4 Times Smart TVs Were Accused Of Collecting User Data Without Consent

A major privacy concern among smart TV owners is how these devices collect, use, and share your personal data in the background. Through built-in technologies like Automated Content Recognition (ACR), smart TVs can collect user viewing data — including what you watch, how long you watch for, and when you watch — app interactions, voice data, ad interactions, and network and device information. That information can then be used for personalized viewing recommendations or sold to advertisers so they can deliver targeted advertisements.

Collecting user data is one of the biggest disadvantages of smart TVs, but there are ways to prevent your smart TV from spying on you. Major smart TV brands may require consent from users to collect this data, informing them on what is being collected, why, and who it's being shared with. However, consent or opt-out options and details on the data collected are often buried in lengthy privacy policies, confusing menus, or during set-up.

While user data collection has become common practice for smart TVs, brands must obey local privacy laws and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which "prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including deceptive statements and unfair practices involving the use or protection of consumers' personal information." In other words, companies cannot collect more data than they disclose. Below, we break down five times smart TVs have been accused of breaching these data collection laws and collecting user data without consent.

In 2017, the FTC and the New Jersey Attorney General (AG) filed a complaint against smart TV manufacturer Vizio. They accused the company of secretly installing software on its TVs to collect the viewing data on 11 million TVs without consumers' knowledge or consent.

According to the complaint, starting in February 2014, Vizio manufactured smart TVs that continuously tracked what consumers were watching on a "second-by-second basis" and transmitted that information to the company through ACR technology that was turned on by default, with the software also periodically collecting other information about the TV (such as its IP address). This data was stored indefinitely and sold to third-parties through licensing agreements "for the purpose of analyzing advertising effectiveness."

However, the complaint alleged that those who purchased new Vizio TVs from August 2014, with default ACR enabled, received no on-screen notice of the collection of viewing data. It also claimed that, in February 2014, Vizio began remotely retrofitting this ACR technology to TVs that didn't previously have it installed, with users receiving an initial pop-up notification that provided "no information about the collection of viewing data or ACR software."

The FTC sought injunctive relief against Vizio "to prevent them from engaging in unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation," while the New Jersey AG claimed Vizio violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), and sought injunctive relief alongside compensation. Vizio reached a settlement with agencies, agreeing to pay $2.2 million in response to the allegations, which is not necessarily an admission of wrongdoing. The stipulated federal court order required Vizio to prominently disclose, and obtain affirmative express consent, for its data collection and sharing practices and not to misrepresent how it collects, uses, and maintains user data.

In 2025, Texas AG Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against five major television companies: Sony, Samsung, LG, Hisense, and TCL. The lawsuit alleged they were "spying on Texans by secretly recording what consumers watch in their own homes" without consent. The AG's office also claimed that Hisense and TCL's ties to China "pose serious concerns about consumer data harvesting."

The AG's office alleged that these companies have been "unlawfully collecting personal data" through the ACR technology built into their smart TVs, which is putting "users' privacy and sensitive information... at risk" and violates Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. In the suit filed against Sony, Paxton described Sony Smart TVs as "a mass surveillance system sitting in millions of American living rooms." "When families buy a television, they don't expect it to spy on them," the suit reads. "They don't expect their viewing habits packaged and auctioned to advertisers. Yet Sony deceptively guides consumers to activate ACR and buries any explanation of what that means in dense legal jargon that few will read or understand."

Paxton secured individual agreements with Samsung and LG in 2026, with the companies agreeing to stop collecting ACR data from Texans without express consent and to include clearer data collection disclosures and consent options. In December 2025, the AG secured a temporary restraining order against Hisense, stopping the company from collecting user data from Texans through ACR, but legal action is ongoing against it, Sony, and TCL.

In January 2026, a class action lawsuit was filed against Samsung by a group of five Samsung smart TV owners (DiGiancinto et al.), alleging the company illegally tracks, stores, and sells the viewing data of TV owners without their knowledge or consent. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit alleges that Samsung's ACR software allows the company to trace viewing data back to specific consumers, regardless of how many Samsung TV users are in the household.

In addition, they claim Samsung never obtained informed consent from users to collect or share viewing data because the company's privacy notice is misleading and does not explain the extent of its user data collection and sharing practices; it only mentions "processing" viewing data. The claimants allege these practices violate state privacy laws and the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which prevents a "video tape service provider" from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information concerning consumers' video-watching habits without their informed written consent.

The suit claims that, as a result of these alleged practices, the plaintiffs have suffered an invasion of privacy, diminished value of their personal data, loss of trust in electronics retailers, and emotional distress. They are seeking a jury trial and damages, alongside equitable and injunctive relief. At the time of writing, the class lawsuit is ongoing.

In 2013, U.K. blogger and IT consultant Jason Huntley (also known as "DoctorBeet") published a blog detailing that, despite disabling the "collection of watching info" option on his LG 42LN575V model smart TV, his viewing information was seemingly still being sent to LG servers without his consent. The blog — which included image evidence — claimed that his LG TV sent information on which channels he viewed and some filenames that were stored on an external USB drive attached to the smart TV.

The blogger contacted LG, who responded that, as he accepted the Terms and Conditions for the TV, his concerns were "best directed to the retailer," who should have informed him of these T&Cs at the point of sale. Following the post, LG launched an investigation and later admitted its smart TVs continued collecting data even when users had opted out of the "collection of watching info" option.

"We have verified that even when this function is turned off by the viewers, it continues to transmit viewing information, although the data is not retained by the server," LG said in its statement. "LG does not, or has never, engaged in targeted advertisement using information collected from LG Smart TV owners." The company then rolled out a software update to address the issue in smart TV models discovered to have the issue.