Google Faces $3 Billion UK Suit Over Use of Children's Data

Alphabet's Google faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit in the U.K. over claims that YouTube routinely breaks privacy laws by tracking children online. Bloomberg reports: The suit, filed on behalf of more than 5 million British children under 13 and their parents, is being brought by privacy campaigner Duncan McCann and being supported by Foxglove, a tech justice group. The claimants estimate that if they're successful, there would be as much as 2.5 billion pounds ($3.2 billion) in compensation, worth between 100 to 500 pounds per child.

The filing alleges that YouTube's methods of targeting underage audiences constitute "major breaches" of U.K. and European privacy and data rules designed to protect citizens' control over their own private information. YouTube has "systematically broken these laws by harvesting children's data without obtaining prior parental consent," it alleges. A spokesperson for YouTube declined to comment on the lawsuit Monday but added that the video streaming service isn't designed for users under the age of 13. It's the first class action suit in Europe brought against a tech firm on behalf of children, according to the claimants. The legal action is being backed by Vannin Capital, a global litigation funder. "Google's drive to profit from kids' attention has turned corners of YouTube into a weird technicolored nightmare," Foxglove Director Cori Crider said. "The real price of YouTube's 'free' services is kids addicted, influenced, and exploited by Google. It's already unlawful to data-mine children under 13. But Google won't clean up its act until forced by the courts."

Children's Data?

[Jarwulf]

Call me crazy but I'm less concerned that major corporations know I watched magic school bus for 2 hours than surfed addictinggames.com for the next 4 hrs then did my homework every thursday when I'm 8 years old than what I get up to when I'm 25. I can understand being squeamish about using that to manipulate children but when it comes to simply gathering the data I think people got it backwards. Its what they do today as adults that people would want to keep private due to it being intimate or embarrassing or whatever.

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

It's about consent. Adults can consent to allowing some collection of data, children can't.

Any data collection that isn't essential for providing the service must be opt-in with informed consent and not a requirement of using the service in GDPR countries like the UK. Young children cannot give informed consent because it is impossible to inform them.

Re:

[sabbede]

By that logic, the collection of any data could be required for using a service. Google's search engine is funded by data collection. Without it, they can't keep the servers running.

Not the simplest issue to resolve...

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

No, it has to be technically justified, just saying "but our business is data collection!" isn't enough.

Re:

[sabbede]

Yes, and if that's what you had said then there would have been no loophole for me to point out.

Re:

[Luthair]

Maybe their guardian shouldn't be letting them use sites that might track them then?

Re:

[AmiMoJo]

Maybe YouTube shouldn't have made YouTube Kids if they can't not track children.

Re:

[Luthair]

Read the article, they aren't using the kids app.

Re:

[sabbede]

I have terrible news! You posted a link that virustotal says is malicious! I'm sure you had no idea, you're clearly a great and wonderful person.

$3 Billion UK Suit Over Use of Children's Data

[grep -v '.*' *]

They're not kids, they're pre-customers. Hell, they might even BE customers -- after all, they didn't read but still agreed to the EULA just like everyone else did.

Just because you're ageist and against elliteracy ;-) doesn't mean that a 2yo kid can't still click AGREE.

Re:

[fred911]

"They're not kids, they're pre-customers. Hell, they might even BE customers"

They're not customers, they're probably the best product a company could ever sell with even better future use.

Re:$3 Billion UK Suit Over Use of Children's Data

[rtb61]

Didn't you know, kids, they are not customers they have little money, they are leverage on customers, the parents with money. So first target, peer pressure, gets kids with to mock and deride kids without, make it important target children and force them to become image conscious as early as possible so their public indentiy can be targeted and exploited, actively damage the psychological state of the child, so the child will start to apply real pressure on the parents to spend, spend, spend.

They target the children to target their parents, in the sickest ways imaginable. They are utterly ruthless and have zero interest in the psychological health of their victims, just how best they can be targeted, how best their fears can be manipulated and how best their desires can be exploited. They are the High Priest of consumerism, the number one sellers of consumption to excess, they have no morals beyond GREED.

Google are the most evil corporation on the planet, just for being the number one cheerleader of consumption to excess, they target you as a individual to consume beyond your need, all of you, every single one of you, whilst those hypocritical fuckers tell you how green they are, like WHAT THE FUCK.

Maybe parents should actually watch their kids

[SlashDotCanSuckMy777]

Who is allowing them access to PC and mobile devices?

Re: Maybe parents should actually watch their kids

[DesertMous3]

Parental responsibility is a bygone concept in the digital age. Most parents don't know how to use the tech, let alone enforce or regulate how their kids use it.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

As a latch key kid of the 80's, I think you're a moron.

Re:

[nonBORG]

Back in the 80s no one knew about computers or tech, so those of us who had them could do what ever we wanted but you can only download so much stuff at 9600 from a BBS and who was tracking anything?

Re:

[Miles_O'Toole]

I think you're being insulting to morons.

Re:

[waspleg]

They are literally issued devices as young as Kindergarten (iPads) from public schools - at this point for them to take home and have 24/7 with free internet access.

All of them have accounts created for them whether they like it or not for their teachers to be able to use Google services on them. The older ones are issued Chromebooks.

This is a dystopia of corporate fuckery, spying, and lock-in I'm glad didn't exist anywhere near to this extent when I was their age.

The things I mention are not even a conside

Re:

[Miles_O'Toole]

With both parents often working long hours to keep food on the table and a roof over the family's head, tablets required (and provided) at any number of schools, and an iron-clad guarantee that even if your kid doesn't have a mobile device most of his friends will, exactly how do you propose to restrict access?

You, sir, are a fucking idiot.

Re:

[Visarga]

It's true, but moving the blame on parents doesn't fix the ad business and their abhorrent practices. Why should parents have to defend their children from such mega corps?

Re:

[Acron]

No, it very much falls back on the parents to raise their children as responsible adults. That includes that their children know how advertising works, and to minimize their children's exposure to ads while young. Knowledge is power. All advertisers are doing is making use of human psychology to maximize sales of a product by making the best appeal possible to those most likely to make or influence a purchase. It loses a lot of its power once you understand what is being attempted. Ad targeting means t

Re:

[sabbede]

Defend them from what? Advertising?

How?

[sabbede]

Is Google really doing something they shouldn't, or are they just keeping a history of what videos an account watches? That is tracking, but it's hardly nefarious or unwanted by the end user.