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.

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.