A major privacy concern among smart TV owners is how these devices collect, use and share your personal data in the background. Using built-in technologies such as automated content recognition (ACR), smart TVs can collect user viewing data, including what you watch, how long you watch and when you watch, app interactions, voice data, advertising interactions, and network and device information. This information may then be used for personalized viewing recommendations or sold to advertisers so that they can serve targeted advertisements.
Collecting user data is one of the biggest drawbacks of smart TVs, but there are ways to stop your smart TV from spying on you. Major smart TV brands may require users’ consent to collect this data, informing them of what is being collected, why, and with whom it is being shared. However, consent or opt-out options and details about what data is collected are often buried in lengthy privacy policies, confusing menus, or during setup.
While collecting user data has become a common practice for smart TVs, brands must comply with local privacy laws and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act, which “prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including misleading statements and unfair practices involving the use or misrepresentation 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 violating these data collection laws and collecting user data without consent.
FTC and New Jersey accuse Vizio TVs of hidden ACR tracking
In 2017, the FTC and the New Jersey Attorney General (AG) filed a lawsuit against smart TV maker Vizio. They accused the company of secretly installing software on its televisions to collect viewing data on 11 million televisions without consumers’ knowledge or consent.
According to the complaint, beginning in February 2014, Vizio manufactured smart TVs that continuously tracked what consumers were watching “second by second” and transmitted that information to the company via ACR technology enabled 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 under licensing agreements “for the purpose of analyzing advertising effectiveness.”
However, the complaint alleged that those who purchased new Vizio TVs starting in August 2014, with the default ACR enabled, received no on-screen notification of viewing data collection. He also claimed that in February 2014, Vizio began remotely installing this ACR technology on televisions that had not previously installed it, with users receiving an initial pop-up notification providing “no information about viewing data collection or the ACR software.”
The FTC sought an injunction against Vizio “to prevent them from engaging in any unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation,” while the New Jersey AG asserted that Vizio violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and sought an injunction as well as damages. Vizio reached a settlement with the agencies, agreeing to pay $2.2 million in response to the allegations, which does not necessarily constitute an admission of wrongdoing. The order stipulated by the federal court required Vizio to conspicuously disclose and obtain express and affirmative consent for its data collection and sharing practices and not to misrepresent the manner in which it collects, uses and maintains user data.
Texas Attorney General Sues Five Major TV Brands for Spying on Texans
In 2025, Texas AG Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against five major TV companies: Sony, Samsung, LG, Hisense and TCL. The lawsuit alleged that they “spied on Texans by secretly recording what consumers watched at home” without their consent. The AG’s office also claimed that Hisense and TCL’s ties to China “raise serious concerns about consumer data collection.”
The AG’s office alleged that these companies “illegally collected personal data” through the ACR technology built into their smart TVs, which puts “users’ privacy and sensitive information…at risk” and violates the Texas Consumer Protection Act on Deceptive Trade Practices. In the lawsuit filed against Sony, Paxton described Sony’s smart TVs as “a mass surveillance system installed in millions of American living rooms.” “When families buy a television, they don’t expect it to spy on them,” the complaint reads. “They don’t expect their viewing habits to be showcased and auctioned off to advertisers. Yet Sony is misleadingly incentivizing consumers to enable ACR and burying any explanation of what it means in dense legalese that few people will read or understand.”
Paxton reached 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 obtained a temporary restraining order against Hisense, preventing the company from collecting user data from Texans through ACR, but legal action is pending against it, Sony and TCL.
Class action alleges Samsung tracks, stores and sells viewing data
In January 2026, a class action lawsuit was filed against Samsung by a group of five Samsung smart TV owners (DiGiancinto et al.), alleging that the company illegally tracks, stores, and sells TV owners’ viewing data without their knowledge or consent. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the complaint alleges that Samsung’s ACR software allows the company to trace viewing data back to specific consumers, regardless of the number of Samsung TV users in the household.
Additionally, they claim that 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 the “processing” of visualization data. The plaintiffs allege that these practices violate state privacy laws and the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), which prevents a “videotape service provider” from knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information regarding consumers’ video viewing habits without their informed written consent.
The suit claims that as a result of these alleged practices, plaintiffs suffered an invasion of their privacy, a diminished value of their personal data, a loss of trust in electronics retailers, and emotional distress. They are seeking a jury trial and damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. As of this writing, the class action lawsuit is ongoing.
LG TVs accused of collecting viewing information despite UK blogger unsubscribing
In 2013, British blogger and IT consultant Jason Huntley (also known as “DoctorBeet”) published a blog detailing that, despite disabling the “viewing information collection” option on his LG model 42LN575V smart TV, his viewing information was apparently still being sent to LG servers without his consent. The blog post – which included evidence images – claimed that his LG TV was sending information about the channels he was watching and certain file names stored on an external USB drive connected to the smart TV.
The blogger contacted LG, who responded that as they agreed to the TV’s terms and conditions, their concerns were “best addressed to the retailer”, who should have informed them of these terms and conditions at the point of sale. Following the post, LG launched an investigation and later admitted that its smart TVs continued to collect data even when users turned off the “viewing information collection” option.
“We have verified that even when this feature is turned off by viewers, it continues to transmit viewing information, even if the data is not retained by the server,” LG said in its statement. “LG does not, or has ever, engaged in targeted advertising using information collected from LG Smart TV owners.” The company later rolled out a software update to fix the issue in smart TV models discovered to have this issue.
