A comprehensive data privacy bill that would, among many other things, allow web users to opt out of targeted advertising — and ban ads aimed at children entirely — is heading to a markup July 20 in the House Energy & Commerce Committee.

The bipartisan American Data Privacy and Protection Act (H.R. 8152) is a comprehensive national privacy regime that would require companies to collect only the data necessary to provide their products or services, bill proponent Common Cause said, and would allow consumers to correct or delete their data. There are also prohibitions on discriminatory data practices/algorithms/ad delivery.

Also: Twitter to Pay $150 Million to Settle Privacy Complaint

The bill would require that consumers get a clear and conspicuous opportunity to opt out of targeted advertising. If a consumer is under 17, and an advertiser knows that, they cannot be targeted with advertising at all. 

The bill also creates a Youth Privacy and Marketing Division within the Federal Trade Commission, charged with protecting the privacy of children and minors and tasked with looking out for marketing directed at them. The division must report to Congress annually on how successful it has been in its mission and on any emerging concerns about protecting the privacy of children and minors.

The measure has supporters on both sides of the aisle and in both houses of Congress. That’s saying something in these politically divided times, particularly on an issue as complicated as data privacy protections.

Also: Bill Would Break Up Big Tech Ad Giants

“We are glad to see that the American Data Privacy and Protection Act is going to a full committee markup, and that Republican and Democratic leadership on the House Energy & Commerce Committee has come together on a comprehensive privacy proposal to protect our data online," Common Cause media and democracy program director Yosef Getachew said.

Watchdog group Common Cause is particularly heartened by the inclusion of civil-rights protections, given that privacy and data abuses have hit minority communities particularly hard, the organization said. ▪️

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen will be among the guests in First Lady Jill Biden’s box for the State of the Union speech Tuesday night (March 1), giving credence to reports President Joe Biden plans to address Big Tech-related issues in the speech, specifically online child protection.

Also: SOTU to Include Call for Banning Certain Child-Targetted Online Ads

“Each of these individuals, with their resilience, innovation, service, and courage, were chosen by the White House because they represent policies or themes to be addressed by the president in his speech,” the White House said in releasing the list of attendees.

Haugen created quite a stir last November on Capitol Hill with testimony in which she revealed internal Facebook research showing the company knew its Instagram platform could be harmful to some teens. Facebook countered that the research also showed that most teens said it was helpful and that the information on those who said otherwise was useful feedback for potential changes to the platform to address that concern.

Legislators were unconvinced and have pushed various bills to rein in Big Tech. ■

In a letter to Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a trio of senators called on the agency to flex its metaverse muscle to make sure children are protected from potential manipulation.

"While some platforms state their VR devices should not be used by children, many adult users have nonetheless encountered numerous children online. In fact, two-thirds of parents with VR devices report that their children asked them to buy the device," they wrote. Among the potential harms they point to are online harassment and unsafe content.

The senators said increasing use of VR and AR is cause for serious concern related to threats to younger users, including because VR platforms and headsets don't have parental controls. Not surprisingly given Washington's current focus on online platforms, they pointed the finger at Big Tech, saying FTC intervention was needed "as leading technology companies that have historically failed to protect children announce plans to expand their businesses into the 'metaverse.'"

Also: Kids Online Protection Bill Introduced

Markey was a driving force behind the V-chip parental control, a technology that was meant to give parents greater control over their kids TV viewing, though most parents likely don't know the V-chip receiver mandate exists, much less use it.

The senators said the FTC should use its authority under the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA, which Markey spearheaded) and the FTC Act to monitor the metaverse. "The need to protect young people from threats online is more urgent than ever. As new technologies emerge, it is incumbent upon the Commission to exercise this authority to protect children," they wrote. ■

Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri has agreed to testify at a Dec. 8 hearing in the Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee. He should come prepared with some answers, or a flak jacket, given the committee chair's framing of the hearing.

“After bombshell reports about Instagram’s toxic impacts, we want to hear straight from the company’s leadership why it uses powerful algorithms that push poisonous content to children driving them down rabbit holes to dark places, and what it will do to make its platform safer,” said Committee Chairman Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who announced the bipartisan hearing along with ranking member Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

Blumenthal has been a central player in Congress' beat down of Big Tech, particularly Instagram parent Meta (formerly Facebook), and the revelation of internal research on the impact of Instagram on youth.

Blumenthal said he appreciated Mosseri's agreement to testify voluntarily but suggested he would appreciate it even more if Mosseri came armed with "reforms and solutions."

Blackburn said it was time for action given that "Instagram’s repeated failures to protect children’s privacy have already been exposed before the U.S. Senate."

The Dec. 8 hearing will be the fifth Blumenthal/Blackburn co-production looking at social media's impact on children and young people. ■

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), longtime member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, is asking the Democrat-controlled panel to subpoena documents from Facebook.

That call comes following a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee during which Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, armed with internal research, said the company puts profit over the mental health of its users, and knows it is doing so.

“Frances Haugen courageously exposed what we've long suspected: Facebook has known the harm caused by their platform and has done nothing about it,” Eshoo said. “The Energy and Commerce Committee must subpoena all documents from Facebook related to Ms. Haugen's testimony and her SEC whistleblower complaints, particularly those related to the mental health of children, COVID-19, election misinformation, algorithmic amplification and targeted advertising. Ms. Haugen’s disclosures are highly instructive to our legislative process and any frivolous lawsuits or other retaliation against her would be highly problematic.”

Senate Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Protection Subcommittee chairman Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also said at the hearing that his committee would do all it could to prevent any retaliation against Haugen. Facebook has said she only worked for the company briefly and not on the issues — the protection of young people online — before the committee.

As part of the "social media as piñata" Big Tech bashing this week, which included Hill hearings on online privacy and Instagram's impact on children, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced a bill that would make social media companies liable "for bodily or mental harm their products cause to children."

The bill would remove websites' Sec. 230 immunity from civil liability, allowing parents to sue for damages from social media companies for "bodily injury or harm to mental health that is attributable, in whole or in part, to the individual’s use of a covered interactive computer service provided by the social media company."

That comes as Facebook was raked over the proverbial coals in a Senate Consumer Protection Subcommittee hearing Thursday (Sept. 30) over internal documents that suggest it knew Instagram was harmful to young people, including to their mental health and wellbeing.

Hawley referenced the company in announcing his bill.

“Facebook has long had evidence of the harmful effects their products have on children but covered it up because it would hurt their profits," he said. "These Big Tech monopolies know exactly how addictive and manipulative their products are but they’re content to rake in billions by exploiting children. Parents need to be given the tools to take back control.”

The Hawley bill and the Hill hearing--at which both Democrats and Republicans read a company representative the riot act--were both prompted in part by reports from the Wall Street Journal on internal Facebook research. Those documents were separately supplied to the subcommittee by a whistleblower who has agreed to testify at an Oct. 5 hearing in the same subcommittee, and to talk about the documents on 60 Minutes this Sunday (Oct. 3), according to the network.

Hawley also confronted a Facebook VP about the documents in a Senate Judiciary hearing last week.

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.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), joined by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), has renewed his effort to extend the reach of his child online protection law to young teens.

Currently, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which Markey motormanned, prohibits websites from collecting personal information from anyone 12 and under without consent. The new bill, the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, would extend that protection to teens 13-15.

It would also create the "eraser button" Markey has been pushing for years, which would require online companies to allow users to eliminate personal information from a child or teen.

The bill creates a "digital marketing bill of rights" as well, which limits the collection of personal information from teens for marketing purposes. And to make sure that the limits are respected, it creates a Youth Privacy and Marketing Division at the Federal Trade Commission.

Also Read: Senate Commerce Tees Up Federal Privacy Bills

But wait, there's more — a lot more — including:

1. Ban advertising targeted to kids (as distinguished from contextual advertising in content targeted to children.
2. Change COPPA's "actual knowledge" standard to a "constructive knowledge" standard, which means websites "should reasonably know" that children are on their sites and they need to get consent to collect data.
3. Requires online companies to explain what personal information is being collected, how it is being used and disclosed and their collection policies.
4. Require that internet-connected devices for kids have robust cybersecurity.
5. Require manufacturers of connected devices targetd to kids and minors to include on their packaging disclosures of how information is collected, transmitted, retained, used and protected.

Also Read: Senators Seek Major Investigation of Kids Data Collection

“The Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act rightly recognizes that the internet's prevailing business model is harmful to young people,” said Josh Golin, executive director, Campaign for Commercial-Free Children. “The bill's strict limits on how kids' data can be collected, stored, and used — and its all-out ban on targeted ads for children under 13 — would give children a chance to develop a healthy relationship with media without being ensnared by Big Tech’s surveillance and marketing apparatuses. 

"We commend Senators Markey and Cassidy for introducing this landmark legislation and urge Congress to act quickly to put children’s needs ahead of commercial interests,” Golin added.

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.

Children's privacy advocates are calling on companies looking to potentially purchase TikTok to commit to "comprehensively" improve privacy and data practices when it comes to the millions of children who use the Chinese social media video platform.

Related: TikTok Reportedly Close to $30B Sale

In letters to TikTok suitors Walmart, Microsoft and Oracle, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) outline what they say is TikTok's "extensive" history of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and ask the companies, if they buy TikTok, to pledge to stop collecting and processing data from kids under 13.

Related: Senate Approves TikTok Ban Bill

"Whoever purchases TikTok will have access to a treasure trove of ill-gotten, sensitive children’s data," said Josh Golin, executive director of CCFC. "Any new owner must demonstrate their commitment to protecting young people’s privacy by immediately deleting any data that was illegally obtained from children under 13."

President Trump issued an executive order Aug. 6 that would ban the TikTok app in the U.S. unless parent ByteDance can find an American buyer, which launched the potential merger mating dance.

Related: TikTok Set to Sue Trump Administration

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and Center for Digital Democracy were among a coalition of 20 groups that filed a complaint at the Federal Trade Commission in May against TikTok, saying it was not adhering to its February 2019 settlement with the FTC.

TikTok (formerly Musical.ly) agreed to pay $5.7 million to settle the FTC allegation that it had illegally collected personal info from kids. In addition to the settlement, TikTok "agreed to change their practices to ensure COPPA compliance," the FTC said at the time.

Consumer and human rights groups from around the world are calling on governments and educators to protect children from commercial exploitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Related: Dems Seek Government Privacy Protections for EdTech-Collected Kids Data

Distance learning could become the new normal. For example, the White House is proposing that all school-age children get high-speed broadband access and teachers get training in online curricula as part of his plan to reopen the economy. 

Given that new reality, the groups want to make sure that in the rush to deliver online instruction, children's rights, to privacy and others, are not undermined with effects lasting beyond the crisis. 

Related: Dems Seek Distance Learning Dollars in COVID-19 Aid Bill

In an "open letter," the groups ask data protection authorities to get together to publish guidelines, monitor companies and enforce compliance for e-learning platforms and edtech.  

And with government putting millions into edtech and connectivity, the groups want governments to take responsibility for the products they subsidize or recommend, and to make upholding children's rights--as recognized by the UN--the quid pro quo. 

Related: For all the Latest News on COVID-19 Impact on Industry

They said kids deserve a "secure space" to learn "without commercial interference," the point being that children's mandatory online participation not be "exploited." 

Singing on to the letter were Defend Digital Me; Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood; Access Now; Aspiration; Badass Teachers Association; Berkeley Media Studies Group; Biometrics-in-Schools; Bolo Bhi; Child Rights International Network (CRIN); Consumer Action; Consumer Federation of America; Corporate Accountability; Digital Rights Foundation; EDRi (European Digital Rights); Educadigital Institute - Open Education Initiative; Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA) Inc.; Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC); El Instituto Panameño de Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologías (IPANDETEC); Instituto Alana; New Dream; Obligation, Inc.; Open Rights Group; Parent Coalition for Student Privacy; Parents Across America; Parents Together; P.E.A.C.E. (Peace Educators Allied For Children Everywhere); Privacy International; Privacy Salon; Public Citizen; Public Knowledge; TEDIC (The Association of Technology, Education, Development, Research, Communication); TRUCE (Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Childhood Entertainment); and Women Leading in AI Network.

Although the need for a national privacy policy -- rather than evolving patchwork of state-by-state rules -- and the role of artificial intelligence permeated the dense discussions at the annual State of the Net conference, sessions on streaming media growth and the evolving role of media platforms put attention on current business issues that may have more immediate impact.

With its usual line-up of policymakers and its self-described position as "America's Premiere Internet Policy" event, SOTN2020 offered its usual array of telecom and media status reports during a day-long program in Washington on Tuesday, Jan. 28.

The "Video Streaming" session generated a forecast that after the inevitable shakeout of over-the-top providers, a new ecosystem will emerge that will be a reverse mirror image of today's structure, with ad-supported streaming services taking the role of today's "free" broadcasters and bundles of paid OTT channels replacing today's cable TV bundles.

Kannan Venkateshwar, a Barclays managing director focused on media/telecom research, predicted that "Netflix becomes the traditional broadcast network" because it carries a variety of program categories while other OTT services concentrate on specific audiences (such as Disney+ for families, NBC's Peacock for comedies).

Venkateshwar also examined the shifting global nature of streaming content. With such international expectations, "the scale of spending has gone up," he said. Although Netflix and other firms are creating specialized content in some countries or languages, most OTT content is intended for worldwide distribution. He said the only example of largely domestic content is sports (except for global soccer).

The SOTN discussion took place just as a consultant's analysis emerged, envisioning 50% global OTT revenue growth by 2024, surpassing $200 billion by then.

Another of the panelists, Daniel Ornstein, co-founder and CEO of Bundler Inc., said that a viewer's future collection of streaming channels is not like cable.

"You can pick and delete something" at anytime," he said, underscoring the problems that process will create for broadband pricing, especially if carriers continue to package some OTT channels, such as the current Verizon and Disney+ combination. Ornstein, who heads the new California aggregator and marketplace for media subscriptions, was on the FCC chairman's staff about 10 years ago and later worked at Warner Bros. Entertainment and Warner Bros. TV. He predicted that "companies are going to overlap" and eventually the ecosystem will settle into a combination of new streaming structures.

"There will not be a total revolution of everything direct-to-consumer," he said, opining that "exclusivity is here to stay." He added: "Once you focus on content investment windows, carriage rights are a good way to generate revenue."

Larry Downes, an analyst, pointed to the different ways that Generations X, Y and Z (millennials) embrace streaming media, contending that the youngest cohort sees no difference between "professional" productions and self-produced content (such as small YouTube videos). He insists that these variations will require new business models, which will complicate the evolution of streaming channels.

DeShuna Spencer, founder and CEO of kweliTV, a black-focused streaming service, expects that the "streaming wars" will open opportunities for specialized content channels such as her service. While the major OTT companies are "fighting for the same content," ventures such as kweliTV can develop targeted audience. Spencer also pointed out that her company pays for programming as it runs, not up front as the major streamers do.

"Over time, maybe five years, spending will dry up," she predicted.

The Future of Platforms: Not Just Antitrust

With the evocative question of whether Tech Platforms will "Reign or Get Reined In?" the session on what will happen to the major platforms during the next 10 years generated a predictable range of responses. Most of the panelists agreed that in this volatile category, it's hard to predict whether Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook or other currently dominant players will continue their juggernauts -- or how upstarts might plunge into these roles.

Their fates will proceed "completely irrespective of what [happens] with antitrust," said Ben Sperry, associate director-legal research at the International Center for Law and Economics. "If we move away from consumer welfare, you'll see a different kind of economy -- not necessarily good for consumers."

Steve DelBianco, president/CEO of NetChoice, warned that antitrust actions could affect innovation, since small companies often build strategies with expectations of being acquired by a major provider, such as the platform companies.

Privacy also plays a major role in the outlook for platform providers during the coming decade, the panelists agreed.

Katie McInnes, policy counsel at Consumer Reports, characterized "privacy as a luxury good." She and other panelists joined the chorus urging a national privacy policy to avert confusing state-by-state laws.

DelBianco also predicted that by 2030, "Government will still be trying to figure out how to regulate artificial intelligence," which will continue to be a major initiative of all the platform providers.

Privacy Focus, Including New Protections for Teens

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who chairs the House Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, said she is preparing legislation that will restrict digital messages including some advertising to older children (presumably ages 13 to 17). The expansion of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (which covers children 12 years and younger) is expected to be introduced later this week. (Update: Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor of Florida introduced the PRIVCY Act on Jan. 30.)

"We think it's important to put protections into the law to protect older kids," she said, citing it as part of "baseline privacy law." Although the proposed legislation will primarily be aimed at online social media, it may affect other media platforms. Schakowsky cited the need for such legislation because of the "propaganda of fake news" that will emerge during the upcoming election campaign.

“I feel a sense of urgency that we could have a complete fantasy of a message campaign in this election,” she said.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) emphasized the problems that are taking shape as many states -- notably the new California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) -- that have the potential to wreak havoc on national policy.

"It's easy to see a patchwork of laws that will be confusing to consumers and difficult for businesses," she said. Rodgers, the ranking member of the House Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee, also pointed out that the parent Commerce Committee is still focusing on mapping of broadband in order to resolve lingering issues about the digital divide, which affects her semi-rural district.

Artificial intelligence was the sole theme of a final keynote by Dr. Lynn Parker, deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer. She described the pending AI regulatory plan to "consider AI on a use-by-use perspective." She also addressed the emerging controversy about over-reliance on AI, insisting that it "is unethical not to use AI if it can be beneficial."

"Global leadership in AI matters," she said, but admitted that it is "not reasonable to believe every country will have the same approach to AI."

"We're still a ways away from defining" U.S. policy, Parker said.

The Federal Trade Commission has given commenters a couple more days to weigh in on its enforcement of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act via its COPPA Rule. It had already extended the deadline from Oct. 23 to Monday (Dec. 9).

The new deadline is by 11:59 p.m. on Dec. 11. 

That is because the federal government's Regulations.gov portal is "temporarily inaccessible." 

The FTC is also allowing commenters to submit their comments by e-mail (secretary@ftc.gov). The vote to extend was 5.0.

Child advocacy and privacy groups are calling on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate several smartwatch brands and the risks they pose to children, part of a global effort, they said. They also want them pulled from store shelves.

The groups, which include Consumers Union, Public Citizen and the Center for Digital Democracy, said in a filing with the FTC that the watches, essentially wearable smartphones, have "significant" security flaws and lack privacy protections.

Privacy groups are filing similar complaints in Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and the UK.

The research that led to the filings was conducted by the Norwegian Consumer Council, the same group whose investigation prompted a complaint against the Cayla "smart" doll over similar data security concerns.

Related Video: #WatchOut (by the Norwegian Consumer Council)

While the watches are meant to allow parents to keep up with their children, the groups said research has shown that a stranger can "take control of the watch with a few simple steps, allowing them to eavesdrop on conversations the child is having with others, track and communicate with the child, and access stored data about the child’s location."

The groups argued that violates both Sec. 5 prohibitions on false and deceptive practices and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

"The devices create a new vulnerability that allows a third party to find a young child at precisely the time when the child is separated from a parent or guardian," they said.

Related: Markey, Barton Press Mattel on Baby Monitor Privacy

"The Trump Administration and the Congress must bring America’s consumer product safety rules into the 21st century,” said Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy. “In the rush to make money off of kids’ connected digital devices, manufacturers and retailers are failing to ensure these products are truly safe. In today’s connected world that means protecting the privacy and security of the consumer — especially of children.

"Both the FTC and the CPSC [Consumer Product Safety Commission] must be given the power to regulate the rapidly growing Internet of Things marketplace,” he added. "These devices are supposed to give parents peace of mind and enable secure communications. But some can be hacked; they don’t use encryption, and the 'SOS' function may not work."

Chester was one of the earliest and strongest voices for more child privacy and data protections given the potential of online platforms, and now the growing internet of things, to collect and share information.

The groups gave the FTC credit for having extended privacy protections to children and recognizing the risks of interconnected devices, but said the FTC in the past has also failed to take enforcement action on previous complaints about child safety.

They cited, for example, a 2010 agreement between New York state and a company that stopped selling kids' online conversations to marketers, a complaint consumer groups also lodged with the FTC, which took no action.