The original legislative intent of COPP A was to put parents in control of protecting their children's personal information online and still "preserve[ ] the interactivity of children's experience on the Internet .... "2 By holding creators strictly liable, the FTC is removing parents from the process, when originally COPPA was about getting parents' consent. With an even further stray from legislative intent, the FTC is using COPP A to protect children from the decision 81 % of parents are making, to knowingly let their young children watch YouTube. 3 This strongly suggests that parents are not significantly concerned about the privacy issues the FTC is trying to prevent. 4 Parents are even helping their young children get around age gates. 5 This suggests that parents want to preserve the interactivity of children's experience on the internet, despite terms of service requirements from social media sites prompted by government regulation. While the FTC may feel that parents do not understand the harms of personalized ads, COPPA was never intended to allow five unelected decision-makers to protect children from their parents' decisions regarding content and advertising. For those parents who are concerned that personalized ads on YouTube violate their children's privacy, the free Y ouTube Kids app is available. Most parents prefer to use Y ouTube Main because of its additional features and fewer barriers. Creators should not be punished when parents choose to let their kids use YouTube Main instead ofYouTube Kids, and that is exactly what this new enforcement is doing. This expansion of regulation provides little protection for children and causes more harm. The FTC knows that targeting creators will cause quality family-friendly content on YouTube to shrink, while more mature content grows - yet kids will still be watching. 6 The FTC is even considering broadening the definition of "child-directed" to include "child-attractive," which would only exacerbate this problem. I agree with Commissioner Phillips when he said: "Just because we are talking about privacy- or kids - more regulation is not necessarily better, including for kids."7 While large corporations will survive these changes, small business creators face terminating employees, changing their business model, or shutting down production altogether. These regulations will particularly hurt young underserved audiences who participate in YouTube communities on topics like special needs, faith, and minority groups. Limiting quality free content for kids also expands the digital divide. Creators who were making great content on free ad-supported platforms are now turning to make content on subscription-based platforms, like Netflix and Amazon Prime. More paywalls on quality family-friendly content leaves children from low-income families watching the "dessert of crap"8 that will be left on YouTube if the FTC overregulates this space. Turning off personalized ads on kids' content also encourages increased product placement and brand deals within kids' content. The FTC is regulating content when their enforcement punishes creators making "child-directed" content. Creators face turning off their primary revenue source from Y ouTube or face potential COPP A fines up to $42,530 per video. The regulation and definition of "child-directed" is vague. While parents may be concerned about inappropriate content on Y ouTube, it is not appropriate to use a privacy law like COPP A as a mechanism to regulate content. If the FTC is going to use COPP A to continue to regulate content, it needs to provide creators with enforcement clarity.
Sincerely, Doc Brown
