Technology: The privacy perils of mobile technology
During the last several years, there has been explosive growth in the use of mobile technologies, fueling a concomitant increase in privacy-related regulatory activity and class action litigation around the globe.
June 01, 2012 at 05:00 AM
10 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
During the last several years, there has been explosive growth in the use of mobile technologies, fueling a concomitant increase in privacy-related regulatory activity and class action litigation around the globe. In the U.S., the recent regulatory trend began in earnest last year, when the primary privacy regulator in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), concluded its first enforcement action involving mobile apps.
The FTC reached an agreement with a developer of children's games for the iPhone, requiring the app developer to pay $50,000 to settle charges that it violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by illegally collecting and disclosing personal information of tens of thousands of children under the age of 13 without their parents' prior consent. The settlement was one of many recent reminders that even older laws such as COPPA, which was enacted in 1998, have important implications for new mobile technology.
Regulatory activity in the U.S. has since increased. In February, the FTC warned six marketers of background screening mobile apps that they may be violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Days later, in a report entitled “Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Disappointing”, the FTC issued a “warning call to industry that it must do more to provide parents with easily accessible, basic information about the mobile apps that their children use.”
The report was based on the FTC's investigation of hundreds of mobile apps and their legally inadequate or nonexistent privacy notices. The report indicated that, during the coming months, the FTC would conduct additional review to identify enforcement opportunities. Among the report's main conclusions were the following:
“Parents should be able to learn what information an app collects, how the information will be used, and with whom the information will be shared. App developers also should alert parents if the app connects with any social media, or allows targeted advertising to occur through the app. Third parties that collect user information through apps also should disclose their privacy practices, whether through a link on the app promotion page, the developers' disclosures, or another easily accessible method.”
Less than a week later, this call for greater transparency was echoed by the California Attorney General, who announced an initiative to increase compliance with the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (OPPA). Among other compliance obligations, OPPA requires operators of mobile apps to post a privacy notice that contains a description of the categories of personal information the apps collect and the types of third parties with whom that information is shared. Many mobile apps collect an unexpectedly wide range of data from users' mobile devices and silently share that data with networks of service providers and other third parties. Development of these apps often is outsourced or handled by an insular group of in-house developers.
Consequently, the company sponsoring the app frequently lacks the information necessary to craft an accurate privacy notice. Because OPPA prohibits the handling of data in a manner that is inconsistent with the privacy notice, the company could incur the risk of both an OPPA violation and damage to the company's relationship with its consumers. In addition, the company runs the risk of joining the long line of companies against which the FTC has brought enforcement actions for inaccurate representations in privacy notices.
The lack of transparency also invites class action litigation, such as the case currently pending in federal court in Texas against more than a dozen popular app developers for allegedly collecting users' mobile address book data without consent. To help address this issue, the California Attorney General joined six leading mobile app platform providers—Apple, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft and Research In Motion—in adopting a joint statement of principles under which consumers will have the opportunity to review an app's privacy policy before downloading it.
Meanwhile, new privacy issues continue to crop up in the text message arena. Current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations prohibit the automated sending of any kind of non-emergency text message without the recipient's prior express consent. The statutory damages of $500 per text message predictably have invited the interest of plaintiffs' counsel, who have extracted millions of dollars in settlements from companies whose only alleged transgression was to send a confirmation message to consumers who opted out of mobile programs in which they previously had enrolled, such as “Your opt-out has been processed”.
The FCC recently sought comment on whether to take the position that the plaintiffs' theory that the consumer's opt-out revoked consent to send even the confirmation message should be deemed invalid. Even if the FCC provides some relief, the pressure remains: In February, the FCC announced new regulations that will prohibit companies from sending marketing-oriented text messages without first obtaining the recipients' consent in the form of signed, written agreements.
For the business community, the message is clear: In the mobile space, companies must closely monitor the rapidly changing privacy landscape to safely navigate this complex terrain.
During the last several years, there has been explosive growth in the use of mobile technologies, fueling a concomitant increase in privacy-related regulatory activity and class action litigation around the globe. In the U.S., the recent regulatory trend began in earnest last year, when the primary privacy regulator in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), concluded its first enforcement action involving mobile apps.
The FTC reached an agreement with a developer of children's games for the iPhone, requiring the app developer to pay $50,000 to settle charges that it violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) by illegally collecting and disclosing personal information of tens of thousands of children under the age of 13 without their parents' prior consent. The settlement was one of many recent reminders that even older laws such as COPPA, which was enacted in 1998, have important implications for new mobile technology.
Regulatory activity in the U.S. has since increased. In February, the FTC warned six marketers of background screening mobile apps that they may be violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Days later, in a report entitled “Mobile Apps for Kids: Current Privacy Disclosures are Disappointing”, the FTC issued a “warning call to industry that it must do more to provide parents with easily accessible, basic information about the mobile apps that their children use.”
The report was based on the FTC's investigation of hundreds of mobile apps and their legally inadequate or nonexistent privacy notices. The report indicated that, during the coming months, the FTC would conduct additional review to identify enforcement opportunities. Among the report's main conclusions were the following:
“Parents should be able to learn what information an app collects, how the information will be used, and with whom the information will be shared. App developers also should alert parents if the app connects with any social media, or allows targeted advertising to occur through the app. Third parties that collect user information through apps also should disclose their privacy practices, whether through a link on the app promotion page, the developers' disclosures, or another easily accessible method.”
Less than a week later, this call for greater transparency was echoed by the California Attorney General, who announced an initiative to increase compliance with the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (OPPA). Among other compliance obligations, OPPA requires operators of mobile apps to post a privacy notice that contains a description of the categories of personal information the apps collect and the types of third parties with whom that information is shared. Many mobile apps collect an unexpectedly wide range of data from users' mobile devices and silently share that data with networks of service providers and other third parties. Development of these apps often is outsourced or handled by an insular group of in-house developers.
Consequently, the company sponsoring the app frequently lacks the information necessary to craft an accurate privacy notice. Because OPPA prohibits the handling of data in a manner that is inconsistent with the privacy notice, the company could incur the risk of both an OPPA violation and damage to the company's relationship with its consumers. In addition, the company runs the risk of joining the long line of companies against which the FTC has brought enforcement actions for inaccurate representations in privacy notices.
The lack of transparency also invites class action litigation, such as the case currently pending in federal court in Texas against more than a dozen popular app developers for allegedly collecting users' mobile address book data without consent. To help address this issue, the California Attorney General joined six leading mobile app platform providers—
Meanwhile, new privacy issues continue to crop up in the text message arena. Current Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations prohibit the automated sending of any kind of non-emergency text message without the recipient's prior express consent. The statutory damages of $500 per text message predictably have invited the interest of plaintiffs' counsel, who have extracted millions of dollars in settlements from companies whose only alleged transgression was to send a confirmation message to consumers who opted out of mobile programs in which they previously had enrolled, such as “Your opt-out has been processed”.
The FCC recently sought comment on whether to take the position that the plaintiffs' theory that the consumer's opt-out revoked consent to send even the confirmation message should be deemed invalid. Even if the FCC provides some relief, the pressure remains: In February, the FCC announced new regulations that will prohibit companies from sending marketing-oriented text messages without first obtaining the recipients' consent in the form of signed, written agreements.
For the business community, the message is clear: In the mobile space, companies must closely monitor the rapidly changing privacy landscape to safely navigate this complex terrain.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readFTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Trending Stories
- 1Starbucks Sues Ex-Executive to Recover $1M Signing Bonus
- 2Navigating AI Risks: Best Practices for Compliance and Security
- 320 New Judges? Connecticut Could Get Wave of Jurists
- 4Orrick Loses 10-Lawyer Team to Herbert Smith in Germany
- 5‘The US Market Is Critical’: KPMG’s Former Head of Global Legal Services On the Legal Arm of the Big Four Firm Entering the US
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250