If you are using ACR you will want to get your business compliant right away. Book a free privacy audit with our experts.
Your smart TV is watching you. Not just passively displaying content you’ve chosen, but actively monitoring everything that appears on your screen—tracking every show, every channel change, every advertisement, and even content from devices connected via HDMI like your laptop or gaming console. This surveillance happens through a technology called Automated Content Recognition (ACR), and in December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called it exactly what it is: “an uninvited, invisible digital invader.”
The Technology That Turned Your TV Into a Surveillance Device
On December 16, 2024, Paxton filed lawsuits against five major TV manufacturers—Samsung, Sony, LG, TCL, and Hisense—alleging they unlawfully collected personal data through ACR technology. The timing couldn’t be more significant: as consumers welcomed these supposedly “smart” devices into their homes, they unknowingly granted manufacturers access to one of the most intimate datasets imaginable—a complete record of their viewing habits, interests, and behaviors.
What Is Automated Content Recognition?
Automated Content Recognition is essentially Shazam for your television. Just as Shazam identifies songs by analyzing brief audio samples, ACR identifies video content by capturing and analyzing what’s displayed on your TV screen. However, unlike Shazam—which you activate intentionally—ACR runs continuously in the background, whether you know it or not.
How ACR Works: The Technical Process
ACR operates through two primary methodologies:
1. Audio Fingerprinting: The TV captures audio samples from whatever content is playing—whether from cable broadcasts, streaming services, DVDs, or even external devices. These samples are converted into unique digital fingerprints and matched against massive databases of known content. According to research from University College London, LG TVs were observed checking ACR configuration files showing a sample rate of 48 kilohertz, capturing 48,000 snapshots per second. Given that modern HD televisions have a refresh rate of only 60 hertz, this raises serious questions about what else is being captured beyond simple content identification.
2. Video Fingerprinting: ACR systems also capture pixel samples from the screen itself, creating visual fingerprints that can identify not just what program is showing, but precisely where you are within that program, down to the second.
What ACR Actually Captures
The scope of ACR tracking is far broader than most consumers realize. According to the FTC’s 2017 complaint against Vizio, ACR technology tracks:
- Second-by-second viewing information from all sources
- Content from traditional TV broadcasts (cable, antenna, fiber)
- Streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+
- Content from external devices connected via HDMI (laptops, gaming consoles, Blu-ray players)
- Screen-casting from mobile devices and computers
- The precise timing and duration of every piece of content watched
- Channel and network information
- Even idle time on the TV’s home screen
Critically, this tracking happens regardless of whether you’re using the TV’s built-in “smart” features. If you’re using your smart TV as a “dumb” monitor for your gaming console or laptop, ACR may still be capturing and analyzing what’s on your screen.
The Vizio Wake-Up Call: How We Learned ACR Was a Problem
The ACR privacy issue exploded into public consciousness in February 2017 when the Federal Trade Commission and New Jersey Attorney General sued Vizio, one of the world’s largest TV manufacturers. The case revealed the shocking extent of modern TV surveillance.
What Vizio Did Wrong
According to the FTC complaint, Vizio engaged in several deceptive practices:
Default Tracking: Starting in February 2014, Vizio sold over 11 million smart TVs with ACR software installed and enabled by default. Consumers who purchased these TVs had their viewing habits tracked from the moment they turned on their sets.
Retroactive Installation: Vizio didn’t just enable ACR on new TVs—it remotely installed the tracking software on older TVs that consumers had purchased before ACR existed, fundamentally changing how these devices functioned without meaningful notice or consent.
Inadequate Disclosure: Where consumer notice existed, it was vague and fleeting. The privacy policy didn’t adequately explain that viewing data was being collected and sold. Consumers received only a brief pop-up notification that timed out after one minute, with language that mentioned “program offers and suggestions” but never disclosed data collection or sale to third parties.
Hidden Opt-Out: Consumers who wanted to disable tracking had to navigate through several menus to find opt-out alternatives, buried deep in settings.
Data Monetization: Vizio sold the collected viewing data to third parties who used it for audience measurement, advertising effectiveness analysis, and targeted advertising. The company facilitated appending demographic information to viewing data, including sex, age, income, marital status, household size, education level, home ownership, and household value.
The Settlement and Its Implications
Vizio agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle the charges—$1.5 million to the FTC and $1 million to New Jersey. More importantly, Vizio was required to:
- Delete all viewing data collected before March 1, 2016
- Prominently disclose its data collection and sharing practices
- Obtain affirmative express consent before collecting viewing information
- Implement a comprehensive data privacy program with biennial assessments
In October 2018, Vizio reached an additional $17 million class action settlement, affecting approximately 16 million Smart TV users who purchased Vizio TVs between February 2014 and February 2017.
The FTC made clear that context matters in data collection. As FTC attorney Lesley Fair explained, consumers have no reason to expect that their television engages in second-by-second tracking of viewing data. This principle—that collection methods novel to consumers require prominent notice and meaningful consent—has become a cornerstone of privacy enforcement.
The 2024 Texas Lawsuit: ACR Is Back in the Spotlight
Fast forward to December 2024, and ACR is making headlines again. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuits against Samsung, Sony, LG, TCL, and Hisense mark a new chapter in ACR enforcement, this time with explicit national security concerns.
Texas’s Core Allegations
Paxton’s complaints characterize ACR as unlawful surveillance on multiple grounds:
Invasion of Privacy: The lawsuits allege that ACR technology violates fundamental privacy rights by continuously monitoring what consumers watch in their own homes without proper disclosure or meaningful consent.
Deceptive Trade Practices: The complaints assert that TV manufacturers have not adequately disclosed the extent of ACR tracking, misleading consumers about how their devices function and what data is being collected.
Foreign Adversary Concerns: Notably, Paxton highlighted that some manufacturers, particularly TCL and Hisense, are based in China. His statement raised alarm about Chinese Communist Party connections having no business illegally recording Americans’ devices inside their own homes.
Samsung as “Mass Surveillance System”
One of Paxton’s suits specifically labels Samsung TVs as “a mass surveillance system”—a characterization that captures the scope and invasiveness of modern ACR technology. This isn’t hyperbole when you consider that:
- Samsung TVs can identify and track every show watched on every connected device
- The data is collected continuously, 24/7, whenever the TV is on
- Information is transmitted to external servers every minute
- The tracking persists even when using the TV as an external display
How Each Manufacturer Implements ACR
While all major smart TV manufacturers employ ACR, they use different names and implementations:
Samsung: Viewing Information Services
Samsung calls its ACR system “Viewing Information Services.” It collects information about channels, networks, websites visited, programs viewed, and viewing duration. According to research by UCL, Samsung TVs create consistent network traffic, sending digital fingerprints every minute to external domains. Samsung’s privacy controls are notoriously complex, requiring users to navigate through multiple sub-menus to disable various aspects of tracking.
LG: Live Plus
LG’s “Live Plus” system promises to recognize content displayed on your TV and provide enhanced viewing experiences, personalized services, content recommendations, and advertisements. Research shows LG devices send digital fingerprints every 15 seconds to certain network domains. The UCL study found that LG’s ACR remained active even when viewing content through external HDMI devices.
Vizio: Inscape
After the FTC settlement, Vizio rebranded and restructured its ACR service through its subsidiary, Inscape. Notably, it was reported in 2021 that Vizio profited more from the sale of customer data than from the televisions they sold. This revelation fundamentally changed how we understand the economics of smart TVs—you’re not just buying a display device; you’re becoming the product.
Roku: Smart TV Experience
Roku’s ACR system is called “Smart TV Experience” and is bundled only with Roku-branded TVs, not their streaming sticks. The system tracks content from all TV inputs, not just Roku channels. Roku offers relatively straightforward privacy controls but makes disabling ACR possible only through the TV settings, not their online account portal.
Amazon Fire TV: Content Recognition
Amazon’s implementation focuses on reducing repetitive advertising by tracking what viewers have already seen through connected devices like cable set-top boxes. According to Amazon’s disclosures, the system collects viewing data including networks, channels, advertisements, and programs watched.
The Data Privacy Nightmare: What Happens to Your Viewing Data
The real privacy concerns with ACR extend beyond mere tracking—it’s what happens to the data after collection that should alarm every consumer.
Data Monetization and Sale
TV manufacturers have built entire business models around viewing data. The information is extraordinarily valuable to:
Advertisers: Precise viewing habits allow for hyper-targeted advertising across all your devices. Watch a particular show on TV? Expect related ads on your phone, laptop, and social media.
Data Aggregators: Third-party companies purchase viewing data and combine it with other information to build comprehensive consumer profiles. Even when names aren’t directly attached, IP addresses can be matched to households, and from there, demographic information such as sex, age, income, marital status, household size, education level, home ownership, and household value can be appended.
Marketing Research Firms: Viewing data provides real-time insights into which programs are watched, when, and by which demographic groups—information worth millions to media companies and advertisers.
Cross-Device Tracking
One of the most invasive aspects of ACR is its facilitation of cross-device tracking. When a TV manufacturer knows your IP address and viewing habits, that information can be matched to your other devices—smartphones, tablets, laptops. This creates a unified surveillance profile that follows you everywhere.
The FTC found that while Vizio didn’t allow third parties to identify users by name, it did allow those third parties to track user habits across devices. This means your TV viewing habits directly influence what advertisements you see on your phone, what content is recommended on social media, and what prices you might be shown when shopping online.
The “Sensitive Data” Question
One of the most significant developments from the Vizio settlement was then-Acting FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen’s concern about whether viewing information should be classified as “sensitive data”—similar to financial information, health information, Social Security numbers, and precise geolocation data.
Consider what your viewing history reveals:
- Political Views: The news channels you watch, political programs you follow
- Religious Beliefs: Religious programming and channels you select
- Sexual Orientation: LGBTQ+ programming choices
- Health Concerns: Medical programs, pharmaceutical advertisements you watch
- Financial Status: Economic news, luxury programming, shopping channels
- Family Structure: Children’s programming indicates presence of kids and their ages
- Relationship Status: Dating shows, wedding programs, family content
This isn’t theoretical. Your viewing habits create an intimate psychological profile. Combined with demographic data, it reveals not just what you watch, but who you are.
The Hidden Tracking: ACR on External Devices
Perhaps the most alarming discovery from recent research is that ACR doesn’t just track content from built-in smart TV apps—it monitors everything displayed on your screen, including content from external devices.
HDMI and Screen-Casting Surveillance
The 2024 study from University College London revealed that ACR systems track content regardless of source. When tested, both Samsung and LG TVs collected data when:
- Using the TV as an external monitor for a laptop
- Playing games through a console connected via HDMI
- Watching DVDs through an external player
- Screen-casting from a mobile device
- Displaying any content from any connected device
This means that when you use your expensive smart TV as a simple monitor for your work laptop or gaming console—perfectly reasonable uses of the hardware—the TV may be capturing fingerprints of everything displayed and transmitting that data to external servers.
The privacy implications are staggering. Your work presentations, confidential documents briefly visible on screen, websites you visit on your laptop, games you play, and even home videos could potentially be fingerprinted and analyzed.
Copyright Concerns
This external device tracking also raises intellectual property questions. When ACR captures and fingerprints copyrighted content from streaming services like Netflix, or from physical media like Blu-ray discs, without authorization from the copyright holder, it potentially violates copyright law. Content creators and distributors never consented to have their works catalogued and analyzed by TV manufacturers.
Geographic Differences in ACR Implementation
Interestingly, research has revealed that ACR operates differently depending on where you live, suggesting manufacturers adjust their practices based on local privacy regulations.
The UCL study found key differences between UK and US implementations:
United Kingdom: Third-party streaming services like Netflix were not tracked via ACR, possibly due to copyright concerns or stricter European data protection regulations under GDPR.
United States: No such limitation exists. ACR tracks everything, including content from subscription streaming services.
This geographic variation suggests manufacturers know exactly what they’re doing and can modify ACR behavior when legal pressure demands it. The fact that they don’t offer the same privacy protections everywhere indicates a deliberate choice to maximize data collection where regulations are weaker.
The Consent Problem: Dark Patterns and Buried Settings
Even after the Vizio settlement supposedly set a “new standard for best industry privacy practices,” the reality is that obtaining meaningful consumer consent for ACR remains deeply problematic.
Setup Dark Patterns
When you first set up a smart TV, you’re confronted with multiple screens asking you to agree to various terms. The language is carefully crafted:
- “Enable Smart Features” (doesn’t mention data collection or sale)
- “Enhanced Viewing Experience” (sounds beneficial, obscures surveillance)
- “Personalized Recommendations” (suggests convenience, hides monetization)
- “Smart Interactivity” (Vizio’s misleading term that omitted data collection entirely)
Few consumers read multi-page privacy policies during TV setup. Even fewer understand that agreeing to “Smart Features” means their TV will track and sell their viewing history.
Opt-Out Complexity
Disabling ACR after setup is deliberately difficult. Consumer Reports documented the process for major manufacturers:
Samsung: Requires navigating through Settings → Support → Privacy & Terms → Viewing Information Services. But there are multiple other tracking settings in different menus, including Interest-Based Advertisements and Voice Recognition Services, each requiring separate opt-out.
LG: Took 27 clicks to completely disable Live Plus, according to Consumer Reports. Users must accept multiple user agreements just to access smart features, making it nearly impossible to use the TV’s capabilities without agreeing to tracking.
Roku: Requires 11-24 clicks to turn off Smart TV Experience, and critically, this can only be done on the TV itself—not through your Roku account online.
As UCL researcher Dr. Anna Mandalari explained, the way ACR opt-out is configured by these TVs is extremely complex, requiring users to opt-out of several advertising and tracking settings with multiple clicks under different sub-settings, making it extremely difficult for a typical user to exercise opt-out.
The Information Asymmetry
When TV manufacturers were asked under GDPR data access requests to provide information about what they collected, the UCL researchers found that responses were vague and didn’t correspond to the detailed network traffic data the research team had captured. This suggests companies either don’t want to disclose—or perhaps don’t even fully know—the extent of data their systems collect.
Who Profits From ACR? The Economics of TV Surveillance
Understanding the business model behind ACR helps explain why manufacturers are so resistant to meaningful privacy protections.
The Smart TV Profit Paradox
Traditional TV manufacturers made money by selling hardware. You paid $1,000 for a TV, and that was the transaction. Smart TVs changed this equation entirely.
Modern smart TVs are often sold at razor-thin margins—or even at a loss. Vizio’s 2021 financial disclosure revealed the stunning truth: the company made more money from data sales than from TV sales. This isn’t a side business; it’s the primary business.
This explains several confusing market phenomena:
- Why are smart TVs so cheap? You’re subsidizing the low hardware price with your data.
- Why can’t you buy a high-quality “dumb” TV anymore? Because manufacturers need your data to make their business model work.
- Why do TV prices keep dropping while features improve? Because each additional user generates more valuable data to sell.
The ACR Value Chain
Multiple parties profit from your viewing data:
TV Manufacturers: Sell raw viewing data and device information to data brokers and aggregators.
ACR Technology Providers: Companies like Inscape (Vizio’s subsidiary), Cognitive Networks, and others license ACR technology to TV makers, earning revenue from every TV sold and from data processing services.
Data Aggregators: Purchase viewing data from multiple TV manufacturers and other sources, combining it into comprehensive consumer profiles.
Advertisers: Pay for access to these profiles to target ads more effectively across all media channels.
Media Companies: Purchase audience measurement data to understand viewership patterns and adjust programming decisions.
The Legal Landscape: How ACR Violates Privacy Laws
While ACR has so far largely escaped the wave of privacy class action litigation that has targeted website tracking technologies, that’s beginning to change—and ACR is particularly vulnerable under multiple legal theories.
Federal Wiretap Act (ECPA)
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it illegal to intentionally intercept electronic communications. ACR’s continuous monitoring and capture of content displayed on screens could potentially violate federal wiretap law, particularly when:
- Capturing content from external devices without consent
- Intercepting streaming communications from third-party services
- Recording content that users expect to remain private
State Wiretapping Laws
Multiple states have wiretapping laws that are potentially broader than federal law:
California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA): California requires two-party consent for recording communications. CIPA has been the basis for hundreds of lawsuits against companies using website pixels and session replay technology. ACR’s continuous screen monitoring could trigger CIPA liability.
Pennsylvania’s WESCA: Pennsylvania requires all-party consent and lacks a broad direct-party exception. The Third Circuit’s 2022 decision in Popa v. Harriet Carter expanded WESCA’s application to digital tracking, potentially covering ACR technology.
Massachusetts Wiretap Act: One of the strictest state laws, requiring all-party consent and providing substantial statutory damages.
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA)
Enacted in 1988 after a reporter obtained Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s video rental history, the VPPA prohibits video service providers from disclosing personally identifiable information about video viewing without consumer consent.
The VPPA provides statutory damages of up to $2,500 per violation, making it attractive for class action attorneys. While traditionally applied to video rental stores, modern courts have begun applying VPPA to digital video services. ACR’s tracking of streaming video could trigger VPPA liability.
State Consumer Protection Laws
Texas’s recent lawsuits against TV manufacturers are brought under state consumer protection statutes, alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices. Similar statutes exist in all 50 states, providing another avenue for enforcement against ACR.
Comprehensive State Privacy Laws
As of 2025, 19 states have enacted comprehensive privacy laws modeled after California’s CCPA. These laws generally require:
- Clear disclosure of data collection practices
- Affirmative opt-in consent for sensitive data
- The right to access collected data
- The right to delete collected data
- The right to opt-out of data sales
ACR practices, particularly when enabled by default with inadequate disclosure, likely violate multiple provisions of these state laws.
Why ACR Enforcement Has Lagged Behind Website Tracking Litigation
Given that ACR is more invasive than website pixels or session replay—technologies that have generated hundreds of class action lawsuits—why hasn’t ACR triggered similar litigation waves?
Technical Barriers
Traffic Encryption: ACR communications between TVs and servers are encrypted, making it difficult for researchers and attorneys to determine exactly what data is being transmitted. The UCL study couldn’t decrypt the actual content being sent—only observe when and how much data was transmitted.
Proprietary Technology: Each manufacturer implements ACR differently with proprietary code and protocols, making it harder to identify common violations across the industry.
Limited Discovery: Unlike websites where tracking code can be examined, smart TV operating systems are closed proprietary platforms with limited public visibility into how they function.
Awareness Gap
Simply put, most consumers don’t know ACR exists. The technology operates invisibly, with no visible indicators when it’s active. Unlike website cookies that generate consent banners, ACR surveillance happens silently.
Class Action Economics
Website tracking cases often involve hundreds or thousands of website visitors whose information was collected in ways that create viable class actions. Proving ACR violations requires:
- Documentary evidence of what specific data was collected
- Evidence that collection violated specific statutes
- Proof that individual class members were actually harmed
The Vizio settlement required extensive FTC investigation to document these elements. Individual consumers lack the resources for such investigations.
Industry Learned from Vizio
After the 2017 Vizio settlement, manufacturers improved (slightly) their disclosure and consent practices. While still inadequate by privacy advocacy standards, these changes make litigation marginally more difficult than it was when Vizio operated with essentially no disclosure.
Taking Control: How to Protect Yourself From ACR
While the ideal solution would be robust privacy regulation that prohibits ACR surveillance entirely, consumers can take steps to limit their exposure.
Disabling ACR on Your TV
Samsung TVs:
- Press Settings button
- Navigate to Support → Privacy & Terms
- Disable “Viewing Information Services”
- Also disable “Interest-Based Advertisements” in Settings → Support → Privacy & Terms
- Check Advertisement settings under Additional Settings menu
LG TVs:
- Press Home button
- Press Settings button
- Select Settings → Additional Settings → Live Plus
- Uncheck “Content Recommendation”
- In Additional Settings → Advertisement, toggle on “Limit AD Tracking”
- In Support → Privacy & Terms, toggle on “Do Not Sell My Personal Information”
Roku TVs:
- Navigate to Settings → Privacy
- Select “Smart TV Experience”
- Uncheck “Use info from TV inputs”
- Also visit your Roku account online to manage additional privacy settings
Amazon Fire TV:
- Navigate to Settings → Preferences
- Select “Privacy Settings”
- Disable “Automatic Content Recognition”
Vizio TVs:
- Press Menu button
- Navigate to System → Reset & Admin
- Select “Viewing Data”
- Turn off “Viewing Data” setting
Additional Privacy Measures
Use External Devices Strategically: Consider using an external streaming device (Apple TV, Roku stick, Chromecast) connected to a “dumb” monitor or a TV with network access disabled. This limits what the TV manufacturer can track.
Disconnect from Internet: The nuclear option—don’t connect your smart TV to WiFi or ethernet. This completely prevents ACR data transmission, though you lose smart features. Use external devices for streaming.
Regular Privacy Audits: Check your TV’s privacy settings regularly. Firmware updates sometimes reset privacy preferences or add new tracking features that are enabled by default.
Read Update Notices: When your TV prompts you to install updates, actually read what’s changing. Manufacturers sometimes add new data collection features through updates.
Network-Level Blocking: Tech-savvy users can use router-level blocking to prevent TVs from communicating with known ACR servers. Pi-hole and similar DNS-level blocking tools can prevent ACR data transmission. The UCL study identified specific domains that LG and Samsung TVs contact for ACR.
The Bigger Problem: You Shouldn’t Have To
While these steps can help, they illustrate a fundamental problem: consumers shouldn’t need technical knowledge and multiple opt-outs hidden in confusing menus to prevent their TVs from surveilling them.
The default should be privacy. Features that collect personal data and enable surveillance should require clear, affirmative, informed consent—not just during initial setup, but with ongoing transparency about what’s being collected and how it’s used.
The Future of ACR: What’s Coming Next
As ACR technology evolves and more connected devices enter homes, the privacy implications continue to expand.
Next-Generation ACR
Technology providers are developing more sophisticated ACR capabilities:
Real-Time Sentiment Analysis: Future ACR may detect not just what you’re watching, but how you’re reacting—using cameras and microphones to measure emotional responses.
Household Mapping: Advanced ACR aims to identify individual household members and track viewing preferences by person, creating individualized profiles for every family member.
Predictive Recommendations: Rather than just tracking what you watch, next-gen ACR will predict what you’ll watch and preload content, further monetizing viewing predictions.
Integration with Smart Home Devices: ACR data could be combined with data from smart speakers, thermostats, and other IoT devices to create comprehensive home surveillance profiles.
Regulatory Response
The Texas lawsuits may signal a shift in enforcement. If successful, they could:
- Establish ACR as inherently unlawful without meaningful consent
- Create substantial financial penalties that change manufacturer incentives
- Force industry-wide disclosure and consent reforms
- Trigger copycat enforcement actions by other state attorneys general
Several factors suggest increased ACR scrutiny ahead:
Growing Privacy Awareness: Consumers are increasingly concerned about digital privacy, creating political pressure for stronger enforcement.
Regulatory Momentum: With comprehensive privacy laws now enacted in 19 states and more considering legislation, regulators have more tools to address ACR.
International Standards: European GDPR enforcement and other international privacy frameworks create pressure for U.S. companies to improve practices globally.
The Class Action Wave Is Coming if you’re not using Captain Compliance’s Consent Software
It’s likely only a matter of time before ACR triggers the same litigation explosion that website tracking technologies have faced. The elements are aligning:
- Established Legal Theories: Wiretapping statutes successfully used against pixels can be applied to ACR
- Documented Violations: The Texas lawsuits and academic research provide roadmaps for plaintiffs’ attorneys
- High Statutory Damages: Many applicable statutes provide $2,500-$10,000 per violation, making class actions economically viable
- Widespread Consumer Harm: Millions of smart TV owners potentially have claims
- Plaintiff Attorney Expertise: The same firms that litigated website tracking cases can apply their expertise to ACR
Enterprise ACR Risks
While this article focuses on consumer smart TVs, ACR technology is also deployed in commercial settings—hotel TVs, waiting room displays, digital signage, and business displays. Companies using such devices need to understand their potential liability.
4 Things For Privacy Officers to Follow:
Employee Privacy: ACR-enabled displays in offices may track employee viewing habits without consent, potentially violating workplace privacy laws.
Customer Privacy: Hotels, medical offices, and retail locations using ACR-enabled displays expose customer viewing data to collection and potential sale.
Contractual Liability: Companies have a duty to protect customer and employee personal information. ACR devices that transmit data to third parties may violate these obligations.
Regulatory Compliance: Healthcare providers subject to HIPAA, financial institutions under GLBA, and companies handling EU data under GDPR face heightened risks from ACR technology.
Due Diligence Requirements
Businesses purchasing TVs and displays should:
- Identify whether devices include ACR technology
- Determine whether ACR can be completely disabled
- Understand what data ACR collects and where it’s transmitted
- Evaluate whether ACR creates liability under applicable privacy laws
- Disable ACR before deploying devices
- Include ACR considerations in vendor due diligence
- Update privacy policies to address any ACR-enabled devices
This is particularly important in M&A contexts—acquiring a company that has deployed ACR-enabled devices without proper disclosure and consent creates post-closing liability.
Your Right to Private Entertainment
At its core, the ACR issue is about a fundamental privacy principle: you should be able to watch television in your own home without a corporation creating a permanent record of every show, movie, and advertisement you view, packaging that record with demographic information, and selling it to the highest bidder.
The technology exists because manufacturers determined they could profit more from surveillance than from selling hardware. The lack of meaningful consent exists because manufacturers know that if consumers truly understood what was happening, many would refuse to agree.
As Texas Attorney General Paxton stated, owning a television does not mean surrendering your personal information to Big Tech or foreign adversaries.
What Should Happen
Meaningful ACR reform requires:
Opt-In By Default: ACR should be disabled by default with clear, prominent requests for consent during setup that accurately describe what’s being collected and how it will be used.
Plain Language Disclosures: Privacy policies should use clear, specific language that consumers can understand—not legal jargon designed to obscure.
Granular Controls: Consumers should be able to easily control what data is collected, when, and from what sources.
Data Minimization: Collection should be limited to what’s actually necessary for stated purposes.
No Bundling: Consent to ACR shouldn’t be required to access basic TV functionality.
Regular Reminders: Consumers should receive periodic reminders about ACR and opportunities to review and revoke consent.
Deletion Rights: Consumers should be able to access and delete all collected data.
Transparency Reports: Manufacturers should publish regular transparency reports detailing what data is collected, how much, and to whom it’s disclosed.
Take Back Your Living Room
The hidden surveillance enabled by ACR technology represents one of the most invasive forms of data collection in modern life. Unlike smartphones or computers, which we expect to collect data, televisions were supposed to be passive display devices. ACR transformed them into active surveillance systems without meaningful consent.
The recent Texas enforcement actions, combined with growing consumer awareness and potential class action litigation, suggest we may be at a turning point. Manufacturers can no longer assume consumers will accept surveillance as the price of modern technology.
What You Can Do:
- Disable ACR on your TV using the manufacturer-specific instructions above
- Spread awareness – most people don’t know their TV is watching them
- Support privacy legislation that requires genuine consent and transparency
- Consider voting with your wallet – if possible, purchase displays that don’t include ACR or can be fully disabled
- Demand accountability – contact manufacturers and express opposition to surveillance business models
The FTC’s message from the Vizio case remains relevant: before a company “pulls up a chair next to you and starts taking careful notes on everything you watch,” it should ask if that’s okay with you. The fact that manufacturers go to such lengths to hide ACR surveillance proves they know consumers would say no if given a real choice.
It’s time to reclaim our right to private entertainment in our own homes. Your TV should work for you—not spy on you for profit.
