The DoubleClick Controversy
|
|
ICMR HOME | Case Studies Collection
Case Details:
Case Code : ITSY014
Case Length : 11 Pages
Period : 1995-2001
Pub Date : 2001
Teaching Note : Available
Organization : Doubleclick.com
Industry : Internet Commerce
Countries : USA
To download The DoubleClick Controversy case study
(Case Code: ITSY014) click on the button below, and select the case from the list of available cases:
Price:
For delivery in electronic format: Rs. 300;
For delivery through courier (within India): Rs. 300 + Shipping & Handling Charges extra
» IT & Systems Case Studies Collection
» IT and Systems Short Case Studies
» View Detailed Pricing Info
» How To Order This Case
» Business Case Studies
» Case Studies by Area
» Case Studies by Industry
» Case Studies by Company
Please note:
This case study was compiled from published sources, and is intended to be used as a basis for class discussion. It is not intended to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a management situation. Nor is it a primary information source.
Chat with us
Please leave your feedback
|
|
<< Previous
"Every time you use the Internet, DoubleClick is
placing a bar code on your back - a user I.D. - so that it can identify your
interests, habits and preferences. The average consumer has no idea that their
on-line movements are being spied upon; this amounts to little more than a
secret, cyber wiretap."
- Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Michigan State,
US,
in February 2000.
A Spate of Lawsuits
|
In January 2000, a suit was filed against the world's largest
Internet advertising company DoubleClick.com (DoubleClick) in the California
Superior Court.
The media company providing digital marketing and Internet advertising
technology and services, was accused of using computer tracking technology to
identify Internet users and collect personal information without their consent,
while they browsed the World Wide Web.
DoubleClick had allegedly 'represented to the general public that it was not
collecting personal and identifying information and that it gives privacy
interests of Internet users the utmost importance.' |
|
The following month, the US state of Michigan too served a notice of intended
legal action against the company over the issue of improper data collection.
This was accompanied by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) launching a
review of some websites accused of inappropriate sharing of personal
information of their visitors with third parties. DoubleClick was named in
this probe as a third-party. These accusations were accompanied by various
privacy and civil liberty groups asking the US government to toughen online
privacy norms to make it harder for companies to disseminate user records. A
popular healthcare website, DrKoop.com was one of the websites reported to
be sending user details to DoubleClick.
|
|
DrKoop eventually severed its business relationship
with DoubleClick over the issue. Search engine Altavista.com, another
partner of DoubleClick, decided to limit the release of user information
to the company. Kozmo, a company involved in-home delivery of video/food
etc. also decided to end its relationship with DoubleClick. The number
of suits against the company soon reached 20 - 13 in Federal courts,
five in California and one each in Texas and Illinois state courts. The
stock price declined by 86% from $ 107.63 on February 1, 1999 to $ 15.25
on January 21, 2001(Refer Exhibit I). Alarmed by the above developments,
DoubleClick was forced to rethink its controversial data collection
practices. |
Excerpts >>
|
|
