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."

22 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. And... by RulerOf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do the violated children get the money?

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    1. Re:And... by Krneki · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, but they can get some candy.

      Come, I have some of them in my van.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    2. Re:And... by irtza · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come, I have some of them in my van.

      The children or the candy?

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    3. Re:And... by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do the violated children get the money?

      I thought it was the parents who were "violated", by not getting the required assistance in keeping track of what their children are doing online (because putting the computer where they can see it is too hard)?

    4. Re:And... by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  2. Do they actually cut a cheque? by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or do they weasel their way into spending $1M on anti-"Piracy" propaganda instead? "Look we're spending money educating the children!"

    However as I'm sure others will point out, Sony shareholders will only lose pocket money in lost profits (or alternately perhaps the execs can make do with 16 hookers at the corporate retreat instead of 20 this year). Boo-hoo.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Do they actually cut a cheque? by Andr+T. · · Score: 2, Funny

      Man, I need a job like this. I mean, well, being an executive. My job sucks. In a bad way.

      --

      Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

    2. Re:Do they actually cut a cheque? by theaveng · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>Or do they weasel their way into spending $1M on anti-"Piracy" propaganda instead?

      You're probably right. I recall when Tobacco companies were "fined" and forced to produce anti-smoking commercials. The problem was that the spokespeople for these ads were geeks & nerds, so the message sent was precisely opposite to what the government intended ("stop smoking and you'll be a geek like this guy").

      IMHO the CD Cartel settlement was better - companies were forced to set-aside X million dollars and refund money to any customer who asked for it. (I received $20 and so too did my mom, my brother, and two nieces.) That's a real punishment that also benefits the people who were wronged.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    3. Re:Do they actually cut a cheque? by Missing_dc · · Score: 4, Funny

      My job sucks. In a bad way.

      Call it a hunch, but despite the apparent $250,000 salary for services at that retreat, the hooker's job sucks too.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    4. Re:Do they actually cut a cheque? by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not talking right and wrong, I'm talking about legal and illegal. I agree that COPPA is a bad law, but Sony is demonstrating once again that they are no better than the Governor of Illinois or the former head of NASDAQ, both of whom were arrested this week.

      I want to know when Sony's CEO is going to be indicted for placing that rootkit on my computer. If I did that to them I'd be behind bars.

  3. "over 30,000 underage children" by Ztream · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are non-underage children? I guess technically everyone is someones child, but..

    1. Re:"over 30,000 underage children" by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are non-underage children?

      Yes. COPPA only applies to those under 13.

    2. Re:"over 30,000 underage children" by dcsmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
  4. Relevent part of the article... by Darundal · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:COPPA? Which statute is that? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...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

  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Re:IMHO laws need to be changed by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.
  8. Re:Privacy really that worthless? by ShadoxPrime · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bulk discount. You know how it is.

  9. Do the maths by zotz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Gee.

    1000000/30000 = 33.34 rounded

    So, that's under thirty four dollars per child.

    Now how much do all these jokers want to get when a child violates the "privacy rights" of a song?

    Not that anyone actually did anything wrong in this case mind you. No.

    all the best,

    drew

    --
    FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  10. Privacy vs Copyright by A+Guy+From+Ottawa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the RIAA typically goes after $750 per song for a COPYRIGHT violation (but has asked for much more if I remember correctly).

    For violating the PRIVACY of CHILDREN, Sony is charged $33 per child...

    Isn't it amazing what society values more? Oops...scary is the word I was looking for, not amazing.

    --

    using System.Awesome;

  11. Re:COPPA? Which statute is that? by glwtta · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hmm, that is confusing... They should rename one of them to make it more specific:

    Child Online Protection Act, for Filtering and Elimination of Electronic Lewdness

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  12. $1M is 0.02% of Sony yearly revenue, $33/child by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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!