Samsung updates TV software to clarify how it tracks what you watch

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 1,903   +58
Staff
What just happened? Samsung's smart TV software is undergoing a quiet but significant overhaul following a high-profile legal challenge in Texas that accused the company of using Automated Content Recognition technology to collect viewing data without consumers' express, informed consent. The update, announced as part of an agreement with the state attorney general's office, requires Samsung to make its privacy disclosures and opt-in screens "clear and conspicuous" – a change intended to help consumers better understand what data is being collected and for what purpose.

Automated Content Recognition (ACR) operates within the smart TV software stack, scanning brief snippets of video and audio from whatever appears on the screen – whether streaming services, broadcast television, or external inputs. Those snippets are then compared against a large online database to identify content in real time. By linking that information to advertising networks, Samsung and other manufacturers can tailor marketing based on users' viewing habits.

Researchers who study ACR describe it as a form of digital fingerprinting. The software captures short bursts of imagery or audio – sometimes just a few frames – and converts them into mathematical signatures. These signatures are matched against centralized reference libraries maintained by service providers. Although the system does not record full-length footage, it can still generate a detailed log of what is being watched and when, based on the accumulated fingerprint matches over time.

While television makers present the technology as an opt-in feature for personalized ads or content recommendations, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argued that the practice amounts to hidden surveillance. His lawsuit against Samsung alleged that the company failed to clearly disclose how the technology functioned during the initial setup process.

According to court filings, Samsung referred to its data collection system as "Viewing Information Services," a label that Paxton argued obscured its purpose. He further contended that many consumers simply click through installation screens to begin using their new TVs, unaware that they may be consenting to ongoing ACR-based data collection.

Samsung has maintained that it did not violate privacy laws and that the settlement supports its position. "Samsung TVs do not spy on consumers," the company said in a statement. "Customers have always had the ability to control their privacy and change their settings at any time." Nevertheless, Samsung agreed to redesign its permission interface to make data collection disclosures clearer and easier to understand.

The company said it will deploy the changes through software updates for its smart TV products, though the revised disclosures have not yet been publicly detailed. A Samsung spokesperson told PCMag that the updated language is intended to "provide additional reassurance to customers and serve as a new standard for others in the television industry."

The reference to a "new standard" carries broader regulatory implications. Paxton has filed similar lawsuits against Hisense, LG, Sony, and TCL, each accused of deploying ACR systems without sufficient transparency. Because these brands collectively hold a substantial share of the smart TV market, the Samsung settlement could encourage the industry to adopt more explicit consent mechanisms.

ACR has been used for years but has attracted relatively little public attention outside academic and policy discussions. As connected television advertising has expanded, ACR has become an important background technology for cross-platform audience measurement, especially in environments where traditional viewership metrics are less effective. Advertisers view the resulting behavioral data as valuable for targeting, while regulators increasingly view it as a potential privacy risk.

Manufacturers typically emphasize that ACR systems are designed to recognize content rather than identify individuals, avoid recording full conversations, and do not directly analyze biometric features. Instead, the software converts short video or audio segments into cryptographic-like hashes that represent content signatures.

However, even anonymized datasets can sometimes be linked indirectly to device identifiers, network metadata, or long-term behavioral patterns. Privacy advocates warn that as machine learning systems become more capable of aggregating contextual signals, the distinction between personalized marketing and surveillance-style profiling may become increasingly difficult to define.

Permalink to story:

 
My displays show pixels and only know of the internet as a distant myth they were told about while being manufactured. They'll die never knowing if it existed. If marketing creeps want to know what I watch, they'll need to foot a cell or sat bill, then wake up early to lobby for it.
 
I have a target list setup for things just like this in Firewalla. Pi-Hole would be a good option too.
 
How is it transmitted, anyway? Does it store all the fingerprints, and the next time the TV is connected to wi-fi, it phones home?
 
I expect Samsung, LG, hisense etc. to fight hard on this.

Tracking is an essential part of the business viability of these products. The reason you're able to buy a 65" TV for $300 is because they're hoping to extract $1000 out of the lifetime of that product through targeted advertising.

TV companies are basically advertising companies with monitors attached at this point.

 
I expect Samsung, LG, hisense etc. to fight hard on this.
Fight against disclosure? Why bother? Essentially all that's changing here is they are agreeing to make a few sentences less obfuscated. The "choice" for each household to either surrender their viewing privacy to their TV manufacturer, or have large swaths of functionality disabled, isn't changing. And as the article makes clear, all the other manufacturers do the same thing and now will likely do it using the exact same legally-approved language so there's little choice there either. If anything the manufacturers are better off as they've now moved out of a maybe untested grey area into an already settled legal matter (at least in one state.)

I honestly don't know why the AG even bothered if he was going to settle for so little, unless maybe he just wanted the soundbite for the next election season.
 
And so you have to use an Apple TV to provide the smarts and avoid what were already trash-tier OS's from Scamsung and Lucky Goldstar even before AI polluted our lives.
 
Fight against disclosure? Why bother? Essentially all that's changing here is they are agreeing to make a few sentences less obfuscated. The "choice" for each household to either surrender their viewing privacy to their TV manufacturer, or have large swaths of functionality disabled, isn't changing. And as the article makes clear, all the other manufacturers do the same thing and now will likely do it using the exact same legally-approved language so there's little choice there either. If anything the manufacturers are better off as they've now moved out of a maybe untested grey area into an already settled legal matter (at least in one state.)

I honestly don't know why the AG even bothered if he was going to settle for so little, unless maybe he just wanted the soundbite for the next election season.
What functionality is disabled?

Sure they say that to get you to click yes but I say no to everything and the only thing disabled is the ability to talk to my remote (which I don’t want anyway).

Also Pi hole blocks phoning home in case they don’t respect the nos.
 
I use a Amazon or goggle HDMI device (so I'm still monitored) but I don't plug my LG TV into the Internet. I don't need one more Smart device trying to sell me something.
 
Nowhere near as bad. The OS isn't built around surveillance and I have no love for crApple.
So you know for a fact that [Cr]Apple aren't using your iCloud data to try and train their version of an AI Assistant or that they don't go through everything your Phone or iPad uploads looking for data to sell to Advertisers LOL because they probably do just that this is why they're a multi trillion dollar company because certainly ain't from the sales of Macs iPhones or iPads
 
Back