Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Hit With $1M Penalty For COPPA Violations

Posted by timothy on from the those-kids-knew-what-they-were-doing dept.

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."

10 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)?

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

    There are non-underage children?

    Yes. COPPA only applies to those under 13.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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;

  7. 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