The COPPA law, supposed to protect children online, does not give sufficient protection.
Over 66% of iOS and 79% of Android most popular apps for children collect and send their personal information to the ad industry.
The Washington Post wrote: “Apple and Google run the app stores, so what are they doing about it? Enabling it.”
Children’s privacy should be a special consideration because many kids cannot distinguish between ads and the app’s content.
According to the Washington Post, citing SuperAwesome research, “By the time a child reaches 13, online advertising firms hold an average of 72 million data points about them.”
Pixalate identified over 391,000 child-directed apps across Google and Apple stores - a number that significantly exceeds the stores’ kids sections.
7% of all identified child-directed apps shared either location or internet address data, according to Pixalate’s research.
Apps are avoiding COPPA by labeling apps used by kids as dedicated to those 13+.
Apps should stop collecting data about kids younger than 13 or obtain parental consent, but many do not do it.
To limit the scale of children’s privacy abuse, Pixalate developed the ad industry’s first COPPA compliance technology to identify child-directed apps in Google and Apple App Stores. To learn more about this platform, meet with our experts.
Disclaimer: The content of this page reflects Pixalate’s opinions with respect to the factors that Pixalate believes can be useful to the digital media industry. Any proprietary data shared is grounded in Pixalate’s proprietary technology and analytics, which Pixalate is continuously evaluating and updating. Any references to outside sources should not be construed as endorsements. Pixalate’s opinions are just that - opinion, not facts or guarantees.
Per the MRC,
“'Fraud' is not intended to represent fraud as defined in various laws, statutes and ordinances or as conventionally used in U.S. Court or other
legal proceedings, but rather a custom definition strictly for advertising measurement purposes. Also per the MRC,
“‘Invalid Traffic’ is defined generally as traffic
that does not meet certain ad serving quality or completeness criteria, or otherwise does not represent legitimate ad traffic that should be included in measurement counts.
Among the reasons why ad traffic may be deemed invalid is it is a result of non-human traffic (spiders, bots, etc.), or activity designed to produce fraudulent traffic.”