The Walt Disney Company won’t be able to snare, share and sell Californians’ personal information so easily anymore thanks to a deal the House of Mouse made today with the Golden State.
Under a just-inked settlement, the soon-to-be Josh D’Amaro-run Disney now will make a $2.75 million civil payout over its past alleged data indiscretions and overly complicated opt-out process. More significantly, and more in tune with the 21st century, the still Bob Iger-run Disney has 90 days under its legally binding pact with California to cease having such sticky fingers when it comes to the data of Disney+ customers and users of the company’s other streaming platforms.
“Defendants shall stop SELLING and SHARING the CONSUMER’S PERSONAL INFORMATION and shall stop conducting CROSS-CONTEXT BEHAVIORAL ADVERTISING for that CONSUMER,” says caps-heavy settlement agreement signed off on today by LA Superior Court Judge Daniel Crawley.
With opt-out options made accessible and crystal, in case there was any gray areas of what the state Department of Justice wants and what Disney has said they will do, the 10-page settlement lays out of the heart of the deal as clear and bright as nighttime theme park fireworks.
“DEFENDANTS shall provide CLEAR AND CONSPICUOUS notice to CONSUMERS in connection with DISNEY SERVICES that DEFENDANTS conduct CROSS CONTEXT BEHAVIORAL ADVERTISING using PERSONAL INFORMATION obtained from THIRD PARTIES,” the final judgement and permanent injunction states. “Such notice shall be in a manner that provides CONSUMERS a meaningful understanding of the information being collected, the categories of sources from which the PERSONAL INFORMATION is collected, and that directs CONSUMERS to DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OPT-OUT OF SALE/SHARING.”
Made public the same day as a complaint fro the state against Disney for injunction, civil penalties and other equitable relief was filed in LASC, the low-payout but far-ranging settlement comes after a two-year probe by Attorney General Rob Bonta into violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act by a wide range of streamers. So far, Disney and Sling TV are the only subjects to strike a deal with California, which is estimated to have America’s nation’s toughest data privacy law. Yet they are unlikely to be the last as “other streaming services are currently under investigation,” a source in Sacramento tells Deadline.
Not saying to check out the fine print of those Netflix, Paramount+ and HBO Max user agreements. On the other hand, with that streaming trio and others, not saying you shouldn’t expect said agreements and what they allow the streamers to snag, to likely change in the not-too-distant future, if you know what I mean?
In a statement from a company spokesperson Wednesday to Deadline, Disney didn’t get into the weeds on its settlement with the state, but they didn’t exactly avoid it either
“As an industry leader in privacy protection, Disney continues to invest significant resources to set the standard for responsible and transparent data practices across our streaming services,” the company said. “As technology and media continue to evolve, protecting the privacy and preserving the experience of Californians and fans everywhere remains a longstanding priority for Disney.”
Attorney General Bonta, who was viewed as a frontrunner to replace the term-limited Gavin Newsom before he took himself out of the running earlier this year, was pretty blunt in his aims and gains today.
“Consumers shouldn’t have to go to infinity and beyond to assert their privacy rights,” the reelection seeking AG stated. “Today, my office secured the largest settlement to date under the CCPA over Disney’s failure to stop selling and sharing the data of consumers that explicitly asked it to.”
Bonata added: “California’s nation-leading privacy law is clear: A consumer’s opt-out right applies wherever and however a business sells data — businesses can’t force people to go device-by-device or service-by-service. In California, asking a business to stop selling your data should not be complicated or cumbersome. My office is committed to the continued enforcement of this critical privacy law.”
