Current:Home > NewsAmazon must pay over $30 million over claims it invaded privacy with Ring and Alexa -VisionFunds
Amazon must pay over $30 million over claims it invaded privacy with Ring and Alexa
View
Date:2025-04-15 03:10:25
Amazon will pay more than $30 million in fines to settle alleged privacy violations involving its voice assistant Alexa and doorbell camera Ring, according to federal filings.
In one lawsuit, the Federal Trade Commission claims the tech company violated privacy laws by keeping recordings of children's conversations with its voice assistant Alexa, and in another that its employees have monitored customers' Ring camera recordings without their consent.
The FTC alleges Amazon held onto children's voice and geolocation data indefinitely, illegally used it to improve its algorithm and kept transcripts of their interactions with Alexa despite parents' requests to delete them.
The alleged practices would violate the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, or COPPA, which requires online companies to alert and obtain consent from parents when they gather data for children under age 13 and allow parents to delete the data at will.
In addition to the $25 million civil penalty, Amazon would not be able to use data that has been requested to be deleted. The company also would have to remove children's inactive Alexa accounts and be required to notify its customers about the FTC's actions against the company.
"Amazon's history of misleading parents, keeping children's recordings indefinitely, and flouting parents' deletion requests violated COPPA and sacrificed privacy for profits," said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a statement. "COPPA does not allow companies to keep children's data forever for any reason, and certainly not to train their algorithms."
Until September 2019, Alexa's default settings were to store recordings and transcripts indefinitely. Amazon said it uses the recordings to better understand speech patterns and respond to voice commands, the complaint says.
After the FTC intervened at the time, Amazon added a setting to automatically delete data after three or 18 months, but still kept the indefinite setting as the default.
Amazon said in a statement it disagrees with the FTC's findings and does not believe it violated any laws.
"We take our responsibilities to our customers and their families very seriously," it said. "We have consistently taken steps to protect customer privacy by providing clear privacy disclosures and customer controls, conducting ongoing audits and process improvements, and maintaining strict internal controls to protect customer data."
The company said it requires parental consent for all children's profiles, provides a Children's Privacy Disclosure elaborating on how it uses children's data, allows child recordings and transcripts to be deleted in the Alexa app and erases child profiles that have been inactive for at least 18 months.
More than 800,000 children under age 13 have their own Alexa accounts, according to the complaint.
The FTC claims that when these issues were brought to Amazon's attention, it did not take action to remedy them.
In a separate lawsuit, the FTC seeks a $5.8 million fine for Amazon over claims employees and contractors at Ring — a home surveillance company Amazon bought in 2018 — had full access to customers' videos.
Amazon is also accused of not taking its security protections seriously, as hackers were able to break into two-way video streams to sexually proposition people, call children racial slurs and physically threaten families for ransom.
Despite this, the FTC says, Ring did not implement multi-factor authentication until 2019.
In addition to paying the $5.8 million, which will be issued as customer refunds, Ring would have to delete customers' videos and faces from before 2018, notify customers about the FTC's actions and report any unauthorized access to videos to the FTC.
"Ring's disregard for privacy and security exposed consumers to spying and harassment," Levine said. "The FTC's order makes clear that putting profit over privacy doesn't pay."
The proposed orders require approval from federal judges.
veryGood! (4985)
Related
- The Louvre will be renovated and the 'Mona Lisa' will have her own room
- Indicators of the Week: tips, eggs and whisky
- Scientists Join Swiss Hunger Strike to Raise Climate Alarm
- Maya Rudolph is the new face of M&M's ad campaign
- Off the Grid: Sally breaks down USA TODAY's daily crossword puzzle, Hi Hi!
- 5 takeaways from the massive layoffs hitting Big Tech right now
- Why higher winter temperatures are affecting the logging industry
- The CEO of TikTok will testify before Congress amid security concerns about the app
- Realtor group picks top 10 housing hot spots for 2025: Did your city make the list?
- Here's what the latest inflation report means for your money
Ranking
- The company planning a successor to Concorde makes its first supersonic test
- Five Things To Know About Fracking in Pennsylvania. Are Voters Listening?
- Biden Has Promised to Kill the Keystone XL Pipeline. Activists Hope He’ll Nix Dakota Access, Too
- Farmers Insurance pulls out of Florida, affecting 100,000 policies
- Dick Vitale announces he is cancer free: 'Santa Claus came early'
- Marc Anthony and Wife Nadia Ferreira Welcome First Baby Together Just in Time for Father's Day
- For a Climate-Concerned President and a Hostile Senate, One Technology May Provide Common Ground
- How the pandemic changed the rules of personal finance
Recommendation
Alex Murdaugh’s murder appeal cites biased clerk and prejudicial evidence
These formerly conjoined twins spent 134 days in the hospital in Texas. Now they're finally home.
A big bank's big mistake, explained
The Repercussions of a Changing Climate, in 5 Devastating Charts
Meta donates $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund
Environmental Justice Plays a Key Role in Biden’s Covid-19 Stimulus Package
Cosmetic surgeon who streamed procedures on TikTok loses medical license
The First Native American Cabinet Secretary Visits the Land of Her Ancestors and Sees Firsthand the Obstacles to Compromise