California: Samsung Smart TV Privacy Class Action Targets Viewing Data

• A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung in California, alleging its Smart TVs capture and monetize real-time viewing data without user permission.
• Plaintiffs claim Samsung's Automated Content Recognition (ACR) technology records screen content twice per second, creating profiles for its advertising business.
• The lawsuit asserts Samsung misleads consumers about its data collection, failing to disclose third-party sharing or cross-device profiling.
• The complaint cites violations of multiple laws, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act.
• Plaintiffs seek an injunction against unauthorized ACR data collection and monetary damages.

The outcome of this case could set important precedents for the smart TV industry and other sectors employing similar data harvesting methods.

A new **Samsung Smart TV privacy class action California** has been initiated by purchasers who allege the company surreptitiously collects and monetizes their real-time viewing data without explicit consent. Filed in a Northern California federal court, the lawsuit names Danielle Tillery, Michael Walsh, and David Rosenberg as plaintiffs, all of whom acquired a Samsung Smart TV between 2014 and 2021. They contend that Samsung's practices constitute a significant violation of their data privacy.

The core of the complaint centers on Samsung's use of Automated Content Recognition (ACR) technology. This system, according to the plaintiffs, continuously captures audio and visual information from what is displayed on the television screen, subsequently leveraging this data for its advertising operations. The plaintiffs assert that they never knowingly agreed to such extensive data collection by Samsung or any third parties, and would not have purchased the Smart TVs, or paid the price they did, had they been aware of these data harvesting activities.

The **Samsung Smart TV data collection lawsuit** details how the company's ACR technology functions. It is alleged that the system captures a screen image approximately twice every second, converting it into a unique digital “fingerprint.” This process then aggregates identifiable viewing activity from various sources, including antenna and cable broadcasts, HDMI inputs, and streaming services, to construct monetizable consumer profiles.

Plaintiffs further claim that Samsung has employed ACR in its Smart TVs since at least 2013, initially through external vendors before developing its own integrated system that operates in conjunction with Samsung Ads, the company's electronic advertising division. They argue that Samsung misleads consumers by labeling this feature as “Viewing Information Services” in device menus and describing it as a means to provide “personalized recommendations” that enhance user experience. However, the lawsuit contends that Samsung fails to disclose that this feature continuously captures and analyzes screen content, transmits viewing data to third parties, or uses it to build cross-device profiles for targeted advertising. The plaintiffs emphasize that reasonable consumers would not expect their home television viewing to result in such continuous interception, analysis, and disclosure of their activity and identifiers to external entities.

The **Tillery v Samsung class action** brings forth 14 distinct claims, encompassing common law allegations such as invasion of privacy, negligence, and unjust enrichment. Crucially, it also cites violations of several key statutes, including the **California Invasion of Privacy Act Smart TV** provisions, the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the **Video Privacy Protection Act Samsung**, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. These legal challenges underscore the plaintiffs' assertion that Samsung's data collection practices are unlawful and deceptive.

In terms of relief, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would prohibit Samsung from operating its Automated Content Recognition technology to collect viewing activity without obtaining clear and separately disclosed user consent. Additionally, they are pursuing damages. Attorneys for the consumers, Sonjay Singh of Siri Glimstad and Andrew Ready Tate of Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise, highlighted the intrusive nature of the alleged data collection, stating that the TVs capture screen content roughly twice a second, creating a detailed profile of families' lives without informed consent. They stressed the importance of protecting the right to privacy within one's home.

This **Automated Content Recognition privacy litigation** represents a significant challenge to the data collection practices prevalent among smart device manufacturers. The lawsuit highlights the increasing scrutiny on how companies utilize advanced technologies to gather user information, particularly when such collection occurs without explicit, informed consent. The allegations against Samsung underscore a broader concern that consumers may be unknowingly subjected to extensive surveillance within their own homes through devices designed for entertainment.

The outcome of this case could set important precedents for the smart TV industry and other sectors employing similar data harvesting methods. It reinforces the need for greater transparency from manufacturers regarding their data practices and robust consent mechanisms for users. The legal action serves as a potent reminder that the monetization of user data, especially real-time viewing habits, must align with established privacy laws and consumer expectations, or face substantial legal repercussions.

This class action highlights the increasing legal scrutiny on data collection practices by smart device manufacturers, particularly concerning Automated Content Recognition (ACR) technology. Lawyers and compliance officers advising companies in the smart device sector, or those utilizing similar data collection methods, should review their user consent mechanisms and data disclosure policies to ensure compliance with state and federal privacy laws like CIPA and VPPA, mitigating potential litigation risks.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News