Suit Accusing YouTube of Tracking Children Is Back On After Appeal (arstechnica.com) 11
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: An appeals court has revived a lawsuit against that accuses Google, YouTube, DreamWorks, and a handful of toymakers of tracking the activity of children under 13 on YouTube. In an opinion (PDF) released Wednesday, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act does not bar lawsuits based on individual state privacy laws.
Passed in 1998 and amended in 2012, COPPA requires websites to obtain parental consent for the collection and dissemination of personally identifiable information of children under the age of 13. COPPA gives the FTC and state attorneys general the ability to investigate and levy fines for violations of the law. Several states across the US have laws similar to COPPA on the books. The revived lawsuit cites laws in California, Colorado, Indiana, and Massachusetts to argue that Hasbro, DreamWorks, Mattel, and the Cartoon Network illegally lured children to their YouTube channels in order to target them with ads.
A federal judge in San Francisco dismissed the original lawsuit, ruling that COPPA bars individuals from suing companies for privacy violations. In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit judges hearing the appeal disagreed with the district court's reasoning. COPPA is not, in fact, the only route to enforcement, according to the ruling. "Since the bar on 'inconsistent' state laws implicitly preserves 'consistent' state substantive laws, it would be nonsensical to assume Congress intended to simultaneously preclude all state remedies for violations of those laws," wrote Judge Margaret McKeown. The case, which seeks damages for a seven-year time period between 2013 and 2020, now heads back to district court.
Passed in 1998 and amended in 2012, COPPA requires websites to obtain parental consent for the collection and dissemination of personally identifiable information of children under the age of 13. COPPA gives the FTC and state attorneys general the ability to investigate and levy fines for violations of the law. Several states across the US have laws similar to COPPA on the books. The revived lawsuit cites laws in California, Colorado, Indiana, and Massachusetts to argue that Hasbro, DreamWorks, Mattel, and the Cartoon Network illegally lured children to their YouTube channels in order to target them with ads.
A federal judge in San Francisco dismissed the original lawsuit, ruling that COPPA bars individuals from suing companies for privacy violations. In a unanimous decision, the Ninth Circuit judges hearing the appeal disagreed with the district court's reasoning. COPPA is not, in fact, the only route to enforcement, according to the ruling. "Since the bar on 'inconsistent' state laws implicitly preserves 'consistent' state substantive laws, it would be nonsensical to assume Congress intended to simultaneously preclude all state remedies for violations of those laws," wrote Judge Margaret McKeown. The case, which seeks damages for a seven-year time period between 2013 and 2020, now heads back to district court.
13? Damn! (Score:3)
I'll have to get a new Google identity. My current one has me at 16 years old. No longer protected.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I don't get why this should only be the privileged of under-13's. Ads don't need tracking at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, ads are mostly not needed at all, but tracking allows the ones offering them to give the appearance their ads have more value. From personal observations it is probably the opposite, as targeted ads just get more on people's nerves.
Re: (Score:2)
give the appearance their ads have more value
Not to me. That's for certain. They are selling this 'value' to the companies buying the advertising views. And I suspect that if some careful studies were done, the 'more value' could prove to be a fraudulent claim. Refunds, anyone?
Re: (Score:3)
Ad companies have stopped decades ago to measure whether anybody remembers the product or company the ad was for positively or negatively. They just measure whether it is remembered. In that sense, a targeted ad that really pisses you off may score as pretty positive. It is also the only thing ad companies sell: The ad being noticed. Whether that is good or bad for your business is your problem.
Re: (Score:2)
They just measure whether it is remembered.
Reminds me of the dating scene back in high school. There was a subset of guys (Chads) who figured that if they developed a rep and hung around a girl long enough, she'd go out with them. The girls that did were referred to as abuse victims. The ones that got smart carried pepper spray and put a stop to that behavior quickly.
Today, we call that pepper spray an ad blocker. The Chad advertisers just move on to the next victim. And eventually find enough who will put out.
Needs explanation (Score:2)
The unstated premise is that tracking people under 13 is bad, but tracking people over 13 is OK.
Anyone care to try explaining that?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the idea is that people over 13 should understand what they are getting into. This is, of course, clearly false, but I think the idea is that if you don't (can't) understand, you can't consent. A reasonable idea, but it should apply to all contracts, EULAs, etc.
just need to use (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
if your business is (Score:1)