Marketer that claimed it could tap devices for ad targeting will pay $880K settlement

Two additional marketing companies will also pay $25,000 each.

See full article...

 

[Lexus Lunar Lorry]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but it sounds like CMG's real crime here was "defrauding innocent advertisers" and not "spying on people".

If the Active Listening service had functioned as advertised, this collection and use of consumers’ voice data without adequate consent would itself violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.

Would a legalese statement buried on page 155 of the EULA count as adequate consent?

“We are pleased to have this matter resolved,” a CMG spokesperson said in a statement to Wired. “Our local marketing team relied on marketing materials provided to us by a third-party vendor about their product. We withdrew the materials expeditiously and stopped further use of the product.”

We regret that our vendors lied to us about their capabilities and we promise to look for more truthful vendors in the future. Sign up here to get notified once Active Listening is back in stock!

 

[JudgeMental]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but it sounds like CMG's real crime here was "defrauding innocent advertisers" and not "spying on people".

I think it's a realistic form of cynicism. The system tends to not do a lot to materially protect consumers and individuals when it comes to claims of falsehoods and the like, but the moment there's potential to cause financial harm to a corporation then suddenly there's plenty of action.

This outcome doesn't particularly surprise me though. I had a hard time believing the original claims to begin with, in spite of anecdata of friends talking about a thing only to get it advertised to them a short time after. I do think it's technically possible, but I don't see a way for the impact to not be noticeable. Either they're using on-device processing which would wreck battery life, or they're streaming audio to a server which even at a fairly low bandwidth would still be noticeable to users who are data-conscious (while still hitting battery life). Perhaps there are clever ways to mitigate that, get it lost in the noise. But I'm still dubious. Give it a bit of time though, and that could easily change.

Maybe by then we'll have a government actually interested in siding with the average individual. A nice dream.

 

[ubercurmudgeon]

And I bet they sleep like babies at night.

 

[schnackenpfefferhausen]

Advertisers are the root of all evil on the internet.
I exterminate all ads unmercifully and unapologetically without exception.

 

[Smeghead]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but it sounds like CMG's real crime here was "defrauding innocent advertisers" and not "spying on people".

Came here to say the same damn thing. It very much reads like the FTC are fining them not that they wanted/planned to have devices snoop on people, but because they claimed that they could when they couldn't.

How dare they make a promise like that and not keep it? That'll teach them!

 

[Mechjaz]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but it sounds like CMG's real crime here was "defrauding innocent advertisers" and not "spying on people".

Would a legalese statement buried on page 155 of the EULA count as adequate consent?

We regret that our vendors lied to us about their capabilities and we promise to look for more truthful vendors in the future. Sign up here to get notified once Active Listening is back in stock!

Maybe, maybe, giving a generous reading in favor of the scummy advertiser - ugh - there wasn't actually anything to pounce on legally because they technically couldn't and didn't do it? Unless there's law around conspiracy to commit wiretapping/surveillance, without actually having done so or had the means to do so?

That feels pretty gross, and they were likely working on the means to do exactly that (assuming it wasn't just a pure scam through and through), but maybe that's why?

I don't think you're being cynical, or if you are not unduly so.