The FTC goes after GoodRx for sharing users’ health data with Meta and Google

GoodRx made money off your health data. The FTC is making it pay a 1.5 million dollar fine instead of ALSO going after Google and FB/META.

It sucks we used Good RX quite a bit, hopefully, they will still help you find discounts without profiting from your various afflictions. Seems like somebody in management should have said that's not a good idea


www.vox.com...

The FTC announced on Wednesday that GoodRx has agreed to pay a $1.5 million fine and take various steps to ensure that it no longer shares health data for advertising purposes, that it obtains user consent to share health data for other reasons, and that it makes an effort to get the third parties with whom it previously shared data to delete that data. The move shows how committed the FTC is to protecting people from digital privacy violations, even as America lacks federal privacy laws that would make that job a lot easier. It also shows just how leaky some of these services, which we entrust with our most private information, can be.

The FTC alleges that GoodRx shared the names of medications users were looking for on the app, which medications users redeemed GoodRx coupons for at pharmacies, and which conditions they were using GoodRx’s telehealth platform to get treatment for. GoodRx is also accused of sending lists, including identifying information, of users who purchased certain medications to Meta to then target those users with ads related to the conditions GoodRx knew they had.

a reply to: putnam6

Why wouldn't you expect that any company anywhere not sharing our data? The days of privacy are long over since corporations decided to take over the internet and sh*t it up for everyone.

a reply to: putnam6

hopefully, they will still help you find discounts without profiting from your various afflictions.

How often do you go into work, decide not to clock in and do it for free?

If never, why would you expect others to do so?

From op's link

The move shows how committed the FTC is to protecting people from digital privacy violations, even as America lacks federal privacy laws that would make that job a lot easier.

The idea that, "you broke no laws, but we are punishing you anyways" should be horrifying.

originally posted by: billxam
a reply to: putnam6

Why wouldn't you expect that any company anywhere not sharing our data? The days of privacy are long over since corporations decided to take over the internet and sh*t it up for everyone.

Well, Bill evidently the Federal Trade Commission didn't expect it either and since they are fining them 1.5 million bucks it must have been against FTC regulations. This isn't which football team you root for, or what beer you prefer, considering we still haven't heard from Biden's doctors seems like he thinks health issues should be private too.

it's regulated for a reason, they aren't supposed to do this.

The problem here for me isn't just that it's a "feel good" piece for FTC 'public imagery." But it reveals exactly how little they do until they get hammered with an embarrassing failure to secure the public good.

Does anyone really think this is one of those "who knew?" moments in the world of online platforms that pass for "healthcare services?"

GoodRx bears that designation, despite no one in its employ having anything to do with medicine except in name. If they did have any serious medical association (again, other than in name) they would train their employees to understand the principles of medical information and privacy (a la HIPPA.)

I contend that GoodRx is basely misrepresented as an American healthcare company ... it no more a healthcare company than Priceline is a "transportation and accommodations" company, or Groupon is a "grocer."

There are many scores of companies out there that have sequestered private medical data (not to mention just plain 'private/personal information')... and I promise you most of them are "third-party" entities which will not be coerced into relinquishing the data they have been given. That, and besides, once they have it ... they 'sell' it aaaaand it's gone.

$1.5 million is a joke.... especially since we will see that in the final analysis the FTC will actually accept a "settlement/agreement" that specifies "no admission of guilt" and no further liability to be imposed... as GoodRx make its "bonafide effort" to address third party "partners" with what? ....letters... like a memo? "Sending a letter" is all it will take to satisfy the FTC and this instance of administrative oversight?

CDC, NIH, FDA, and now the FTC confirms they are the property and domain of industry insiders and associates... don't look for real justice there anymore... they protect the industry..., not us.

originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: putnam6

hopefully, they will still help you find discounts without profiting from your various afflictions.

How often do you go into work, decide not to clock in and do it for free?

If never, why would you expect others to do so?

From op's link

The move shows how committed the FTC is to protecting people from digital privacy violations, even as America lacks federal privacy laws that would make that job a lot easier.

The idea that, "you broke no laws, but we are punishing you anyways" should be horrifying.

LOL in my business if I told other customers what other customers' situations were sooner or later I wouldn't have many customers left.

So Good RX only makes money by selling data? and by the way, there is a difference between selling data on percentages and outright selling data on individuals.

FWIW it would seem selling data or ads is the other 18%. They made 144.9 million but still are unprofitable

vator.tv...

The company currently makes the majority of its money from what it calls "prescription transactions." That means that when a consumer uses a GoodRx code to fill a prescription and saves money compared to the list price at that pharmacy, the company is paid by its pharmacy benefit manager partners, most of the time taking a percentage of the fees that the PBM charges to the pharmacy, though some contracts allow for a fixed fee per transaction.

In its latest quarterly earnings, the company made $144.9 million from this revenue stream, up 32% year-over-year. It accounted for 82% of the total $176.6 million the company made during the quarter.

a reply to: putnam6

I never looked into how it worked, I just knew it didn't cost anything to use and it seemed for a while they spent millions on marketing.

I always figured the users where somehow the product.

originally posted by: Jason79
a reply to: putnam6

I never looked into how it worked, I just knew it didn't cost anything to use and it seemed for a while they spent millions on marketing.

I always figured the users where somehow the product.

To get decent benefits it's worth it if you have loads of prescriptions a month.

Hell I don't care if anybody knows my prescriptions, FWIW but it does bother me to get targeted ads, I know it's kind of stupid but I hate that crap.



I still get all kinds of ads from Amazon, like Im 75 plus and living in a hospice. Just because when my Dad had pancreatic cancer I bought him all kinds of healthcare-related stuff from Amazon for a year and a half

At least we were well-stocked for COVID

originally posted by: billxam
a reply to: putnam6

Why wouldn't you expect that any company anywhere not sharing our data? The days of privacy are long over since corporations decided to take over the internet and sh*t it up for everyone.

HIPPA

I used them for a while until Kroger stopped accepting them and I had them switch me to a similar type card. If I went through the drug card on my insurance my medicine would cost me three times what I pay with the generic drug card. That is an absolute crock!!

a reply to: putnam6

My pharmacist warmed me about this when I used GoodRx.

The only problem was the cost. Without GoodRx my prescription was $378.00 and that was my share after my insurance paid. With GoodRx the cost was $86.00.

There was no contest, since they could get access to that data anyway.

At least I got something out of the deal.