Google, YouTube Agree to Pay $170M in Online Privacy Settlement
The companies were accused of unlawfully tracking the behavior of users below 13 years old and serving them targeted advertisements based on that information.
September 04, 2019 at 12:33 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Google and YouTube have agreed to pay $170 million to the Federal Trade Commission and New York state in the largest-ever settlement in an enforcement matter brought under a federal law intended to prevent companies from collecting personal data from young users without the consent of their parents.
The companies were accused of unlawfully tracking the behavior of users below 13 years old and serving them targeted advertisements based on that information, the New York Attorney General's Office said.
"These companies put children at risk and abused their power, which is why we are imposing major reforms to their practices and making them pay one of the largest settlements for a privacy matter in U.S. history," said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Of the $170 million Google and YouTube agreed to pay as part of the settlement, $136 million will go to the FTC. The remainder will be paid to New York state.
The FTC said in a news release on the settlement that the amount paid to them is by far the largest ever obtained by the federal agency under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act since it was approved by Congress two decades ago. YouTube earned millions of dollars by using the data to serve targeted ads to viewers of child-directed channels, the FTC said.
"YouTube touted its popularity with children to prospective corporate clients," FTC Chairman Joe Simons said. "Yet when it came to complying with COPPA, the company refused to acknowledge that portions of its platform were clearly directed to kids. There's no excuse for YouTube's violations of the law."
The commission was split on approving the settlement, with three commissioners in favor and two against.
Commissioner Rohit Chopra, for example, wrote in a statement dissenting from the settlement that the amount to be paid by Google and YouTube was too low. He argued that the FTC should have made a higher opening bid for monetary relief to highlight the depth of the matter.
"Financial penalties need to be meaningful or they will not deter misconduct," Chopra wrote.
He also suggested that Congress approve additional digital privacy legislation to give state attorneys general, like James, more power to seek penalties in future instances. In this case, because of how COPPA was written, that wasn't an option, Chopra wrote.
"In COPPA, state attorneys general can only seek forfeiture of ill-gotten gains and refunds to victims, but not financial penalties beyond that. In this matter, the New York attorney general was unable to pursue civil penalties, since the FTC has exclusive authority to do so," Chopra wrote. "This should change."
Aside from the financial penalties, YouTube, which is owned by Google, agreed to implement reforms to avoid future violations of COPPA, according to the New York Attorney General's Office.
YouTube agreed to develop, implement and maintain a system for users to choose whether their videos are directed to children. They will now notify users that content directed toward children on the website may be subject to the COPPA rule, and that the burden is on contributors to designate that content as child-directed.
The company will also obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using or disclosing the personal information of children, as is required under COPPA. Employees who work with users will also receive annual compliance training with the law.
FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the other dissenting vote, wrote in a statement that the agreed-upon reforms by YouTube didn't go far enough. She argued that the company should have been required to develop a safety net mechanism to turn off behavioral advertising for content that was directed for children, but hadn't been designated as such.
"True, a technological backstop is not explicitly mandated by COPPA's text, but such a requirement would, I believe, be appropriate and necessary fencing-in relief," Slaughter wrote.
YouTube said in a blog post, which it said served as its statement for the press, that it intends on treating data from anyone watching children's content on the site as coming from a child, regardless of the user's actual age. They'll also stop serving personalized ads on that content, entirely, the company said.
"This means that we will limit data collection and use on videos made for kids only to what is needed to support the operation of the service," YouTube said in the blog post.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 2Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 3Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
- 4Meet the SEC's New Interim General Counsel
- 5Will Madrid Become the Next Arbitration Hub?
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