Commercial Speech and Advertising

For the easiest navigation through this playlist, please set your browser to “Open Links in New Tab,” or right-click on links and select “Open Link in New Tab.”

This Commercial Speech and Advertising playlist is centered around false claims and false advertising. These false claims can be made by either an individual, company, or other organization. As advertising is a form of speech, the restrictions on it raise questions of constitutionality.


In order to determine if a restriction on an advertisement is constitutional, four questions must be answered:

1. Is the activity being advertised legal and not misleading?

2. Does the government have a meaningful interest at stake?

3. Does the restriction on speech advance that interest?

4. Is the restriction the least restrictive course of action in advancing the interest?  


The governing body that handles false claims and misleading ads is the Federal Trade Commission. Among many things, the FTC aims to protect both American consumers from being deceived by businesses as well as working with foreign agencies to protect consumers of the global marketplace. If the FTC believes a false claim has been made or that consumers have been deceived, they can conduct an investigation, sue individuals or companies, and enact new rules and regulations to prevent such behavior from occurring again.


  • 1 Blogging and Advertising

    by Arielle Weg. When it comes to producing your own content online, the line can be thin between sharing your own thoughts and feelings as opposed to promoting a product. There are times where someone who owns a personal blog can talk about a product as a real consumer, but often they are given products for free or paid to discuss an item in a positive way in order to advertise to their followers. In this section of commercial speech and advertising, I look at the legality of discussing a product on a person blog that was either given to the blogger for free or the blogger was paid to discuss the product. I include Federal Trade Commision (FTC) documents on how to properly disclose this kind of situation on a blog for transparency, FTC documents on how to properly endorse a product on a blog, FTC response to a letter by Hyundai asked permission to reward bloggers for advertising, and the real life case of FTC vs. Lunada Biomedical inc. with a video. 

    • 1.1 FTC Guide: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising

    • 1.2 Annotation of FTC Guide: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising

      Annotation of How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising

      By Arielle Weg

       

      -The FTC rules that laws restricting other media also apply online. The FTC laws on endorsement are additions to these general laws for all media outlets. These additions encourage clear, transparent endorsements to protect the audience from reading claims that are paid advertisements.

       

      -This article depicts specifically how to disclose information about payment or relationships to a company. The article includes these as guidelines; use clear language, disclose physically close to the clame on the page, consider the platform of the advertisement to ensure the disclosure is clear, include the disclosure in the ad or at least on the page you are writing the endorsement on, follow specific guidelines for linking to a disclosure, avoid scrolling to get to a disclosure, know research about where consumers will look on a screen, make sure disclosure are before the option to purchase, repeat disclosures as needed depending on website format, keep disclosures separate from lengthy sections such as terms of use, keep disclosures noticeable, and keep disclosures to the format presented (audio disclosure in an audio advertisement).

       

      -The article begins with an explanation of how  these regulations came to be, and how they were processed and fixed over time to be completed in this one comprehensive document.

       

      -The endorsements must follow the three general laws of advertisement; advertising must be truthful and not misleading, advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims, and advertisements cannot be unfair.

       

      -It is the advertiser’s responsibility to ensure that the endorsement from the blogger is truthful and accurate and that the relationship is properly disclosed by FTC guidelines of disclosure.

       

      -The purpose of a disclosure is to make endorsement fair and non-deceptive to the audience. This being said, there are additional guidelines that indicate the disclosure is for the reader, therefore the disclosure must be placed and presented in a way that is as clear as possible for the reader to see, comprehend, and consider when reading the endorsement. The document presents ways to consider if a disclosure is clear to a reader, but understands that every advertisement is different. There is no clear cut law on what qualifies as a “clear and conspicuous” advertisement, but a blogger is required to follow the rules closely as they can.

       

      -The document includes mock advertisements as examples for the advertiser and blogger to consider. These sections repeat details of how to properly disclose information regarding payment or relationships for product endorsement by making a clear disclosure and place in an eye-catching location prior to product purchase. Concepts to consider with including a disclosure is proximity and placement, prominence, avoiding distracting factors to draw the eye away from the disclosure, repeating when necessary, multimedia messages and campaigns and the use of understandable language. Each of these sections include linked examples to avoid any misunderstanding of how a disclosure should be placed on an ad or on a blog page.

       

      Citation:

      FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising. Ftc.gov. Federal Trade Commission, Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2016.

    • 1.3 FTC Guide: Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising

    • 1.4 Annotation of FTC Guide: Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising

      Annotation of FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising

      By Arielle Weg

       

      -These are FTC guidelines for endorsement of products online where products are provided as an advertisement. The guidelines are set to protect the consumers, and are subject to be reconsidered on a case-by-case basis.

       

      -An endorsement is defined as “any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a part other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser. The party whose opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience the message appears to reflect will be called the endorser and may be an individual, group, or institution.” (this comes directly from the linked guidelines) This definition is necessary to help identify what is deemed an endorsement as opposed to mentioning a product or service. Despite this clarity, there is still some discrepancy as to what actual defines an advertising message.

       

      -Eight Examples are used to in the first section to discuss what is considered an advertising message. The 8th example is a perfect scenario for this topic. The example depicts a woman who tries a new dog food brand and writes about it positively on her blog. If she bought it on her own time it is not advertising, if she was sent a free bag due to the company tracking her purchases it is not advertising, if she joins a network marketing program and receives the dog food through that it is considered advertising and endorsement.

       

      -The next section discusses specific rules of what the endorsement can be. The endorsement must be an honest reflection of the experience, as well as coming directly from the blogger. Additional rules clarify that the endorser is an actual, present user of the product they are endorsing. Advertises may only use the endorsement to their advantage if the endorser falls into that category.

       

      -In example five of th second section, the company is liable for any claims the blogger makes (even if they do not tell them the claim), and the blogger is liable if they do not disclose they are paid for their review. It is up to the advertiser to monitor bloggers and to ensure they are speaking truthfully about their products.

       

      -If a result of an endorser is atypical of a product, the advertiser must disclose that the information is atypical for the situation. Whatever the endorser conveys to the audience must represent the reaction of the general population, or be specified that it is an unusual or special case.

       

      -If an endorsement indicates the endorser has some professional experience with the field related to the product, they must have relevant professional experience. If a blogger claims they are a doctor and can endorse a weight loss program, they must be a medical doctor with some knowledge of the topic. They cannot have a PhD in an unrelated field, or this would be considered deceptive.

       

      -Any connections between the advertiser and the endorser must be fully disclosed. If a connection is created after the endorsement, this does not need to be disclosed (payment after making positive comments without knowledge this could happen)

       

      -The final example seven explains that a blogger who receives free items (without asking for a review) should disclose the relationship to the company and that the item was free if they choose to review it. The company should inform the blogger of this standard expectation.



      Citation:

      FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising. Ftc.gov. Federal Trade Commission,Web. 04 Apr. 2016.

    • 1.5 FTC Statement on Hyundai and Bloggers

      FTC
    • 1.6 Annotation of FTC Statement on Hyundai and Bloggers

      Annotation of FTC statement regarding a letter from Hyundai asking if they can use bloggers to advertise

      By Arielle Weg

       

      • This is a letter that was sent to the FTC from the staff of the Bureau of Consumer Protection to Hyundai Motor America who uses bloggers to advertise their cars. They asked about using gift certificates to give to bloggers in return for encouraging them to link to Hyundai videos or comment on upcoming Super Bowl ads on their blogs.

       

      • Acording to the FTC statement, section five of the FTC Act requires the disclosure of any material connections encouraging the endorsement of a product.

       

      • The statement said, the FTC closed the case, seeing that Hyundai didn’t know about the use of the incentives, not many bloggers received these gift cards, and those who did recieve the cards generally disclosed the information.

       

      • The individuals who work for the media firm hired to conduct the blogging campaign were those at fault, not necessarily Hyundai, according to the FTC statement. These actions did not reflect the Hyundai social media policy, which calls for bloggers to disclose any deals, thus not breaking FTC rules.

       

      • Companies who want to comply with the FTC Endorsement Guidelines must mandate disclosure policies, make sure people who work with and for them understand these policies, and monitor what those people do. It is up to the company to strictly follow the FTC guidelines, according to the FTC statement.

       

      Citation:

      Fair, Lesley. "Using Social Media in Your Marketing? Staff Closing Letter Is worth a Read." Federal Trade Commission, 22 Dec. 2011. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.

    • 1.7 FTC v. Lunada Biomedical, Inc.

    • 1.8 Annotation of FTC v. Luanda Biomedical, Inc.

      Annotation of a real life court case: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. LUNADA BIOMEDICAL, INC.

      By Arielle Weg

       

      -The trial took place at the United States District Court in the Central District of California.

       

      -The plaintiff is the FTC who sued the defendants Lunada Biomedical, Inc. a corporation, Donna Kasseinova, sued as an individual and as an officer of Lunada Biomedical, Inc., Roman Trunin, sued as an individual and as an officer of Lunada Biomedical, Inc., and Emily Arutyunov, sued as an individual and as an officer of Lunada Biomedical, Inc.

       

      -The FTC brings this action under  the Federal Trade Commission Act to obtain permanent injunction due to the violation of the FTC Act that require the defendant to disclose connections with labeling, advertising, marketing, distribution, and sale of Amberen, a dietary supplement that allegedly causes menopausal and perimenopausal women to lose weight and belly fat.

       

      -The plaintiff is the FTC who outlines laws regarding advertising and media. They reserve the right to federal district court proceedings with its own attorneys if laws of the FTC are violated.

       

      -The defendant is Lunada Biomedical, Inc., a California corporation, which labels, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells Amberen to consumers throughout to U.S.

       

      -The defendant Donna Kasseinova owns 50% of Lunada, and is the company’s Chief Financial Officer. She has had partial control in the acts and practices relevant to this complaint.

       

      -The defendant Roman Trunin owns 50% of Lunada and is the Chief Executive Officer. He has had partial control and participation in the alleged practices relevant to this complaint.

       

      -The defendant Emil Arutyunov is the Chief Marketing Officer. He has connections to actions relevant to this case.

       

      -Amberen is a dietary supplement that contains ammonium succinate and calcium disuccinate, developed by scientists at the Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Biophysics at the Russian Academy of Sciences. They received rights to market and sell the drug in the U.S. This was done through radio commercials, TV commercials, websites (including carolsblog.com), emails, and other marketing materials.

       

      -The product was represented as a substantial weight loss product that could helps loss of belly fat, and increase in metabolism in women over the age of 40 who are permenopausal or menopausal. The endorsements claimed t be clinically proved to cause substantial weight loss in these women. The product also comes as a complementary risk for trial of a 30 day supply for the first 50 callers. There is no financial risk or obligation to this 30 day free trial.

       

      -In December 2009 Lunada Inc. entered a Consulting Agreement with International Marketing Company (IMC) and the president Carol Nicholson. Under this agreement, the parties would perform marketing services for the product, which included maintaining a blog about menopause-related issues and to appear in other forms of advertisement. They compensated Nicholson $2,000 per month in addition to daily and hourly fees for other endorsements.

       

      -From this the “Ask Carol: A Menopause Blog” was created. The blog deceptively appeared as a personal account of Nicholson’s personal experiences with menopause. The reality was that Lunada discussed what would be on the blog, and pre-reviewed any postings without reader’s knowledge. In the posts, Nicholson openly endorsed the use of Amberen, stating it solved a multitude of problems such as weight gain, hot flashes, irritability, and sleeplessness. She referred to her own background as a registered nurse, which gave her a level of expertise in the recommendations. Blog posts included a number to call and a hyperlink to the website for consumers to purchase the products. There was no disclosure on the website that Carol’s Blog was paid for by Lunada through IMC. Lunada paid IMC and Nicholson more than $37,000.

       

      -The actual violations of the FTC Act  regarding the blog posts include unfair or deceptive acts or practices and misrepresentations of a product. The specific problem over all was that the “clinical studies” promising weight loss and belly fat loss didn’t actually measure this in women taking the drug.

       

      -In relation to this specific topic, “failure to disclose material connections with endorses” is the most relevant complaints. Other complaints in this trial include; false proof claim, false claims concerning Amberen’s success and customer satisfaction rates, and false risk free trial claim (required customers to return product, and did not compensate shipping fees).

       

      -The plaintiff requested that the courts enter a permanent injunction to prevent further violations of the FTC Act and award such relief as the Court finds necessary to compensate injury to consumers due to Defendant’s violations of FTC Act.

       

      - Proof of these claims are presented in transcripts of advertisements for the product.

       

      -Exhibit I includes the Ask Carol blog post. The blog posts highly recommends the use of the drug over all other options, and links to the product to purchase. There is no indication on the blog of Carol’s paid connection to the product. She even includes a anecdote about her life, and responds to reader’s questions.

       

      Citation:

      FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. LUNADA BIOMEDICAL, INC. 1-57. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Ftc.gov. Federal Trade Commission, Web. 04 Apr. 2016.

    • 1.9 FTC Advertising Violation Example

      Video: “Amberen for Menopause Review” that showcases deceptive advertising. This commercial violates all of the FTC rules including deceptively introducing the endorsers as real-life users, unfairly giving authority to Carol as a registered nurse, and having her claim a “good friend” gave her the medication. This ad has no indication that this is a paid productive and the stories are not true. It is unfair and deceptive to the audience.

  • 2 FTC v. Kellogg

    by Shayna Keith. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency of the U.S. government (established by the Federal Trade Commission Act). Its principle mission is to promote consumer protection and eliminate and prevent anticompetitive business practices. The FTC prevents consumers from undergoing fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and provides information to help identify, halt, and prevent them (FTC File No. 0823145, 2009).

     Kellogg Company, the world’s leading producer of cereal, agreed to settle FTC charges for falsely advertised their products as enhancing children’s cognitive abilities as well as immunity, however there was no research proving their statements.

    • 2.1 Audio: Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats Radio Advertisement

    • 2.2 Kellogg Controversial Frosted Mini-Wheats Commercial

      Kellogg's advertised that a breakfast of Frosted Mini-Wheats a breakfast of Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal was “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20%” (FTC File No. 0823145, 2009).

    • 2.3 Kellogg's Misleading Advertising for Frosted Mini-Wheats

      Kellogg's Misleading Advertising for Frosted Mini-Wheats

    • 2.4 Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Kellogg

      Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment for Kellogg

    • 2.5 FTC Press Release Approve Final Consent Order

    • 2.6 Public Comments Regarding FTC v. Kellogg

      Public Comments Responded to by the FTC's Office of the Secretary

    • 2.7 FTC Commissioner Statement Kellogg 2010

      Statement of Commissioner Julie Brill and Chairman Jon Leibowitz In the Matter of Kellogg Company, FTC Docket No. C-4262. Kellogg Advertises that Rice Krispies Benefits Children's Immunity Leading to Stronger Order

    • 2.8 Annotation of FTC Commissioner Statement Kellogg 2010

       

      In 2009 the FTC agreed to advertising restrictions resolving misleading advertisements stating that its Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal was “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20%” as well as a breakfast of Frosted Mini-Wheats was clinically shown to improve children’s attentiveness by nearly 20 percent when compared to children who didn’t eat breakfast (Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010).

      However, about the same time that Kellogg agreed to stop advertising false claims in its cereal ads, the company began a new advertising campaign promoting the false health benefits of Rice Krispies (Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010). On the product packaging of its Rice Krispies, Kelloogg claimed that Rice Krispies cereal “now helps support your child’s immunity,” with “25 percent Daily Value of Antioxidants and Nutrients – Vitamins A, B, C, and E.” The back of the cereal box stated that “Kellogg’s Rice Krispies has been improved to include antioxidants and nutrients that your family needs to help them stay healthy” (Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010).

      Under the original settlement order Cover Frosted Mini-Wheats, Kellogg was barred from making claims about the benefits to cognitive health, process, or function provided by any of its products unless the claims were true and sustained (Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010). 

      The FTC expanded order against Kellogg prohibiting the company from making claims about any health benefit of any food products unless the claims are no misleading, and backed by scientific evidence (Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010).

      The Commission vote to modify the 2009 settlement order was unanimous.

      In 2009, Kellogg had sales of nearly $13 billion and a marketing and advertising budget of over $1 billion (Brill, Leibowitz, 2010).

       

      Citations

       

      Federal Trade Commission. FTC Investigation of Ad Claims That Rice Krispies Benefits Children's Immunity Leads to Stronger Order Against Kellogg. Federal Trade Commission News and Events. N.p., 3 June 2010. Web. 5 Apr. 2016. <https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2010/06/ftc-investigation-ad-claims-rice-krispies-benefits-childrens>.

       

      United States of America. Federal Trade Commission. In the Matter of Kellogg Company, FTC Docket No. C-4262 Concurring Statement of Commissioner Julie Brill and Chairman Jon Leibowitz. By Julie Brill and Jon Leibowitz. N.p., 3 June 2010. Web. 6 Apr. 2016. <https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2010/06/100602kelloggstatement.pdf>.

    • 2.9 FTC v. Kellogg 2010 Order

    • 2.10 Annotation of FTC v. Kellogg 2010 Order

      The FTC’s Complaint alleged that Kellogg had violated Sections 5(a) and 12 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 45(a) and 52, by falsely claiming that a breakfast of Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal is clinically shown to improve children’s attentiveness by nearly 20 percent (FTC Docket No. C-4262, Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010).

       

      Beginning in approximately late July 2009, Kellogg distributed (or caused to be distributed) advertising for Kellogg’s Rice Krispies cereal, Kellogg’s Jumbo Multi-grain Krispies cereal, Kellogg’s Frosted Krispies cereal, and Kellogg’s Cocoa Krispies cereal (hereafter collectively “Krispies cereal”) that included representations about the benefits of Krispies cereal for children’s immunity (FTC Docket No. C-4262, Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010).

       

      The Commission reopened the proceeding in FTC v. Kellogg 2009 Docket No. C-4262, pursuant to Section 3.72(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.72(b), and modified the Order for the new complaint (FTC v. Kellogg 2010) (FTC Docket No. C-4262, Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010).

       

      The modification expands the product and claim coverage of the order to require proof for all health claims for any food, and revises the definition of “competent and reliable scientific evidence” to ensure that Kellogg Company doesn’t misrepresent study and research results. Kellogg consented to reopening this docket and to the modifications set forth (FTC Docket No. C-4262, Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010).

       

      Order:

       

      It is further ordered that Kellogg shall not represent, in any manner, expressly or by implication, that:

      1. “The benefits, performance, or efficacy of such product for cognitive function, cognitive processes, or cognitive health; or”

      2. “any other health benefit of such product;”

      unless the representation is non-misleading, and, at the time of making such representation, respondent possesses and relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence (FTC Docket No. C-4262, Leibowitz, Harbour, Kovacic, Rosch, 2010).

       

    • 2.11 Kellogg's Rice Krispies Deceptive Commercial 2010

      Video: Kellogg's false advertising in Rice Krispies commercial in 2010.

    • 2.12 News Coverage on Kellogg's Rice Krispies Deceptive Commercial

      Video: Smart Trend News covers Kellogg’s false claim of Rice Krispies’ benefits on cognitive functions

  • 3 False Privacy Protection Claims

    by Christian Nossokoff. Online privacy has been a topic of great concern since the turn of the century.  Almost every website has a privacy policy that some users may or may not know they agree to. We often click “I Accept” without knowing what we accept to, but the alternative is reading through what seems like and endless box of text, filled with formal terms and jargon. So with that said, wouldn't it be easy for companies to put things in their privacy policy that you might not be okay with because they can count on you not reading it? I take a look at the case of the FTC versus Facebook in 2011 regarding the use of third party applications. Facebook users were not made aware of the fact that Facebook could disclose their information to third party applications. Various studies about social media and privacy policies are also analyzed to show what privacy and privacy policies mean to users. 

    • 3.1 Complaint FTC v. Facebook 2011

    • 3.2 Annotation of FTC Complaint v. Facebook 2011

      Annotation by Christian Nossokoff

      The FTC filed this complaint on the grounds that the Respondent, Facebook, was in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, specifically regarding commerce.

       

      Commerce is defined in Section 4 of the FTC Act:

      “'Commerce' means commerce among the several States or with foreign nations, or in any Territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory and any State or foreign nation, or between the District of Columbia and any State or Territory or foreign nation.”

       

      The required information to register with Facebook includes: name, gender, email address, and date of birth.

      Optional information that can be included at the time of registration includes: profile picture, hometown, sexual orientation, relationship status with romantic partners and family members who are also users of the site (boyfriend, girlfriend, fiance, husband, wife, brother, sister, mother, father, etc...) political views, religious beliefs, likes and interests (activities, movies, books, music etc...)  and education and employment.

      Information on user activity on the site over time includes: friends list of other Facebook users, “liked” pages of brands, organizations, interests groups, celebrities or any other entity, pictures and videos that both the user has uploaded and that other users have uploaded and “tagged” them in, and posts and comments made by the user on other users’ profiles and content.

       All of this profile information is stored by Facebook controlled computer network.

       Differing Platform Applications are available for use through Facebook. Users can approve Applications themselves, allowing the Application access to their profile information. But even if a user has not authorized an Application, the Application may still have access to some profile information because a user’s friend has authorized said Application.

       

      Citation:

      FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. FACEBOOK INC., Complaint, Ftc.gov. Federal Trade Commission. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

    • 3.3 Decision and Order FTC v. Facebook 2011

    • 3.4 Annotation of Decision and Order FTC v. Facebook 2011

      Annotation by Christian Nossokoff

       

      This decision and order by the FTC lays out what Facebook is required to do.

      Facebook must let consumers know exactly what information is being collected and what inforamtion will be disclosed. Instructions on how to control privacy options must be provided. 

      The extent of which users' information can be used by third parties must be disclosed and the consent of the user must be collected.

       If an account is deleted, within 30 days the information that a user has deleted, must be inaccesible.

      A dedicated employee and/or department is to be implemented at Facebook specifically regarding privacy policy. Privacy risk assessment must be included in employee training and on product design, development and research.

       And most importantly, any changes to the privacy policy must be explicitly expressed to the user as soon as they go into effect.

       

      Citation: 

      FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. FACEBOOK INC., Decision and Order, Ftc.gov. Federal Trade Commission. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.

    • 3.5 Bloomberg Law Interview on FTC v. Facebook with CIPP Professional

      Bloomberg Law Interview on FTC v. Facebook with CIPP Professional

    • 3.6 Study: Evaluation of Online Privacy Notices

      Study conducted by Georgia Institute of Technology looking at the viability and practice of privacy policies, with a total of 64 analyzed.

    • 3.7 Annotation of Evaluation of Online Privacy Notices

      Annotation by Christian Nossokoff

      This study was conducted by Carlos Jensen and Colin Potts of Georgia Institute of Technology and the paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI2004) in Vienna, Australia. 

      It looks at the viability and practice of privacy policies, with a total of 64 analyzed.

       It is described that 70% of respondants to a 2001 survey worry about their online privacy, and that 69% in another study said they take their own preventative action against online privacy invasions.

       Privacy policies are unavoidable. They are implemented by the vast majority of websites. They're supposed to inform consumers and aid them in decision making. But it is challenging to put forth all of the necessary information without overwhelming users.

       With so many different policies and no real standards or regulations on what needs to be in them, it is difficult for users to determine what the privacy policy is worth to them.

       Two sets of websites were studied. The first set was made up of 47 of the 50 comScore Media Metrix Top 50 U.S. Internet Property Rankings. They were high-traffic sites, so the results would be practical for users because they frequently experience policies like these. The second set studied were health-care websites in order to examine the effect over time regulations have had on policy after HIPPA went into effect over July 2001-September 2003.

       Policies were analyzed based on 4 criteria:

       

                1. Accessibility

                2. Readability

                3. Content

                4. Notification

       

      The study determined that even if entities comply and follow all rules and regulations, privacy policies are unusable to consumers unless they check the policy in-depth, every time they visit the site. 

       The privacy policies were not easily accessible in many cases.

       In a study done in a university setting, out of the 55,158 people who visited a set-up, standalone website, only 131 viewed the privacy policy.

       

       

      Citation: 

      Jensen, C., & Potts, C. (2004). Privacy policies as decision-making tools. Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '04. doi:10.1145/985692.985752

    • 3.8 Study: Information Revelation & Privacy in Online Social Networks

      Study conducted in 2005 at Carnegie Mellon University. This study is relevant to the FTC v Facebook 2011 case because it shows how users already willingly provided an alarming amount of personal, and even sensitive, information.

    • 3.9 Annotation of Information Revelation & Privacy in Online Social Networks

      This study was conducted in 2005 at Carnegie Mellon University by Ralph Gross and Alessandro Acquisti in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

      This study is relevant to the FTC v Facebook 2011 case because it shows how users already willingly provided an alarming amount of personal, and even sensitive, information.

      The entire Facebook population at CMU (4,540 profiles) was included in this study.

      It is important to note that the popularity and size of social networks have increased dramatically since the study was conducted.

      The point of the study was to evaluate college student’s online behavior on social networking sites, including how much information they made available on their profiles and how they use sites’ privacy settings.

      Results show possible dangers and breaches of privacy, and that only a small percentage users modify settings to protect their privacy.

      39.9% of users provided their phone number on their profiles. 50.8% provided their current residence. 87.8% provided their date of birth.

      89 out of a sample of 100 profiles used the real, full name of the user.

      A Facebook user’s affiliation with another user is divided into 4 different categories: friends, friends of friends, non-friend users at the same institution, and non-friend users at a different institution.

      The population of Facebook users we have studied is, by large, quite oblivious, unconcerned, or just pragmatic about their personal privacy” (Gross and Acquisti 8).

      Although privacy settings are able to be modified, they rarely are. An overwhelming majority of users keep what the study calls the default permeable privacy settings.

      The personal information users are revealing even on sites with access control and managed search capabilities effectively becomes public data” (Gross and Acquisti 9).

       

      Citation:

      Gross, R., Acquisti, A., & Heinz, H. J. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society - WPES '05. doi:10.1145/1102199.1102214