FTC Official Urges State Attorneys General to Sue Google Over Kids' Privacy Violations
The Google penalty was part of a settlement with Federal Trade Commission general counsel Alden Abbott and New York Attorney General Letitia James. A dissenting FTC commissioner says other attorneys general should file lawsuits over the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act violations.
September 04, 2019 at 04:17 PM
4 minute read
Google LLC Wednesday agreed to pay a record $170 million penalty and make compliance changes after violating children's privacy rights. But one regulator said the settlement didn't go far enough and urged attorneys general nationwide to sue the company.
"More action is needed, and I hope that our partners in state attorneys' general offices can finish the job," said a statement from Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who dissented.
The Google penalty was part of a settlement with FTC general counsel Alden Abbott and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Under the deal, New York receives $34 million of the penalty.
A Google representative didn't respond to questions but referred Corporate Counsel to its statement, a lengthy blog post by YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki detailing its policies, products and practices. Wojcicki wrote, "Responsibility is our number one priority at YouTube, and nothing is more important than protecting kids and their privacy."
The joint complaint filed against Google and its online video platform, YouTube, accused the companies of displaying content for children, gathering and tracking the viewer data, and then targeting ads at those children. The complaint said their conduct violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA.
"Just as the attorney general of New York contributed to bringing this action," Slaughter said, "the other 49 states' attorneys general remain empowered by COPPA to take action against the violations that we detail in the complaint."
Specifically, Slaughter wants the states to seek an injunction demanding that Google create a technological backstop to evaluate content and keep creators and YouTube honest about whether content is child-directed.
The complaint identified several content creators, including toy brands Mattel Inc. and Hasbro Inc., as well as the Cartoon Network.
Under COPPA, if content is directed to children, then it is illegal to collect personal information from those viewers without getting parental consent. Under Wednesday's settlement, YouTube must ask a content's creator to designate the content as child-directed or not.
If the creator designates it is for general audiences, then Google can collect viewer data and target ads, sharing the revenue with the creator. If the creator says it is child-directed content, then parental consent must be obtained first to gather viewer data and target ads.
Slaughter wants Google to be more responsible for identifying child-directed content, and not depend on the creators' honesty.
"My concern is with the vast universe of content creators who will conduct a different cost-benefit analysis in which the perceived payoff of monetizing child-directed content through [targeted] advertising outweighs the perceived risk of being caught violating COPPA," she said.
Slaughter, a Democrat appointee, was joined by fellow Democrat Commissioner Rohit Chopra in filing dissenting statements. Chopra noted it was the third time since 2011 that the commission has sanctioned Google for privacy violations.
Chopra went on to analyze Google's profits and, while the numbers are redacted in his statement, he suggests the company profited considerably more from its illegal behavior than it paid in the penalty.
"When Google pays a fine and still profits from misconduct, this is not a penalty," his statement said.
The three-person Republican majority on the commission found that the fine was substantial and adequate. Chairman Joseph Simons and Commissioner Christine Wilson issued a joint statement calling the settlement "groundbreaking" and a "significant victory" that sends a strong message to platforms.
Besides the penalty, the settlement requires Google and YouTube to maintain a system that permits creators to identify their child-directed content. The companies must notify creators that their content may be subject to the COPPA rule's obligations and provide annual compliance training for employees who deal with YouTube content creators.
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
© 2024 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 AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readPre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
$25M Grubhub Settlement Sheds Light on How Other Gig Economy Firms Can Avoid Regulatory Trouble
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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