“Smart TVs That Monitor Users” — Samsung, Sony and Other Global Manufacturers Sued in Texas Over Illegal Surveillance

Smart TVs accused of real-time recording and unauthorized data collection
Criticism over consumer consent processes that obscure key disclosures
Courts continue to weigh in on Big Tech’s data collection practices

Allegations that smart TVs from major global manufacturers have recorded viewing activity in real time and collected and utilized personal data without authorization have prompted the U.S. state of Texas to file a lawsuit against the companies involved. The case is drawing industry-wide attention, as it targets not an isolated corporate lapse but what Texas argues is a systemic data-collection practice embedded across the smart TV sector. Experts anticipate that the lawsuit could trigger significantly stricter regulation of how electronics manufacturers collect and use consumer data.

Texas Moves to Tighten Accountability for Appliance Makers’ Data Practices

According to Reuters and other international media outlets on the 18th (local time), the Texas state government filed suit on the 15th against leading global TV manufacturers, alleging consumer privacy violations and unauthorized surveillance. Defendants include South Korea’s Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, Japan’s Sony Group, and China’s Hisense and TCL. The lawsuit is widely interpreted as part of Texas’s broader effort to strengthen privacy accountability for electronics manufacturers. Since 2022, Texas has repeatedly brought legal action against social media and online platform companies over alleged privacy violations.

At the center of the dispute is Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) technology embedded in smart TVs. ACR captures images displayed on a TV screen at intervals of approximately 0.5 seconds, effectively recording viewing activity in real time. The technology can identify and track not only broadcast and cable programming, but also content from streaming services, game consoles, and laptops connected to the TV, transmitting this information to manufacturers’ servers. Texas authorities argue that the collected data was used to build consumer profiles by analyzing users’ preferences and behavior, asserting that viewing patterns can be used to infer sensitive attributes such as political views, religion, race, and gender.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated in a press release that “Texans should not be forced to hand over their personal data to Big Tech or foreign adversaries simply because they purchased a television,” calling the alleged practices “deeply intrusive and deceptive.” Texas officials expressed particular concern about Chinese manufacturers such as Hisense and TCL, citing China’s national security laws, which could compel companies to provide collected data to the Chinese Communist Party. This, they warned, raises the risk that such data could be exploited for intelligence activities targeting critical infrastructure personnel or senior public officials.

Texas also took issue with the consumer consent process itself. During initial TV setup, ACR functions are effectively enabled by default, while disabling them requires navigating multiple layers of complex menus. The state further argued that burying data collection disclosures within lengthy terms and dense legal language violates the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). If consumers were unable to make a genuinely informed choice, Texas contends, formal consent alone cannot be considered valid.

Industry Focus Turns to Lawsuits Targeting Data Monetization Models

The lawsuit has attracted attention because it challenges not a single company’s misconduct, but an industry-wide reliance on data collection as a business model. For years, TV manufacturers and distributors have treated ACR as a standard feature to power recommendation engines and enhance advertising efficiency. A prominent example is TV startup Telly, which in 2023 launched a product offering a free 55-inch 4K TV in exchange for users’ consent to share viewing history, contact lists, and IP addresses. The device featured a permanently attached advertising screen beneath the main display, generating revenue through continuous ads. Users who refused to consent were required to return the TV, sparking controversy over whether such consent could be considered voluntary.

This model has since spread across the broader TV and streaming ecosystem. Advertising-based free streaming television (FAST), which expanded rapidly between 2024 and 2025, exemplifies this trend. Platforms such as Pluto TV and Tubi provide free content in exchange for ad viewing, generating revenue through targeted advertising based on user viewing data. These services are often pre-installed on smart TVs or distributed through partnerships with manufacturers, accelerating their adoption and entrenching a model that combines free content with extensive data collection.

Manufacturers themselves have pursued similar strategies. Vizio, acquired by Walmart last year, has leveraged low-cost smart TVs integrated with advertising slots and ACR technology to monetize viewer data for advertising and marketing purposes. Despite having previously settled with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2017 for unauthorized data collection involving viewing histories, for $2.2 million, Vizio has continued to rely on data-driven advertising as a core revenue stream. Critics argue that, while not offering devices for free, the company’s practice of soliciting broad consent during initial setup is fundamentally no different from its past conduct.

Google Case Highlights Legal Liability for Unauthorized Data Collection

For years, the collection of personal data for advertising without users’ explicit awareness has been an entrenched industry practice. Users who browse the web or use apps multiple times a day are routinely exposed to targeted ads and recommended content generated through the analysis of search histories, app usage, interests, and location data. While companies justify these practices as a way to deliver relevant information, concerns over excessive surveillance and data harvesting have persisted. Personal devices such as smartphones are particularly problematic, as data can be collected even when users are not actively engaging with them.

Google provides a clear example of how such practices can translate into legal liability. In July, a court in San Jose, California ruled that Google had collected data for targeted advertising purposes even when smartphones were idle and had unlawfully consumed users’ cellular data in the process, ordering damages of more than $314 million. In a separate case filed in May over the illegal collection of biometric data, including facial information, Google agreed to a settlement of $1.4 billion. At the time, a Texas court emphasized that once data is used to enhance advertising performance, it constitutes commercial exploitation rather than routine service operation.

Despite the mounting legal challenges, industry observers widely believe that Big Tech companies are unlikely to relinquish user data easily. The more granular the information they can gather—such as gender, age, location, interests, and app usage patterns—the more precisely they can target advertisements, directly boosting revenues. While tightening privacy regulations worldwide and measures such as Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework have imposed some constraints, technology companies have increasingly turned to advanced analytical tools such as Data Management Platforms (DMPs) and Mobile Measurement Partners (MMPs), enabling them to infer user behavior patterns even without direct access to personal data.