The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) has rebranded as Fairplay, coinciding with a new campaign seeking regulations mandating an age-appropriate platform designed to better protect kids online.

Launched to battle the over-commercialization of children's media, the former CCFC has updated the name to match its evolution into a digital age defender of children on a host of tech fronts.

“In the more than 20 years we have advocated for children, childhood has been transformed by smartphones, tablets, and an overwhelming array of apps and games designed to hook kids, monopolize their attention, and mine their personal information for profit,” said Angela Campbell, professor emeritus, Georgetown Law, and chair of Fairplay's board of directors. “While our advocacy has evolved to match the digital techniques used by corporate marketers, our name hasn’t. As Fairplay, we will demand a new set of rules to protect children from the unfair and harmful manipulations of Big Tech.”

Also Read: Children's Prviacy Advocates Renew Complaint Against Google

Fairplay's new campaign, supported by a coalition of children's advocates, is looking to institute regs similar to the United Kingdom's Age Appropriate Design Code, among whose core tenets, says Fairplay, is that "the best interests of young people must be the primary consideration when designing online services likely to be accessed by children and teens, and that young people’s data should never be used in ways that is detrimental to their wellbeing."

Taking a page from that UK code, which goes into effect in September, Fairplay will focus its efforts on "advocating for regulations against manipulative platform design that puts children at risk," as well as an update to COPPA, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.

Also Read: Groups Seeks FTC Investigation of Child-Directed Digital Marketplace

The coalition say a U.S. version of the code can be achieved through a combination of new laws and Federal Trade Commission rulemakings. The FTC has traditionally been an enforcement agency rather than a rulemaking body, but children's advocates have long advocated for the FTC to flex more of its rulemaking muscle.

Joining in the new campaign, according to Fairplay, are the American Academy of Pediatrics, Center for Digital Democracy, Center for Humane Technology, Common Sense, ParentsTogether, RAINN (Rape Abuse and Incest National Network), and the producers of the film The Social Dilemma.

Advocates for a secure and safe online environment for kids have filed a complaint against Google with the Federal Trade Commission seeking an investigation into what they said are app recommendations for kids that don't comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

Google counters that it makes protection of children a priority.

The complaint was filed by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), which filed a similar complaint two years ago (December 2018) that did not motivate the Donald Trump FTC to action. They are looking for a better result with the Joe Biden FTC and their message is simple: "Google is certifying as safe and appropriate for children apps that violate COPPA and put children at risk."

Also Read: Privacy Advocates Push FTC for Kids Data Collection Transparency, Oversight

They argued that given the increase in kids' screen time during the pandemic, the need for FTC action is even greater.

They conceded Google has made changes since that initial complaint was filed, but said Google had failed to address the core problems, pointing to studies that found that a "significant" number of Google Play apps collected and shared children's personal information without getting parental consent first, a big no-no in COPPA land.

They also said that websites' Sec. 230 immunity from liability over most third-party content would not shield Google from Sec. 5 liability (false and deceptive) because two prongs of the three part Sec. 230 liability shield test would not be met.

While Google may be an interactive computer service (prong one), the second prong is not met because the content at issue is statements made by Google Play in its parent guide and blog, not developed by another content provider. The third prong of the shield would also not apply, they say, because it is Google's speech being held liable, not a third party's.

"While the FTC has brought a few enforcement actions against developers of children’s apps, its whack-a-mole approach cannot fix the systemic problem that Google Play, the largest source of apps for children, misrepresents children’s apps as complying with COPPA when they do not," the complaint alleged. "Thus, it is important that the FTC conduct a thorough review of Google Play’s practices regarding children’s apps."

Also Read: Groups Seeks FTC Investigation of Child-Directed Digital Marketplace

“Parents reasonably expect that Google Play Store apps designated as ‘Teacher approved’ or appropriate for children under age 13 comply with the law protecting children’s privacy. But far too often, that is not the case," said campaign chair Angela Campbell case. "The FTC failed to act when this problem was brought to its attention over two years ago. Because children today are spending even more time using mobile apps, the FTC must hold Google accountable for violating children’s privacy.”

"The Federal Trade Commission must swiftly act to stop Google’s ongoing disregard of the privacy and well-being of children," added Jeff Chester, executive director of CDD.

“Back in 2018, I sounded the alarm and raised concerns about whether the Google Play store is failing to protecting children’s privacy," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told Multichannel News. "I’m disturbed, but not surprised, to see new evidence that this is still a problem today."

"Children are spending an unprecedented amount of time on their devices right now, and they shouldn’t be tracked at every turn. I authored the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act because I believe that kids are a uniquely vulnerable population online. Unfortunately, the threats to kids’ privacy and well-being on the internet have increased by orders of magnitude since that legislation was signed into law decades ago, but violators have far too often been let off the hook. That has to stop. It’s time for Big Tech to be held accountable for prioritizing profits over privacy, particularly when it comes to our children.”

“Google Play is committed to providing a positive and safe environment for children and families," the company said in a statement. "Over the last few years, we’ve taken significant steps including updating our Google Play Families and Designed for Families programs with more stringent requirements around ads, content, and personal data and introducing a Kids tab in Google Play filled with “Teacher-approved” apps to help families find quality apps and games for their kids. We will continue to make the protection of children on our platform a priority.” 

A Google spokesperson said that the company has stringent policies for developers and enforcement, as well as promoting quality content, and has made it easier for parents to supervise their children's use of Google play.

Armed with a new study on kids and advertising apps, a group of advocates asked the FTC to investigate Android apps targeted to kids five and under, alleging many are unfair and/or deceptive.

The FTC is empowered to punish unfair or deceptive conduct through its Sec. 5 authority.

The groups want the commission to hold app developers to account for those alleged unfair and deceptive practices (disguising ads as being part of a game, for example), including marketing the apps that require in-app purchases as "free" and manipulating children to access advertising.

The study is from the University of Michigan and C.S. Mott Children's Hospital. It looked at 135 kids apps and found various "troubling" practices including ads disguised as game play, 'beloved" characters encouraging kids to make in-app purchases (so-called "host selling).

The study, of family mobile device use, reviewed 39 apps (35 free and 4 paid), and 96 (50 free and 46 paid) of the "most popular apps," which it defined as the apps for ages 5 and under most frequently downloaded from the Google Play store. The majority of the apps had been downloaded at last 10 million times, according to the study.

Related: FTC Allows Online Command Collection Without Parental OK

The study found that 95% of the apps contained at least one type of advertising, much of it embedded in the games in what was described as "manipulative" ways, such as requiring viewing ads to unlock game items or trying to get kids to pay for game items or buy a paid version of the game. 

“This groundbreaking study demonstrates that popular apps for preschoolers are rife with marketing that takes unfair advantage of children’s developmental vulnerabilities,” said CCFC Executive Director Josh Golin in a statement. “Disguising ads as part of game play and using cartoon characters to manipulate children into making in-app purchases is not only unethical, but illegal. We urge the FTC to take swift and decisive action to hold app developers accountable for their unfair and deceptive marketing.”

Why no issues with Apple apps? "The researchers found that most of these apps are available from Apple as well—it was just that their research focused on Google," said a spokesperson for the group. 

Lead groups on the letter were the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) (with an assist from the
Communications & Technology Law Clinic in the Institute for Public Representation (“IPR”) at Georgetown University Law Center.

Signing on to the letter were Badass Teachers Association, Centre for Child Honouring, Color of Change, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Watchdog, Corporate Accountability, Defending the Early Years, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Media Education Foundation, New Dream, Open MIC (Open Media and Information Companies Initiative), Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, Parents Across America, Parents Television Council, Peace Educators Allied for Children Everywhere (P.E.A.C.E.), Public Citizen, the Story of Stuff, TRUCE (Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Childhood Entertainment), and USPIRG.

Consumer groups including Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Center for Digital Democracy are telling the The New York Times that it's time to drop the ads in its New York Times for Kids, calling them deceptive and blurring the line between and paid content. The Times disputes the characterization.

That complaint came in a letter to Times chair Arthur Sulzberger Jr. responding to a Nov. 19 supplement for young readers in which almost a third of the pages (5 of 16) were ads for the Google Home Mini, an internet-connected device they say could "endanger"kids' privacy and welfare.

The groups said the ads were "disguised" as puzzles and so violate the Better Business Bureau's Children's Advertising Review Unit's (CARU) voluntary guidelines, which mandate a "clear distinction" between advertising and content; the groups sent copies of the letter to CARU  and Google.

David Monahan, campaign manager for Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, told Multichannel News that he had contacted CARU Wednesday morning and asked it to investigate.

The groups  noted in the letter that the NYT plans to make the supplement a monthly feature starting in the new year.

The letter's tone was cordial. The groups applauded the idea of a children's supplement, but not as a "Trojan Horse" for Google ads.

"The ads were brightly colorful cartoon drawings, with interwoven questions in bubbles meant to engage children – a visual style quite similar to much of the editorial content of the supplement," the letter noted. "Each ad was disguised as a puzzle for kids, with this question at the bottom referring to Google characters embedded in the ads: 'Can you find the donut, G and Android in each drawing?'"

ATimes spokesperson said: "Advertising helps support our ability to create special sections like this one. In fact, our first special kids section, which published in May 2017, also contained ads. The ads in question met our advertising acceptability standards, and we do not believe there is any confusion that these pages are, in fact, ads."

The groups believe that all marketing directed to children is inherently unfair and that the Google Home product is inherently harmful to children given that Google can share children's infrmation with third parties for the purposes of marketing to kids.

“The Times Company must stop trying to monetize children in order to build new revenues for its brand,” said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. “It diminishes its reputation by engaging in unprofessional practices towards kids in order to generate sales of ads from Google. The Times is also placing children’s privacy at risk by promoting Google’s vast commercial surveillance apparatus.”

As to the Times' defense.

"It’s disingenuous for the Times to say there’s no confusion about the Google ads which ran in The Times For Kids," said Monahan. "Young kids don’t even understand the persuasive intent of marketing—they are certainly misled when it’s hidden in a cartoon puzzle. Children’s Advertising Review Unit standards ban advertising in a manner that 'blurs the distinction between advertising and program/editorial content in ways that would be misleading to children.'  These Google Home cartoons obliterated that distinction."

Other groups signing on to the letter were Consumer Action, the Consumer Federation of America and Consumer Watchdog.

WASHINGTON — Broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors are trying to get more marketing flexibility in a world where online video is on the rise, and where new video competition is not subject to a host of regulations that apply to traditional TV. However, they face pushback from children’s advocates who argue that would be going in the wrong direction.

At the direction of new chairman Ajit Pai, the Federal Communications Commission voted May 18 to launch a review of all its rules and regs applying to media outlets — broadcast, cable and satellite.

That included input from broadcasters and cable operators on its rules mandating weekly quotas of educational kids shows on TV and the longstanding limits on integrating advertising into those shows.

The National Association of Broadcasters, including programmers Disney, CBS, Fox and Univision, sought more “flexibility” in meeting children’s TV requirements. They said imposing children’s-TV programming mandates on broadcast and cable when such content is readily available and not regulated on the internet should be up for reconsideration. They also want the FCC to reconsider the prohibition on including web links in kids’ shows.

Cable and broadcast outlets suggest the FCC get out of the children’s TV ad-limiting business entirely and leave that job to the Federal Trade Commission.

NCTA: The Internet & Television Association also wants the FCC to lighten up on the kids TV ad limits, which apply to cable as well as broadcast.

In response, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and Center for Digital Democracy have told the FCC that kids TV rules remain a necessary check on commercialization by big media. They argue that the fact that edge providers can market to kids without consequences is no argument for leveling that playing field.

“The fact that YouTube and other internet and mobile providers ignore child development research and longstanding children’s media principles is no reason for the FCC to weaken important safeguards for the many children who watch programs on cable or broadcast television,” Angela Campbell, counsel for CCFC and CDD, told the FCC.

Pai has not signaled any response at present.

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has taken aim at a new Mattel AI toy, Aristotle, calling it a data-collecting and marketing intruder.

The device, which is described as alternately, a smart baby monitor (it has "cry detection" technology), high-tech electronic assistant and an Amazon Echo for kids, has a camera and microphone and generated buzz when it was introduced by Mattel's nabi division at the year's CES show in Las Vegas.

Mattel says that "child development/parenting advice, learning, music entertainment, books and games content [from third parties including iHeart Radio] can be instantly accessed through the Aristotle hub and corresponding Aristotle app."

"In order to work, Aristotle collects and stores data about a child’s activity and interactions within range of the device," says CCFC. "Because Aristotle connects to other apps and online retailers, that data can be shared with those partner corporations, who in turn can use it to target the marketing of other products to a child or her family."

CCFC is hosting a petition to try to get Mattel to pull the plug on the device. Among their concerns is that the toy could interfere with the responding and bonding that are crucial to the parent/child relationship.

"Many of the country’s leading experts on child development and health concur that Mattel’s Aristotle product is a digital “Trojan Horse” that threatens their well-being," said Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeff Chester. "Mattel should not be trying to creep into the room where a child sleeps in order to spy on them and generate revenues. This product should not enter the marketplace."

Mattel said on the Aristotle Web site that all the data is encrypted and that it is in compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

At press time, a Mattel spokesperson had not returned a request for comment on the petition.