SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
David Monahan, CCFC: david@commercialfreechildhood.org; (617) 896-9397
Jeff Chester, CDD: jeff@democraticmedia.org; (202) 494-7100
Today, in conjunction with a major new study that details a host of concerning practices in apps targeted to young children, a coalition of 22 consumer and public health advocacy groups called on the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") to investigate the preschool app market. The advocates' letter urges the FTC to hold app makers accountable for unfair and deceptive practices, including falsely marketing apps that require in-app purchases as "free" and manipulating children to watch ads and make purchases.
The study, "Advertising in Young Children's Apps," was led by researchers at University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children's Hospital, and examined the type and content of advertising in 135 children's apps. Researchers found a number of troubling advertising practices, including apps that force kids to watch ads or make in-app purchases in order to advance in the game, ads disguised as game play, and beloved characters urging children to make in-app purchases. Advocates assert that these practices are deceptive to kids and parents alike.
"This groundbreaking study demonstrates that popular apps for preschoolers are rife with marketing that takes unfair advantage of children's developmental vulnerabilities," said CCFC's Executive Director Josh Golin. "Disguising ads as part of game play and using cartoon characters to manipulate children into making in-app purchases is not only unethical, but illegal. We urge the FTC to take swift and decisive action to hold app developers accountable for their unfair and deceptive marketing."
Apps in the study, many of them marketed as "educational," often contained video ads that interrupted gameplay and were difficult to click out of without being taken to the app store. Some apps required children to interact with an ad, often by playing a game, before they could close it. In some apps, like Espace Publishing's Kids Animal Jigsaw Puzzle, pop-up video ads took up about as much time as gameplay. Other apps contained advertising that was disguised as play: In Disney's Olaf Adventures, a glowing cake invites children to tap it, but when they do, they find not a game but a pop-up asking them to "protect Anna's cake" by paying $3.99.
Popular characters also pushed kids to buy. In Budge's Barbie Magical Fashion, which has more than 20 million downloads, Barbie encourages children to choose dresses, shoes, and accessories that need to be purchased. In Budge's Strawberry Shortcake Sweet Shop, Strawberry Shortcake suggests that kids purchase premium tools that will make getting stars "even easier."
"With young children now using mobile devices on an average of one hour a day, it's important to understand how this type of commercial exposure may impact children's health and wellbeing," said Jenny Radesky, M.D., a developmental behavioral expert and pediatrician at Mott Children's Hospital and a senior author of the new report. "Our findings show that the early childhood app market is a wild west, with a lot of apps appearing more focused on making money than the child's play experience. This has important implications for advertising regulation, the ethics of child app design, as well as how parents discern which children's apps are worth downloading."
The letter to the FTC was drafted by the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), with assistance from the Communications & Technology Law Clinic in the Institute for Public Representation ("IPR") at Georgetown University Law Center. Joining CCFC and CDD in signing the letter were Badass Teachers Association, Centre for Child Honouring, Color of Change, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Watchdog, Corporate Accountability, Defending the Early Years, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Media Education Foundation, New Dream, Open MIC (Open Media and Information Companies Initiative), Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, Parents Across America, Parents Television Council, Peace Educators Allied for Children Everywhere (P.E.A.C.E.), Public Citizen, the Story of Stuff, TRUCE (Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Childhood Entertainment), and USPIRG.
Angela Campbell, CCFC Board Member and Director of the Communications and Technology Clinic at Georgetown Law, said "Not only do these apps take unfair advantage of children, they are marketed to parents in a false and misleading manner. A game that requires in-app purchases to play is not 'free.' And distracting features and frequent advertising exposure reduces whatever limited educational value these games might have in the first place."
"This study provides compelling evidence the children's app industry is failing the needs of children and parents," said Kathryn C. Montgomery, Ph.D., Professor Emerita at American University and Research Director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "The research adds to a growing body of scholarship documenting unethical and illegal practices in the children's app marketplace. The FTC should act swiftly to hold app developers accountable." She added, "The study also raises concerns about Google's role in featuring these apps in its Play Store. The so-called 'hybrid monetization' business model, when applied to children, is not only highly inappropriate, but also harmful."
To read the statement in full: https://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/sites/default/files/devel-generate/piw/apps_FTC_letter.pdf
Fairplay, formerly known as Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, educates the public about commercialism's impact on kids' wellbeing and advocates for the end of child-targeted marketing. Fairplay organizes parents to hold corporations accountable for their marketing practices, advocates for policies to protect kids, and works with parents and professionals to reduce children's screen time.
"Trump cozying up with the industry is wildly unpopular," asserted climate campaigner Jamie Henn.
Noting former U.S. President Donald Trump's coziness with the fossil fuel industry and the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters want politicians to tackle its greed, one prominent climate campaigner urged Vice President Kamala Harris—the Democratic nominee—to highlight her Republican opponent's Big Oil ties during Tuesday night's debate.
"Harris should absolutely go after Trump for being in the pocket of Big Oil," Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn said on social media, adding that "89% of Americans want politicians to crack down on Big Oil price gouging."
In a
separate post, Henn urged ABC News, which is hosting the first—and likely only—2024 presidential debate, to ask the candidates about the climate emergency.
"Ninety-nine percent of Americans have experienced some form of extreme weather this year," he wrote. "If ABC News doesn't ask about the climate crisis this evening, it's journalistic malpractice."
On Tuesday, a trio of Democratic U.S. lawmakers called on fossil fuel executives to comply with a request for "information regarding quid pro quo solicitations" from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who earlier this year promised to gut climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his Republican presidential campaign.
Climate campaigners have been warning of the dangers of a second term for Trump, who during his previous administration rolled back regulations protecting the climate, environment, and biodiversity, resulting in increased pollution and
premature deaths and fueling catastrophic planetary heating.
"If a Trump administration was merely going to be a four-year interregnum, it would be annoying. But in fact it comes at precisely the moment when we need, desperately,
acceleration," 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote in a Guardian opinion article last week.
"The world's climate scientists have done their best to set out a timetable: Cut emissions in half by 2030 or see the possibilities of anything like the Paris pathway, holding temperature increases to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, disappear," he continued. "That cut is on the bleeding edge of the technically possible, but only if everyone is acting in good faith. And the next presidential term will end in January of 2029, which is 11 months before 2030."
"If we elect Donald Trump, we may feel the effects not for years, and not for a generation," McKibben added. "We may read our mistake in the geological record a million years hence. This one really counts."
"Anti-abortion opponents are trying everything to keep abortion rights questions away from voters—but their dirty tricks keep failing," said one campaigner.
Reproductive freedom defenders on Tuesday cheered the Missouri Supreme Court's restoration of an abortion rights referendum—one of numerous 2024 ballot initiatives seeking to codify access to the healthcare procedure in states from coast to coast.
Missouri's highest court overturned Cole County Judge Christopher Limbaugh's ruling removing Amendment 3—also known as the Right to Reproductive Freedom initiative—from the November 5 ballot. Limbaugh ordered Republican Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who decertified the measure on Monday, to place it back on the ballot.
“The majority of Missourians want politicians out of their exam rooms, and today's decision by the Missouri Supreme Court keeps those politicians out of the voting booth as well," Planned Parenthood Great Rivers Action vice president of external affairs Margot Riphagen
said on social media. "On November 5, Missouri voters will declare their right to reproductive freedom, ensuring decisions about our bodies and our healthcare—including abortion—stay between us, our families, and our providers."
Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project—which provides funding and technical assistance to abortion rights campaigns in Missouri, Arizona, Montana, and Florida—said in a statement that "anti-abortion opponents are trying everything to keep abortion rights questions away from voters—but their dirty tricks keep failing. They know that when voters have a say, reproductive freedom is upheld time and time again."
Chris Hatfield, a lawyer representing abortion rights groups in the case, toldThe New York Times: "This is a big deal. The court will send a message today about whether, in our little corner of the democracy, the government will honor the will of the people, or will have it snatched away."
Missouri has one of the nation's most draconian abortion bans, with the procedure
prohibited in almost all circumstances "except in cases of medical emergency." The ban—which dates to 2019—took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturnedRoe v. Wade in 2022.
The Midwestern state joins
at least seven others in which abortion will be on the ballot this November. Every abortion rights ballot measure since the overturn of Roe has passed.
In neighboring Nebraska, the state Supreme Court on Monday
heard arguments in three lawsuits filed by activists trying to keep multiple abortion rights referenda off the ballot.
"You don't have to agree with the tactics of climate activists to understand the importance of defending their rights to protest and to free speech."
Rich Western countries have cracked down on non-violent climate protests with harsh laws and lengthy prison sentences, in violation of international law and the civil rights they champion globally, according to a report released Monday by Climate Rights International.
CRI, an advocacy group based in California, found that Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States had used heavy-handed measures to silence climate protesters in recent years. The measures aren't in keeping with the freedoms of expression, assembly, and association enshrined in international law, the report says.
"You don't have to agree with the tactics of climate activists to understand the importance of defending their rights to protest and to free speech," Brad Adams, CRI's executive director, said in a statement.
"Governments too often take such a strong and principled view about the right to peaceful protest in other countries—but when they don't like certain kinds of protests at home they pass laws and deploy the police to stop them," Adams toldThe Guardian.
“These defenders are basically trying to save the planet... These are people we should be protecting, but are seen by governments & corporations as a threat to be neutralised. In the end it’s about power & economics”
- @MaryLawlorhrdshttps://t.co/WPunhbDhCq
— Dr. Aaron Thierry (@ThierryAaron) September 10, 2024
The CRI report details relevant international law, disproportionate actions taken against climate protestors, and draconian new laws established in four of the countries studied. It also lays out recommendations and proposed reforms. CRI was founded in 2022 with a mission that states, "Progress on climate change cannot succeed without protecting human rights—and the fight for human rights cannot succeed without protecting our planet against climate change."
The examples of government crackdowns on climate protesters are numerous. In October 2022, Just Stop Oil activists Morgan Trowland and Marcus Decker climbed the cables of a major bridge in England and remained there for two days, causing police to stop traffic across the bridge. They called for the U.K. to stop licensing new oil and gas projects in the North Sea.
Trowland and Decker were each subsequently sentenced to more than 30 months in prison under a 2022 law passed by the Conservative government that led the country at the time. The sentencing prompted concern from a United Nations special rapporteur. An op-ed published Tuesday in The Guardian by Linda Lakhdhir, CRI's legal director, indicated that the Labour Party, now in power in the U.K., has not made a total break from the Conservatives policies.
A similar U.K. case involved Just Stop Oil's disruption of traffic on a highway in November 2022. Five campaigners, including Roger Hallam, well-known as a co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, had spoken on a Zoom call designed to increase participation in the direct action. This July, they were each sentenced to at least four years in jail, with Hallam receiving a five-year sentence—the longest sentences ever given in the country for non-violent protest, The Guardianreported.
Michel Forst, the U.N.'s special rapporteur on environmental defenders, attended part of the trial and called the sentencing a "dark day for peaceful environmental protest."
The attempt to silence climate protest has gone well beyond the U.K. In late August, a German court sentenced a 65-year-old man to nearly two years in prison for blocking a road as part of a protest. An Australian protester was given 15 months in prison for blocking one lane in a five-lane road for 28 minutes in 2022.
In April 2023, Joanna Smith was one of two protesters who put water-soluble paint on the protective case of a sculpture at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. She faced unexpectedly harsh federal charges—for two felonies—that could have landed her in prison for five years, and ended up making a plea deal for a 60-day sentence. Her fellow protestor, Timothy Martin, has a trial scheduled for November.
The report makes the following four general recommendations for governments:
The final recommendation stems from the fact that some jurisdictions and judges have prevented climate activists from stating the reasons for their civil disobedience in court. A U.K. judge, Silas Reid, has repeatedly denied climate protesters the ability to explain their motivations to juries, and even jailed two of them for contempt of court when they did so anyway.
The U.S. has not passed a harsh federal bill along the lines of the 2022 U.K. law, but many states have placed anti-protest laws on the books in recent years, and other state legislatures have considered measures, the report says. A 2019 Texas law strengthened penalties for protests around pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure, and a 2020 Tennessee law did so for "inconvenient" protests.
Harsh penalties are not the only danger that environmental defenders face. Nearly 200 environmental defenders were killed across the world in 2023, according a report released Tuesday by Global Witness.
Crackdowns on non-violent protest in rich Western countries extend beyond the issue of climate. Pro-Palestinian campus protests in the U.S. have also seen harsh crackdowns in the past year, with fears among campaigners that anti-protest measures could increase.
The report posits that governments should take a different approach to such civil disobedience, given its importance in spurring social change in the past.
"Governments should welcome peaceful protests as the sign of an engaged citizenry," the report says. "Those who engage in peaceful protest should, at a minimum, be assured that their rights will be respected."