Skip to main content

FTC issues report and guidelines on cross-device tracking


Given audience fragmentation across devices and platforms, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of tracking and data to get a more complete view of the customer. Cross-device tracking is now on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) radar, as a kind of more sophisticated sibling of behavioral targeting.

Last fall, the FTC held a workshop for stakeholders and interested parties in Washington, D.C. Earlier this week it released a report based on on that meeting providing an overview of the state of cross-device tracking and making recommendations about privacy, consumer consent and security.

The FTC report discusses the two types of tracking: probabilistic (data matching) and deterministic (signed-in usage). In its research, the agency found that nearly 90 percent of the sites it examined were engaged in some version cross-device tracking, either through first-party log-ins or device/data matching.

However, the agency didn’t condemn cross-device tracking. Indeed, it identified five primary benefits:

  • Helps create a seamless experience for consumers across their devices
  • Improved fraud detection and account security
  • Enable marketers to provide consumers with a better online experience
  • Help companies avoid the over- saturation of ads and deliver more relevant ads
  • Enhance competition in the advertising arena

On the other hand, the FTC flagged a number of concerns and privacy issues:

  • Most consumers are not aware of how extensive cross-device tracking is
  • Consumers are largely unaware of data matching and probabilistic tracking, when they’re not signed in
  • Most companies are not discussing cross-device tracking in their privacy policies
  • Consumers are not aware of the sharing of data with many third party services and networks
  • Consumers who aren’t happy about cross-device tracking don’t have many options to control its use
  • Cross-device tracking and corresponding mass data aggregation may represent a hacking/security concern

In the report, the FTC lauded self-regulatory efforts by the NAI and DAA but concluded that they didn’t go far enough. The agency makes a set of recommendations it would like to see implemented accordingly. I have paraphrased the recommendations at the highest level:

  • Transparency: Companies engaged in cross-device tracking—both the companies themselves and publishers who hire these companies—should truthfully disclose their tracking activities. Another aspect of transparency is making truthful claims about the categories of data collected.
  • Choice: Companies should offer consumers choices about how their cross-device activity is tracked. When companies offer such choices, the FTC Act requires that companies respect them. To the extent opt-out tools are provided, any material limitations on how they apply or are implemented with respect to cross-device tracking must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed.
  • Data sensitivity: Companies should refrain from engaging in cross-device tracking on sensitive topics, including health, financial, and children’s information, without consumers’ affirmative express consent. They should also refrain from collecting and sharing precise geolocation information without consumers’ affirmative express consent.
  • Security: Companies must maintain reasonable security, in order to avoid future unexpected and unauthorized uses of data, including by hackers and other wrongdoers who could access the data via a data breach. Companies should keep only the data necessary for their business purposes and properly secure the data they do collect and maintain.

There are nuances with each of the above, as well as examples discussed — including companies that have run afoul of the guidelines. It’s worth taking a look because the FTC implies that failure to abide by its recommendations could subject companies to sanctions.

via Marketing Land


Popular posts from this blog

6 types of negative SEO to watch out for

The threat of negative SEO is remote but daunting. How easy is it to for a competitor to ruin your rankings, and how do you protect your site? But before we start, let’s make sure we’re clear on what negative SEO is, and what it definitely isn’t.Negative SEO is a set of activities aimed at lowering a competitor’s rankings in search results. These activities are more often off-page (e.g., building unnatural links to the site or scraping and reposting its content); but in some cases, they may also involve hacking the site and modifying its content.Negative SEO isn’t the most likely explanation for a sudden ranking drop. Before you decide someone may be deliberately hurting your rankings, factor out the more common reasons for ranking drops. You’ll find a comprehensive list here.Negative off-page SEOThis kind of negative SEO targets the site without internally interfering with it. Here are the most common shapes negative off-page SEO can take.Link farmsOne or two spammy links likely won’…

Another SEO tool drops the word “SEO”

This guest post is by Majestic’s Marketing Director, Dixon Jones, who explains the reasons for their recent name change.
Majestic, the link intelligence database that many SEOs have come to use on a daily basis, has dropped the “SEO” from it’s brand and from its domain name, to become Since most people won’t have used Google’s site migration tool before, here’s what it looks like once you press the “go” button:

In actual fact – there’s a minor bug in the tool. The address change is to the https version of (which GWT makes us register as a separate site) but that message incorrectly omits that. Fortunately, elsewhere in GWT its clear the omission is on Google’s side, not a typo from the SEO. It is most likely that the migration tool was developed before the need for Google to have separate verification codes for http and https versions of the site.
The hidden costs of a name change
There were a few “nay sayers” on Twitter upset that Majestic might be deserting it…

What will happen to influencer marketing if Instagram ‘Likes’ go away?

In April, app researcher Jane Manchun Wong discovered Instagram was testing removing “Like” counts on posts. At the time, an Instagram spokesperson told TechCrunch it was not a public test, but an internal prototype and that the company was “exploring” new ways to reduce pressure on Instagram.The possibility that Instagram – a primary platform for influencer marketing – may potentially eliminate “Likes” could impact the influencer community, causing brands to question whether or not an influencer has enough sway to contribute to the brand’s marketing efforts. Without an outward facing metric such as “Likes,” influencers would have to rely on other resources to prove their content is worthwhile – once such resource: influencer marketing agencies.Good news for agencies“I do see it as a good thing for influencer marketing agencies and platform providers,” said Leah Logan, VP of media product strategy and marketing for Collective Bias.Logan’s influencer marketing agency works with a numbe…