WebProNews » Behavioral

ValueClick Sues Tacoda Over Behavioral Targeting Patents

WebProNews Staff — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:59:21 +0000

A technology slap-fight headed to the California court rooms in Los Angeles as ValueClick accused Tacoda of infringing on its patents.

The issues of behavioral targeting go beyond the usual concerns about privacy and consumer tracking. At the core of the approach to presenting advertising to people based on their online habits comes the practice of behavioral targeting.

The Federal Trade Commission held a two-day town hall meeting on the practice in November 2007. As a result of that meeting, the FTC proposed principles on behavioral targeting; whether or not advertising networks follow them has been left up to those businesses.

Before anyone rushes too fast to push the behavioral targeting envelope, a situation between Valueclick and Tacoda needs to be resolved. ValuecClick filed suit in Los Angeles against Tacoda in July 2008 over accusations of infringement on two patents.

MediaPost said the patents were both invented by Gather.com founder Thomas Gerace. ValueClick acquired Gerace’s former company, BeFree, in 2002.

AOL acquired Tacoda in 2007, and MediaPost said ValueClick warned AOL in March 2007 about their belief Tacoda infringed ValueClick’s patents.

Another patent lawsuit involves a familiar name. InformationWeek said Google picked up its fourth infringement lawsuit this year, as Web Tracking Solutions and Daniel Wexler accused the search advertising giant of infringing an accounting reporting patent with Google’s AdSense service.

Markey: Behavioral Ad Protections Needed For Kids

WebProNews Staff — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:33:02 +0000

Online advertisers using behavioral targeting to find their audience attracted the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, who have called for principles of self-regulation for that type of marketing.

Protecting consumers, especially younger ones, from potentially over-aggressive advertisers means following that audience from media outlet to media outlet. Ads in magazines and on television used to reach the audiences that the Internet touches today.

Make no mistake about it: marketers love younger consumers. They have discretionary income not tied up in the debts of 30-something and up adults. Websites catering to kids, or having them as a potential part of their audience, must seek parental permission for youngsters under 13, per the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA.)

Major online industry events like Google’s DoubleClick acquisition, and Microsoft’s overtures toward purchasing Yahoo, prompted a renewed FTC interest in online privacy. Technology for marketing to people based on behaviors advanced greatly over the past few years, and some consider its growth and adoption something to watch.

FTC asked for input from the big online advertising firms, to which Microsoft responded with a proposal for a five-tiered framework of privacy protection.

On Capitol Hill, the matter drew the attention of House member Ed Markey (D-MA), who released a statement in support of the FTC’s move toward supporting self-regulation principles for advertisers:

The FTC has appropriately recognized the pressing need for updated online privacy protections for children that reflect the sophisticated data collection and behavioral targeting practices now used widely across the Internet.

Without stronger protections, including a prohibition on collecting data on children

FTC Counsels Self-Regulation For Behavioral Ads

WebProNews Staff — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:06:06 +0000

The Federal Trade Commission plans to keep an ear open for complaints now that they have given Google and DoubleClick their blessing to get together.

If Google, DoubleClick’s proud new owner, wants to avoid several miles of regulatory red tape, they might want to listen to some of the FTC’s advice on "Possible Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising."

The FTC document offers some ideas and asks for comment from interested parties on these. Their recommended principles include: transparency and consumer control;
reasonable security, and limited retention of consumer data;
affirmative express consent for material changes to existing privacy promises;
and affirmative express consent (or prohibition against) using sensitive data for behavioral advertising.

The Commission also requested more information on the use of tracking data for purposes other than behavioral advertising. One might have thought this came up during the FTC town hall meeting in November on behavioral advertising, but it seems bureaucrats were more concerned about not regulating behavioral advertising at the time.

In retrospect, that laid the groundwork for this latest call for comments from the FTC. At least superficially, the FTC does not want to get in the way of what has become the major revenue stream on the Internet. Few things are less welcome than more government regulation.

The problem with behavioral advertising and regulation is that the common Internet user, likely a non-tech industry worker, will not grasp the nuances of expressing consent or withholding it when it comes to privacy issues.

A need for regulation may be more a matter of protection for citizens, rather than something to limit what Google or anyone else does with the data they collect, which feeds behavioral ad services. Privacy may be an illusion in many respects, but it doesn’t have to be a pipe dream either.