Publishings

Streaming Television Industry Conducting Vast Surveillance of Viewers, Targeting Them with Manipulative AI-driven Ad Tactics, Says New Report.Digital Privacy and Consumer Protection Group Calls on FTC, FCC and California Regulators to Investigate Connected TV PracticesContact: Jeff Chester, 202-494-7100 Jeff@democraticmedia.orgOctober 7, 2024Washington, DC. The Connected TV (CTV) video streaming industry in the U.S. operates a massive data-driven surveillance apparatus that has transformed the television set into a sophisticated monitoring, tracking and targeting device, according to a new report from the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD). How TV Watches Us: Commercial Surveillance in the Streaming Era documents how CTV captures and harvests information on individuals and families through a sophisticated and expansive commercial surveillance system, deliberately incorporating many of the data-gathering, monitoring, and targeting practices that have long undermined privacy and consumer protection online.The report highlights a number of recent trends that are key to understanding today’s connected TV operations:Leading streaming video programming networks, CTV device companies and “smart” TV manufacturers, allied with many of the country’s most powerful data brokers, are creating extensive digital dossiers on viewers based on a person’s identity information, viewing choices, purchasing patterns, and thousands of online and offline behaviors.So-called FAST channels (Free Advertiser-Supported TV)—such as Tubi, Pluto TV, and many others—are now ubiquitous on CTV, and a key part of the industry’s strategy to monetize viewer data and target them with sophisticated new forms of interactive marketing.Comcast/NBCU, Disney, Amazon, Roku, LG and other CTV companies operate cutting-edge advertising technologies that gather, analyze and then target consumers with ads, delivering them to households in milliseconds. CTV has unleashed a powerful arsenal of interactive advertising techniques, including virtual product placement inserted into programming and altered in real time. Generative AI enables marketers to produce thousands of instantaneous “hypertargeted variations” personalized for individual viewers. Surveillance has been built directly into television sets, with major manufacturers’ “smart TVs” deploying automatic content recognition (ACR) and other monitoring software to capture “an extensive, highly granular, and intimate amount of information that, when combined with contemporary identity technologies, enables tracking and ad targeting at the individual viewer level,” the report explains.Connected television is now integrated with online shopping services and offline retail outlets, creating a seamless commercial and entertainment culture through a number of techniques, including what the industry calls “shoppable ad formats” incorporated into programming and designed to prompt viewers to “purchase their favorite items without disrupting their viewing experience,” according to industry materials.The report profiles major players in the connected TV industry, along with the wide range of technologies they use to monitor and target viewers. For example:Comcast’s NBCUniversal division has developed its own data-driven ad-targeting system called “One Platform Total Audience.” It powers NBCU’s “streaming activation” of consumers targeted across “300 end points,” including their streaming video programming and mobile phone use. Advertisers can use the “machine learning and predictive analytics” capabilities of One Platform, including its “vast… first-party identity spine” that can be coupled with their own data sets “to better reach the consumers who matter most to brands.” NBCU’s “Identity graph houses more than 200 million individuals 18+, more than 90 million households, and more than 3,000 behavioral attributes” that can be accessed for strategic audience targeting.”The Walt Disney Company has developed a state-of the-art big-data and advertising system for its video operations, including through Disney+ and its “kids” content. Its materials promise to “leverage streaming behavior to build brand affinity and reward viewers” using tools such as the “Disney Audience Graph—consisting of millions of households, CTV and digital device IDs… continually refined and enhanced based on the numerous ways Disney connects with consumers daily.” The company claims that its ID Graph incorporates 110 million households and 260 million device IDs that can be targeted for advertising using “proprietary” and “precision” advertising categories “built from 100,000 [data] attributes.”Set manufacturer Samsung TV promises advertisers a wealth of data to reach their targets, deploying a variety of surveillance tools, including an ACR technology system that “identifies what viewers are watching on their TV on a regular basis,” and gathers data from a spectrum of channels, including “Linear TV, Linear Ads, Video Games, and Video on Demand.” It can also determine which viewers are watching television in English, Spanish, or other languages, and the specific kinds of devices that are connected to the set in each home.“The transformation of television in the digital era has taken place over the last several years largely under the radar of policymakers and the public, even as concerns about internet privacy and social media have received extensive media coverage,” the report explains. “The U.S. CTV streaming business has deliberately incorporated many of the data-surveillance marketing practices that have long undermined privacy and consumer protection in the ‘older’ online world of social media, search engines, mobile phones and video services such as YouTube.” The industry’s self-regulatory regimes are highly inadequate, the report authors argue. “Millions of Americans are being forced to accept unfair terms in order to access video programming, which threatens their privacy and may also narrow what information they access—including the quality of the content itself. Only those who can afford to pay are able to ‘opt out’ of seeing most of the ads—although much of their data will still be gathered.”The massive surveillance and targeting practices of today’s contemporary connected TV industry raise a number of concerns, the report explains. For example, during this election year, CTV has become the fastest growing medium for political ads. “Political campaigns are taking advantage of the full spectrum of ad-tech, identity, data analysis, monitoring and tracking tools deployed by major brands.” While these tools are no doubt a boon to campaigns, they also make it easy for candidates and other political actors to “run covert personalized campaigns, integrating detailed information about viewing behaviors, along with a host of additional (and often sensitive) data about a voter’s political orientations, personal interests, purchasing patterns, and emotional states. With no transparency or oversight,” the authors warn, “these practices could unleash millions of personalized, manipulative and highly targeted political ads, spread disinformation, and further exacerbate the political polarization that threatens a healthy democratic culture in the U.S.”“CTV has become a privacy nightmare for viewers,” explained report co-author Jeff Chester, who is the executive director of CDD. “It is now a core asset for the vast system of digital surveillance that shapes most of our online experiences. Not only does CTV operate in ways that are unfair to consumers, it is also putting them and their families at risk as it gathers and uses sensitive data about health, children, race and political interests,” Chester noted. “Regulation is urgently needed to protect the public from constantly expanding and unfair data collection and marketing practices,” he said, “as well as to ensure a competitive, diverse and equitable marketplace for programmers.”“Policy makers, scholars, and advocates need to pay close attention to the changes taking place in today’s 21st century television industry,” argued report co-author Kathryn C. Montgomery, Ph.D. “In addition to calling for strong consumer and privacy safeguards,” she urged, “we should seize this opportunity to re-envision the power and potential of the television medium and to create a policy framework for connected TV that will enable it to do more than serve the needs of advertisers. Our future television system in the United States should support and sustain a healthy news and information sector, promote civic engagement, and enable a diversity of creative expression to flourish.”CDD is submitting letters today to the chairs of the FTC and FCC, as well as the California Attorney General and the California Privacy Protection Agency, calling on policymakers to address the report’s findings and implement effective regulations for the CTV industry.CDD’s mission is to ensure that digital technologies serve and strengthen democratic values, institutions and processes. CDD strives to safeguard privacy and civil and human rights, as well as to advance equity, fairness, and community --30-- 

Center for Digital DemocracyWashington, DCContact: Katharina Kopp, kkopp@democraticmedia.org  Statement Regarding the FTC 6(b) Study on Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services -“A Look Behind the Screens Examining the Data Practices of Social Media and Video Streaming Services”The following statement can be attributed to Katharina Kopp, Ph.D., Deputy Director,Center for Digital Democracy:The Center for Digital Democracy welcomes the release of the FTC’s 6(b) study on social media and video streaming providers’ data practices and it evidence-based recommendations.In 2019, Fairplay (then the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC)), the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), and 27 other organizations, and their attorneys at Georgetown Law’s Institute for Public Representation urged the Commission to use its 6(b) authority to better understand how tech companies collect and use data from children.The report’s findings show that social media and video streaming providers’ s business model produces an insatiable hunger for data about people. These companies create a vast surveillance apparatus sweeping up personal data and creating an inescapable matrix of AI applications. These data practices lead to numerous well-documented harms, particularly for children and teens. These harms include manipulation and exploitation, loss of autonomy, discrimination, hate speech and disinformation, the undermining of democratic institutions, and most importantly, the pervasive mental health crisis among the youth.The FTC's call for comprehensive privacy legislation is crucial in curbing the harmful business model of Big Tech. We support the FTC’s recommendation to better protect teens but call, specifically, for a ban on targeted advertising to do so. We strongly agree with the FTC that companies should be prohibited from exploiting young people's personal information, weaponizing AI and algorithms against them, and using their data to foster addiction to streaming videos.That is why we urge this Congress to pass COPPA 2.0 and KOSA which will compel Big Tech companies to acknowledge the presence of children and teenagers on their platforms and uphold accountability. The responsibility for rectifying the flaws in their data-driven business model rests with Big Tech, and we express our appreciation to the FTC for highlighting this important fact. ________________The Center for Digital Democracy is a public interest research and advocacy organization, established in 2001, which works on behalf of citizens, consumers, communities, and youth to protect and expand privacy, digital rights, and data justice. CDD’s predecessor, the Center for Media Education, lead the campaign for the passage of COPPA over 25 years ago in 1998.

Center for Digital Democracy                                                                                 Washington, DC       July 30, 2024                                                                                                                  Contact: Katharina Kopp, kkopp@democraticmedia.org Statement Regarding the U.S. Senate Vote to Advance the Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (S. 2073). The following statement can be attributed to Katharina Kopp, Ph.D., Deputy Director,Center for Digital Democracy: Today is a milestone in the decades long effort to protect America’s young people from the harmful impacts caused by the out-of-control and unregulated social and digital media business model. The Kids Online Safety and Privacy Act (KOSPA), if passed by the House and enacted into law, will safeguard children and teens from digital marketers who manipulate and employ unfair data-driven marketing tactics to closely surveil, profile, and target young people.  These include an array of ever-expanding tactics that are discriminatory and unfair. The new law would protect children and teens being exposed to addictive algorithms and other harmful practices across online platforms, protecting the mental health and well-being of youth and their families. Building on the foundation of the 25-year-old Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), KOSPA will provide protections to teens under 17. It will prohibit targeted advertising to children and teens, impose data minimization requirements, and compel companies to acknowledge the presence of young online users on their platforms and apps. The safety by design provisions will necessitate the disabling of addictive product features and the option for users to opt out of addictive algorithmic recommender systems. Companies will be obliged to prevent and mitigate harms to children, such as bullying and violence, promotion of suicide, eating disorders, and sexual exploitation. Crucially, most of these safeguards will be automatically implemented, relieving children, teens, and their families of the burden to take further action. The responsibility to rectify the worst aspects of their data-driven business model will lie squarely with Big Tech, as it should have all along. We express our gratitude for the leadership and support of Majority Leader Schumer, Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Cruz, and Senators Blumenthal, Blackburn, Markey, Cassidy, along with their staff, for making this historic moment possible in safeguarding children and teens online. Above all, we are thankful to all the parents and families who have tirelessly advocated for common-sense safeguards. We now urge the House of Representatives to act upon their return from the August recess. The time for hesitation is over. About the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD)The Center for Digital Democracy is a public interest research and advocacyorganization, established in 2001, which works on behalf of citizens, consumers, communities, and youth to protect and expand privacy, digital rights, and data justice. CDD’s predecessor, the Center for Media Education, lead the campaign for the passage of COPPA over 25 years ago, in 1998.

"Children and Teens Need Effective Privacy Protections Now"“We have two reactions to the legislation the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Innovation plans to consider on Thursday.  On the one hand, we appreciate that the subcommittee is taking up the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) as a standalone bill, as we had recommended. Congressional action to make the internet safer for kids and teens is long overdue, so we welcome this step tomorrow. As the Members know, KOSA has 69 co-sponsors in the Senate, has bi-partisan support in both houses, and has overwhelming popular support across the country as demonstrated by numerous public polls and in the strong advocacy actions in the Capitol and elsewhere. “On the other hand, we are very disappointed in the privacy legislation the subcommittee will take up as it relates to children and teens. We have always maintained, and the facts are clear on this, that stronger data privacy protections for kids and teens should go hand in hand with new social media platform guardrails. The bi-partisan COPPA 2.0 (H.R. 7890), to update the 25- year-old children's privacy law, is not being considered as a standalone bill on Thursday. And further, we are very disappointed with the revised text of the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) discussion draft as it relates to children and teen privacy. “When the APRA discussion draft was first unveiled on April 7th, we understood Committee leadership to say that the bill would need stronger youth privacy protections. More than a month later, there are no new effective protections for youth in the new draft that was released at 10:00 pm last night, compared with the original discussion draft from April. The new APRA discussion draft purports to include COPPA 2.0 (as Title II) but does not live up to the standalone COPPA 2.0 legislation introduced in the House last month, and supported on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, in terms of protections for children and teens. Furthermore, the youth provisions in APRA’s discussion draft appear impossible to implement without additional clarifications. Lastly, in addition to these highly significant shortcomings, we are also concerned that Title II of the new APRA draft may actually weaken current privacy protections for children, by limiting coverage of sites and services. “Children and teens need effective privacy protections now. We expect the Committee to do better than this, and we look forward to working with them to make sure that once and for all Congress puts kids and teens first when it comes to privacy and online safety.” Signed: Center for Digital Democracy, Common Sense Media, and Fairplay

Read the attached letter.

COPPA 2.0 provides a comprehensive approach to safeguarding children’s and teen’s privacy via data minimization and a prohibition on targeted advertising – it’s not “just” about “notice and consent”We commend Rep. Walberg (R-Mich.) and Rep. Castor (D-FL) for introducing the House COPPA 2.0 companion bill. The bill enjoys strong bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate. We urge the House to promptly markup HR 7890 and pass it into law. Any delay in bringing HR 7890 to a vote would expose children, adolescents, and their families to greater harm.Learn more about the Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act here: Background:The United States is currently facing a commercial surveillance crisis. Digital giants invade our private lives, spy on our families, deploy manipulative and unfair data-driven marketing practices, and exploit our most personal information for profit. These reckless practices are leading to unacceptable invasions of privacy, discrimination, and public health harms.In particular, the United States faces a youth mental health crisis fueled, in part, by Big Tech. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, children’s mental health has reached a national emergency status. The Center for Disease Control found that in 2021, one in three high school girls contemplated suicide, one in ten high school girls attempted suicide, and among LGBTQ+ youth, more than one in five attempted suicide. As the Surgeon General concluded in a report last year, “there are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.”Platforms’ data practices and their prioritization of profit over the well-being of America’s youth significantly contribute to the crisis. The lack of privacy protections for children and teens has led to a decline in young people’s well-being. Platforms rely on vast amounts of data to create detailed profiles of young individuals to target them with tailored ads. To achieve this, addictive design features are employed, keeping young users online for longer periods of time and exacerbating the youth mental health crisis. The formula is simple: more addiction equals more data and more targeted ads which translates into greater profits for Big Tech. In fact, according to a recent Harvard study, in 2022, the major Big Tech platforms earned nearly $11 billion in ad revenue from U.S. users under age 17.The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) modernizes and strengthens the only online privacy law for children, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). COPPA was passed over 25 years ago and is crucially in need of an update, including the extension of safeguards to teens. Passed by the Senate out of Committee, Reps. Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Kathy Castor (D-FL) introduced COPPA 2.0 in the House in April. It’s time now for the House to act. The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act would:-              Build on COPPA and extend privacy safeguards to users who are 13 to 16 years of age;-              Require strong data minimization safeguards prohibiting the excessive collection, use, and sharing of children’s and teens’ data; COPPA 2.0 would:Prohibit the collection, use or disclosure or maintenance of personal information for purposes of targeted advertising;Prohibit the collection of personal information except when the collection is consistent with the context and necessary to fulfill a transaction or service or provide a product or service requested;Prohibit the retention of personal information for longer than is reasonably necessary to fulfill a transaction or provide a service;Prohibit conditioning a child’s or teen’s participation on the child’s or teen’s disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary.Except for certain internal permissible operations purposes of the operator, all other data collection or disclosures require parental or teen consent.-              Ban targeted advertising to children and teens;-              Provide for parental or teen controls;It would provide for the right to correct or delete personal information collected from  a child or teen or content or information submitted by a child or teen to a website – when technologically feasible.-              Revise COPPA’s “actual knowledge” standard to close the loophole that allows covered platforms to ignore kids and teens on their site.  But what about….?…Notice and Consent, doesn’t COPPA 2.0 rely on the so-called “notice and consent” approach and isn’t the consensus that this is an ineffective way to protect privacy online?No, COPPA 2.0 does not rely on “notice and consent”. It would provide a comprehensive approach to safeguarding children’s and teen’s privacy via data minimization. It appropriately restricts companies’ ability to collect, use, and share personal information of children and teens by default. The consent mechanism is just one additional safeguard. 1.        By default COPPA 2.0 would prohibitthe collection, use or disclosure or maintenance of personal information for purposes of targeted advertising to children and teens - this is a flat out ban, consent is not required.the collection of personal information except when the collection is consistent with the context of the relationship and necessary to fulfill a transaction or service or provide a product or service requested of the relationship of the child/teen with the operator.the retention of personal information for longer than is reasonably necessary to fulfill a transaction or provide a service. 2.        By extending COPPA protections to teens, COPPA 2.0 would further limit data collection from children and teens as COPPA 2.0 would prohibitconditioning a child’s or teen’s participation in a game, the offering of a prize, or another activity on the child’s or teen’s disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary to participate in such activity. 3.        Any other personal information that companies would want to collect, use, or disclose requires parental consent or the consent of a teen, except for certain internal permissible operations purposes of the operator. COPPA 2.0's data minimization provisions prevent the collection, use, disclosure, and retention of excessive data from the start. By not collecting or retaining unnecessary data, harmful, manipulative, and exploitative business practices will be prevented. The consent provision is important but plays a relatively small role in the privacy safeguards of COPPA 2.0.  But what about….?…targeted advertising, don’t we need a clear ban of targeted advertising to children and teens?Yes, and COPPA 2.0 bans targeted advertising while allowing for contextual advertising.Under COPPA 2.0 it is unlawful for an operator "to collect, use, disclose to third parties, or maintain personal information of a child or teen for purposes of individual-specific advertising to children or teens (or to allow another person to collect, use, disclose, or maintain such information for such purpose).” But what about….?…the transfer of personal information to third parties?Yes, COPPA 2.0 requires verifiable consent by a parent or teen for the disclosure or transfer of personal information to a third party, except for certain internal permissible operations purposes of the operator. Verifiable consent must be obtained before collection, use, and disclosure of personal information via direct notice of the personal information collection, use, and disclosure practices of the operator. Any material changes from the original purposes also require verifiable consent.(Note that the existing COPPA rule requires that an operator gives a parent the option to consent to the collection and use of the child's personal information without consenting to the disclosure of his or her personal information to third parties under 312.5(a)(2). The FTC recently proposed to bolster this provision under the COPPA rule update.)

Center for Digital Democracy             April 17, 2024                                                                                               Washington, DC Contact: Katharina Kopp, kkopp@democraticmedia.orgStatement Regarding House Energy & Commerce Hearing : “Legislative Solutions to Protect Kids Online and Ensure Americans’ Data Privacy Rights” The following statement can be attributed to Katharina Kopp, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Center for Digital Democracy:The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) welcomes the bi-cameral and bi-partisan effort to come together and produce the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA) discussion draft. We have long advocated for comprehensive privacy legislation that would protect everyone’s privacy rights and provide default safeguards.The United States confronts a commercial surveillance crisis, where digital giants invade our private lives, spy on our families, and exploit our most personal information for profit. Through a vast, opaque system of algorithms, we are manipulated, profiled, and sorted into winners and losers based on data about our health, finances, location, gender, race, and other personal information. The impacts of this commercial surveillance system are especially harmful for marginalized communities, fostering discrimination and inequities in employment, government services, health and healthcare, education, and other life necessities. The absence of a U.S. privacy law not only jeopardizes our individual autonomy but also our democracy.However, our reading the APRA draft, we have several questions and concerns, suggesting that the document needs substantial revision. While the legislation addresses many of our requirements for comprehensive privacy legislation, we oppose various provisions in their current form, including-              Insufficient limitations on targeted advertising and de-facto sharing of consumer data: The current data-driven targeted ad supported business model is the key driver of commercial exploitation, manipulation, and discrimination. APRA, however, allows the continuation and proliferation of “first party” targeted advertising without any recourse for individuals. Most of the targeted advertising today relies on first party advertising and widely accepted de-facto sharing practices like “data clean rooms.” APRA should not provide any carve-out for first-party targeted advertising. -              Overbroad preemption language: APRA’s preemption of state privacy laws prevents states from implementing stronger privacy protections. Considering that it took the U.S. three decades to pass any comprehensive privacy legislation since the establishment of pervasive digital marketing practices, it would be short-sighted and reckless to believe that the current form of APRA can adequately protect online privacy in the long run without pressure from states to innovate. Technology and data practices are rapidly evolving, and our understanding of their harms are evolving as well. The preemption language is particularly careless, especially since there are almost no provisions giving the FTC the ability to update APRA through effective rulemaking. CDD strongly supports the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0), HR 7890. Children and teens require additional privacy safeguards beyond those outlined in APRA. Digital marketers are increasingly employing manipulative and unfair data-driven marketing tactics to profile, target, discriminate against, and exploit children and teens on all the online platforms they use. This is leading to unacceptable invasions of privacy and public health harms. The Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) is urgently needed to provide crucial safeguards and to update federal protections that were initially established almost 25 years ago. We commend Rep. Walberg (R-Mich.) and Rep. Castor (D-FL) for introducing the House COPPA 2.0 companion bill. The bill enjoys strong bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate. We urge Congress to promptly pass this legislation into law. Any delay in bringing HR 7890 to a vote would expose children, adolescents, and their families to greater harm. CDD strongly supports the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and believes that children and teens require robust privacy safeguards and additional online protections. Social media platforms, such as Meta, TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat, have prioritized their financial interests over the well-being of young users for too long. These companies should be held accountable for the safety of America's youth and take measures to prevent harms like eating disorders, violence, substance abuse, sexual exploitation, addiction-like behaviors, and the exploitation of privacy. We applaud the efforts of Reps. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Erin Houchin (R-IN), and Kim Schrier (D-WA), on the introduction of KOSA. The Senate has shown overwhelming bipartisan support for this legislation, and we urge the House to vote on KOSA, adopt the Senate's knowledge standard, and make the following amendments to ensure its effectiveness:-              Extend the duty of care to all covered platforms, including video gaming companies, rather than just the largest ones.-              Define the "duty of care" to cover "patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors" rather than simply “compulsive usage”. This will ensure a broader scope that addresses more addiction-like behaviors.-              Retain the consideration of financial harms within the duty of care.We believe these adjustments will improve the much-needed safety of young internet users. ###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact:David Monahan, Fairplay: david@fairplayforkids.org Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy: jeff@democraticmedia.org Children’s Advocates Urge the Federal Trade Commission toEnact 21st Century Privacy Protections for Children More than ten years since last review, organizations urge the FTC to updatethe Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)  WASHINGTON, DC — Tuesday, March 12, 2024 – A coalition of eleven leading health, privacy, consumer protection, and child rights groups has filed comments at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) offering a digital roadmap for stronger safeguards while also supporting many of the agency’s key proposals for updating its regulations implementing the bipartisan Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).   Comments submitted by Fairplay, the Center for Digital Democracy,  the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other advocacy groups supported many of the changes the commission proposed in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued in December 2023. The groups, however, told the FTC that a range of additional protections are required to address the “Big Data” and Artificial Intelligence (AI) driven commercial surveillance marketplace operating today, where children and their data are a highly prized and sought after target across online platforms and applications. “The ever-expanding system of commercial surveillance marketing online that continually tracks and targets children must be reined in now,” said Katharina Kopp, Deputy Director, Director of Policy, Center for Digital Democracy.  “The FTC and children’s advocates have offered a digital roadmap to ensure that data gathered by children have the much-needed safeguards. With kids being a key and highly lucrative target desired by platforms, advertisers, and marketers, and with growing invasive tactics such as AI used to manipulate them, we call on the FTC to enact 21st-century rules that place the privacy and well-being of children first.” “In a world where streaming and gaming, AI-powered chatbots, and ed tech in classrooms are exploding, children's online privacy is as important as ever,” said Haley Hinkle, Policy Counsel, Fairplay.  “Fairplay and its partners support the FTC's efforts to ensure the COPPA Rule meets kids' and families' needs, and we lay out the ways in which the Rule addresses current industry practices. COPPA is a critical tool for keeping Big Tech in check, and we urge the Commission to adopt the strongest possible Rule in order to protect children into the next decade of technological advancement.” While generally supporting the commission’s proposal that provides parents or caregivers greater control over a child’s data collection via their consent, the groups told the commission that a number of improvements and clarifications are required to ensure that privacy protections for a child’s data are effectively implemented.  They include issues such as: ●      The emerging risks posed to children by AI-powered chatbots and biometric data collection.●      The need to apply COPPA’s data minimization requirements to data collection, use, and retention to reduce the amount of children’s data in the audience economy and to limit targeted marketing.●      The applicability of the Rule’s provisions – including notice and the separate parental consent for collection and disclosure consent and data minimization requirements – to the vast networks of third parties that claim to share children’s data in privacy safe ways, including “clean rooms”, but still utilize young users’ personal information for marketing.●      The threats posed to children by ed tech platforms and the necessity of strict limitations on any use authorized by schools.●      The need for clear notice, security program, and privacy program requirements in order to effectively realize COPPA’s limitations on the collection, use, and sharing of personal information. The 11 organizations that signed on to the comments are: the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD); Fairplay; American Academy of Pediatrics; Berkeley Media Studies Group; Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development; Consumer Federation of America; Center for Humane Technology; Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy, & Action; Issue One; Parents Television and Media Council; and U.S. PIRG. ### 

Washington, DC                                                                                   February 15, 2024Digital marketers are unleashing a powerful and pervasive set of unfair and manipulative tactics to target and exploit children and teens.  Wherever they go online— social media, viewing videos, listening to music, or playing games—they are stealthily “accompanied” by an array of marketing practices designed to profile and manipulate them.  The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA 2.0) will provide urgently needed online privacy safeguards for children and teens and update legislation first enacted nearly 25 years ago.  The proposed new law will deliver real accountability to the digital media as well as help limit harms now experienced by children and teens online. For example, by stopping data targeted ads to young people under 16, the endless stream of information harvested by online companies will be significantly reduced. Other safeguards will limit the collection of personal information for other purposes. COPPA 2.0 will also extend the original COPPA law protections for youth from 12 to 16 years of age.  The proposed law also provides the ability to delete children’s and teen’s data easily. Young people will also be better protected from the myriad of methods used to profile them that has unleashed numerous discriminatory and other harmful practices.  An updated knowledge standard will make this legislation easier to enforce.We welcome the bipartisan updated text from co-sponsors Sen. Markey and Sen. Cassidy and new co-sponsors Chair Sen. Cantwell (D-WA) and Ranking Member Sen. Cruz (R-Texas). Katharina Kopp, Ph.D.Director of Policy, Center for Digital Democracy

Contact:David Monahan, Fairplay, david@fairplayforkids.org Jeff Chester, CDD, jeff@democraticmedia.org Leading Advocates for Children Applaud FTC Update of COPPA RuleFairplay and the Center for Digital Democracy see a crucial step toward creating safer online experiences for kids WASHINGTON, DC — December 20, 2023—The Federal Trade Commission has proposed its first update of rules protecting children’s privacy in a decade.  Under the bipartisan Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA), children under 13 currently have a set of core safeguards designed to control and limit how their data can be gathered and used.   The COPPA Rules were last revised in 2012, and today’s proposed changes offer new protections to ensure young people can go online without losing control over their personal information.  These new rules would help create a safer, more secure, and healthier online environment for them and their families—precisely at a time when they face growing threats to their wellbeing and safety.  The provisions offered today are especially needed to address the emerging methods used by platforms and other digital marketers who target children to collect their data, including through the growing use of AI and other techniques. Haley Hinkle, Policy Counsel, Fairplay:“The FTC’s recent COPPA enforcement actions against Epic Games, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta demonstrated that Big Tech does not have carte blanche with kids’ data. With this critical rule update, the FTC has further delineated what companies must do to minimize data collection and retention and ensure they are not profiting off of children’s information at the expense of their privacy and wellbeing. Anyone who believes that children deserve to explore and play online without being tracked and manipulated should support this update.” Katharina Kopp, Ph.D., Director of Policy, Center for Digital Democracy:“Children face growing threats as platforms, streaming and gaming companies, and other marketers pursue them for their data, attention, and profits.  Today’s FTC’s proposed COPPA rule update provides urgently needed online safeguards to help stem the tidal wave of personal information gathered on kids. The commission’s plan will limit data uses involving children and help prevent companies from exploiting their information. These rules will also protect young people from being targeted through the increasing use of AI, which now further fuels data collection efforts. Young people 12 and under deserve a digital environment that is designed to be safer for them and that fosters their health and well-being.  With this proposal, we should soon see less online manipulation, purposeful addictive design, and fewer discriminatory marketing practices.” ### 

The insatiable quest to acquire more data has long been a force behind corporate mergers in the US—including the proposed combination of supermarket giants Albertsons and Kroger. Both grocery chains have amassed a powerful set of internal “Big Data” digital marketing assets, accompanied by alliances with data brokers, “identity” management firms, advertisers, streaming video networks, and social media platforms. Albertsons and Kroger are leaders in one of the fastest-growing sectors in the online surveillance economy—called “retail media.” Expected to generate $85 billion in ad spending in the US by 2026, and with the success of Amazon as a model, there is a new digital “gold rush” by retailers to cash in on all the loyalty programs, sales information, and other growing ways to target their customers.Albertsons, Kroger, and other retailers including Walmart, CVS, Dollar General and Target find themselves in an enviable position in what’s being called the “post-cookie” era. As digital marketing abandons traditional user-tracking technologies, especially third-party cookies, in order to address privacy regulations, leading advertisers and platforms are lining up to access consumer information they believe comes with less regulatory risk. Supermarkets, drug stores, retailers and video streaming networks have massive amounts of so-called “first-party” authenticated data on consumers, which they claim comes with consent to use for online marketing. That’s why retail media networks operated by Kroger and others, as well as data harvested from streaming companies, are among the hottest commodities in today’s commercial surveillance economy. It’s not surprising that Albertsons and Kroger now have digital marketing partnerships with companies like Disney, Comcast/NBCUniversal, Google and Meta—to name just a few.The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is currently reviewing this deal, which is a test case of how well antitrust regulators address the dominant role that data and the affordances of digital marketing play in the marketplace. The “Big Data” digital marketing era has upended many traditional marketplace structures; consolidation is accompanied by a string of deals that further coalesces power to incumbents and their allies. What’s called “collaboration”—in which multiple parties work together to extend individual and collective data capabilities—is now a key feature operating across the broader online economy, and is central to the Kroger/Albertsons transaction. Antitrust law has thus far failed to address one of the glaring threats arising from so many mergers today—their impact on privacy, consumer protection, and diversity of media ownership. Consider all the transactions that the FTC and Department of Justice have allowed in recent years, such as the scores of Google and Facebook acquisitions, and what deleterious impact they had on competition, data protection, and other societal outcomes.Under Chair Lina Khan, the FTC has awakened from what I have called its long “digital slumber,” moving to the forefront in challenging proposed mergers and working to develop more effective privacy safeguards. My organization told the commission that addressing the current role data-driven marketing plays in the Albertsons and Kroger merger, and how consolidating the two digital operations is really central to the two companies’ goals for the deal, must be part of its antitrust case.Kroger has been at the forefront of understanding how the sales and marketing of groceries and other consumer products have to operate simultaneously in-store and online. It acquired a leading “retail, data science, insights and media” company in 2015—which it named 84.51° after its geo coordinates in Cincinnati. Today, 84.51° touts its capabilities to leverage “data from over 62 million households” in influencing consumer buying behavior “both in-store and online,” using “first party retail data from nearly 1 of 2 US households and more than two billion transactions.” Kroger’s retail media division—called “Precision Marketing”—draws on the prowess of 84.51° to sell a range of sophisticated data targeting opportunities for advertisers, including leading brands that stock its in-store and online shelves. For example, ads can be delivered to customers when they search for a product on the Kroger website or its app; when they view digital discount coupons; and when customers are visiting non-Kroger-owned sites.These initiatives have created a number of opportunities for Kroger to make money from data. Last year, Precision Marketing opened its “Private Marketplace” service that enables advertisers to access Kroger customers via targeting lists of what are known as “pre-optimized audiences” (groups of consumers who have been analyzed and identified as potential customers for various products). Like other retailers, Kroger has a data and ad deal with video streaming companies, including Disney and Roku. Its alliance with Disney enables it to take advantage of that entertainment company’s major data-marketing assets, including AI tools and the ability to target consumers using its “250 million user IDs.”Likewise, the Albertsons “Media Collective” division promises advertisers that its retail media “platform” connects them to “over 100 million consumers.” It offers similar marketing opportunities for grocery brands as Kroger, including targeting on its website, app and also when its customers are off-site. Albertsons has partnerships across the commercial surveillance advertising spectrum, including with Google, the Trade Desk, Pinterest, Criteo and Meta/Facebook. It also has a video streaming data alliance involving global advertising agency giant Omnicom that expands its reach with viewers of Comcast’s NBCUniversal division, as well as with Paramount and Warner Bros./Discovery.Both Kroger and Albertsons partner with many of the same powerful identity-data companies, including data-marketing and cross-platform leaders LiveRamp and the Trade Desk. Through these relationships, the two grocery chains are connected to a vast network of databrokers that provide ready access to customer health, financial, and geolocation information, for example. The two grocery chains also work with the same “retail data cloud” company that further extends their marketing impact. Further compounding the negative competitive and privacy threats from this deal is its role in providing ongoing “closed-loop” consumer tracking to better perfect the ways retailers and advertisers measure the effectiveness of their marketing. They know precisely what you bought, browsed and viewed—in store and at home.Antitrust NGOs, trade unions and state attorneys-general have sounded the alarm about the pending Albertsons/Kroger deal, including its impact on prices, worker rights and consumer access to services. As the FTC nears a decision point on this merger, it should make clear that such transactions, which undermine competition, privacy, and expand the country’s commercial surveillance apparatus, should not be permitted.This article was originally published by Tech Policy Press.

Contact: David Monahan, Fairplay, david@fairplayforkids.orgContact: Jeff Chester, CDD, jeff@democraticmedia.org BREAKING: Advocates Decry Meta’s Attempt to Shut Down the FTCIn response to an order that would prohibit Meta from monetizing minors’ data, the social media company has filed a suit claiming the agency’s structure is unconstitutional. WASHINGTON, DC – THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2023 – Advocates for children and privacy condemned a lawsuit filed last evening by Meta against the Federal Trade Commission that seeks to shut the agency down by asserting the Commission’s structure is unconstitutional.  Meta’s suit comes in response to a proposed FTC order prohibiting Meta from monetizing children’s data for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) while already operating under a Consent Decree for multiple serious privacy violations. Earlier this week, Judge Timothy Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion filed by Meta that claimed the FTC had no authority to modify its previous settlement. Now Meta is escalating its attacks on the Commission’s authority.Meta has posed a threat to the privacy and welfare of young people in the U.S. for many years, as it targeted them to further its data-driven commercial surveillance advertising system. Scandal after scandal has exposed the company’s blatant disregard for children and youth, with nearly daily headlines about its irresponsible actions coming from former employees turned whistleblowers and major multi-state and bi-partisan investigations of states attorneys-general.  Despite multiple attempts by regulators to contain Meta’s ongoing undermining of its user privacy, including through multiple FTC consent decrees, it is evident that a substantive remedy is required to safeguard US youth. Fairplay, the Center for Digital Democracy, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) have issued these comments on today's announcement of a Meta lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission: Josh Golin, Executive Director, Fairplay: “While many have noted social media’s role in fueling the mental health crisis, the Federal Trade Commission has taken actual meaningful action to protect young people online by its order prohibiting serial privacy offender Meta from monetizing minor’s data. So it’s not surprising that Meta is launching this brazen attack on the Commission, especially given the company may have $200 billion in COPPA liability according to recently unsealed documents. Anyone who cares about the wellbeing of children– and the safety of American consumers – should rally to the defense of the Commission and be deeply concerned about the lengths Meta will go to preserve its ability to profit at the expense of young people.”  Katharina Kopp, Director of Policy, Center for Digital Democracy: “For decades Meta has put the maximization of profits from so-called behavioral advertising above the best interests of children and teens. Meta’s failure to comply repeatedly with its 2012 and 2020 settlements with the FTC, including its non-compliance with the federal children’s privacy law (COPPA), and the unique developmental vulnerability of minors, justifies the FTC to propose the modifications of Meta’s consent decree and to require it to stop profiting from the data it gathers on children and teens.  It should not surprise anybody then that Meta is now going after the FTC with its lawsuit. But this attack on the FTC is essentially an attack on common sense regulation to curtail out-of-control commercial power and an attack on our children, teenagers, and every one of us.” John Davisson, Director of Litigation, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): “It seems there's no legal theory, however far-fetched, that Meta won't deploy to avoid a full accounting of its harmful data practices. The reason is clear. A hearing before the FTC will confirm that Meta continues to mishandle personal data and put the privacy and safety of minors at risk, despite multiple orders not to do so. The changes FTC is proposing to Meta's exploitative business model can't come soon enough. We hope the court will reject Meta's latest attempt to run out the clock, as another federal court did just this week.” ### 

Contextual advertising is said to be privacy-safe because it eliminates the need for cookies, third-party trackers, and the processing of other personal data. Marketers and policy makers are placing much stock in the future of contextual advertising, viewing it as the solution to the privacy-invasive targeted advertising that heavily relies on personal data.However, the current state of contextual advertising does not look anything like our plain understanding of it in contrast to today's dominant mode of behavioral advertising: placing ads next to preferred content, based on keyword inclusion or exclusion. Instead, industry practices are moving towards incorporating advanced AI analysis of content and its classification, user-level data, and insights into content preferences of online visitors, all while still referring to “contextual advertising.” It is crucial for policymakers to carefully examine this rapidly evolving space and establish a clear definition of what “contextual advertising” should entail. This will prevent the emergence of toxic practices and outcomes, similar to what we have witnessed with surveillance-based behavioral marketing, from becoming the new normal.Let’s recall the reasons for the strong opposition to surveillance-based marketing practices so we can avoid those harms regarding contextual advertising. Simply put, the two main reasons are privacy harms and harms from manipulation. Behavioral advertising is deeply invasive when it comes to privacy, as it involves tracking users online and creating individual profiles based on their behavior over time and across different platforms and across channels. These practices go beyond individual privacy violations and also harm groups of people, perpetuating or even exacerbating historical discrimination and social inequities.The second main reason why many oppose surveillance-based marketing practices is the manipulative nature of commercial messaging that aims to exploit users’ vulnerabilities. This becomes particularly concerning when vulnerable populations, like children, are targeted, as they may not have the ability to resist sophisticated influences on their decision-making. More generally, the behavioral advertising business heavily incentivizes companies to optimize their practices for monetizing attention and selling audiences to advertisers, leading to many associated harms.New and evolving practices in contextual advertising should raise questions for policy makers. They should consider whether the harms we sought to avoid with behavioral marketing may resurface in these new advertising practices as well.Today’s contextual advertising methods are taking advantage of the latest analytical technologies to interpret online content so that contextual ads will likely soon be able to manipulate us just as behavioral ads can. Artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, natural language processing models for tone and sentiment analysis, computer vision, audio analysis, and more are being used to consider a multitude of factors and in this way “dramatically improve the effectiveness of contextual targeting.” Gumgum’s Verity, for example, “scans text, image, audio and video to derive human-like understandings.” Attention measures – the new performance metric that advertisers crave – indicate that contextual ads are more effective than non-contextual ads. Moments.AI, a “real-time contextual targeting solution” by the Verve Group, for example, allows brands to move away from clicks and to “optimize towards consumer attention instead,” for “privacy-first” advertising solutions.Rather than analyzing one single URL or one article at a time, marketers can analyze a vast range of URLs and can “understand content clusters and topics that audiences are engaging with at that moment” and so use contextual targeting at scale. The effectiveness and sophistication of contextual advertising allows marketers to use it not just for enhancing brand awareness, but also for targeting prospects. In fact, the field of “neuroprogammatic” advertising “goes beyond topical content matching to target the subconscious feelings that lead consumers to make purchasing decisions,” according to one industry observer. Marketers can take advantage of how consumers “are feeling and thinking, and what actions they may or may not be in the mood to take, and therefore how likely are to respond to an ad. Neuroprogrammatic targeting uses AI to cater to precisely what makes us human.”These sophisticated contextual targeting practices may have negative effects similar to those of behavioral advertising, however. For instance, contextual ads on weight loss programs can be placed alongside content related to dieting and eating disorders due to its semantic, emotional, and visual content. This may have disastrous consequences similar to targeted behavioral ads aimed at teenagers with eating disorders. Therefore, it is important to question how different these practices are from individual user tracking and ad targeting. If content can be analyzed and profiled along very finely tuned classification schemes, advertisers don’t need to track users across the web. They simply need to track the content that will deliver the relevant audience and engage individuals based on their interests and feelings.Apart from the manipulative nature of contextual advertising, the use of personal data and associated privacy violations are also concerning. Many contextual ad tech companies claim to engage in contextual targeting “without any user data.” But, in fact, so-called contextual ad tech companies often rely on session data such as browser and page-level data, device and app-level data, IP address, and “whatever other info they can get their hands on to model the potential user,” framing it as “contextual 2.0.” Until recently, this practice might have been more accurately referred to as device fingerprinting. The claim is that session data is not about tracking, but only about the active session and usage at one point in time. No doubt, however, the line between contextual and behavioral advertising becomes blurry when such data is involved.Location-based targeting is another aspect of contextual advertising that raises privacy concerns. Should location-based targeting be considered contextual? Uber’s “Journey Ads” lets advertisers target users based on their destination. A trip to a restaurant might trigger alcohol ads; a trip to the movie theater might result in ads for sugary beverages. According to AdExchanger, Uber claims that it is not “doing any individual user-based targeting” and suggests that it is a form of contextual advertising.Peer 39 also includes location data in its ad-targeting capabilities and still refers to these practices as contextual advertising. The use of location data can reveal some of the most sensitive information about a person, including where she works, sleeps, socializes, worships, and seeks medical treatment. When combined with session data, the information obtained from sentiment, image, video, and location analysis can be used to create sophisticated inferences about individuals, and ads placed in this context can easily clash with consumer expectations of privacy.Furthermore, placing contextual ads next to user-generated content or within chat groups changes the parameters of contextual targeting. Instead of targeting the content itself, the ad becomes easily associated with an individual user. Reddit’s “contextual keyword targeting” allows advertisers to target by community and interests, discussing LGBTQ+ sensitive topics, for example. This is similar to the personalized nature of targeted behavioral advertising, and can thus raise privacy concerns.Cohort targeting, also referred to as “affinity targeting” or “content affinity targeting,” further blurs the line between behavioral and contextual advertising by combining content analytics with audience insights. “This bridges the gap between Custom Cohorts and your contextual signals, by taking learning from consented users to targeted content where a given Customer Cohort shows more engagement than the site average,” claims Permutive.Oracle uses various cohorts with demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and income, for example, as well as “lifestyle” and “retail” interests, to understand what content individuals are more likely to consume. While reputedly “designed for privacy from the ground up,” this approach allows Oracle to analyze what an audience cohort views and to “build a profile of the content types they’re most likely to engage with,” allowing advertisers to find their “target customers wherever they are online.” Playground XYZ enhances contextual data with eye-tracking data from opt-in panels, which measures attention and helps to optimize which content is most “eye-catching,” “without the need for cookies or other identifiers.”Although these practices may seem privacy neutral (relying on small samples of online users or “consented users”), they still allow advertisers to target and manipulate their desired audience. Message targeting based on content preferences of fine-tuned demographic characteristics (household income less than $20K or over $500K, for example) can lead to discriminatory practices and disparate impact that can deepen social inequities, just like the personalized targeting of online users.Hyper-contextual content analysis with a focus on measuring sentiment and attention, the use of session information, placing ads next to user-generated content as well as within interest group chats, and employing audience panels to profile content are emerging practices in contextual advertising that require critical examination. The touted privacy-first promise of contextual advertising is deceptive. It seems that contextual advertising is more manipulative, invasive of privacy, and likely to contribute to discrimination and perpetuate inequities among consumers than we all initially thought.What’s more, the convergence of highly sensitive content analytics with content profiling based on demographic characteristics (and potentially more), could result in even more potent digital marketing practices than those currently being deployed. By merging contextual data with behavioral data, marketers might gain a more comprehensive understanding of their target audience and develop more effective messaging. Additionally, we can only speculate about how modifications to the incentive structure for content delivery of audiences to advertisers might impact content quality.In the absence of policy intervention, these developments may lead to a surveillance system that is even more formidable than the one we currently have. Contextual advertising will not serve as a solution to surveillance-based “behavioral” marketing and its manipulative and privacy invasive nature, let alone the numerous other negative consequences associated with it, including the addictive nature of social media, the promotion of disinformation, and threats to public health.It is vital to formulate a comprehensive and up-to-date definition of contextual advertising that takes into consideration the adverse effects of surveillance advertising and strives to mitigate them. Industry self-regulation cannot be relied on, and legislative proposals do not adequately address the complexities of contextual advertising. The FTC’s 2009 definition of contextual advertising is also outdated in light of the advancements and practices described here. Regulatory bodies like the FTC must assess contemporary practices and provide guidelines to safeguard consumer privacy and ensure fair marketing practices. The FTC’s Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act rule update and its Commercial Surveillance and Data Security Rule provide opportunity to get it right.Failure to intervene may ultimately result in the emergence of a surveillance system disguised as consumer-friendly marketing. This article was originally published by Tech Policy Press.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEThursday, September 14, 2023 Contacts:David Monahan, Fairplay, david@fairplayforkids.orgJeff Chester, CDD, jeff@democraticmedia.org Statement of Fairplay and the Center for Digital Democracy on FTC’s Announcement: Protecting Kids From Stealth Advertising in Digital MediaBOSTON, MA, WASHINGTON DC—Today, the Federal Trade Commission released a new staff paper, “Protecting Kids from Stealth Advertising in Digital Media.” The paper’s first recommendation states:“Do not blur advertising. There should be a clear separation between kids’ entertainment/educational content and advertising, using formatting techniques and visual and verbal cues to signal to kids that they are about to see an ad.”This represents a major shift for the Commission. Prior guidance only encouraged marketers to disclose influencer and other stealth marketing to children. For years – including in filings last year and at last year’s FTC Workshop—Fairplay and the Center for Digital Democracy had argued that disclosures are inadequate for children and that stealth marketing to young people should be declared an unfair practice. Below are Fairplay’s and CDD’s comments on today’s FTC staff report:Josh Golin, Executive Director, Fairplay:“Today is an important first step towards ending an exploitative practice that is all too common on digital media for children.  Influencers—and the brands that deploy them—have been put on notice: do not disguise your ads for kids as entertainment or education.”Katharina Kopp, Deputy Director, Director of Policy, Center for Digital Democracy“Online marketing and advertising targeted at children and teens is pervasive, sophisticated and data-driven. Young people are regularly exposed to an integrated set of online marketing operations that are manipulative, unfair, invasive.  These commercial tactics can be especially harmful to the mental and physical health of youth.   We call on the FTC to build upon its new report to address how marketers use the latest cutting-edge marketing tactics to influence young people—including neuro-testing, immersive ad formats and ongoing data surveillance.”###

Contact:Josh Golin, Fairplay: josh@fairplayforkids.orgJeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy: jeff@democraticmedia.org Advocates demand Federal Trade Commission investigate Google for continued violations of children’s privacy lawFollowing news of Google’s violations of COPPA and 2019 settlement, 4 advocates ask FTC for investigation BOSTON and WASHINGTON, DC – WEDNESDAY, August 23, 2023 – The organizations that alerted the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Google’s violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) are urging the Commission to investigate whether Google and YouTube are once again violating COPPA, as well as the companies’ 2019 settlement agreement and the FTC Act. In a Request for Investigation filed today, Fairplay and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) detail new research from Adalytics, as well as Fairplay’s own research, indicating Google serves personalized ads on “made for kids” YouTube videos and tracks viewers of those videos, even though neither is permissible under COPPA. Common Sense Media and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), joined Fairplay and CDD in calling on the Commission to investigate and sanction Google for its violations of children’s privacy. The advocates suggest that the FTC should seek penalties upwards of tens of billions of dollars. In 2018, Fairplay and Center for Digital Democracy led a coalition asking the FTC to investigate YouTube for violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting personal information from children on the platform without parental consent. As a result of the advocates’ complaint, Google and YouTube were required to pay a then-record $170 million fine in a 2019 settlement with the FTC and comply with COPPA going forward. Rather than getting the required parental permission before collecting personally identifiable information from children on YouTube, Google claimed instead it would comply with COPPA by limiting data collection and eliminating personalized advertising on “made for kids.” But an explosive new report released by Adalytics last week called into question Google’s assertions and compliance with federal privacy law. The report detailed how Google appeared to be surreptitiously using cookies and identifiers to track viewers of “made for kids” videos. The report also documented how YouTube and Google appear to be serving personalized ads on “made for kids” videos and transmitting data about viewers to data brokers and ad tech companies. In response to the report, Google told the New York Times that ads on children’s videos are based on webpage content, not targeted to user profiles. But follow-up research conducted independently by both Fairplay and ad buyers suggests the ads are, in fact, personalized and Google is both violating COPPA and making deceptive statements about its targeting of children. Both Fairplay and the ad buyers ran test ad campaigns on YouTube where they selected a series of users of attributes and affinities for ad targeting and instructed Google to only run the ads on “made for kids” channels. In theory, these test campaigns should have resulted in zero placements, because under Google and YouTube’s stated policy, no personalized ads are supposed to run on “made for kids” videos. Yet, Fairplay’s targeted $10 ad campaign resulted in over 1,400 impressions on “made for kids” channels and the ad buyers reported similar results. Additionally, the reporting Google provided to Fairplay and the ad buyers to demonstrate the efficacy of the ad buys would not be possible if the ads were contextual, as Google claims. “If Google’s representations to its advertisers are accurate, it is violating COPPA,” said Josh Golin, Executive Director of Fairplay. “The FTC must launch an immediate and comprehensive investigation and use its subpoena authority to better understand Google’s black box child-directed ad targeting. If Google and YouTube are violating COPPA and flouting their settlement agreement with the Commission, the FTC should seek the maximum fine for every single violation of COPPA and injunctive relief befitting a repeat offender.” The advocates’ letter urges the FTC to seek robust remedies for any violations, including but not limited to: ·       Civil penalties that demonstrate that continued violations of COPPA and Section 5 of the FTC Act are unacceptable. Under current law, online operators can be fined $50,120 per violation of COPPA. Given the immense popularity of many “made for kids” videos, it is likely millions of violations have occurred, suggesting the Commission should seek civil penalties upwards of tens of billions of dollars.·       An injunction requiring relinquishment of all ill-gotten gains·       An injunction requiring disgorgement of all algorithms trained on impermissibly collected data·       A prohibition on the monetization of minors’ data·       An injunction requiring YouTube to move all “made for kids” videos to YouTube Kids and remove all such videos from the main YouTube platform. Given Google’s repeated failures to comply with COPPA on the main YouTube platform – even when operating under a consent decree – these videos should be cabined to a platform that has not been found to violate existing privacy law·       The appointment of an independent “special master” to oversee Google’s operations involving minors and provide the Commission, Congress, and the public semi-annual compliance reports for a period of at least five yearsKatharina Kopp, Deputy Director of the Center for Digital Democracy, said “The FTC must fully investigate what we believe are Google’s continuous violations of COPPA, its 2019 settlement with the FTC, and Section 5 of the FTC Act. These violations place many millions of young viewers at risk. Google and its executives must be effectively sanctioned to stop its ‘repeat offender’ behaviors—including a ban on monetizing the personal data of minors, other financial penalties, and algorithmic disgorgement. The Commission’s investigation should also review how Google enables advertisers, data brokers, and leading online publisher partners to surreptitiously surveil the online activities of young people. The FTC should set into place a series of ‘fail-safe’ safeguards to ensure that these irresponsible behaviors will never happen again.” Caitriona Fitzgerald, Deputy Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), said "Google committed in 2019 that it would stop serving personalized ads on 'made for kids' YouTube videos, but Adalytics’ research shows that this harmful practice is still happening. The FTC should investigate this issue and Google should be prohibited from monetizing minors’ data."Jim Steyer, President and CEO of Common Sense Media, said "The Adalytics findings are troubling but in no way surprising given YouTube’s history of violating the kids’ privacy. Google denies doing anything wrong and the advertisers point to Google, a blame game that makes children the ultimate losers. The hard truth is, companies — whether it’s Big Tech or their advertisers — basically care only about their profits, and they will not take responsibility for acting against kids’ best interests. We strongly encourage the FTC to take action here to protect kids by hitting tech companies where it really hurts: their bottom line." ### 

New research released today by Adalytics raises serious questions about whether Google is violating the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by collecting data and serving personalized ads on child-directed videos on YouTube. In 2019, in response to a Request for Investigation by Fairplay and the Center for Digital Democracy, the Federal Trade Commission fined Google $170 million for violating COPPA on YouTube and required Google to change its data-collection and advertising practices on child-directed videos. As a result of that settlement, Google agreed to stop serving personalized ads and limit data collection on child-directed videos. Today's report - and subsequent reporting by The New York Times - call into question whether Google is complying with the settlement.  STATEMENTS FROM FAIRPLAY AND CDD:Josh Golin, Executive Director, Fairplay:This report should be a wake-up call to parents, regulators and lawmakers, and anyone who cares about children -- or the rule of law, for that matter. Even after being caught red-handed in 2019 violating COPPA, Google continues to exploit young children, and mislead parents and regulators about its data collection and advertising practices on YouTube. The FTC must launch an immediate and comprehensive investigation of Google and, if they confirm this report's explosive allegations, seek penalties and injunctive relief commensurate with the systematic disregard of the law by a repeat offender. Young children should be able to watch age-appropriate content on the world's biggest video platform with their right to privacy guaranteed, full stop. Jeff Chester, Executive Director, Center for Digital Democracy:Google operates the leading online destination for kids’ video programming so it can reap enormous profits, including through commercial surveillance data and advertising tactics.  It must be held accountable by the FTC for what appears are violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act and its own commitments.   Leading advertisers, ad agencies, media companies and others partnering with Google appear to have been more interested in clicks than the safety of youth. There is a massive and systemic failure across the digital marketplace when it comes to protecting children’s privacy.   Congress should finally stand up to the powerful “Big Data” ad lobby and enact long-overdue privacy legislation.  Google’s operations must also be dealt with by antitrust regulators.  It operates imperiously in the digital arena with no accountability. The Adalytics study should serve as a chilling reminder that our commercial surveillance system is running amok, placing even our most vulnerable at great risk.