{"id":151708,"date":"2023-04-04T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-04-04T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mediaintel.asia\/?p=916215"},"modified":"2023-04-04T08:00:00","modified_gmt":"2023-04-04T00:00:00","slug":"tiktok-fined-12-7m-after-it-did-not-do-enough-to-keep-under-13s-off-platform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/2023\/04\/04\/tiktok-fined-12-7m-after-it-did-not-do-enough-to-keep-under-13s-off-platform\/","title":{"rendered":"TikTok fined \u00a312.7m after it \u2018did not do enough\u2019 to keep under-13s off platform"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"MediaIntel.Asia\"<\/a><\/div>\n

Up to 1.4 million children under 13 might have used the social media platform in 2020, the ICO said (Will Matthews\/PA) \u2014 \u00a9 Will Matthews
\nSocial media platform TikTok has been fined \u00a312.7 million because it \u201cdid not do enough\u201d to make sure underage children were not using its platform and ensure that their data was used correctly.
\nThe Information Commissioner\u2019s Office (ICO) said that TikTok allowed up to 1.4 million children under 13 to use its platform in 2020, which was against its terms of service.
\nHowever the fine is less than half the \u00a327 million that the ICO originally said it might fine TikTok for breaches.
\nTikTok nevertheless said that it disagrees with the decision and would consider its options.
\nThe regulator slashed the potential fine, which it first announced in September last year, after deciding not to pursue an initial finding that the company had unlawfully used \u201cspecial category data\u201d.
\nWe need your consent to load this Social Media content. We use a number of different Social Media outlets to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review your details and accept them to load the content
\nSpecial data includes ethnic and racial origin, political opinions, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, trade union membership, genetic and biometric data or health data.
\nBut the regulator upheld its findings that TikTok failed to ensure that users under 13 had permission from their parents or carers to use the platform.
\nIt also did not carry out adequate checks to identify and remove these children from its site despite concerns being raised to senior members of staff.
\n\u201cThere are laws in place to make sure our children are as safe in the digital world as they are in the physical world. TikTok did not abide by those laws,\u201d said information commissioner John Edwards.
\n\u201cAs a consequence, an estimated one million under-13s were inappropriately granted access to the platform, with TikTok collecting and using their personal data.
\n\u201cThat means that their data may have been used to track them and profile them, potentially delivering harmful, inappropriate content at their very next scroll.
\n\u201cTikTok should have known better. TikTok should have done better. Our \u00a312.7m fine reflects the serious impact their failures may have had.
\n\u201cThey did not do enough to check who was using their platform or take sufficient action to remove the underage children that were using their platform.\u201d
\nTikTok said: \u201cTikTok is a platform for users aged 13 and over. We invest heavily to help keep under 13s off the platform and our 40,000 strong safety team works around the clock to help keep the platform safe for our community.
\n\u201cWhile we disagree with the ICO\u2019s decision, which relates to May 2018 \u2013 July 2020, we are pleased that the fine announced today has been reduced to under half the amount proposed last year.
\n\u201cWe will continue to review the decision and are considering next steps.\u201d
\nIn 2019, US regulators hit the company with a 5.7 million dollar (\u00a34.5 million) fine for similar practices related to improper data collection from children under 13.
\nEarlier on Tuesday, Australia became the latest country to ban the Chinese-owned app from its federal government\u2019s devices.
\nLast month the UK Government said it would block TikTok from its devices and networks over safety concerns, with the Scottish Government following suit.
\nTikTok, owned by Chinese internet company ByteDance, has regularly said that it does not share data with China.
\nBut Beijing\u2019s intelligence legislation requires firms to help the Communist Party when requested.
\nTikTok chief executive Shou Zi Chew also made a rare public appearance to be questioned by the US Congress over data security and user safety.
\n\u201cLet me state this unequivocally, ByteDance is not an agent of China or any other country,\u201d he said, as he made his case for why the popular app should not be banned, at the March hearing.<\/p>\n

This data comes from MediaIntel.Asia's Media Intelligence and Media Monitoring Platform<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Up to 1.4 million children under 13 might have used the social media platform in 2020, the ICO said (Will Matthews\/PA) \u2014 \u00a9 Will Matthews
\nSocial media platform TikTok has been fined \u00a312.7 million because it \u201cdid not do enough\u201d to make sure underage chi…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":253,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[144,4,288,194,222,465,1542],"tags":[2086,3686,10309,3472,10321,1696,10318,10315,2107,10310,3402],"class_list":["post-151708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-china","category-internet","category-medicine","category-news-chinese-law","category-online-video","category-social-media","category-technology","tag-australia","tag-boycott","tag-bytedance","tag-chinese","tag-communist","tag-congress","tag-dollar","tag-media-intelligence","tag-religion","tag-tiktok","tag-united-kingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151708"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/253"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151708"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151708\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":151709,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151708\/revisions\/151709"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.chinalegalblog.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}