Privacy Law Blog : Privacy Lawyers & Attorneys : Proskauer Rose Law Firm : CAN-SPAM, FCRA, FACTA

In urging FTC action, the groups’ lengthy 52-page submission focuses primarily on media reports and the marketing literature of a large number of mobile marketing companies that tout the behavioral marketing capabilities of mobile technology.  The document also acknowledges the widespread consumer benefits mobile behavioral advertising offers, including making “rich media, free offers, personalization capabilities, and discounts” more broadly available. Despite its extensive cataloguing of the vast potential for effective targeted mobile marketing, the document is short on specifics as to how these practices currently harm or are likely to harm consumer privacy or constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act. The group includes very limited specific allegations – against only Bango Analytics, Marchex and AdMob – that relate primarily to insufficient consumer notice.              

 The advocacy groups’ filing follows the FTC’s late 2007 release of draft self-regulatory principles for online behavioral advertising discussed previously at this blog here. At that time, the FTC recognized the benefit to consumers of receiving advertising more tailored to consumers’ interests and the role advertising dollars play in supporting new, innovative and free content. During 2008, the FTC accepted comments on its draft principles and is expected to issue final guidelines in the coming months. Also during 2008, state legislatures and Congress also became involved in the behavioral advertising debate as covered in this blog here and here. Meanwhile, also on January 13, 2009, the American Association of Advertising Agencies, Association of National Advertisers, Direct Marketing Association and Interactive Advertising Bureau jointly announced plans to develop enhanced self-regulatory industry guidelines for online behavioral advertising.

The CDT and U.S. PIRG filing will undoubtedly stir further debate as to whether the current regime consisting of (a) the forthcoming FTC self-regulatory online behavioral marketing principles, (b) case by case enforcement of unfair or deceptive trade practices under existing FTC authority, and (c) industry self-regulatory standards such as those adopted by the CTIA, and Mobile Marketing Association and expected from other industry groups, is sufficient to protect consumers in the vibrant, competitive marketplace of mobile communications where transparency and choice can be a selling point. We will continue to update our readers on these issues as the year unfolds.

The New York Bill

The New York bill, with versions in the Assembly and Senate (A. 9275 and S. 6441) is based on the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) self-regulatory principles. The NAI is a group of online advertising firms and it adopted its principles in 2002. The bill would create an extensive regime of consumer notice and choice for third party tracking of different types of consumer online activity. Absent obtaining a consumer’s prior affirmative consent or opt-in, third parties would be prohibited from collecting personally identifiable information online in some situations (when merged with certain other previously collected data). Consumers would have the right to opt-out of any online tracking involving non-personally identifiable information. The bill would require clear notice by third party advertising companies on their own sites of their profiling activities, the types of data they collect, how they use the data, the opt-out process, and the length of time the data is retained. And, it would require third party advertising companies to contractually require the sites to whom they provide services to include notice and opt-out options.  

Notably, the bill would prohibit a third party from tracking information from websites when it does not have a contractual relationship with the website owner. This provision could have major implications for the companies described above that contract with Internet Service Providers to monitor surfing activity across all websites a consumer visits. The bill is also significant because it would effectively create a national law – companies with a national online presence would necessarily be doing business in New York as well.                    

The European Union 

The press has recently reported about controversy in the U.K. concerning reports that the country’s three largest ISPs, BT, Talk Talk, and Virgin Media, had contracted with Phorm for behavioral targeting services. A U.K. think tank, the Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) submitted an open letter to the U.K Information Commissioner charging that Phorm’s activities violate British privacy law and the European Union’s Data Protection Directive by not affording consumers opt-in choice for the tracking. Phorm is claiming that it uses a cookie with a random number assigned to track information so that it does not collect personally identifiable information. 

The issue of online monitoring continues to draw the attention of European Union regulators with more activity expected in the near future. Although the E.U. approved the Google-Doubleclick merger, the E.U. Article 29 Working Party comprised of data privacy regulators from each of the E.U.’s member states has stated that even search engines based outside of the E.U. may fall under the E.U. Data Protection Directive. In addition, the Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party has asserted that IP addresses standing alone constitutes personally identifiable information. This stands in contrast to how IP addresses are viewed in the U.S. The Article 29 Working Party is expected to issue a report in April concerning the privacy implications of Internet search engines, which should further address these issues.     

Industry and Interest Group Guidelines