Netflix Nixes Contest Over Privacy Concerns
Second Netflix contest to face recent scrutiny.
March 14, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Netflix decided Friday to suspend a second contest to improve its movie recommendation system after the FTC expressed concerns over how the contest might impact subscribers' privacy. The movie-by-mail provider also settled a lawsuit filed by KamberLaw over the same contest.
The contest was a follow-up to a 2006 competition that challenged participants to use various bits of customer data to develop a more accurate automated method for recommending movies. A New Hampshire woman filed suit over the first contest in December 2009, alleging in the complaint that people could figure out she was a lesbian based on personal information, such as movie ratings, released in the contest. The ratings were assigned numbers associated with the subscriber who entered them, which Netflix claimed provided anonymity. The plaintiff in Doe v. Netflix, Inc. claimed that despite Netflix's efforts at confidentiality, it could still be possible for her identity to become public. That case is pending.
In a statement, Netflix's Chief Product Officer Neil Hunt said the company had productive discussions about privacy with the FTC and attorneys from KamberLaw regarding the second contest.
“The resolution to both matters involves certain parameters for how we use Netflix data in any future research programs,” Netflix Chief Product Officer Neil Hunt wrote on the company's blog. He did elaborate on those parameters.
For the full statement, visit the Netflix Blog: Netflix Contest Update
Netflix decided Friday to suspend a second contest to improve its movie recommendation system after the FTC expressed concerns over how the contest might impact subscribers' privacy. The movie-by-mail provider also settled a lawsuit filed by KamberLaw over the same contest.
The contest was a follow-up to a 2006 competition that challenged participants to use various bits of customer data to develop a more accurate automated method for recommending movies. A New Hampshire woman filed suit over the first contest in December 2009, alleging in the complaint that people could figure out she was a lesbian based on personal information, such as movie ratings, released in the contest. The ratings were assigned numbers associated with the subscriber who entered them, which Netflix claimed provided anonymity. The plaintiff in Doe v.
In a statement, Netflix's Chief Product Officer Neil Hunt said the company had productive discussions about privacy with the FTC and attorneys from KamberLaw regarding the second contest.
“The resolution to both matters involves certain parameters for how we use Netflix data in any future research programs,” Netflix Chief Product Officer Neil Hunt wrote on the company's blog. He did elaborate on those parameters.
For the full statement, visit the Netflix Blog: Netflix Contest Update
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 All
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute read
Old Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1AI: An Enhancement, Not a Replacement for Attorneys
- 2Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
- 3Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
- 4'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 5Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
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
