The FTC proposed modifications to its 2020 privacy order with Meta, alleging violations including non-compliance with the order, misleading parents about Messenger Kids, and unauthorized data sharing. The proposed changes include banning monetization of youth data, pausing new product launches, and strengthening privacy requirements.
Meta would be prohibited from monetizing data from users under 18, required to obtain assessor confirmation before launching new products, extend compliance to acquired companies, limit facial recognition use with consent, and strengthen its privacy program and reporting obligations.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor, customer, and data processing agreements that involve the collection, use, or sharing of data from individuals under 18. Specifically scrutinize clauses governing data monetization, consent mechanisms (especially for minors), data sharing with third parties, use of facial recognition/biometric data, and product development timelines. Agreements may need amendments to explicitly prohibit monetizing youth data, mandate robust parental consent systems compliant with COPPA, restrict facial recognition use, incorporate audit rights for privacy compliance, and add requirements for age verification. Service agreements with educational institutions or youth-focused platforms require particular attention.
Entity
Meta
Industry
Social MediaOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/05/ftc-proposes-blanket-prohibition-preventing-facebook-monetizing-youth-data
C4365 Commission Order to Show Cause (Redacted Public)
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/C4365-Commission-Order-to-Show-Cause-%28Redacted-Public%29.pdf
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"Meta, which changed its name from Facebook in October 2021"
"Section 5(b) of the FTC Act"
"Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (COPPA Rule)"
"alleging that the company has failed to fully comply with the order, misled parents about their ability to control with whom their children communicated through its Messenger Kids app, and misrepresented the access it provided some app developers to private user data."
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an investigation into Meta regarding its Meta AI Glasses, alleging unlawful collection of facial biometric data, deceptive privacy representations, and unauthorized sharing of user data with subcontractors. The investigation follows concerns that the glasses’ always-on recording mode lacks proper notice, subcontractors access private user content including intimate moments, and Meta plans to deploy facial recognition technology to collect unsuspecting individuals’ facial geometry. The AG issued a Civil Investigative Demand to determine if Meta violated Texas law by deceptively misrepresenting its data use practices.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, leading a coalition of 35 attorneys general, urged Meta to enforce its policies against misleading AI-generated weight loss ads on Instagram and Facebook. The ads promote non-FDA approved GLP-1 drugs without disclosing risks and use fake AI content. The coalition demands Meta restrict such ads, require clear risk disclosures, and label AI-generated content.
$1.4B
Meta captured facial recognition data from millions of Texans without consent, violating Texas biometric privacy laws. The company agreed to pay $1.4 billion over five years to settle the case. This is the largest privacy settlement obtained by a single state.
A coalition of 42 attorneys general filed a federal lawsuit against Meta, alleging that the company designed addictive features that harm youth mental health and violated COPPA by collecting children's data without parental consent. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, monetary penalties, and restitution.
$750K
The FTC finalized an order against Vanilla Chip LLC (doing business as TruHeight) and its principals for deceptively advertising height-enhancing supplements for children and teens without scientific evidence. The company also used fake reviews and incentivized 5-star ratings. The order requires a $750,000 payment and prohibits false health claims and deceptive review practices.
$2.3M
The FTC alleged that RentGrow, a tenant screening company, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of its reports, including by reporting duplicate records and failing to disclose data sources. RentGrow agreed to pay a $2.25 million penalty and is prohibited from further FCRA violations and from misrepresenting dispute outcomes.