video privacy protection act

amc-to-pay-$8m-for-allegedly-violating-1988-law-with-use-of-meta-pixel

AMC to pay $8M for allegedly violating 1988 law with use of Meta Pixel

AMC, facebook, free speech, Google, hidive, Meta, Online Privacy, Policy, shudder, streaming services, sundancenow, Twitter, video privacy protection act, vppa, X / /

Stream like no one is watching —

Proposed settlement impacts millions using AMC apps like Shudder and AMC+.

–

AMC to pay $8M for allegedly violating 1988 law with use of Meta Pixel

On Thursday, AMC notified subscribers of a proposed $8.3 million settlement that provides awards to an estimated 6 million subscribers of its six streaming services: AMC+, Shudder, Acorn TV, ALLBLK, SundanceNow, and HIDIVE.

The settlement comes in response to allegations that AMC illegally shared subscribers’ viewing history with tech companies like Google, Facebook, and X (aka Twitter) in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

Passed in 1988, the VPPA prohibits AMC and other video service providers from sharing “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider.” It was originally passed to protect individuals’ right to private viewing habits, after a journalist published the mostly unrevealing video rental history of a judge, Robert Bork, who had been nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan.

The so-called “Bork Tapes” revealed little—other than that the judge frequently rented spy thrillers and British costume dramas—but lawmakers recognized that speech could be chilled by monitoring anyone’s viewing habits. While the law was born in the era of Blockbuster Video, subscribers suing AMC wrote in their amended complaint that “the importance of legislation like the VPPA in the modern era of datamining is more pronounced than ever before.”

According to subscribers suing, AMC allegedly installed tracking technologies—including the Meta Pixel, the X Tracking Pixel, and Google Tracking Technology—on its website, allowing their personally identifying information to be connected with their viewing history.

Some trackers, like the Meta Pixel, required AMC to choose what kind of activity can be tracked, and subscribers claimed that AMC had willingly opted into sharing video names and URLs with Meta, along with a Facebook ID. “Anyone” could use the Facebook ID, subscribers said, to identify the AMC subscribers “simply by entering https://www.facebook.com/[unencrypted FID]/” into a browser.

X’s ID could similarly be de-anonymized, subscribers alleged, by using tweeterid.com.

AMC “could easily program its AMC Services websites so that this information is not disclosed” to tech companies, subscribers alleged.

Denying wrongdoing, AMC has defended its use of tracking technologies but is proposing to settle with subscribers to avoid uncertain outcomes from litigation, the proposed settlement said.

A hearing to approve the proposed settlement has been scheduled for May 16.

If it’s approved, AMC has agreed to “suspend, remove, or modify operation of the Meta Pixel and other Third-Party Tracking Technologies so that use of such technologies on AMC Services will not result in AMC’s disclosure to the third-party technology companies of the specific video content requested or obtained by a specific individual.”

Google and X did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment. Meta declined to comment.

All registered users of AMC services who “requested or obtained video content on at least one of the six AMC services” between January 18, 2021, and January 10, 2024, are currently eligible to submit claims under the proposed settlement. The deadline to submit is April 9.

In addition to distributing the $8.3 million settlement fund among class members, subscribers will receive a free one-week digital subscription.

According to AMC’s notice to subscribers (full disclosure, I am one), AMC’s agreement to avoid sharing subscribers’ viewing histories may change if the VPPA is amended, repealed, or invalidated. If the law changes to permit sharing viewing data at the core of subscribers’ claim, AMC may resume sharing that information with tech companies.

That day could come soon if Patreon has its way. Recently, Patreon asked a federal judge to rule that the VPPA is unconstitutional.

Patreon’s lawsuit is similar in its use of the Meta Pixel, allegedly violating the VPPA by sharing video views on its platform with Meta.

Patreon has argued that the VPPA is unconstitutional because it chills speech. Patreon said that the law was enacted “for the express purpose of silencing disclosures about political figures and their video-watching, an issue of undisputed continuing public interest and concern.”

According to Patreon, the VPPA narrowly prohibits video service providers from sharing video titles, but not from sharing information that people may wish to keep private, such as “the genres, performers, directors, political views, sexual content, and every other detail of pre-recorded video that those consumers watch.”

Therefore, Patreon argued, the VPPA “restrains speech” while “doing little if anything to protect privacy” and never protecting privacy “by the least restrictive means.”

That lawsuit remains ongoing, but Patreon’s position is likely to be met with opposition from experts who typically also defend freedom of speech. Experts at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, like AMC subscribers suing, consider the VPPA one of America’s “strongest protections of consumer privacy against a specific form of data collection.” And the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has already moved to convince the court to reject Patreon’s claim, describing the VPPA in a blog as an “essential” privacy protection.

“EFF is second to none in fighting for everyone’s First Amendment rights in court,” EFF’s blog said. “But Patreon’s First Amendment argument is wrong and misguided. The company seeks to elevate its speech interests over those of Internet users who benefit from the VPPA’s protections.”

AMC to pay $8M for allegedly violating 1988 law with use of Meta Pixel Read More »

patreon:-blocking-platforms-from-sharing-user-video-data-is-unconstitutional

Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

corporate surveillance, facebook, Government surveillance, Meta Pixel, online advertising, Online Privacy, patreon, Policy, video privacy protection act / /
Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional

Patreon, a monetization platform for content creators, has asked a federal judge to deem unconstitutional a rarely invoked law that some privacy advocates consider one of the nation’s “strongest protections of consumer privacy against a specific form of data collection.” Such a ruling would end decades that the US spent carefully shielding the privacy of millions of Americans’ personal video viewing habits.

The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) blocks businesses from sharing data with third parties on customers’ video purchases and rentals. At a minimum, the VPPA requires written consent each time a business wants to share this sensitive video data—including the title, description, and, in most cases, the subject matter.

The VPPA was passed in 1988 in response to backlash over a reporter sharing the video store rental history of a judge, Robert Bork, who had been nominated to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan. The report revealed that Bork apparently liked spy thrillers and British costume dramas and suggested that maybe the judge had a family member who dug John Hughes movies.

Although the videos that Bork rented “revealed nothing particularly salacious” about the judge, the intent of reporting the “Bork Tapes” was to confront the judge “with his own vulnerability to privacy harms” during a time when the Supreme Court nominee had “criticized the constitutional right to privacy” as “a loose canon in the law,” Harvard Law Review noted.

Even though no harm was caused by sharing the “Bork Tapes,” policymakers on both sides of the aisle agreed that First Amendment protections ought to safeguard the privacy of people’s viewing habits, or else risk chilling their speech by altering their viewing habits. The US government has not budged on this stance since, supporting a lawsuit filed in 2022 by Patreon users who claimed that while no harms were caused, damages are owed after Patreon allegedly violated the VPPA by sharing data on videos they watched on the platform with Facebook through Meta Pixel without users’ written consent.

“Restricting the ability of those who possess a consumer’s video purchase, rental, or request history to disclose such information directly advances the goal of keeping that information private and protecting consumers’ intellectual freedom,” the Department of Justice’s brief said.

The Meta Pixel is a piece of code used by companies like Patreon to better target content to users by tracking their activity and monitoring conversions on Meta platforms. “In simplest terms,” Patreon users said in an amended complaint, “the Pixel allows Meta to know what video content one of its users viewed on Patreon’s website.”

The Pixel is currently at the center of a pile of privacy lawsuits, where people have accused various platforms of using the Pixel to covertly share sensitive data without users’ consent, including health and financial data.

Several lawsuits have specifically lobbed VPPA claims, which users have argued validates the urgency of retaining the VPPA protections that Patreon now seeks to strike. The DOJ argued that “the explosion of recent VPPA cases” is proof “that the disclosures the statute seeks to prevent are a legitimate concern,” despite Patreon’s arguments that the statute does “nothing to materially or directly advance the privacy interests it supposedly was enacted to protect.”

Patreon’s attack on the VPPA

Patreon has argued in a recent court filing that the VPPA was not enacted to protect average video viewers from embarrassing and unwarranted disclosures but “for the express purpose of silencing disclosures about political figures and their video-watching, an issue of undisputed continuing public interest and concern.”

That’s one of many ways that the VPPA silences speech, Patreon argued, by allegedly preventing disclosures regarding public figures that are relevant to public interest.

Among other “fatal flaws,” Patreon alleged, the VPPA “restrains speech” while “doing little if anything to protect privacy” and never protecting privacy “by the least restrictive means.”

Patreon claimed that the VPPA is too narrow, focusing only on pre-recorded videos. It prevents video service providers from disclosing to any other person the titles of videos that someone watched, but it does not necessarily stop platforms from sharing information about “the genres, performers, directors, political views, sexual content, and every other detail of pre-recorded video that those consumers watch,” Patreon claimed.

Patreon: Blocking platforms from sharing user video data is unconstitutional Read More »