As far as I can see this is a non-Governmental non-profit doing this. So it has no legal
merit. Can’t tell if this is the ad industry attempting to self-regulate? The Wikipedia articles are quite mealy.
> As far as I can see this is a non-Governmental non-profit doing this. So it has no legal merit.
It has no legal weight. Lave of legal merit is a feature of a legal argument and is missing if the argument improperly represents the law, not if it comes from a source that doesn’t provide it legal weight. (Since you later say you agree with it. that is equivalent to saying that, insofar as it is a legal argument, that argument does have legal merit.)
> Can’t tell if this is the ad industry attempting to self-regulate?
No, it is a non-advertising industry non-profit doing research and reporting to the public, which potentially puts political pressure on government actors (State Attorneys-General and, maybe, the FTC) to take action (it could also provide ammunition for private lawsuits, except COPPA doesn’t provide a private cause of action.)
Note that a part of COPPA regulation is a Safe Harbor provision which involves industry self-regulation and certification, but that only protects against FTC, not state, action.
Indeed. It's one of those "we joined this program so now you all can see we are very committed to ensure our consumers are well protected" non-profit organisations.
Yeah, ironically, it's the BBB, which used to rate businesses based in part on how much the business paid them (without disclosing this to consumers, of course).
I do tend to agree with the findings, regardless.