Are you expecting a check from google for your use of Gmail? Whats more invasive, Google reading your emails to mom about your colonoscopy, or the fact that Vizio knows that your TV watched the superbowl last night?

Hmm, I may not be entirely up to speed on what happened here. If so, I apologize. The lead paragraph of the story says (in part) that Vizio "installed software on its TVs to collect viewing data on 11 million consumer TVs without consumers’ knowledge or consent," and that's what my comment was based on.

So if the service was "opt-in," as with the Nielsen business model, then why are they being forced to pay a seven-figure fine?

But how do I reconcile this with the article, which says it was done without consumers' knowledge or consent?

Someone's lying, which I'm sure you'll agree is always kind of annoying.

Iirc the statements were in the TOS to begin with, but it was not 100% obvious (meaning "CLICK HERE TO ACCEPT") yet I recall going through deployment heck to ensure that the TOS pop-ups were actually working... and we ensured this 100%.

The agreement was there, but it wasn't a button... We had to make a button, which was done.

Also, Gmail gives me a pretty damn good service in exchange for me allowing them to read my e-mail - I get free search, categorization and arguably the best spam filtering solution in the world. What do I get from Vizio in exchange for all its spying?

As a consumer, that's not my problem. If a commodity company can't survive on their margins, then so be it.

The problem is that even if such "innovation" allows a company to increase its margins (and maybe decrease price), there's nothing stopping competitors from adopting it too, and soon margins are back to near-zero - but the user-hostile crap remains a permanent part of the new landscape. This process needs to be actively opposed, and individual consumers are unfortunately nowhere near powerful enough to do so.

And, with a $2.2m settlement, the incentives are still solidly weighted towards behavior like this.