At times material to the complaint, Jerk had profiles for consumers of all ages, including children. … An estimated 24.5 to 33.5 million profiles contained a large photo of the profiled subject. An estimated 2.7 to 6.8 million Jerk profiles contained a photo of a child who appeared to be under age 10. Some photos featured intimate family moments, including children bathing and a mother nursing her child. Often, Jerk profiles featured photographs of children, which were collected without their or their parents’ knowledge or consent.This scraping of data apparently occurred even where the Facebook users availed themselves of Facebook’s security settings. In addition to the Jerk/not a Jerk voting buttons, users could also add information about the person in the profile, and—inevitably—users posted insensitive and cruel statements in these comment sections. Jerk.com acquired access to the Facebook information by registering as a Facebook developer, and then ignoring Facebook’s contractually-imposed rules on use of user content. Instead, it downloaded names and photographs of millions of users, and used that content to create its own user profiles. However, according to the FTC, language on the Jerk.com site made it appear to its visitors that the user profiles had been created by individuals, rather than by the site. To make money from its enterprise, Jerk.com allowed users to buy subscriptions, often on the promise that they would then be able to manage the negative information about them. Jerk.com also made it difficult for users to contact it with complaints, and refused to respond to take-down demands, in one notable instance “ignor[ing] a request from a sheriff’s deputy to remove a Jerk profile that was endangering a 13-year old girl.” The FTC complaint alleges two counts for deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The first is for deceptive representation regarding the source of user profile content on the site, and the second is for deceptive representation about memberships. A hearing is scheduled for January 2015. While we wait for a ruling in the FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide case, where the extent of the FTC’s authority under Section 5 to enforce data security is at issue, the Jerk.com case reminds us that there are many serious cases of consumer deception that are directly within the agency’s wheelhouse. This is especially true now that the Supreme Court has fully and finally slammed the door on consumer standing to enforce false advertising under the Lanham Act (see recent post here). In many cases, it remains up to the FTC to ensure that consumers are not…wait for it…being jerked around.