the credit agencies, Experian included, are angry about people putting fraud alerts and credit freezes on their accounts since the credit agencies make money by selling easy access to credit reports to those who extend credit. None of them are ever protective of the consumer at all unless forced to be. They fight laws allowing credit freezes whenever they are proposed. So I would expect them to gripe about what Lifelock does.
However, consumers can definitely do these things on their own - if they remember. And if they don’t remember they just lose money with no guarantee.
The person who ran a check on a SSN to verify it violated the law. Even on a published SSN, you are supposed to have written permission for verification. (At least those of us in the mortgage business are told by the verifying services that we do.)
All that being said, there is definitely something here that doesn’t smell quite right.
Thanks!
Carl Pruitt
Interesting. Recently I went to a presentation of Prepaid Legal Services, which is affiliated with Kroll identity theft services. As part of their presentation, they compare their effectiveness with similar programs, including LifeLock. I don’t remember the exact numbers, but according to this presentation, LifeLock doesn’t stack up very well. So what you’re saying doesn’t surprise me.
There are some interesting points brought up here Ryan.
I would hope that if the advertising said it was his SSN, that it was…or FCC FTC etc… will be the new letters he gets familiar with.
Joe
[...] read more | digg story [...]
FWIW, my ex’s SS# has 55 as its middle digits, and mine are 57. I think there may be some variance from state to state regarding how the numbers are structured, so Long Island may be correct where NY is concerned.
My understanding is that the first 2 numbers presumably give you the state where the number was issued, and a third number/s tucked in somewhere is a code for the year it was issued. Kind of like a VIN.
As for Lifelock itself, I know nothing. But it wouldn’t surprise me if it were a scam, especially given Mr. Maynard’s past. I worked in the forgery office of a large metropolitan police department for five years, and white collar crime is a business almost as seductive as drugs. Once they fall in that pit, they don’t want to climb out.
Very interesting.
My rule of thumb (which may or may not apply here) says: If it looks too good to be true, it probably is. (too good to be true, that is.)
It sounds like it might smell fishy to me. However, it’s also easy to buy into anonymous posts that may also be incorrect.
Personally, I wouldn’t want to give my SS# out to another company if I don’t need to. Too many companies have it already.
Plus, I already pay for credit report monitoring for me and my wife already.
I don’t care how good the service is, I wouldn’t broadcast my SS#, so I’m skeptical that it’s a real number.
I hope the FTC is investigating. Where’s the popcorn?
Carl - Yes, all the credit reporting agencies are upset because fraud alerts increase their hard costs.
Perry - I agree. It can be easy to buy into anonymous comments. The comments raised my suspicions; the hard evidence (i.e., Maynard, Jr.’s history of crime) is what really concerns me.
Here’s something else for consideration. In Lifelock’s Terms of Service, all customers agree to this statement:
“In addition, you agree that you will not purposely engage in behavior that will put your personal information at unnecessary risk, such as leaving your PIN or passwords in obvious places or publishing your Social Security Number.”
Doesn’t Todd Davis violate his own Terms of Service by publishing his SSN on billboards and advertisements?
The Terms of Service continue…
“You additionally agree that you have a good faith suspicion that you have been or are about to become a victim of fraud or related crime, including identity theft, that you want to obtain fraud alerts under 15 U.S.C. § 1681c-1, and that you will notify LifeLock immediately if and when you no longer have such a good faith suspicion.”
So, in order to be compliant with Lifelock’s Terms of Service, you either:
1. Must already be a victim of fraud/identity theft, or…
2. Have a good faith suspicion that you are about to become a victim of fraud/identity theft.
Why is this required?
Because it is the only way to legally place fraud alerts on a person’s credit. To place a fraud alert in the absence of these two criteria is illegal (according to my understanding).
Have 700,000 subscribers (as Tod Davis has claimed) really been victims of fraud? Or have 700,000 subscribers had a “good faith suspicion” that they were about to become victims of fraud?
If so, how long can a good faith suspicion last? Three months? A year? Two years?
Food for thought.
Cool post Ryan, nice bit of sleuthing!
I remember first seeing the ad posted on copywritersboard a few months ago and thought it was brilliant.
It went straight into my swipe file as a great angle to take. But I must admit having not actually gone down the road of using it I had not thought if it was a real SSN or not — nor what I would do in similar circumstances.
I guess it’s another case of less-than-100%-truthful-advertising blowing up in your face. Or at least leaving a small blemish.
It’s Davis’ real SSN. Check his 2000 bankruptcy filing.
[...] You can check out his post by going here. [...]
Just saw this article about LifeLock on the frontpage of Yahoo! (5/22/08)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_hi_te/identity_fraud_flap
Cory - Thanks for the link. I saw a variation of that article yesterday, too. Pretty crazy. Given how the media’s mood is shifting, LifeLock’s days may be numbered.
Leave a Comment