Abstract
This article reports the results of two experiments in which large, census-weighted samples of Americans read short excerpts from Facebook’s, Yahoo’s, and Google’s privacy policies, which are at issue in high-stakes privacy class-action lawsuits. Subjects were randomly assigned to read language from either vague policies, some of which had been adjudicated insufficient to notify consumers about the companies’ practices, or explicit policies. Though many experimental subjects read these privacy policy excerpts closely, subjects who saw the explicit policies did not differ from those who saw vague policies in their assessment of whether their assent to the policies would permit the corporate practices at issue. Subjects generally stated that agreement to either vague or explicit language authorized companies to collect or use their personal information, even though consumers regarded these corporate practices as intrusive. These experiments show that courts and laypeople can understand the same privacy policy language quite differently.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | S69-S95 |
| Journal | Journal of Legal Studies |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue number | S2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Jun 2016 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Law
Cite this
}
Is privacy policy language irrelevant to consumers? / Strahilevitz, Lior Jacob; Kugler, Matthew B.
In: Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 45, No. S2, 06.2016, p. S69-S95.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Is privacy policy language irrelevant to consumers?
AU - Strahilevitz, Lior Jacob
AU - Kugler, Matthew B.
PY - 2016/6
Y1 - 2016/6
N2 - This article reports the results of two experiments in which large, census-weighted samples of Americans read short excerpts from Facebook’s, Yahoo’s, and Google’s privacy policies, which are at issue in high-stakes privacy class-action lawsuits. Subjects were randomly assigned to read language from either vague policies, some of which had been adjudicated insufficient to notify consumers about the companies’ practices, or explicit policies. Though many experimental subjects read these privacy policy excerpts closely, subjects who saw the explicit policies did not differ from those who saw vague policies in their assessment of whether their assent to the policies would permit the corporate practices at issue. Subjects generally stated that agreement to either vague or explicit language authorized companies to collect or use their personal information, even though consumers regarded these corporate practices as intrusive. These experiments show that courts and laypeople can understand the same privacy policy language quite differently.
AB - This article reports the results of two experiments in which large, census-weighted samples of Americans read short excerpts from Facebook’s, Yahoo’s, and Google’s privacy policies, which are at issue in high-stakes privacy class-action lawsuits. Subjects were randomly assigned to read language from either vague policies, some of which had been adjudicated insufficient to notify consumers about the companies’ practices, or explicit policies. Though many experimental subjects read these privacy policy excerpts closely, subjects who saw the explicit policies did not differ from those who saw vague policies in their assessment of whether their assent to the policies would permit the corporate practices at issue. Subjects generally stated that agreement to either vague or explicit language authorized companies to collect or use their personal information, even though consumers regarded these corporate practices as intrusive. These experiments show that courts and laypeople can understand the same privacy policy language quite differently.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006833181&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85006833181&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1086/689933
DO - 10.1086/689933
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85006833181
VL - 45
SP - S69-S95
JO - Journal of Legal Studies
JF - Journal of Legal Studies
SN - 0047-2530
IS - S2
ER -