Several class-action suits against DoubleClick alleging privacy violations have been consolidated, and the matter is being heard in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York. EPIC and Junkbusters filed their objections in advance of a hearing scheduled for May 21.

After considering all comments, the court must approve a final version of the settlement, EPIC said.

According to the two privacy groups, the proposed settlement "does not provide any significant benefit to class members that was not previously agreed to by DoubleClick as part of its earlier agreement with the Federal Trade Commission under the terms of the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI)."

DoubleClick has not made any "significant changes" to its practices or policies, nor has it offered "meaningful" privacy protection, the groups charge.

EPIC and Junkbusters further object to the monetary distribution outlined in the settlement. The groups claim funds will be given only to the attorneys for the private litigants, with no money going to any members of the class or any of the groups involved in complaints against DoubleClick.

On Feb. 10, 2000, EPIC and Junkbusters filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleging unfair and deceptive practices by DoubleClick. Specifically, the groups said DoubleClick identified users, even though the company stated in its privacy policies that it would engage in only anonymous profiling.

As a result of the February 2000 complaint, the FTC instituted a set of guidelines known as the Network Advertising Initiative, or NAI. EPIC said DoubleClick and other Internet advertisers agreed to adopt the NAI "in return for the decision of the FTC to drop all further investigations."

EPIC and other consumer organizations objected to the NAI in an August 2000 letter to the U.S. Commerce Committee, asserting the guidelines did not provide "adequate protection for consumers."

In the objection filed Tuesday with the court, EPIC and Junkbusters said the proposed settlement "fails to match" even the NAI guidelines "to which DoubleClick is already bound."

"A broad range of leading organizations, representing the interests of consumers across the United States, believed that stronger obligations should be imposed on a company, such as DoubleClick, that routinely engages in the practice of monitoring and profiling individuals who use the Internet," EPIC and Junkbusters wrote in their objection.

According to EPIC and Junkbusters, the proposed settlement frees DoubleClick from the notice obligation under the NAI agreement. Instead of being required to notify users that personally identifiable information was being collected at the time and place of collection, DoubleClick would be obligated to have "an understandable privacy policy that explains its ad serving service, cookies and pixel tags (without any detailed explanation of its online profiling systems)."

This requirement, the groups said, would obligate DoubleClick only for a "mere" two years.

"Not only do these proposed terms fail to satisfy the NAI threshold, they also fail to provide meaningful notice for consumers," the groups wrote.

The proposed settlement would remove a requirement that DoubleClick give users the choice of participating in its collection practices, as it agreed to under the NAI, the groups said.

The proposed settlement would require DoubleClick not to link to any previously collected non-personally identifiable data to personally identifiable data unless the person gives affirmative consent, or "opt-in."

Without this opt-in requirement, EPIC and Junkbusters said the settlement "could effectively sever" a commitment made by DoubleClick to the FTC regarding future data collection practices.

"In any event, it does not provide the type of effective choice that should be required in a circumstance where the consumer does not stand in privity with the business, i.e. DoubleClick, by virtue of the fact that its customer for networking advertising services is actually the company to whom it sells the data it collects and the banner ads it projects, has a particularly strong obligation to subjects of the data to ensure effective notice and choice."

The groups listed several additional objections to the proposed settlement terms, including:

- A user who is the subject of a DoubleClick profile is not permitted to review that profile or correct any inaccuracies it contains;

- DoubleClick's obligations for data security are lowered;

- Oversight of DoubleClick is modified in a way that takes away public scrutiny; and

- It allows DoubleClick to keep user data for three years, which the groups charge is at least two years too long.

EPIC and Junkbusters offered the court a list of nine changes they said should be made to the proposed settlement. These changes include a notice requirement for data collection, an opt-in requirement, no linking of non-personally identifiable information with personally identifiable information without informed consent, and user access to his or her information in DoubleClick's possession.

The groups also called upon the court to require DoubleClick to allow an independent company to audit its compliance with the settlement every six months for at least five years, with a provision for monetary fines for "material violations."

Finally, EPIC requested to participate in the settlement hearing and be heard in court on May 21.

EPIC is at http://www.epic.org .

See EPIC's comments on DoubleClick at http://www.epic.org/privacy/cookies/ .

Junkbusters is at http://www.junkbusters.com .

Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com .

21:06 CST
Reposted 21:47 CST