Keeping Up With the Tech: Behind the FTC's COPPA Review
The FTC seeks to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to the technology children are exposed to, but it's far from certain how enforcement of the Children Online Privacy Protection Act will be updated, if at all.
July 25, 2019 at 01:00 PM
4 minute read
The enforcement of a regulation applauded for its ability to balance citizens' privacy and not trample innovation may have hit its "best-by" date.
On July 17, the Federal Trade Commission published a request for public comment regarding the effectiveness of the Children Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule, and whether changes to enforcement are needed. It acknowledged that rapid tech growth was the impetus for considering updates.
Lawyers said it was too soon to tell what modifications, if any, are in store for COPPA enforcement, but noted the call for comment highlights the FTC's continued focus on protecting children's online privacy.
COPPA, which went into effect in 2000, requires certain websites and online services that collect personal information of children younger than 13 to provide notice to parents and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using or disclosing a child's personal information.
The FTC's announcement may have caught some by surprise because the commission typically reviews its rules every 10 years. However, the FTC noted that tech's rapid change warranted an earlier reexamination.
"Rapid changes in technology, including the expanded use of education technology, reinforce the need to reexamine the COPPA Rule at this time," the commission wrote in its press release announcing the call for comment.
Hinch Newman defense and data privacy compliance attorney Richard Newman said the commission's move to reexamine COPPA matches its ongoing attention to children's privacy.
"The FTC dedicates significant resources to protecting children," Newman wrote in an email. "The evaluation of whether further amendments to the COPPA Rule are warranted is largely the result of a rapidly evolving technological landscape, including social media, interactive television and gaming and other interactive media."
Covington & Burling partner Lindsey Tonsager said it's too early to know if the rule will be updated, but added she doesn't think modifications would include requiring parental consent for a child's entire online activity or banning advertising to children.
While not directly announcing it will update COPPA enforcement, the FTC did provide some insight into what it's pondering when it comes to the regulation. In the announcement, the commission asked six questions that included if they should modify the rule to "encourage" platforms targeting a general audience to identify and police child-directed content uploaded by third parties. Additionally, the FTC asked if COPPA affected the availability of websites or online services directed to children and if education technology in schools should have a parental consent exemption.
The comment requests come after consumer and public health groups accused YouTube and Amazon.com Inc.'s Echo Dot Kid of violating COPPA. In June, The Washington Post reported the FTC was in the late stages of an investigation into whether YouTube improperly collected children's data under COPPA.
Although COPPA accusations have been directed at some high-profile companies, Tonsager noted not all calls for comment leads to updates. Indeed, in 2005 the FTC issued a press release requesting comment on COPPA's "sliding scale" approach to parental consent. Yet COPPA rules weren't updated until 2013 after the FTC initiated a review in 2010.
As the FTC addresses COPPA complaints and reads comments after the 90-day submission window closes, Tonsager advised companies to collect only necessary data.
"Regardless of whether the FTC is looking at the rule or not, I think the common best practice is to collect only the information that you need. The data minimization helps regardless if the regulator is looking at its rule and is at the heart of the COPPA rulemaking," she said.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 2Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
- 3Georgia Supreme Court Honoring Troutman Pepper Partner, Former Chief Justice
- 4Insurer Not Required to Cover $29M Wrongful Death Judgment, Appeals Court Rules
- 5Slideshow: Jewish Bar Association of Georgia Marks 1st Year With Hanukkah Party
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