Vizio: Difference between revisions

The FTC found in 2017 that Vizio collected second-by-second viewing data from 11 million smart TVs without consumer knowledge or consent, then sold that data to third parties who appended it with demographic information including sex, age, income, marital status, household size, & education level.<ref name="ftc-2017">{{Cite web |date=2017-02-06 |title=VIZIO to Pay $2.2 Million to FTC, State of New Jersey to Settle Charges It Collected Viewing Histories on 11 Million Smart Televisions without Users' Consent |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/02/vizio-pay-22-million-ftc-state-new-jersey-settle-charges-it-collected-viewing-histories-11-million |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260317153711/https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/02/vizio-pay-22-million-ftc-state-new-jersey-settle-charges-it-collected-viewing-histories-11-million |archive-date=2026-03-17 |website=[[Federal Trade Commission]]}}</ref> While Vizio's contracts with third parties prohibited re-identification of consumers by name, those contracts permitted profiling by sex, age, income, marital status, household size, education, & home ownership status.<ref name="ftc-blog-2017">{{Cite web |url=https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/02/what-vizio-was-doing-behind-tv-screen |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220313091120/https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2017/02/what-vizio-was-doing-behind-tv-screen |archive-date=2022-03-13 |title=What Vizio was doing behind the TV screen |author=Lesley Fair |date=2017-02-06 |website=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref> A legal analysis by Davis Wright Tremaine noted that the FTC's enforcement action against Vizio set a precedent for how regulators treat automated viewing data collection across the smart TV industry.<ref name="dwt-2017">{{Cite web |author1=McMeley |first=Christin S. |author2=Glist |first2=Paul |author3=Seiver |first3=John D. |author4=Reynolds |first4=Alexander B. |date=Oct 2017 |title=The Real Takeaway From VIZIO's Privacy FTC Settlement |url=https://www.dwt.com/blogs/media-law-monitor/2017/10/the-real-takeaway-from-vizios-privacy-ftc-settleme |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201202003735/https://www.dwt.com/blogs/media-law-monitor/2017/10/the-real-takeaway-from-vizios-privacy-ftc-settleme |archive-date=2020-12-02 |website=Davis Wright Tremaine LLP}}</ref>

Vizio's current privacy policy describes the use of Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) technology to collect "Viewing Data" about what is displayed on the television.<ref name="vizio-privacy">{{Cite web |url=https://www.vizio.com/en/terms/privacy-policy |title=VIZIO Privacy Policy |website=Vizio |access-date=2026-03-31}}</ref> Since the Walmart acquisition, Vizio TVs present a consent toggle to combine Vizio OS data with a user's Walmart account data for advertising purposes. Even with this toggle disabled, Vizio's privacy policy states that limited data disclosure to Walmart continues for purposes including aggregate audience measurement & pseudonymized target audience groups.<ref name="vizio-privacy" />

On October 19, 2021, the [https://sfconservancy.org Software Freedom Conservancy] (SFC) filed suit against Vizio in Orange County Superior Court, California (Case No. 30-2021-01226723-CU-BC-CJC), alleging that Vizio's SmartCast operating system uses GPL-licensed software without providing the required source code to consumers.<ref name="zdnet-sfc">{{Cite web |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-sues-vizio-for-gpl-violations/ |title=Software Freedom Conservancy sues Vizio for GPL violations |author=Steven Vaughan-Nichols |date=2021-10-19 |website=ZDNet}}</ref> The SFC argues that Vizio's failure to release GPL-compliant source code denies rights guaranteed to downstream users who purchased devices containing that software.<ref name="sfc-qa">{{Cite web |title=Vizio Lawsuit Q & A |url=https://sfconservancy.org/press/qanda.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211020053409/https://sfconservancy.org/press/qanda.html |archive-date=2021-10-20 |website=Software Freedom Conservancy}}</ref> The case tests whether consumers can enforce GPL source code requirements as third-party beneficiaries of the license.<ref name="sfc-vizio">{{Cite web |url=https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html |title=Software Freedom Conservancy v. Vizio Inc. |website=Software Freedom Conservancy |access-date=2026-03-31}}</ref> In May 2022, a federal court remanded the case to state court, recognizing the GPL as both a copyright license & a contractual agreement. In December 2023, the court denied Vizio's motion for summary judgment.<ref name="fossa-sfc">{{Cite web |author=FOSSA Editorial Team |date=2022-05-13 |title=The Massive Implications of Software Freedom Conservancy vs. Vizio |url=https://fossa.com/blog/massive-implications-software-freedom-conservancy-vs-vizio/ |website=FOSSA}}</ref> A December 2025 ruling addressed a narrow procedural issue about device functionality after modification; the SFC stated the ruling was irrelevant to their actual claims.<ref name="sfc-dec2025">{{Cite web |url=https://sfconservancy.org/news/2025/dec/24/vizio-msa-irrelevant-ruling/ |title=Judge in Vizio Case Rules on Issue Irrelevant to Rights Under Copyleft |date=2025-12-24 |website=Software Freedom Conservancy}}</ref> Trial is set for August 10-19, 2026.<ref name="sfc-vizio" />

In March 2019, Consumer Reports removed its "recommended" designation from both Vizio & Hisense televisions, citing reliability concerns & inconsistent internet connectivity based on surveys of its members.<ref name="cr-2019">{{Cite web |date=2019-03-26 |title=Consumer Reports No Longer Recommends Vizio and Hisense TVs Due to Problems with Reliability |url=https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2019/03/consumer-reports-no-longer-recommends-vizio-and-hisense-tvs-due-/ |website=Consumer Reports}}</ref>

Vizio issued a press release calling the survey "grossly inaccurate" & "deeply flawed."<ref name="vizio-cr-response">{{Cite web |url=https://www.vizio.com/en/press/2019/mar/VIZIO-responds-to-consumer-reports-grossly-inaccurate-reliability-survey-vizio-hdtvs-maintain-high-consumer-ratings-and-overall-satisfaction |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210723182552/https://www.vizio.com/en/press/2019/mar/VIZIO-responds-to-consumer-reports-grossly-inaccurate-reliability-survey-vizio-hdtvs-maintain-high-consumer-ratings-and-overall-satisfaction |archive-date=2021-07-23 |title=VIZIO Responds to Consumer Reports' Grossly Inaccurate "Reliability" Survey; VIZIO HDTVs Maintain High Consumer Ratings and Overall Satisfaction |date=2019-03-28 |website=Vizio}}</ref> The response argued that connected TV performance depends on third-party service providers & home network conditions rather than the television itself. Vizio stated that applications on connected TVs depend on "a multitude of third-party service providers" & that "the number of variables involved in the performance of connected TVs is greater than for non-connected TVs," but did not present counter-data on hardware reliability rates.<ref name="vizio-cr-response" />