LG's denial over TV spying claims ‘does not address the full privacy picture’, experts say — after report accuses it of making ‘216,000,000 spy TVs’

Earlier this week, LG found itself in the midst of a privacy storm following an investigation by Gamers Nexus, which revealed that LG TVs collect various types of data including voice recordings, details of networked devices, location data, and wireless network information. This led to widespread outrage online, with Redditors describing the practices as extremely creepy and vowing never to purchase LG products again.

Despite this backlash, LG maintains that the claims made by Gamers Nexus are not true. The company states that voice recordings are used to process voice commands and are deleted immediately afterward, while network scans are necessary to provide smart TV functionalities. LG also emphasizes that the Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) feature, which tracks what users watch and serves personalized recommendations and ads, is opt-in, giving users the choice to opt out of having ACR data used for advertising purposes.

However, privacy experts argue that LG's denial does not address the full privacy picture. Anna Maria Mandalari, an Associate Professor at University College London, points out that LG's statement does not fully account for the technology's reach beyond the TV's own applications. She explains that ACR-related communication can occur when an opted-in LG television displays linear television and content from HDMI-connected devices, meaning ACR can operate when the TV is used as an external display for another device.

Although Mandalari notes that ACR reporting to advertisers stops when users opt out, she raises concerns about whether LG TV owners fully understand their choices and how ACR data might be used beyond advertising. Cobun Zweifel-Keegan, Managing Director at the IAPP, also highlights the precise wording of LG's statement, noting that the company only claims that ACR data is not used for advertising purposes without specifying what else might be collected or processed.

Zweifel-Keegan underscores the need for LG to clarify the complete data lifecycle, including where data is transmitted and the purposes for which it may be processed. Lillian Edwards, a Professor of Law, Innovation, and Society at Newcastle University, points out that users often consent to things they do not fully understand, leading to questions about whether LG's consent process meets GDPR standards.

Edwards emphasizes that consent should be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, and should be presented in an intelligible and easily accessible manner using clear and plain language. According to Edwards, LG's response is consistent with industry practices, but the company should address the advertising practices and user profiling allegations that make up the core of the privacy concerns surrounding its TV spying claims.