FTC Ban Stalkerware Ruling Stands After Appeal Rejected

Growing concerns about digital privacy and hidden surveillance tools continue to push readers to ask what regulators are doing to protect victims. This new FTC decision directly answers that question, confirming that the U.S. government will not allow previously banned stalkerware creators to resume operations. The ruling also clarifies how the agency handles petitions from tech founders seeking to overturn enforcement actions. By denying the appeal, the FTC reinforced the seriousness of past violations tied to leaked customer data. The update has sparked renewed interest in how stalkerware companies operate and why regulators consider them a high-risk industry. This case also raises new questions about accountability for founders whose products enable secret monitoring. As digital monitoring threats evolve, the FTC’s stance may shape future industry standards.

Credit: Bryce Durbin

FTC Rejects Petition to Overturn Stalkerware Ban

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced that it has formally denied a request from Scott Zuckerman, the founder of consumer spyware firm Support King. His petition sought to end or modify a ban that has blocked him from participating in the surveillance industry since 2021. According to the FTC, the agency reviewed Zuckerman’s request but concluded that lifting the restrictions would undermine its earlier enforcement actions. Regulators emphasized that the original case involved serious security failures that exposed private data belonging not only to customers but also to individuals secretly monitored through the apps. The rejection ensures that Zuckerman cannot relaunch or rebrand any surveillance-related services. The decision also signals that the agency intends to maintain long-term oversight of individuals tied to repeat privacy violations. This move reaffirms the FTC’s broader commitment to consumer digital safety.

Background: SpyFone’s Data Breach Triggered the Ban

The ban traces back to a major incident in 2018, when a security researcher uncovered a massive data exposure involving SpyFone, a stalkerware app owned by Zuckerman’s company. The researcher discovered that an Amazon S3 bucket had been left unprotected, allowing anyone online to access highly sensitive information. The exposed data included selfies, messages, contact lists, passwords, GPS locations, audio recordings, and login information. Reports later confirmed that more than 44,000 unique email addresses were accessible through this breach. The discovery also revealed data from thousands of devices running SpyFone, exposing both users and the people they tracked. Security experts described the incident as one of the most alarming examples of mishandled surveillance data. That exposure became the foundation of the FTC’s enforcement case.

FTC’s 2021 Order Imposed Strict Long-Term Restrictions

When the FTC issued its ruling in 2021, the agency took an unusually strong stance against Support King and its founder. Zuckerman was banned from “offering, promoting, selling, or advertising” any surveillance product or technology. The order forced the company to delete all data previously collected through SpyFone. It also required ongoing audits and the adoption of enhanced cybersecurity protocols meant to prevent future vulnerabilities. Regulators made clear that the severity of the penalties matched the severity of the privacy violations. According to the agency, the decision was designed to prevent further harm and discourage similar misconduct across the surveillance industry. These requirements remain active today, and the agency’s new decision ensures they will continue.

Why Zuckerman Asked the FTC to Cancel the Ban

In his petition, Zuckerman argued that the FTC’s security requirements created significant financial challenges. He claimed that the mandated cybersecurity measures were burdensome for his ongoing business activities. According to his filing, Support King had already shut down and no longer operated any surveillance products. Zuckerman said he now runs a restaurant and is developing tourism-related ventures in Puerto Rico. He argued that the monitoring rules tied to the ban make it harder for him to manage those unrelated ventures. His request asked the agency to reconsider the scope of the restrictions on the grounds that the original business no longer exists. Despite the petition, the FTC determined that the order should remain intact.

Regulators Say Consumer Risk Still Too High

The agency's latest announcement made clear that protecting consumers outweighed Zuckerman’s objections. FTC representatives emphasized that stalkerware presents unique dangers because it is often hidden from device owners. These tools allow individuals to secretly track messages, locations, photos, and other private details without consent. In SpyFone’s case, the agency previously described the company’s practices as reckless and harmful. Former Bureau of Consumer Protection director Samuel Levine once called the business "a brazen brand name for a surveillance business that helped stalkers steal private information." Those concerns remain central to the agency’s reasoning today. Regulators concluded that easing restrictions would undermine the safety measures imposed after the 2018 breach.

Data Exposure Scale Was Larger Than Initially Understood

Further analysis following the breach showed that the unlocked S3 bucket contained thousands of folders tied to SpyFone-monitored devices. The files included hundreds or thousands of personal photos per folder, along with audio clips and chat app logs. Security researchers warned that such data could easily be used for identity theft, blackmail, or other forms of abuse. Surveillance victims had no way of knowing their information was exposed online. The breach also revealed that many SpyFone customers used the tool to track partners, spouses, or employees. These findings strengthened the FTC’s argument that the company not only facilitated unethical monitoring but also failed to secure the resulting data. The scale of the exposure contributed to the agency’s firm stance.

Industry Experts Say the Decision Sends a Clear Warning

Privacy advocates and cybersecurity analysts say the FTC ruling reinforces that stalkerware developers will face long-term consequences for mishandling data. Many experts note that the market for consumer surveillance apps remains active despite years of regulatory pressure. Hidden-tracking tools continue to appear online, often rebranded or relaunched under new ownership. The FTC’s action signals that founders cannot simply pivot to new companies after major violations. Analysts argue that this precedent could discourage future evasion attempts. The case also highlights the need for stronger global oversight of stalkerware operators. Industry watchers expect more enforcement actions in the coming years.

What the Decision Means for the Future of Stalkerware

The rejection of Zuckerman’s petition marks another step in the FTC’s ongoing campaign against covert surveillance products. Regulators are increasingly focused on companies whose apps pose risks to victims of domestic violence, workplace monitoring, or digital stalking. The ruling reinforces that the agency views stalkerware as a serious threat requiring strict, long-term controls. It also suggests that founders linked to past misconduct will face a high bar when seeking to re-enter the surveillance field. For consumers, the decision sends a message that data privacy lapses will not be taken lightly. Tech companies that collect sensitive information may need to adopt stronger security practices to avoid similar penalties. The outcome positions the FTC as one of the world’s most aggressive regulators in this space.

A Continuing Reminder of the High Stakes of Privacy

As digital surveillance tools become more advanced, government agencies are likely to face rising pressure to curb their misuse. The FTC’s refusal to lift the ban on SpyFone’s founder reflects how regulators are adapting to emerging threats. This case highlights the devastating consequences of poor security and the importance of safeguarding personal data. It also underscores the long-term impact of enforcement actions on tech founders. By keeping the ban in place, the agency maintains a strong stance against digital exploitation. The decision serves as a reminder that privacy protections must evolve alongside technology. With cases like this setting new precedents, the future of surveillance regulation is poised for even greater scrutiny.