News

FACT SHEETSummary of the Kids Online Safety ActAs Congressional hearings, media reports, academic research, whistleblower disclosures, and heartbreaking stories from youth and families have repeatedly shown, social media platforms have exacerbated the mental health crisis among children and teens fostering body image issues, creating addiction-like use, promoting products that are dangerous for young audiences, and fueling destructive bullying.  The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) provides children, adolescents, and parents with the tools, safeguards, and transparency they need to protect against threats to young people's health and wellbeing online. The design and operation of online platforms have a significant impact on these harms, such as recommendation systems that send kids down rabbit holes of destructive content, and weak protections against relentless bullying.KOSA would provide safeguards and accountability through:   Creating a duty of care for social media platforms to prevent and mitigate specific dangers to minors in their design and operation of products, including the promotion of suicidal behaviors, eating disorders, substance use, sexual exploitation, advertisements for tobacco and alcohol, and more.Requiring social media platforms to provide children and adolescents with options to protect their information, disable addictive product features, and opt out of algorithmic recommendations. Platforms are required to enable the strongest settings by default.  Giving parents new tools to help support their children and providing them (as well as schools) a dedicated reporting channel to raise issues (such as harassment or threats) to the platforms.How Online Harms Impact LGBTQ+ CommunitiesSocial media can be an important tool for self-discovery, expression, and community. However, online platforms have failed to take basic steps to protect their users from profound harm and have put profit ahead of safety. Companies have operationalized their products to keep young users on their sites for as long as possible, even if the means to get people to use their platforms more are harmful. From documents provided by a whistleblower, Facebook’s own researchers described Instagram itself as a “perfect storm” that “exacerbates downward spirals” and produces hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually.  This “perfect storm” has been shown by academic research and surveys to weigh most profoundly on LGBTQ+ children and adolescents, who are more at risk of bullying, threats, and suicidal behaviors on social media. Some harms and examples of the protections KOSA would provide include:  LGBTQ+ youth are more at risk of cyberbullying and harassment.LGBTQ+ high school students consistently report higher rates of cyberbullying than their heterosexual peers, and suffer more severe forms of harassment, such as stalking, non-consensual imagery, and violent threats.Surveys have found that 56% of LGBTQ+ students had been cyberbullied in their lifetime compared to 32% for non-LGBTQ+ students.One in three young LGBTQ+ people have said that they had been sexually harassed online, four times as often as other young people.  LGBTQ+ youth are more at risk for eating disorders and substance use.Young LGBTQ+ people experience significantly greater rates of eating disorders and substance use compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers. Transgender and nonbinary youth are at even higher risk for eating disorders, and Black LGBTQ+ youth are diagnosed at half the rate of their white peers.Prolonged use of social media is linked with negative appearance comparison, which in turn increases risk for eating disorder symptoms.Engagement-based algorithms feed extreme eating disorders through recommending more eating disorder content to vulnerable users (every click or view sends more destructive content to a user).For example, TikTok began recommending eating disorder content within 8 minutes of creating a new account and Instagram was found to deluge a new user with eating disorder recommendations within one day.How KOSA Will Help:KOSA would require that platforms give users the ability to turn off engagement-based algorithms or options to influence the recommendation they receive. A user would be able to stop recommendation systems that are sending them toxic content.  KOSA’s duty of care requires platforms to prevent and mitigate cyberbullying. It also requires that platforms give users options to restrict messages from other users and to make their profile private.It would require platforms to provide a point of contact for users to report harassment and mandates platforms respond to these reports within a designated time frame.  LGBTQ+ youth are more at risk of suicide and suicidal behaviors.Young people exposed to hateful messaging online in tandem with self-harm material on social media, increases the risk of suicidal behaviors and/or suicide.These risks are exacerbated when platform recommendation systems amplify hateful content and self-harm content.For example, after creating a new teen account on TikTok, suicide content was recommended under three minutes.Surveys have found 42% of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered attempting suicide, including more than half of transgender and nonbinary youth.Moreover, eating disorders, depression, bullying, substance use, and other mental health harms that fall harder on LGBTQ+ communities further increase risks of self-harm and suicide.  How KOSA Will Help:In addition to the core safeguards and options provided to kids, such as controls and transparency over algorithmic recommendation systems, KOSA’s duty of care would require platforms consider and address the ways in which their recommendation systems promote suicide and suicidal behaviors, creating incentives for the platforms to provide self-help resources, uplift information about recovery, and prevent their algorithms from pushing users down rabbit holes of harmful and deadly content.Protections for LGBTQ+ CommunitiesThe reintroduction of the Kids Online Safety Act takes into account recommended edits from a diverse group of organizations, researchers, youth, and families.The outcome from experts in the field and those with lived experience is a thoughtful and tailored bill designed to be a strong step in advancing a core set of accountability provisions to provide children, adolescents, and families with a safer online experience. Below is a summary comparing previous bill text and changes that were made for reintroduction.Concerns with Previous DraftHow Current Draft Protects LGBTQ+The “duty of care” is too vague, creating liabilities for broad and undefined harms to children and teens.The duty of care is now limited to a set of specific harms that have been shown to be exacerbated by online platforms’ product designs and algorithms. Specific harms are focused on serious threats to the wellbeing of young users, such as, eating disorders, substance use, depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, physical violence, sexual exploitation, and the marketing of narcotics, tobacco, gambling, alcohol. The terms used to describe those harms are linked to clinical or legal definitions where there  is a perceived risk of misuse. In addition, the duty of care includes a limitation to ensure it is not construed to require platforms to block access to content that a young user specifically requests or block access to evidence-informed medical information and support resources.The inclusion of “grooming” in the duty of care could be weaponized against entities providing information about gender-affirming care.“Grooming” was cut from the bill. Sexual exploitation and abuse are now defined using existing federal criminal statutes to prevent politicalization or distortion of terms.The duty of care to prevent and mitigate “self-harm” or “physical harm” could be weaponized against trans youth and those who provide information about gender-affirming care.The specific reference to “self-harm” has been removed from the duty of care. “Physical harm” has been changed to “physical violence” to enhance clarity. Other covered harms related to “self-harm” are covered using terminology that is anchored in a medical definition.Will allow non-supportive parents to surveil LGBTQ+ youth online.The legislation clarifies the tools available to protect kids and differentiates the developmental differences between children and young teens.KOSA has always included requirements that children and adolescents are notified if parental controls are turned on, and required kids know before parents are informed about creating a new account. For teens, the bill requires platforms to give parents the ability to restrict purchases, view metrics on how much time a minor is spending on a platform and view - but not change - account settings. It does not require the disclosure of a minor’s browsing behavior, search history, messages, or other content or metadata of their communications.KOSA will lead to privacy-invasive age verification across the internet.KOSA never required age verification or gating, nor did it create liability for companies if kids lie about their age.The bill explicitly states that companies are not required to age-gate or collect additional data to determine a user’s age.Additionally, a knowledge standard is more consistently applied across the bill for the purpose of clarifying that companies are not liable if they have no knowledge whether a user is a child or adolescent.KOSA will affect access to sexual health information, schools, or nonprofit services.KOSA requirements only apply to commercial online platforms, such as social media and games that have been the largest source of issues for kids online.Nonprofits, schools, and broadband services are exempt from KOSA and a previous reference to “educational services” was removed from the “covered platform” definition of the bill.KOSA does not apply to health sites or other information resources.

The Honorable Joseph R. BidenPresident of the United StatesThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20500May 23, 2023Dear President Biden:The undersigned civil rights, consumer protection, and other civil society organizations write to express concern about digital trade negotiations underway as part of the proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF).Civil society advocates and officials within your own administration have raised increasing concern about discrimination, racial disparities, and inequities that may be “baked into” the algorithms that make decisions about access to jobs and housing, health care, prison sentencing, educational opportunity, insurance rates and lending, deployment of police resources, and much more. To address these injustices, we have advocated for anti-discrimination protections and algorithmic transparency and fairness. We have been pleased that these concepts are incorporated into your recent Executive Order on racial equity,1 as well as the White House’s AI Bill of Rights2 and many other policy proposals. The DOJ, FTC, CFPB, and EEOC also recently released a joint statement underscoring their commitment to combating discrimination in automated systems.3 Any trade agreement must be consistent with, and not undermine, these policies and the values they are advancing.Now, we have learned that the U.S. may be considering proposals for IPEF and other trade agreement negotiations that could sabotage efforts to prevent and remedy algorithmic discrimination, including provisions that could potentially preempt executive and Congressional legal authority to advance these goals. Such provisions may make it harder or impossible for Congress or executive agencies to adopt appropriate policies while also respecting our international trade commitments. For example, trade provisions that guarantee digital firms new secrecy rights over source code and algorithms could thwart potential algorithmic impact assessment and audit requirements, such as testing for racial bias or other violations of U.S. law and regulation. And because the trade negotiations are secret, we do not know how the exact language could affect pivotal civil rights protections. Including such industry-favored provisions in trade deals like IPEF would be a grievous error and undermine the Administration’s own policy goals. We urge the administration to not submit any proposals that could undermine the ability to protect the civil rights of people in the United States, particularly with regard to digital trade. Moreover, there is a great need for transparency in these negotiations. Text already proposed should be made public so the civil rights community and relevant experts can challenge any provisions that could undermine administration goals regarding racial equity, transparency, and fairness. We know that your administration shares our goals of advancing racial equity, including protecting the public from algorithmic discrimination. Thank you for your leadership in this area. For questions or further discussion, please contact Harlan Yu (harlan@upturn.org), David Brody (dbrody@lawyerscommittee.org), and Emily Peterson-Cassin (epetersoncassin@citizen.org).Sincerely,American Civil Liberties Union Center for Democracy & Technology Center for Digital Democracy Data & Society Research Institute Demand Progress Education Fund Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Fight for the Future Lawyers’ Committee for Civil RightsUnder LawThe Leadership Conference on Civil andHuman Rights NAACPNational Urban League Public Citizen Sikh American Legal Defense andEducation Fund UpturnCC:Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo U.S. Trade Representative Katherine TaiNational Economic Council Director Lael BrainardNational Security Advisor Jake SullivanDomestic Policy Council Director Susan RiceIncoming Domestic Policy Council Director Neera TandenDomestic Policy Council Deputy Director for Racial Justice and Equity Jenny Yang1 Exec. Order No. 14091, 88 Fed. Reg. 10825, Feb. 16, 2023, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/22/2023-03779/further-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal.2 The White House, Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, Oct. 22, 2022, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights.3 Joint Statement on Enforcement Efforts Against Discrimination and Bias in Automated Systems, CFPB, DOJ, EEOC, FTC, April 25, 2023, available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/EEOC-CRT-FTC-CFPB-AI-Joint-Statement%28final%29.pdf.

"The Trump FCC just gave some of the country’s most powerful media companies a huge taxpayer-funded gift. By weakening a key safeguard requiring companies such as Comcast/NBC, News Corp./Fox, Disney/ABC, and Sinclair to air on their broadcast TV stations a few hours of educational programming for children, the FCC has placed the interests of the already rich and powerful over the needs of children and families. "Now these giant media companies get a huge public taxpayer hand-out in terms of free access to the airwaves (spectrum), as well as guaranteed access to cable TV systems, without any serious public-interest obligations. The FCC has given the TV industry a huge benefit, without getting anything in return. "Congress must step in and enact a new law that requires TV stations, cable systems and streaming video providers to offer a wide range of quality content for children. Such programming should be free—and not behind paywalls. In the meantime, today’s decision by the FCC will be remembered as one in which the commission's three GOP members embodied the worst qualities of Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge." statement of Jeff Chester, executive director, Center for Digital Democracy. CDD’s predecessor group Center for Media Education led the campaign in the early the 1990’s that led to the Children’s Television Act rules that were weakened today. It did the report in the early 1990’s that revealed TV stations claimed that shows like The Jetsons and The Flintstones were allegedly educational: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/30/us/broadcasters-to-satisfy-law-define-cartoons-as-education.html?searchResultPosition=13 (link is external)

The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and Public Citizen filed a complaint at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today asking for an investigation and enforcement action against Google (a subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc.), Disney’s Maker Studios, DreamWorks-owned AwesomenessTV, and two other companies for the unfair and deceptive practice of targeting “influencer” marketing toward children. The complaint documents how several marketing companies—Collab Creators, Wild Brain, Maker Studios, and AwesomenessTV—produce and distribute ads and other commercial material targeting children that masquerade as content. It also details how Google encourages and benefits from the production of child-directed influencer videos and distributes these ads to children on its YouTube and YouTube Kids platforms. These “influencer” ads take unfair advantage of kids, who do not have the ability to recognize that companies use social media and YouTube celebrities to pitch toys, junk food, and other products. The groups also called on the FTC to release policy guidance that makes clear that using influencers to persuade children to buy a product or urge their parents to buy a product is unfair and deceptive. “Child-directed influencer marketing is misleading to children because their developing brains do not process or understand advertisements the way adults do—especially advertisements disguised as content,” said Laura Moy, Director at the Institute for Public Representation (IPR) at Georgetown University Law Center, which represents the groups. Existing FTC regulations require that advertisements be disclosed as such—which many influencer ads fail to do—but the complaint also makes clear that better disclosure alone is not a sufficient remedy because it “would not negate the inherent deceptiveness of child-directed influencer marketing.” As a result of the FTC’s inaction, marketing companies—backed by Google and others—are increasing investments in their influencer marketing practices with harmful results. “In many cases these advertisements cause children to want unhealthy and costly products,” Moy pointed out. “As this marketing practice expands even while evidence mounts that it is harmful to children, it becomes increasingly urgent for the FTC to make clear that the practice is unfair and deceptive under the law.” According to the complaint, the FTC can reverse the trend of harmful influencer marketing directed toward children by issuing policy guidance that makes clear that existing laws serve as a safeguard to protect children from these advertisements. The complaint analyzes the influencer marketing apparatus, and the role that Google and so-called Multi-Channel Networks (MCNs) such as Disney’s Maker Studios play in orchestrating the growing use of this tactic. It highlights how these companies use “influencers” who are young or popular with kids to sell junk food, toys, and more. The complaint identifies highly-popular YouTube channels like EvanTubeHD, Baby Ariel, Meghan McCarthy, the Eh Bee Family, and Bratayley, each with millions of subscribers, and how they present videos of child stars unboxing toys, playing games, and enthusiastically sampling junk food. The complaint provides several examples of such videos, including one where Baby Ariel and her family sample Jelly Belly brand jelly beans as part of a game called “BeanBoozled.” In another video, on EvanTubeHD, the child influencer is seen unboxing a Lego Police Patrol Boat. Neither video indicates that it is an advertisement, and both videos can be found intermingled with non-sponsored content on YouTube Kids. Google facilitates, promotes, and solicits these videos because they are popular with children, which increases the company’s ad revenues. “It’s time for the FTC put a stop to child-directed influencer marketing,” explained CDD’s Executive Director Jeff Chester. “Companies like Google are knowingly taking advantage of children and their parents by unleashing a torrent of stealth digital ads disguised as programming supposedly suitable for kids. As the country’s leading consumer protection agency, the FTC has a mandate to protect the public—including our children—from practices we know are both unfair and deceptive.” “Parents have no idea that the adorable ‘friends’ their children like to watch unbox toys are really stealth marketers,” said CCFC’s Executive Director Josh Golin. “It’s time for the FTC to take swift and decisive action and protect children from a practice that has long been prohibited on children’s television.” “Corporate predators are using young Internet influencers, admired by kids, to hawk their wares to children, even to young children,” explained President of Public Citizen, Rob Weissman. “The marketers and the advertising platforms enabling and promoting this activity should be ashamed. But since they’re not, we need the FTC to act to end their outrageous practice.” CCFC and CDD have also previously filed complaints with the FTC concerning child-directed marketing practices on YouTube Kids and YouTube. Todays’ complaint can be found at: http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/sites/default/files/FTCInfluencerComplaint.pdf (link is external)

Fourteen organizations urge FTC Chairwoman Ramirez to put a stop to WhatsApp’s plan to transfer user data to Facebook. This letter coincides with recent complaint filed, concerning the violation of commitments WhatsApp previously made to its subscribers. --- September 22, 2016 Dear Chairwoman Ramirez and FTC Commissioners: The undersigned consumer privacy organizations write in support of the complaint the Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) and the Center for Digital Democracy (“CDD”) recently filed concerning WhatsApp’s plan to transfer user data to Facebook in violation of commitments the company previously made to subscribers. We are deeply concerned about the impact this proposed change in data practices will have on the privacy and security of WhatsApp users in the U.S. and across the world. We urge the FTC to investigate this matter and to fulfill its obligation to prevent WhatsApp and Facebook from engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices. WhatsApp has over one billion users worldwide, and its popularity has been due in large part to its strong public commitment to privacy. The company has long made its pro-privacy commitment a key part of its brand, underscored by numerous public statements and official blog posts on the importance of confidential communications. When Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014, both companies made numerous promises to the public and to the FTC that WhatsApp’s data privacy practices would not change. Consumer privacy organizations raised concerns about the acquisition, and the Commission responded with a clear warning that the companies must continue to honor their privacy promises to WhatsApp users or risk violating Section 5 of the FTC Act. The Commission stated the companies must obtain “affirmative consent” from WhatsApp users before materially changing its practices for information it collected before the merger. The FTC stated at the time that “WhatsApp must continue to honor these promises to consumers. Further, if the acquisition is completed and WhatsApp fails to honor these promises, both companies could be in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act and, potentially, the FTC’s order against Facebook.” The FTC has previously interpreted affirmative consent to require opt-in consent, particularly in the context of material retroactive changes to privacy promises. On August 25, 2016, WhatsApp announced plans to use and transfer customer data, including users’ verified telephone numbers, to Facebook for user profiling and targeted advertising. WhatsApp previously collected phone numbers and other personal information from over one billion users with the promise that this information would not be used or disclosed for marketing purposes. WhatsApp’s reversal on this promise is a material, retroactive change that will apply to previously collected data. Contrary to FTC policy, WhatsApp does not intend to provide clear notice or obtain customers’ affirmative express consent – i.e., opt-in consent – before implementing these changes for previously collected information. Rather, these material, retroactive changes are buried in WhatsApp’s lengthy revised privacy policy and consumers have 30 days to opt-out. European authorities have already begun investigating WhatsApp’s reversal on the privacy promises it made when seeking regulatory approval of Facebook’s acquisition of the messaging service. European Union Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has indicated the EU is reconsidering its approval of WhatsApp’s 2014 merger with Facebook. Vestager stated that the companies’ promises not to merge user data was “a part of the decision [to approve the merger] so therefore we’re asking some follow-ups to find out what’s going on.” WhatsApp plans to make material, retroactive changes to its numerous privacy promises regarding the use and disclosure of user data without first obtaining users’ affirmative express consent. This is exactly what the FTC said WhatsApp and Facebook cannot do. It is a clear violation of the prohibition on unfair and deceptive trade practices the FTC is obligated to enforce under Section 5 of the FTC Act. We urge the Commission to fulfill its duty to protect consumer privacy, and to investigate and enjoin WhatsApp and Facebook’s proposed change in business practices. We appreciate your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Bill of Rights Defense Committee & Defending Dissent Foundation Center for Digital Democracy Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights Common Sense Kids Action Constitutional Alliance Consumer Action Consumer Federation of America Consumer Watchdog Cyber Privacy Project Demand Progress Electronic Privacy Information Center The FoolProof Foundation Patient Privacy Rights Privacy Rights Clearinghouse Privacy Rights Now Coalition Privacy Times U.S. PIRG ---

Coors Light, Attract Media (TouchTunes), Kinetic, Initiative and Common Ground collaborated to develop and implement the “reFRESH” music campaign, creating a fully interactive user experience across multiple screens that drove brand awareness, engagement and on-premise sales at thousands of targeted social venues. The custom-designed full-screen touchscreen experience placed users in control, enabling them to take and share real-time photos with friends and embark on a digital tour through the history and culture of hip-hop while experiencing its regional flavors and unique features.Affiliated Agency: Affiliated Agency: Kinetic Worldwide, Initiative, Common Ground.

The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) and the U.S Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) filed comments today in response to the Treasury Department’s request for information (RFI) on “Expanding Access to Credit through Online Marketplace Lending.” Specifically, the department sought public comment on (1) the various business models of and products offered by online marketplace lenders to small businesses and consumers; (2) the potential for online marketplace lending to expand access to credit to historically underserved market segments; and (3) how the financial regulatory framework should evolve to support the safe growth of this industry.” CDD/USPIRG’s detailed comments cautioned that “the ‘technology-enabled credit provisioning’ marketplace should not be uncritically viewed as a panacea, especially for financially underserved and economically at-risk Americans.” Rather than giving online lenders special treatment, in fact, the filing calls on the Department of the Treasury “to work with other agencies to propose or implement rules that integrate the online lending sector within the financial services regulatory sector.” Pointing out that instead of “being a new source that can support the needs of low-income or underbanked consumers,” the majority of online loans are actually going to “consumers who already have ‘prime’ ratings.” CDD and USPIRG believe that the entire financial services sector—and its use of Big Data to assess and “score” consumers—warrants closer regulatory scrutiny. “Marketplace lending should be regulated by prudential and consumer protection regulators in the same way that other financial services are,” the filing concludes, “with CFPB authority where appropriate for banks and non-banks and meaningful consumer and prudential supervision by other responsible regulators. Certainly, the lessons of 2008 provide a strong warning against allowing an under-regulated, shadow banking system to grow and pose risks to the financial system, its safety net, or the overall economy.”

The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), through its counsel, requests the following documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, related to enforcement of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.: All annual reports submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) by COPPA safe harbor programs for the reporting period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 as required by the COPPA Rule, 16 C.F.R. § 312.11(d)(1), including, for illustrative purposes, reports from the following safe harbor programs: Aristotle International Inc. Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) iKeepSafe kidSafe Seal Program (kidSAFE) Privacy Vaults Online (PRIVO) True Ultimate Standards Everywhere (TRUSTe) CDD asks that if any of the requested records are stored electronically that the FTC provide the requested records to CDD in their native electronic format as required under FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(2). Request for Fee Waiver or News Media Fee Benefit CDD asks the FTC to waive all fees associated with this request because disclosure of the records is in the public interest or, alternatively, to limit any fees charged to CDD to reasonable duplication fees because it is a noncommercial request by a member of the news media. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II), 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). CDD is entitled to a waiver of all fees associated with this request under FOIA’s public interest standard and relevant FTC regulations. 16 C.F.R. § 4.8(e). The regulations permit the FTC to waive all fees associated with a particular request when a requester demonstrates that (1) “disclosure will likely contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government” and (2) “that the request not be primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 16 C.F.R. §§ 4.8(e)(2)(i)-(ii). CDD’s request qualifies under both prongs of the FTC’s public interest fee waiver standard. First, disclosure of the annual reports provided to the FTC by COPPA safe harbor providers and any related correspondence will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the FTC’s oversight of private entities tasked with enforcing federal law. COPPA was designed to protect children’s privacy online, an issue of significant public importance that concerns parents, consumers, lawmakers, and the general public. The instant request concerns data on how actively private safe harbor providers are policing COPPA compliance by their members. Relatedly, the records will also disclose whether and how the FTC performs its oversight role with respect to the safe harbor programs.1 From the reports, the public can scrutinize both the safe harbors’ performance and the FTC’s actions in administering the safe harbor program under COPPA. Because CDD intends to publish the requested documents, the public at large will benefit from better understanding whether and how the FTC is protecting children’s privacy online. Full complaint attached.