Slashdot Mirror
Sony Hit With $1M Penalty For COPPA Violations
coondoggie writes "It really isn't a big enough penalty, and the company admitted no guilt, but Sony BMG Music Entertainment today agreed to pay $1 million as part of a settlement to resolve Federal Trade Commission charges that it knowingly violated the privacy rights of over 30,000 underage children.
Specifically the FTC said the company violated the agency's Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the FTC did say the penalty was its largest ever in a COPPA case.
To provide resources to parents and their children about children's privacy in general, and social networking sites in particular, the penalty order requires Sony Music to link to certain FTC consumer education materials for the next five years."
The FTC's complaint alleges that Sony Music violated COPPA by failing to provide sufficient notice on the Sony Music Web sites of what information the company collects online from children, how it uses such information, and its disclosure practices; failing to provide direct notice to parents of Sony Music's information practices; failing to obtain verifiable parental consent; and, failing to provide a reasonable means for parents to review the personal information collected from their children and to refuse to permit its further use or maintenance.
Seems to me like they were just a big, fat example, and this is possibly a sign of things to come.
There are non-underage children?
Yes. COPPA only applies to those under 13.
...because it seems there is no statute that hasn't been overturned. Please help me to be better educated. Here's the best I could find on short notice... COPA, CIPA, COPPA, etc.
Apparently, it is this one.
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998
COPPA applies to under-13 only.
See YrWrstNtmr's post.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
There are non-underage children? Yes. COPPA only applies to those under 13.
GP asked (rethorically, I assume) whether a child can be "non-underage", not whether an underage person can be "not a child".
So, does "underage children" convey any more information than just "children"? I don't think so, but you know, legalese is weird that way.
Ummm, Let's try to answer in pseudocode then...
switch (AgeofPerson) {
case lt 13: Child = True, UnderAge=True;
case ge 13: Child = True, UnderAge = False;
}
Whether we agree with the concept of 'underage child' vs. 'child' or not, it is clearly defined in this context.
This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
Sony's annual revenue exceed $5B/year, so a $1M penalty is 0.02%. That would be like fining the average American middle-class family $10. It's basically a parking ticket. Wow what a deterrent! With penalties like that you know they'll never do anything like that again!
That was COPA, which tried to prevent children from accessing porn. This is about COPPA, which is the completely pointless act that makes it a requirement for children under 13 to lie about their age regularly.