CARU Recommends CEC Modify Chuck E. Cheese Website, Company Agrees To Do So

New York, NY – April 23, 2009 – The Children’s Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc., has recommended that that CEC Entertainment, operator of the Chuck E. Cheese Website www.chuckecheese.com, modify the Website to provide a neutral age-screening mechanism and include appropriate corporate contact information. The company has agreed to do so.

CARU, the children’s advertising industry’s self-regulatory forum, monitors Websites for compliance with CARU’s Self-Regulatory Program for Children’s Advertisingincluding guidelines on Online Privacy Protection, as well as with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. COPPA.

The Chuck E. Cheese Website provides visitors with information about Chuck E. Cheese restaurants, as well as games and promotional information for children. The Website’s homepage invites visitors to “Join the Chuck E-Club and receive our best one-time special offer plus exclusive coupons, promotions and birthday specials.”

To join the Chuck E-Club, a registrant must first submit a year of birth and then an email address.  Upon its initial review, CARU determined that when potential registrants submitted a year of birth reflecting an age under 13, the following language appeared: “Chuck E. Cheese takes children’s on-line privacy very seriously. Based on the information provided, access has been denied to this area of the site for 24 hours.  Please wait 24 hours before trying again.”

CARU also determined that the Website’s privacy policy did not include the operator’s contact information as required by COPPA.

Following its review CARU recommended that the site operator employ a neutral age-screening mechanism, including a tracking device to prevent visitors from circumventing the screening process; modify that the registration process to eliminate language that acted as a tip-off to under-age children and adequately disclose corporate contact information as required by COPPA.

Although the operator asserted that the site was in compliance with CARU’s guidelines and COPPA, it agreed to make the recommended changes “in the spirit of self-regulation.”

 

Subscribe to the Ad Law Insights or Privacy Initiatives newsletters for an exclusive monthly analysis and insider perspectives on the latest trends and case decisions in advertising law and data privacy.

 

 

 

 

Latest Decisions

Decision

National Advertising Division Refers Home Chef to Federal Trade Commission

New York, NY – January 13, 2025 – Based on Relish Labs, LLC d/b/a Home Chef’s failure to address compliance concerns from a previous inquiry, BBB National Program’s National Advertising Division has referred Home Chef to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in accordance with its procedures.

Read the Decision Summary
Decision

National Advertising Division Refers “Made in USA” Claims by Larose Industries d/b/a Roseart and Cra-Z-Art to the Federal Trade Commission

New York, NY – January 10, 2025 – The National Advertising Division referred advertising claims by Larose Industries, operating under the names Roseart and Cra-Z-Art, that its products are “Made in USA” to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) after Larose Industries failed to respond to the inquiry.

Read the Decision Summary
Decision

National Advertising Division Recommends T-Mobile Discontinue or Modify 20% Savings vs. ‘The Other Big Guys’ Claim; T-Mobile to Appeal

New York, NY – January 9, 2025 – The National Advertising Division recommended that T-Mobile discontinue or modify its advertising to avoid conveying the comparative claim that consumers can “save 20% every month vs. the other big guys” if they subscribe to T-Mobile in markets where Spectrum Mobile also...

Read the Decision Summary
Decision

In National Advertising Division Fast-Track SWIFT Challenge Behr Voluntarily Discontinues “No Comparable Product” Claim

New York, NY – January 8, 2025 – In a National Advertising Division Fast-Track SWIFT challenge brought by Benjamin Moore, Behr voluntarily discontinued its “No Comparable Product” claim.

Read the Decision Summary