ARTICLE
9 July 2019

CARU Takes Action Against Two More Mobile Apps

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
We recently wrote about the Children's Advertising Review Unit's privacy-related enforcement against two mobile apps for children on our Eye on Privacy blog.
United States Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment
Robert E. Hough II’s articles from Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)
  • in Australia
  • with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services industries
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Cannabis & Hemp and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)

We recently wrote about the Children's Advertising Review Unit's privacy-related enforcement against two mobile apps for children on our Eye on Privacy blog. But there's more! CARU also took action based on several advertising-related violations.

For the first app, "My Talking Tom," CARU addressed in-app advertisements to children. Under CARU's Guidelines the "net impression" of an ad directed to children must not be misleading, must not blur the distinction between ad and game content, and must not advertise products that pose safety risks or portray inappropriate behavior. CARU identified several ads that promoted inappropriate products and services, others that did not contain adequate disclosures, and still others that contained content that appeared to be an integral part of the game, rather than ad content. CARU issued its decision on these issues, and the game operator modified the ad positioning and disclosures. CARU took no further action on these issues.

For the second, "KleptoCats," CARU questioned whether the app attracts a substantial number of children under 13, and thus is subject to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. CARU investigated whether KleptoCats collects personally identifiable information from users under 13 for the purpose of behavioral advertising, without first obtaining parental consent. CARU attempted to engage HyperBeard in its investigation, but the game operator failed to respond. Accordingly, CARU referred the case to the FTC for a full federal investigation.

Putting it Into Practice: These cases are a reminder that companies receiving a CARU inquiry should take the matter seriously. CARU regularly refers to the FTC those who refuse to cooperate, and the FTC reviews such cases with priority.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More