Within the weeks because the Federal Commerce Fee sued Kochava in late August for allegedly promoting delicate geolocation information, some have puzzled: Why Kochava?
Kochava isn’t the one advert tech firm with a location information enterprise. And it arguably has (effectively, had) a decrease profile than SafeGraph, for instance, which has been excoriated within the press for promoting info tied to abortion clinic visits.
After the FTC filed its swimsuit, Jessica Lee, a associate on the legislation agency Loeb & Loeb and chair of its privateness, safety and information improvements apply, made the purpose on Twitter that the FTC’s criticism in opposition to Kochava learn like “an indictment of the enterprise mannequin greater than an indictment in regards to the particular practices of 1 enterprise.”
As in, an indictment of advert tech.
Earlier this week, AdExchanger requested FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya throughout his keynote on the NAD’s convention on promoting legislation in Washington, DC, why the fee determined to deal with Kochava quite than some other advert tech firm with a location information enterprise.
And, in line with Bedoya, Kochava was singled out for a purpose.
“I think you’re proper, that different corporations interact in the identical practices, however not all of them interact within the practices described in that criticism,” Bedoya mentioned. “That is likely one of the causes … I used to be desirous to help our motion in opposition to that firm.”
The FTC’s reasoning
One of many principal assertions in the FTC’s criticism is that the info Kochava lists in its information market, generally known as the Kochava Collective, isn’t anonymized – and uncooked information isn’t good in your well being.
The FTC contends that Kochava did not adequately shield its information from public publicity and that, till a minimum of June 2022, the corporate allowed anybody with an AWS account to simply receive a free information pattern and entry to extra information containing info tied to tens of thousands and thousands of cell advert IDs.
This information might then be mixed with different information (like somebody’s house tackle from public information or an inference primarily based on the truth that a particular cell phone spends each evening in the identical bodily place) to establish people and observe their visits to delicate areas, together with dependancy restoration amenities, reproductive well being clinics and locations of worship.
What the criticism doesn’t say is whether or not this was really occurring – however the potential for hurt was sufficient for the FTC to take motion.
And there’s precedent for the FTC taking a stand in opposition to the use or potential use of delicate information in a method that customers wouldn’t moderately anticipate.
That is in line with different FTC circumstances like Sears and Vizio the place the FTC has mentioned that *delicate* information carries heightened protections — secondary processing unrelated to the transaction and never on the route of the buyer could also be per se unlawful. https://t.co/HfZMA4Dk9V pic.twitter.com/tf1z0W3qPL
— Justin Brookman (@JustinBrookman) August 29, 2022
Setting an instance
And talking of precedent, that’s another excuse why Bedoya voted in favor of submitting the criticism in opposition to Kochava. (The top vote was 4-1 in favor, with outgoing FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips as the one dissenting opinion.)
Though FTC Chair Lina Khan units the fee’s general technique, Bedoya mentioned that he’s “significantly enthusiastic about” circumstances like Kochava “the place precedents may very well be established that might inform business as an entire.”
Bedoya couldn’t say far more, as a result of the Kochava case is actively in litigation, however he did say that when circumstances with the potential to create precedent land on his desk, “these are those I spend probably the most time on, probably the most time learning and probably the most time speaking to [FTC] workers about.”
