![]() ![]() the evidence was not a good fit for the broad and unqualified claims” made by Brave. The NAD opinion states that “although Brave’s privacy protection might represent best practices in the industry. Additionally, NAD stated that the studies only supported claims about data sent by the browser itself, and not claims about protection provided in mobile handset versions of browsers that could exhibit different behavior than the laptop/desktop versions studied. ![]() NAD found that Brave’s substantiation supports Brave’s claim that it does not store user data or share it with third parties, but concluded that even though Brave protects user privacy by blocking some third party surveillance requests, the evidence did not support express claims that users are protected from all online surveillance and third party attempts to access personal data. that can destroy your privacy.” In support of its claims, Brave provided the results of studies that showed its relative increased protection when compared to other popular browsers and evidence highlighting its role in designing Global Privacy Control. that its browser “stops online surveillance” and “shields everything. In this routine monitoring case, NAD examined claims by Brave, Inc. The decisions show that even when a product offers the highest degree of privacy protection in the industry, companies should refrain from making unqualified statements regarding the efficacy of their privacy protection. The National Advertising Division (NAD) recently published decisions regarding browser privacy claims. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |