Newsroom

Microsoft's further expansion into gaming, data gathering, digital marketing must trigger close scrutiny, inc. impacts on gamers, youth Microsoft’s proposed purchase of Activision-Blizzard raises serious red flags, Public Citizen, the Center for Digital Democracy, the Repair Association, the Communications Workers of America, and 11 additional groups said today in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The merger could give Microsoft an unfair amount of market power, threaten data privacy and security, limit consumers’ and independent business’ right to repair game consoles, and lead to union busting and wage suppression, the groups said.“If the FTC clears this merger, Microsoft will become the third largest gaming company in the world,” the letter reads. “The proposed merger fits an alarming pattern of concentration in the gaming industry over the past several years. Microsoft’s expanding role in the gaming market may result in the company using its leverage to raise subscription prices and limit options, among other possible consumer harms.”In January, Microsoft announced its deal to buy game publisher and developer Activision-Blizzard, subject to FTC approval. Activision is a titan of the gaming world, boasting 400 million monthly active users and incredibly popular titles like Call of Duty. Microsoft already is a major player in gaming as a hardware producer, platform provider, and game distributor. Combining the two companies could lessen competition in a market that’s seen a rash of consolidation in recent years.Workers at Activision have mobilized over the past year to shine a light on an abusive workplace culture. Now, as these workers seek to form a union to address their collective interests, the potential takeover by Microsoft threatens to further undermine workers’ rights and suppress wages.Microsoft’s move also has negative implications for data privacy and surveillance advertising. Adding Activision’s roster of game titles opens opportunities for advanced data collection, including the use of AI, influencers, neuromarketing, and other practices now used for its gaming operations.Additionally, the merger could strengthen Microsoft’s power to impinge on consumers’ right to repair their own video game equipment or to have it repaired by a service provider of their choice. Microsoft’s Xbox platform is already notoriously difficult to independently repair.

The European Union’s efforts to legislate digital markets, specifically with its Digital Markets Act (DMA), make them fairer and more open, and benefit consumers. See PDF of full letter below. 20220203-letter-digital_markets_act-president-joe-r-biden.pdf

Documents 25 years of failures by agency to rein in practices that have eviscerated privacy and consumer protection in the U.S. and globallyThe Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) urges the Federal Trade Commission to develop a comprehensive set of rules to address a problem largely of its own making—the unfettered growth of commercial “surveillance marketing.” We submit this comment based on the nearly 25-year record of CDD and its key consumer-protection and privacy colleagues, providing detailed documentation and analysis of the need for the commission to regulate what is known as behavioral, programmatic and surveillance-based advertising.[1]The systemic and multiple failures of the FTC over the decades to respond meaningfully to the role and nature of online marketing—which has eviscerated the privacy rights of Americans (and consumers worldwide)—have enabled data-driven surveillance to thrive ubiquitously. Nearly every platform, application, device and experience in which Americans engage has been shaped by the commercial spying and manipulation apparatus that the commission has allowed to evolve and expand without constraint. In addition, by long ignoring the impact that the approval of countless mergers and acquisitions involving leading digital marketing companies had on commercial surveillance operations, the commission and Department of Justice have helped foster an online marketplace that is dominated by a few giants. There is no real competition in terms of how Americans are treated in the online surveillance marketing economy. Google, Meta/Facebook, Amazon and their partners set the global standards for how everyone else has to conduct data and digital marketing operations. FTC inaction on commercial surveillance practices has perversely promoted the widespread adoption of these practices. Today, nearly every major company is a big-data-driven information broker, surveillance advertiser, and real-time targeter of consumers.[2]At each critical moment—the expansion of behavioral advertising; the emergence of mobile marketing; the widespread adoption of programmatic, real-time, algorithmic-driven buying and selling of people for targeting ads; the deployment of omnichannel (cross-device) tracking and targeting; and the widespread integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning to deliver enhanced predictive targeting—the failure of the FTC to challenge the online data-driven model sent a message to the commercial surveillance industry, that it faced no serious regulatory or political consequences for its actions. This included regulatory immunity for the host of manipulative elements that are within the foundation of commercial surveillance, such as the deep analysis of a person’s emotions, interests, relationships, location, income, race, and ethnicity. By acting as an “enabler” to the forces that have shaped our online platform and experiences, the commission has done more than harm consumer protection, privacy and competition. It is also responsible for allowing the online platform marketplace to grow in ways that have undermined democracy, at once diminishing civic discourse, enabling efforts to promote voter suppression, and facilitating the communication and spread of hate speech and uncivil acts, among other major harms. FTC—“Eyes Wide Shut”: The commission has been engaged in risk-averse behaviors since the early 1980s, as a reaction to the successful attacks on it by the advertising lobby, which was able to convince Congress that the agency had engaged in regulatory excess when it tried to protect children from the harmful impact of marketing. The legacy of what is known as the “kidvid” episode, which resulted in a significant loss of its rulemaking authority, has permeated the agency’s operations for decades. It unleashed a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach at the commission when it came to seriously confronting the impact of the digital marketplace on the public. Even when it came to children’s privacy—the one area where advocates had successfully convinced Congress to give the agency rulemaking authority—the agency repeatedly failed to enforce the law (allowing Google’s YouTube, for example, to openly violate COPPA for years, despite hearing repeatedly from advocates that it was doing so). The failure of the FTC to seriously implement its only congressionally mandated data-privacy law also sent a loud message to the data surveillance business that the commission wasn’t to be taken seriously.The commission has never condemned the online surveillance model developed by the digital marketing industry. It had countless opportunities to challenge behavioral ads, mobile and geo-location surveillance, social media profiling, and real-time buying and selling of individual profiles for the purposes of micro-targeted advertising.[3] In this comment, we will briefly highlight how the FTC has been an “enabler” of the unfettered operations of surveillance advertising, despite the many calls by CDD and its allies for the agency to act. The FTC and the Information Superhighway: At the earliest stages of what was then called the “Information Superhighway,” cyberspace, or the “National Information Infrastructure,” the FTC convened multiple “workshops” focused on privacy and related ecommerce issues. Reflecting the priorities of the then-Clinton administration, the commission spent several years imploring marketers to implement a set of “fair information practice” principles.[4]During this time, a number of consumer and privacy advocates urged the commission to call on Congress to regulate online data marketing practices. It was evident even then—especially to those who had tracked the online marketing business during the “dial-up” era, that privacy was not a priority at all for the marketing industry. The self-regulatory system was a total sham.[5]The lone exception to self-regulation was a data privacy law covering children 12 and under, an issue that this NGO’s predecessor group, the Center for Media Education (along with the Consumer Federation of America and the Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown University Law Center) championed—which led to the enactment of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act in 1998.[6]By the time the commission finally recommended (in 2000) that Congress enact privacy legislation “to supplement self-regulatory efforts and guarantee basic consumer protections,” the political winds had changed. There would be no further progress from Congress on privacy, given the clout of the big data marketing lobby.[7]Enabling behavioral advertising: In 2006, CDD and U.S. PIRG filed a complaint with the commission calling on it to use its Section 5 power to protect consumer privacy online. Specifically, we asked the commission to conduct an investigation of online advertising practices, focusing on five areas of concern: User Tracking/Web Analytics, Behavioral Targeting, Audience Segmentation, Data Gathering/Mining, and Industry Consolidation. As we explained in our petition, “Collectively, these five areas represented the foundations of an entirely new online environment, one in which engagement gives way to entrapment, in which personalization impinges on privacy.” The complaint discussed in detail all the methods used to track and target consumers, via their personal data, mobile phone use, and much more. It also urged action on the growing consolidation of what is now called the platform or ad-tech industry, explaining thatThe past few years have witnessed an alarming degree of consolidation in the Web analysis, advertising, and Internet data collection industries. The result of these transactions is not only the concentration of power in fewer hands, but also an increased ability, as our complaint has shown, for these companies to use their massive compilations of user data to violate consumer privacy in the U.S. Such consolidation within the core of the online marketing infrastructure also requires the FTC to conduct an anti-trust analysis to determine whether there is undue market power in this sector.[8]Ignoring the structure and consequences of behavioral advertising: In part due to the opposition to the proposed Google acquisition of DoubleClick that CDD, EPIC, U.S. PIRG and its allies in the U.S. and in the EU generated (discussed below), the commission convened several workshops, town halls and other forums focused on privacy and online data marketing. As CDD’s executive director, at the FTC’s 2007 “Ehavioral Advertising: Tracking, Targeting & Technology” event, warned, I just want to underscore that the future of online advertising has profound consequences for the future of our democracy and democracies everywhere. The kind of society we are creating right now for ourselves, and particularly our children, in many ways, is being shaped by the forces of advertising and marketing.... [W]e’ve watched since 2000 the ever-growing sophisticated array of techniques that had been deployed to track our every move, not just on individual websites, but through the development of new approaches called re-targeting where we were becoming digitally shadowed wherever we went, site to site…. [T]he time for fact-finding is over. The Commission is the designated Federal agency which is supposed to safeguard consumer privacy. It must act now to protect Americans from the unfair and deceptive practices that have evolved as part of what the industry calls the digital interactive marketing system.[9]Endorsing the monopolistic “Surveillance Marketplace”: In 2007, EPIC, U.S. PIRG, and CDD filed a complaint opposing plans by Google to acquire DoubleClick. As our initial filing explained, the acquisition, if approved, “will give one company access to more information about the Internet activities of consumers than any other company in the world.” In a supplemental petition, we explained that “the massive quantity of user information collected by Google coupled with DoubleClick’s business model of consumer profiling will enable the merged company to construct extremely intimate portraits of its users’ behavior.” We also identified a major conflict of interest at the commission regarding this deal. Needless to say, it was approved anyway, paving the way for the unprecedented role that Google now plays in our lives, with its domination of the commercial surveillance marketplace.[10] (CDD also raised objections to the Google/AdMob, Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp, and other big-data-driven mergers that the FTC failed to address, again paving the way for the contemporary commercial surveillance apparatus).[11]Mobile surveillance: In 2009, CDD and U.S. PIRG urged the commission to “to protect consumers from a growing number of deceptive and unfair marketing practices and the resultant threats to consumer privacy that are a part of the rapidly growing U.S. mobile advertising landscape…. [M]obile devices, which know our location and other intimate details of our lives, are being turned into portable behavioral tracking and targeting tools….” The group’s FTC filing cited a Google official who called the mobile phone “the ultimate ad vehicle. It’s the first one ever in the history of the planet that people go to bed with. It’s ubiquitous across the world, across demographics, across age groups. People are giving these things to ever-younger children for safety and communication…. [I]t can know where you’ve been, where you’ve lingered, what store you stopped in, what car dealership you visited. It goes beyond any traditional advertising....” The complaint also discussed the myriad techniques, tactics, mergers and other critical issues to support the commission’s investigation and action.[12]Yet the FTC did nothing, and geolocation-based surveillance marketing has thrived, including via the leading platforms. Nor has the commission challenged cross-device tracking, a component of the surveillance marketing industry that financially benefited from the agency’s inability to protect consumer privacy, as unique identifiers are used to track and target the public.[13]Real-time programmatic, behavioral and algorithmic-based targeting: Also in 2009, CDD and U.S. PIRG submitted to the commission a comment as part of the agency’s “Privacy Roundtable” process, which noted thatToday, consumers online face the rapid growth and ever-increasing sophistication of the various techniques advertisers employ for data collection, profiling, and targeting across all online platforms. The growth of ad and other optimization services for targeting, involving real-time bidding on ad exchanges; the expansion of data collection capabilities from the largest advertising agencies (with the participation of leading digital media content and marketing companies); the increasing capabilities of mobile marketers to target users via enhanced data collection; and a disturbing growth of social media surveillance practices for targeted marketing are just a few of the developments the commission must address. But despite technical innovation and what may appear to be dramatic changes in the online data collection/profiling/targeting market, the commission must recognize that the underlying paradigm threatening consumer privacy online has been constant since the early 1990’s. So-called “one-to-one marketing,” where advertisers collect as much as possible on individual consumers so they can be targeted online, remains the fundamental approach. …Advertisers and marketers have developed an array of sophisticated and ever-evolving data collection and profiling applications, honed from the latest developments in such fields as semantics, artificial intelligence, auction theory, social network analysis, data-mining, and statistical modeling. Behavioral targeting is just one tool in the interactive advertisers’ arsenal.... We are being intensively tracked on many individual websites and across the Internet.[14]The filing called for action to address the buying and selling of individuals via online ad exchanges and giants such as Google; identified many other leading companies and practices; and explained how all of this was affecting mobile-device and social media users. It documented how self-regulation had been a failure, and how the “self-learning of contemporary interactive ad systems” threaten privacy and consumer welfare. Again, the FTC ignored these issues, enabling today’s programmatic (surveillance marketing) system to evolve unchallenged. Surveillance marketing of health behaviors, including through social media: In 2010, CDD and allied consumer and privacy groups filed a petition on the role that behavioral advertising, as well as manipulative ad tactics such as “neuromarketing,” play in the promotion of health and medical products. Google, Microsoft, and others were the subjects of this complaint. As we explained,A far-reaching complex of health marketers has unleashed an arsenal of techniques to track and profile consumers, including so-called medical “condition targeting,” to eavesdrop on their online discussions via social media data mining; to collect data on their actions through behavioral targeting; to use viral and so-called “word-of-mouth” techniques online to drive interest in prescriptions, over-the counter drugs, and health remedies; and to influence their subconscious perceptions via pharma-focused “neuromarketing…. Digital marketing raises many distinct consumer protection and privacy issues, including an overall lack of transparency, accountability and personal control, which consumers should have over data collection and the various interactive applications used to track, target, and influence them online (including on mobile devices). The use of these technologies by pharmaceutical, health product, and medical information providers that directly affect the public health and welfare of consumers requires immediate action.[15]As before, the FTC did nothing. Failures with Google and Facebook consent-decree enforcement: EPIC, CDD and allied consumer and privacy organizations, which helped bring cases against Google and Facebook, repeatedly told high-level commission staff and commissioners that these entities were routinely violating their respective consent decrees.[16] The failure of the commission to enforce its own decrees—reflecting the inability of the agency to analyze contemporary digital data and online marketing practices—permitted these companies, and the industry as a whole, to expand their surveillance capabilities still further.Neglecting communities of color: CDD also has repeatedly urged the commission to investigate and address how racial and ethnic data are used to target individuals and groups. For years, such data have been used to subject these communities to unfair treatment through predatory online marketing and other harmful practices. At best, the agency has given lip-service to these issues in the past, but has yet to take any meaningful action.[17]Failing our children, COPPA enforcement, and teens: CDD (along with Fair Play and Common Sense Media) is also filing comments in this docket on these issues. But we want to underscore that despite our repeated calls for action, the commission has never done anything to protect adolescents. Consequently, when someone turns 13 in the U.S., they are swept into the commercial surveillance marketing system that negatively affects every adult in the U.S.[18]Where we are today: Every day brings advances in the capabilities of commercial surveillance, led by the giant entities that dominate the marketplace, along with their affiliates. As we noted earlier, AI and machine-learning-based data analytic and targeting operations are routine for the commercial surveillance apparatus. And now the industry is poised to add what is known as “emotional intelligence,” a sophisticated new enhancement to ascertain and “understand how people feel in order to make AI more emotionally aware. There will be a shift from passive and grey interaction with AI, to an understanding of not only the cognitive, but also the emotive, channels of human interaction.”[19] Surveillance applications are also shaping the Internet of Things, the metaverse, and “over-the-top” streaming video as well.[20]We urge the commission to act on this petition, as well as calls by civil rights, consumer and privacy groups that it engage in a comprehensive rulemaking that will help promote competition, data protection, fairness and civil rights online. [1] We especially want to single out two individuals whose leadership role in all these years has been so critical, including with the FTC. Marc Rotenberg, who created and led the Electronic Privacy Information Center for decades, has been at the forefront of these and other key digital democracy issues since the earliest days of the internet. Ed Mierzwinski, now senior director, Federal Consumer Program, U.S. PIRG, understood that the same commercial forces that had undermined consumer rights in the “analog” world was doing so online as well. [2] So-called consumer data platforms and similar technologies permeate the corporate environment. See, for example, Mariah Cooper, “PepsiCo Launches Data Practice to Help Food and Beverage Retailers Grow,” Campaign, 9 Sept. 2021, /article/pepsico-launches-data-practice-to-help-food-and-beverage-retailers-grow/472436; Josh Wolf, “Where Does a Customer Data Platform Fit in With My AWS Data Lake?” AWS Blog, 13 May 2021, /blogs/apn/where-does-a-customer-data-platform-fit-in-with-my-aws-data-lake/; Wavicle Data Solutions, “Global QSR Uses Micro-segmentation to Improve Customer Engagement and Sales,” Dec. 2020, /wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Quick_Service_Restaurant_Customer_360_032421.pdf. [3] Federal Trade Commission, “Privacy in the Electronic Age,” The Privacy & American Business Conference, Washington, D.C., 1 Nov. 1995, /public-statements/1995/11/privacy-electronic-age.[4] Federal Trade Commission, “Staff Report: Public Workshop on Consumer Privacy on the Global Information Infrastructure” Dec. 1996, /reports/staff-report-public-workshop-consumer-privacy-global-information-infrastructure; Federal Trade Commission, About Privacy: Protecting the Consumer on the Global Information Infrastructure,” 8 Dec. 1998, /public-statements/1998/12/about-privacy-protecting-consumer-global-information-infrastructure; “Privacy in the Electronic Age.” See also Jeff Chester’s comments in U.S. Department of Commerce and Federal Trade Commission, “Public Workshop on Online Profiling, Washington, D C, 8 Nov. 1999, /sites/default/files/documents/public_events/online-profiling-public-workshop/online.pdf. [5] See especially the digital marketing industry fundamental paradigm laid out in Don Peppers and Martha Rogers, The One to One Future (New York: Crown Business, 1993); see also, Jeff Chester, Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy (New York: The New Press, 2008). [6] See, for example, Federal Trade Commission, “Privacy Online: A Report to Congress,” June 1998. /sites/default/files/documents/reports/privacy-online-report-congress/priv-23a.pdf; Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Staff Sets Forth Principles For Online Information Collection From Children” 16 July 1997, /news-events/press-releases/1997/07/ftc-staff-sets-forth-principles-online-information-collection. To better understand the campaign developed to enact COPPA, including the industry pushback on teens, see Kathryn C. Montgomery, Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet (Cambridge, MA: 2007). CDD pressed to have “cookies” and other identifiers included as personal information under COPPA. Jeff Chester, “Leading Consumer, Privacy, Child Advocacy & Public Health Groups Call on FTC for Stronger Children's Privacy Safeguards Under COPPA,” Center for Digital Democracy, 25 Sept. 2012, /content/leading-consumer-privacy-child-advocacy-public-health-groups-call-ftc-stronger-childrens. [7] See, for example, Marc Rotenberg, letter to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation, et al, 5 May 2010, /wp-content/uploads/privacy/facebook/EPIC_FB_FTC_Complaint_Letter.pdf.[8] Jeff Chester and Ed Mierzwinski, “Complaint and Request for Inquiry and Injunctive Relief Concerning Unfair and Deceptive Online Marketing Practices,” Federal Trade Commission, 1 Nov.2006, /sites/default/files/FTCadprivacy_0_0.pdf. CDD and U.S. PIRG filed a supplemental petition a year letter, which included an analysis of advances in behavioral marketing, including through the DoubleClick Advertising Exchange, among others. While the commission staff and commissioners made various proposals, there was no real attempt to address the surveillance ad system. See, for example, , “A Preliminary FTC Staff Report on Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: A Proposed Framework for Businesses and Policymakers,” Dec. 2010, /reports/preliminary-ftc-staff-report-protecting-consumer-privacy-era-rapid-change-proposed-framework.[9] Federal Trade Commission, “Ehavaorial Advertising: Tracking, Targeting & Technology,” meeting transcript, 1 Nov. 2007, pp. 35-36, /sites/default/files/documents/public_events/ehavioral-advertising-tracking-targeting-and-technology/71101wor.pdf. See also, Chester’s comment that “A very sophisticated commercial surveillance system has been put in place,” in Louise Story, “F.T.C. to Review Online Ads and Privacy,” New York Times, 1 Nov. 2007, /2007/11/01/technology/01Privacy.html. [10] Jeff Chester, “CDD, EPIC, USPIRG Opposition to Google/Doubleclick ‘Big Data’ Merger,” Center for Digital Democracy, 11 Sept. 2019, /article/cdd-epic-uspirg-opposition-googledoubleclick-big-data-merger; Roy Mark, “FTC Chair’s Impartiality Questioned,” eWeek, 13 Dec. 2007, /news/ftc-chair-s-impartiality-questioned/; “Conflict of Interest in Google-Doubleclick Merger Review,” EPIC.org, /documents/epic-v-federal-trade-commission/. [11] Tom Krazit, “Consumer Groups Urge Block of Google-AdMob Deal,” CNET, 28 Dec. 2009, /news/consumer-groups-urge-block-of-google-admob-deal/; Jeff Chester, “EPIC and CDD file ‘Unfair and Deceptive’ Practices Complaint at FTC on Facebook/WhatsApp Deal: WhatsApp Users Were Promised Privacy/Now They Will Have Facebook,” Center for Digital Democracy, 6 Mar. 2014, /content/epic-and-cdd-file-unfair-and-deceptive-practices-complaint-ftc-facebookwhatsapp-deal; Jeff Chester, “Big Data Gets Bigger: Consumer and Privacy Groups Call on FTC to Play Greater Role in Data Mergers/Investigation and Public Workshop Needed,” Center for Digital Democracy, 6 Feb. 2015, /content/big-data-gets-bigger-consumer-and-privacy-groups-call-ftc-play-greater-role-data-mergers.[12] “Consumer Groups Petition Federal Trade Commission to Protect Consumers from Mobile Marketing Practices Harmful to Privacy: Complaint Documents the Migration of Data Tracking, Profiling and Targeting to Mobile Phone Devices,” Center for Digital Democracy, 13 Jan. 2009, /mobile-marketing-harmful.[13] Center for Digital Democracy, “Ten Questions that the Federal Trade Commission Should Answer on Cross­ Device Online Tracking of Individuals,” /system/files/documents/public_comments/2015/11/00061-99851.pdf. For a current example of such tracking, see, for example, LiveRamp, “Measurement: Omnichannel Identity Linking,” /our-platform/cross-channel-measurement/omnichannel-identity-linking/. [14] Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. PIRG, “Cookie Wars, Real-Time Targeting, and Proprietary Self Learning Algorithms: Why the FTC Must Act Swiftly to Protect Consumer Privacy,” FTC Privacy Roundtables – Comment, Project No. P095416, 4 Nov. 2009, /sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/privacy-roundtables-comment-project-no.p095416-544506-00013/544506-00013.pdf. [15] Center for Digital Democracy, U.S. PIRG, Consumer Watchdog, and the World Privacy Forum, “Complaint, Request for Investigation, Public Disclosure, Injunction, and Other Relief: Google, Microsoft, QualityHealth, WebMD, Yahoo, AOL, HealthCentral, Healthline, Everyday Health, and Others Named Below,” FTC filing, 23 Nov. 2010, /sites/default/files/public/2015/101123publiccmptdigitaldemocracy.pdf. This complaint was one of several where CDD also placed a spotlight on social media marketing—another area in which the commission has repeatedly failed. For example, the complaint noted that “new surveillance tools have been developed to monitor conversations among social network users to identify what is being said about a particular issue or product. Marketers then work to insert brand-related messages into the social dialogue, often by identifying and targeting individuals considered brand ‘loyalists’ or ‘influencers….’ Increasingly, advertisers are using Facebook’s marketing apparatus—which is largely invisible to its users—…to … connect to the social communications of a very large pool of consumers.” [16] See, for example, Center for Digital Democracy, “Facebook’s Misleading Data and Marketing Policies and Practices,” Oct. 2013, /sites/default/files/field/public-files/2019/ftcfacebookdatapracticesfinal1013.pdf.[17] See for example, Jeff Chester, “Digital Target Marketing to African Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans: A New Report,” Center for Digital Democracy,18 Feb. 2013, /content/digital-target-marketing-african-americans-hispanics-and-asian-americans-new-report; Center for Digital Democracy, “In the Matter of ‘Privacy and Security Implications of the Internet of Things,” FTC public workshop filing, 1 June 2013, /sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2013/07/00006-86145.pdf; Jeff Chester, Kathryn Montgomery, and Lori Dorfman, “Alcohol Marketing in the Digital Age,” May 2010, /sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/alcohol-reports-project-no.p114503-00014%C2%A0/00014-58260.pdf.[18] “Children's Online Privacy.” C-Span, 17 Oct. 2018, /video/?453170-1/childrens-online-privacy; Center for Digital Democracy, “Digital Youth,” /projects/focus/digital-youth.[19] Yasmin Borain, “Marketing Trends for 2022: Technology, Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things,” WARC, Nov. 2021, /content/article/warc-exclusive/marketing-trends-for-2022-technology-artificial-intelligence-and-internet-of-things/141212 (subscription required).[20] Hannah Murphy, “Facebook Patents Reveal How It Intends to Cash in on Metaverse: Meta Hopes to Use Tiny Human Expressions to Create Virtual World of Personalised Ads,” Financial Times, 17 Jan. 2022, /content/76d40aac-034e-4e0b-95eb-c5d34146f647 (subscription required).surveillanceadvertisingftccdd012622b.pdf

CDD and Advocates Call on the FTC to Begin Rulemaking to Prohibit Surveillance AdvertisingJanuary 26, 2022Federal Trade CommissionOffice of the Secretary600 Pennsylvania Avenue NWWashington, DC 20580Re: Comment on Petition for Rulemaking by Accountable Tech, FTC-2021-0070  INTRODUCTIONCenter for Digital Democracy, Common Sense, Fairplay, Parent Coalition for Student Privacy and ParentsTogether strongly support the Petition for Rulemaking to Prohibit Surveillance Advertising filed by Accountable Tech1. We agree that this action is necessary to stop the exploitation of children and teens2.Surveillance advertising, also known as behavioral or targeted advertising, has become the standard business model for a wide array of online platforms with companies utilizing this practice to micro-target all consumers, including children and teens. Surveillance advertising involves the collection of vast amounts of personal data of online users, their demographics, behaviors, preferences, characteristics, and the production of inferences. To create detailed advertising profiles from this data, users are  tracked across websites and devices; they are classified, sorted, and even discriminated against via targeting and exclusion; and ultimately are left vulnerable to manipulation and exploitation.Young people are especially susceptible to the risks posed by surveillance advertising, which is why leading public health advocates like the American Academy of Pediatrics have called for a ban on surveillance advertising to children under 18 years old3. Children’s and teens’ online experiences are shaped by the affordances of surveillance marketing, which entrap them in a complex system purposefully designed to manipulate their behaviors and emotions, while leveraging their data in the process. Young people are a significant audience for the real-time ad profiling and targeting apparatus operated through programmatic platforms and technologies, which poses fundamental risks to their privacy, safety and well-being.  Surveillance advertising is harmful to young people in several ways. First, young people are already more susceptible to advertising’s negative effects and surveillance advertising allows marketers to manipulate children and teens even more effectively. Second, surveillance advertising allows advertisers to target children’s individual vulnerabilities. Third, surveillance advertising can exacerbate inequities by allowing advertisers to target (or abstain from targeting) marginalized communities. Fourth, behavioral advertising is the driving force behind a complex system of data collection and surveillance that tracks all of children’s online activity, undermining young people’s privacy and wellbeing. Finally, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has failed to effectively protect children under thirteen from surveillance advertising and a more expansive prohibition is needed to protect the youngest and most vulnerable users online.For these reasons, we urge the Commission to protect children and teens by prohibiting surveillance advertising.......Please read the full petition, see PDF below......____________________________________________186 Fed. Reg. 73206 (Dec. 27, 2021).2Pet’n for Rulemaking at 32-33.3Jenny Radesky, Yolanda (Linda) Reid Chassiakos, Nusheen Ameenuddin, Dipesh Navsaria, Council on Communications and Media; Digital Advertising to Children. Pediatrics July 2020; 146 (1): e20201681. 10.1542/peds.2020-1681.childrens_coalition_survadv_1-26-22.pdf

Congresswomen Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) Introduce Bill to Ban Surveillance AdvertisingWashington, DC 1-18-2022“Identifying, tracking, discriminating, sorting, targeting, and manipulating online users lies at the heart of all that is toxic about today’s digital world. Surveillance advertising drives discrimination and compounds inequities, it destroys democratic institutions and rights, strengthens monopoly power of Big Tech platforms, and is harmful to children, teens, families, and communities. If enacted, the Banning Surveillance Advertising Act would put a stop to surveillance advertising and would be an important first step in building a digital world that is less toxic to our democracy, economy, and collective well-being,” said Katharina Kopp, Ph.D., Director of Policy for the Center for Digital Democracy.Click here for statements of support.Click here for bill text.Click here for a section-by-section summary.Click here for additional background.

"Surveillance" Marketing meets what Google calls "embedded finance" online [excerpt]USPIRG and CDD believe the U.S. is at an especially critical inflection point regarding digital platforms, digital payment services and online consumer protection: the pervasive tracking of data on individuals, families and groups, online and off; the nearly real-time ability to target a consumer with financial and other product offers regardless of where they are or device they use; and the development of a highly sophisticated and now machine-driven apparatus to deliver personalized marketing and communications, have all led to a largely unaccountable digital marketplace. A handful of digital platform giants and their partners stealthily operate what is known as a “surveillance marketing” system, which now pervades every aspect of our lives—increasingly affecting how the public engages with the financial services sector. As the Bureau’s Request for Comment illustrates, it is aware of the serious ramifications to consumers and small businesses as the U.S. accelerates its transition to what Google calls “embedded finance.” The leading platforms and online services, as they accelerate their roles as America’s new bankers and lenders, bring with them a host of critical issues that the Bureau must address. Moreover, the industry’s “closed-loop” business model, where platforms and online data and ad practices are able to operate in a non-transparent manner, which has already caused an uproar from global marketers, is poised to have even greater consequences as it assumes greater control over our daily financial experiences.  The growing role of platforms to leverage their market positions to shape the digital payment system is now disintermediating “banks and credit card companies from consumers.” These platforms are poised to dominate consumer and small business financial markets as much as they now do ecommerce, entertainment, and communications. In the process, these platforms and their online financial and other service partners will pose a series of threats. Their operating model, as we discuss below, engages in far-reaching forms of consumer manipulation, relying on a host of online marketing tactics designed to trigger a range of responses. There is a very real risk that without Bureau action, the digital payments and platform complex will aggressively push Americans to new levels of debt, as the Big Data and artificial intelligence (AI) apparatus now at the core of the consumer digital economy encourages impulse buying and other potentially consequential practices. These entities have so much information on individuals, communities and commerce, they easily dislodge smaller and locally-based businesses. Since data analyzed by the platforms is used to identify commercial opportunities across the range of their product offerings—which is basically making everything available for sale—a consumer will not be aware, let alone control, how this information can be used to target them with other products and services. As Alphabet/Google highlighted in a recent report on “embedded finance,” “online finance” has altered what people think is banking and managing finances: “now, most financial transactions happen via mobile apps, websites, email, text messages and other digital communications.” Google’s “white paper” suggests that embedded finance may be “the new gold rush” for financial services. Among the competitive benefits claimed by Google are that embedded finance “enables business to reach new customers at the moment when they need your services.” There is also an added “bonus”: “the data you collect from each transaction….”bigtechpaymentplatforms121921final.pdf

CDD's Jeff Chester contributed to report's focus on online marketing practices, inc. use of big data analytics, by alcoholic beverage companies(Excerpt from WHO release):  Just as with tobacco, a global and comprehensive approach is required to restrict digital marketing of alcohol.“The vast majority of alcohol advertising online is “dark”Children and young people are especially at risk from the invasion of their social spaces by communication promoting alcohol consumption, normalising alcohol in all social contexts and linked to development of adult identities.“Current policies across the WHO European Region are insufficient to protect people from new formats of alcohol marketing. Age verification schemes, where they exist, are usually inadequate to protect minors from exposure to alcohol marketing. The fact that the vast majority of alcohol advertising online is “dark”, in the sense that it is only visible to the consumer to whom it is marketed, is challenging for policy makers thus requiring new mechanisms and a new approach,” said Dr Carina Ferreira-Borges, Acting Director for Noncommunicable Diseases and Programme Manager for Alcohol and Illicit Drugs at WHO/Europe.Link to releaseLink to report

Groups urge Congress to stop Big Tech’s manipulation of young people BOSTON – Thursday, December 2, 2021 – Today a coalition of leading advocacy groups launched Designed With Kids in Mind, a campaign demanding a design code in the US to protect young people from online manipulation and harm. The campaign seeks to secure protections for US children and teens similar to the UK’s groundbreaking Age-Appropriate Design Code (AADC), which went into effect earlier this year. The campaign brings together leading advocates for child development, privacy, and a healthier digital media environment, including Fairplay, Accountable Tech, American Academy of Pediatrics, Center for Digital Democracy, Center for Humane Technology, Common Sense, ParentsTogether, RAINN, and Exposure Labs, creators of The Social Dilemma. The coalition will advocate for legislation and new Federal Trade Commission rules that protect children and teens from a business model that puts young people at risk by prioritizing data collection and engagement.The coalition has launched a website that explains how many of the most pressing problems faced by young people online are directly linked to platform’s design choices. They cite features that benefit platforms at the expense of young people’s wellbeing, such as: Autoplay: increases time on platforms, and excessive time on screens is linked to mental health challenges, physical risks like less sleep, and promotes family conflict.Algorithmic recommendations: risks exposure to self-harm, racist content, pornography, and mis/disinformation.Location tracking: makes it easier for strangers to track and contact children.Nudges to share: leads to loss of privacy, risks of sexual predation and identity theft.The coalition is promoting three bills which would represent a big step forward in protecting US children and teens online: the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act S.1628; the Kids Internet Design and Safety (KIDS) Act S. 2918; and the Protecting the Information of our Vulnerable Children and Youth (PRIVCY) Act H.R. 4801. Taken together, these bills would expand privacy protections to teens for the first time and incorporate key elements of the UK’s AADC, such as requiring the best interest of children to be a primary design consideration for services likely to be accessed by young people. The legislation backed by the coalition would also protect children and teens from manipulative design features and harmful data processing. Members of the coalition on the urgent need for a US Design Code to protect children and teens:Josh Golin, Executive Director, Fairplay:We need an internet that helps children learn, connect, and play without exploiting their developmental vulnerabilities; respects their need for privacy and safety; helps young children disconnect at the appropriate time rather than manipulating them into spending even more time online; and prioritizes surfacing high-quality content instead of maximizing engagement. The UK’s Age-Appropriate Design Code took an important step towards creating that internet, and children and teens in the US deserve the same protections and opportunities. It’s time for Congress and regulators to insist that children come before Big Tech’s profits.Nicole Gill, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Accountable Tech:You would never put your child in a car seat that wasn't designed for them and met all safety standards, but that's what we do every day when our children go online using a network of apps and websites that were never designed with them in mind. Our children should be free to learn, play, and connect online without manipulative platforms like Facebook and Google's YouTube influencing their every choice. We need an age appropriate design code that puts kids and families first and protects young people from the exploitative practices and the perverse incentives of social media.Lee Savio Beers, MD, FAAP, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics:The American Academy of Pediatrics is proud to join this effort to ensure digital spaces are safe for children and supportive of their healthy development. It is in our power to create a digital ecosystem that works better for children and families; legislative change to protect children is long overdue. We must be bold in our thinking and ensure that government action on technology addresses the most concerning industry practices while preserving the positive aspects of technology for young people.Jeff Chester, Executive Director, Center for Digital Democracy:The “Big Tech” companies have long treated young people as just a means to generate vast profits – creating apps, videos and games designed to hook them to an online world designed to surveil and manipulate them. It’s time to stop children and teens from being victimized by the digital media industry. Congress and the Federal Trade Commission should adopt commonsense safeguards that ensure America’s youth reap all the benefits of the online world without having to constantly expose themselves to the risks.Randima Fernando, Executive Director, Center for Humane Technology:We need technology that respects the incredible potential – and the incredible vulnerability – of our kids' minds. And that should guide technology for adults, who can benefit from those same improvements.Irene Ly, Policy Counsel, Common Sense:This campaign acknowledges harmful features of online platforms and apps like autoplay, algorithms amplifying harmful content, and location tracking for what they are: intentional design choices. For too long, online platforms and apps have chosen to exploit children’s vulnerabilities through these manipulative design features. Common Sense has long supported designing online spaces with kids in mind, and strongly supports US rules that would finally require companies to put kids’ well-being first.Julia Hoppock, The Social Dilemma Partnerships Director, Exposure Labs:For too long, Big Social has put profits over people. It's time to put our kids first and build an online world that works for them.Dalia Hashad, Online Safety Director, ParentsTogether: From depression to bullying to sexual exploitation, tech companies knowingly expose children to unacceptable harms because it makes the platforms billions in profit. It's time to put kids first.Scott Berkowitz, President of RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network):Child exploitation has reached crisis levels, and our reliance on technology has left children increasingly vulnerable. On our hotline, we hear from children every day who have been victimized through technology. An age-appropriate design code will provide overdue safeguards for children across the U.S.launch_-_design_code_to_protect_kids_online.pdf

Time for the FTC to intervene as marketers create new ways to leverage our “identity” data as cookies “crumble” For decades, the U.S. has allowed private actors to basically create the rules regarding how our data is gathered and used online. A key reason that we do not have any real privacy for digital media is precisely because it has principally been online marketing interests that have shaped how the devices, platforms and applications we use ensnare us in the commercial surveillance complex. The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has long played this role through an array of standards committees that address everything from mobile devices to big data-driven targeting to ads harnessing virtual reality, to name a few. As this blog has previously covered, U.S. commercial online advertising, spearheaded by Google, the Trade Desk and others, is engaged in a major transformation of how it processes and characterizes data used for targeted marketing. For various reasons, the traditional ways we are profiled and tracked through the use of “cookies” are being replaced by a variety of schemes that enable advertisers to know and take advantage of our identities, but which they believe will (somehow!) pass muster with any privacy regulations now in force or potentially enacted. What’s important is that regardless of the industry rhetoric that these approaches will empower a person’s privacy, at the end of the day they are designed to ensure that the comprehensive tracking and targeting system remains firmly in place.As an industry trade organization, the IAB serves as a place to generate consensus, or agreed-upon formats, for digital advertising practices. To help the industry’s search for a way to maintain its surveillance business model approach, it has created what’s called “Project Rearc” to “re-architect digital marketing.” The IAB explains that Project Rearc “is a global call-to-action for stakeholders across the digital supply chain to re-think and re-architect digital marketing to support core industry use cases, while balancing consumer privacy and personalization.” It has set up a number of industry-run working groups to advance various components of this “re-architecting,” including what’s called an “Accountability Working Group.” Its members include Experian, Facebook, Google, Axel Springer, Nielsen, Pandora, TikTok, Nielsen, Publicis, Group M, Amazon, IABs from the EU, Australia, and Canada, Disney, Microsoft, Adobe, News Corp., Roku and many more (including specialist companies with their own “identity” for digital marketing approaches, such as Neustar and LiveRamp).The IAB Rearc effort has put out for “public comment” a number of proposed approaches for addressing elements of the new ways to target us via identifiers, cloud processing, and machine learning. Earlier this year, for example, it released for comment proposed standards on a “Global Privacy Platform;” an “Accountability Platform,” “Best Practices for User-Enabled Identity Tokens,” and a “Taxonomy and Data Transparency Standards to Support seller-defined Audience and Context Signaling.”Now it has released for public comment (due by November 12, 2021) a proposed method to “Increase Transparency Across Entire Advertising Supply Chain for New ID usage.” This proposal involves critical elements on the data collected about us and how it can be used. It is designed to “provide a standard way for companies to declare which user identity sources they use” and “ease ad campaign execution between advertisers, publishers, and their chosen technology providers….” This helps online advertisers use “different identity solutions that will replace the role of the third-party cookie,” explains the IAB. While developed in part for a “transparent supply chain” and to help build “auditable data structures to ensure consumer privacy,” its ultimate function is to enable marketers to “activate addressable audiences.” In other words, it’s all about continuing to ensure that digital marketers are able to build and leverage numerous individual and group identifiers to empower their advertising activities, and withstand potential regulatory threats about privacy violations.The IAB’s so-called public comment system is primarily designed for the special interests whose business model is the mass monetization of all our data and behaviors. We should not allow these actors to define how our everyday experiences with data operate, especially when privacy is involved. The longstanding role in which the IAB and online marketers have set many of the standards for our online lives should be challenged—by the FTC, Congress, state AGs and everyone else working on these issues.We—the public—should be determining our “digital destiny”—not the same people that gave us surveillance marketing in the first place.

The Center for Digital Democracy and 23 other leading civil society groups sent a letter to President Biden today asking his Administration to ensure that any new transatlantic data transfer deal is coupled with the enactment of U.S. laws that reform government surveillance practices and provide comprehensive privacy protections.

To watch the full FTC Dark Patterns Workshop online visit the FTC website here (link is external).