TLDR
LG’s response to the latest Smart TV privacy controversy asks customers for trust.
The company says privacy is fundamental. It says optional ACR, voice recognition, and interest-based advertising are off by default. It says users have meaningful choice. It says device discovery is for connectivity rather than advertising. It says ordinary LG televisions do not continuously record ambient conversations.
Some of those statements answer legitimate questions and should be taken seriously.
But trust is not created by publishing a reassuring statement after controversy erupts.
Trust is cumulative.
And LG has accumulated a lot of reasons for consumers to remain skeptical.
Texas sued the company over its Smart TV privacy practices and accused LG of dark patterns. The state specifically alleged a one-click opt-in process contrasted with more than 40 clicks to fully opt out. LG later entered an agreement requiring informed consent, clearer disclosure, and simpler ACR opt-outs.
Researchers observed LG televisions scanning local networks and discovering unrelated devices. Separate security researchers demonstrated what compromised televisions could do with microphone access and reported vulnerabilities still moving through responsible disclosure.
Meanwhile LG’s advertising company openly describes television activity as glass-level behavioral data, tells advertisers to “Own the living room,” and says ACR offers insight into genuine human behavior.
Then there is Serge Matta, currently President of Global Ad Sales at LG Ad Solutions, who previously settled SEC accounting-and-disclosure fraud charges stemming from his tenure as Comscore CEO and accepted a ten-year public-company officer/director bar.
Every one of these facts has context.
The cumulative context is exactly why LG does not get to demand trust.
It has to earn it.
LG Says Privacy Is Fundamental. Fine. Prove It.
LG’s September 2026 response begins from an admirable premise.
The company says protecting user privacy is fundamental to the design and operation of its products and services. It lists transparency, user choice, informed consent, and continuous improvement as guiding principles.
Those are the right words.
They are also words almost any modern technology company knows how to say.
Trust does not come from having a privacy-values section.
It comes from what happens when privacy conflicts with money, convenience, advertising, data collection, and corporate incentives.
That is where LG’s record becomes much less comforting.
Texas Did Not Sue LG Because Its Privacy Design Was Exemplary
Start with Texas.
In December 2025, the Texas Attorney General sued LG over Smart TV ACR practices. The state’s complaint was extraordinarily aggressive, accusing LG of mass surveillance and deceptive consent practices. Those were allegations, not final judicial findings.
But Texas did not merely complain about the existence of ACR.
It attacked LG’s interface.
The complaint alleged that LG provided a one-click enrollment mechanism during setup but required more than 40 interactions through multiple menus to fully opt out later. Texas explicitly called the disparity an example of dark patterns, including Privacy Zuckering and a Roach Motel.
That matters because trust and interface design are inseparable.
A company that truly prioritizes informed choice does not make maximum consent effortless and maximum privacy exhausting.
At least, it should not.
LG Later Agreed to Make Consent Clearer and Opting Out Simpler
Five months later, Texas announced a settlement with LG.
Under the agreement, LG committed not to use ACR to collect consumers’ viewing information without informed consent. It also agreed to a pop-up explaining how viewing information may be collected and used and to a clear, simple way of opting out.
That settlement does not prove every accusation Texas made.
It does show that the dispute ended with LG agreeing to stronger disclosure and privacy controls in the exact areas regulators had criticized.
So when LG now tells customers how committed it is to meaningful choice, consumers are allowed to remember how we arrived here.
A regulator showed up first.
Read the Texas-LG privacy agreement
The Dark-Pattern History Matters Because LG Understands Human Behavior Extremely Well
LG is not an unsophisticated company.
Its advertising operation makes that impossible to argue with a straight face.
LG Ad Solutions sells products specifically built around understanding consumer behavior, audience segmentation, ad exposure, viewing patterns, and response.
The same advertising organization describes ACR data as insight into “genuine human behavior” and says what happens on the television glass is a real-time window into consumer behavior.
This company understands how people behave.
It understands interfaces.
It understands friction.
It understands how tiny changes affect engagement.
That is why I find LG’s historical privacy-interface problems particularly difficult to excuse as innocent clumsiness.
When a company this sophisticated creates a privacy flow that repeatedly favors the company, consumers are entitled to be suspicious.
The Backwards “Do Not Sell” Logic Does Not Help
LG’s privacy interface has also included the wonderfully absurd Do Not Sell My Personal Information control.
The customer trying to reduce optional data collection learns that unwanted tracking and advertising functions should be declined or disabled.
Then the Do Not Sell control flips the logic.
The privacy-protective state is to turn Do Not Sell on.
LG has not admitted this was intended to confuse anyone.
But a corporation that designs OLED displays, operating systems, cloud services, behavioral-advertising platforms, and AI-assisted data-analysis tools does not get treated like a toddler who accidentally wired a button backwards.
The interface works the way it works because somebody designed, reviewed, tested, and shipped it.
Trust requires better judgment than that.
Researchers Then Found LG TVs Scanning the LAN
Next comes the local network.
Gamers Nexus, Level1Techs, and security researchers examined LG televisions using packet captures and firmware analysis. Ars Technica reported that an LG G5 crawled the network and discovered dozens of unrelated devices, including phones and smartwatches belonging to staff who did not even know they were part of the experiment.
This was not presented as exploit-dependent behavior.
Gamers Nexus described the scanning as native television functionality.
LG acknowledges device discovery and says it exists to support connectivity, content sharing, and smart-home features. The company says information identified through this device-discovery function is not used for household profiling, cross-device targeting, or advertising segmentation.
That distinction is important.
It still leaves the customer asking why the television needs such broad awareness of the network in the first place.
Trustworthy design should minimize access.
Not merely explain it afterward.
LG’s Own Privacy Statement Reveals an Extraordinary Amount of Processing
LG’s current statement says device discovery is separate from nearby Wi-Fi processing.
Nearby access-point information and signal strength may, where ACR is available and enabled, help estimate the television’s approximate location for ACR services.
Enabled ACR may also operate on supported sources including Live TV, HDMI-connected devices, and LG Channels. LG says the system can process content fingerprints together with device information, content-source information, network information, and consent settings.
LG provides explanations for all of this.
My concern is cumulative.
The television recognizes content.
The television understands its source.
The television processes network information.
The television can process nearby Wi-Fi information in support of approximate location.
The television discovers other devices.
Some models process voice input.
The advertising ecosystem can use properly consented viewing information for audience analysis and advertising.
At some point the device becomes complex enough that consumers are being asked to trust an entire data architecture they cannot realistically audit.
LG’s history matters enormously at that point.
Then Came the Security Findings
A company’s privacy promises are only as strong as its security.
Researchers involved in the Gamers Nexus investigation reported vulnerabilities affecting tested LG televisions. Malwarebytes summarized the findings as security weaknesses that could increase the consequences if a television were compromised. Researchers demonstrated that a compromised unit could capture microphone audio, including behavior while the television appeared to be off.
There is an essential qualification.
The ambient-audio demonstration involved a compromised television. It does not prove ordinary, uncompromised LG TVs routinely record conversations. Malwarebytes explicitly updated its reporting to clarify that distinction, and LG strongly disputes claims of routine ambient recording.
Fine.
That still leaves an ugly security question.
Why can compromising the television create that level of surveillance capability?
A company asking for trust should be able to demonstrate that a network-connected microphone-equipped device inside a private home is extremely difficult to weaponize.
“We Aren’t Spying on You Ourselves” Is Not the Entire Security Standard
LG’s defense of its intended product behavior addresses whether LG is intentionally recording ambient conversations.
Security introduces a different threat actor.
An attacker.
The customer’s problem is not limited to what LG wants the device to do. It includes what LG’s software architecture allows somebody else to make the device do after compromise.
That is why privacy and security cannot be separated.
The more powerful the television becomes, the more responsible LG is for hardening it.
A dumb display has very little attack surface.
A smart television with microphones, networking, advertising components, local storage, apps, cloud connectivity, and device discovery has plenty.
LG chose the second architecture.
That decision comes with responsibility.
Now Compare the Privacy Reassurance With the Advertising Sales Pitch
LG tells consumers its approach is based on transparency, user choice, and privacy by design.
LG Ad Solutions tells advertisers something else.
It boasts of first-party ACR data operating at the glass level.
It sells purchase-habit targeting.
It sells advertising-exposure targeting.
It sells gaming categories.
It sells viewing-habit categories.
It sells location targeting.
It describes LG Smart TV owners as affluent, engaged, younger, and family focused.
Then it tells advertisers:
“Own the living room.”
Both sides of the company can argue that these statements are compatible because optional advertising functions require consent.
Legally and technically, perhaps they are.
Reputationally, the contrast is still brutal.
Consumers are being asked to trust the company that is simultaneously telling marketers how valuable consumer behavior is.
“Genuine Human Behavior” Is Not a Reassuring Phrase From Your TV Company
LG Ad Solutions’ 2025 Akkio announcement is especially useful for understanding why skepticism is rational.
The company says ACR data captured directly from LG Smart TV glass provides a powerful view into “genuine human behavior” in media. It talks about what people actually watch, skip, and engage with, moment by moment.
LG then celebrates making those enormous datasets easier for advertising customers to analyze using AI.
That is the company asking you for trust.
Again, I am not claiming the data is collected regardless of consent. LG says current optional ACR and interest-based advertising require appropriate user agreements.
The point is that LG has a strong commercial incentive to make behavioral data useful.
Trust should be evaluated in light of incentives, not marketing statements.
Serge Matta Does Not Improve the Credibility Problem
Then there is leadership.
LG Ad Solutions currently lists Serge Matta as President, Global Ad Sales.
Before joining LG’s advertising world, Matta served as CEO of Comscore.
In 2019, the SEC charged Comscore and Matta with accounting-and-disclosure fraud. The agency said Comscore, at Matta’s direction, entered transactions intended to improperly increase reported revenue. The SEC also said Comscore and Matta made false and misleading disclosures and that Matta lied to internal accountants and the company’s external auditor.
Matta settled without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings. He paid a $700,000 penalty, agreed to reimburse Comscore approximately $2.1 million, and accepted a ten-year prohibition on serving as an officer or director of a public company.
His current LG position does not violate that prohibition.
But consumers are absolutely allowed to consider the record when evaluating the leadership judgment of a company asking them to trust a sensitive advertising-data operation.
Read the SEC’s Comscore and Serge Matta enforcement announcement
LG’s Corporate Values Make the Contrast Almost Painful
LG Ad Solutions’ own company page says the organization prioritizes transparency, accountability, honesty, integrity, and doing the right thing.
Those are excellent principles.
But values sections are cheap.
Every company has them.
The real question is what happens when transparency interferes with advertising revenue, when privacy makes data less useful, when security bugs require expensive engineering work, and when executive talent comes with a serious regulatory history.
Those moments reveal priorities much more clearly than a corporate-values webpage.
LG’s record is why the slogans do not automatically earn trust.
Trust Is Not the Same as Technical Compliance
This distinction matters.
LG may comply with a particular privacy law.
LG may obtain technically valid consent.
LG may correctly disclose a data practice in an agreement.
LG may provide an opt-out somewhere.
None of those things automatically produce trust.
Trust is what remains after asking broader questions.
Was the disclosure understandable?
Was the privacy-preserving choice easy?
Was the default respectful?
Did regulators have to intervene?
Was the company’s response proactive or reactive?
Did the company minimize the data it could access?
Did it build security appropriate to the device’s capabilities?
Does its advertising rhetoric match the restraint it promises consumers?
Does its leadership strengthen confidence?
Those are harder questions.
LG’s answers are mixed at best.
Current Improvements Are Good. They Are Not a Time Machine.
LG’s current privacy statement contains improvements worth recognizing.
The company says ACR, voice recognition, and interest-based advertising are optional and off by default. It says users can decline them without losing core Smart TV functions. It says consent can be withdrawn. It provides more detail about how ACR, voice processing, device discovery, Wi-Fi information, and advertising work.
That is better than opacity.
But companies do not erase previous behavior simply by improving later.
Texas still sued.
The alleged dark-pattern history still happened.
The settlement still happened.
The network-scanning findings still happened.
The security research still happened.
The advertiser-facing rhetoric still exists.
The Matta record still exists.
Trust must account for all of it.
LG Keeps Asking Consumers to Interpret Everything in the Most Charitable Possible Way
This is what increasingly bothers me.
Network scanning?
It is for connectivity.
Nearby Wi-Fi information?
It supports location estimation for ACR.
Viewing fingerprints?
They are not conventional recordings.
Advertising?
It requires separate consent.
Microphone concerns?
LG does not continuously record ambient conversations.
Security demonstrations?
Those involved compromised hardware.
Every explanation can be individually reasonable.
But a consumer should not be required to keep giving the company the most charitable interpretation imaginable while the overall system becomes more complex, more commercial, and more invasive.
At some point the burden should shift.
LG should prove restraint.
Trustworthy Companies Reduce the Amount of Trust They Need
This is the most important principle.
Good security architecture does not ask users to trust that nothing bad will happen.
It minimizes what can happen.
Good privacy architecture does not ask users to trust that collected information will be treated responsibly.
It collects less.
Good interfaces do not ask users to trust that a confusing toggle is technically grammatical.
They make the correct choice obvious.
Good advertising systems do not ask premium customers to accept behavioral surveillance as the price of using hardware they already purchased.
They separate advertising from core product ownership.
The best privacy design requires less trust because the architecture itself limits abuse.
LG has spent too much time doing the opposite.
LG Can Earn Trust, but It Has Work to Do
This does not need to become permanent condemnation.
LG can change.
Make privacy the unquestioned default.
Remove ads from premium hardware.
Give owners a single simple privacy dashboard.
End backwards toggle logic.
Minimize LAN discovery.
Publish detailed independent security assessments.
Support televisions with security updates for the realistic lifetime of the hardware.
Make ACR descriptions brutally clear instead of wrapping them in phrases such as Viewing Information.
Explain every commercial use in language normal consumers understand.
And exercise better judgment about who represents the company’s advertising operation.
Do that consistently for years and trust can return.
That is how reputations work.
Until Then, LG Wants Something It Has Not Earned
LG wants customers to believe the company respects their homes.
It wants them to believe the TV is not spying.
It wants them to trust that ACR is optional.
Trust that advertising is properly consented.
Trust that device discovery is benign.
Trust that nearby Wi-Fi processing is limited.
Trust that microphones behave exactly as described.
Trust that security vulnerabilities will be fixed.
Trust that behavioral data will be handled properly.
Trust that the people running the advertising operation deserve access to an incredibly sensitive position inside the household.
That is a lot of trust.
And LG’s own history is the reason consumers should hesitate before handing it over.
Trust is not an agreement checkbox.
It is not a privacy statement.
It is not a corporate value.
It is a reputation built by consistent behavior.
LG wants trust.
It has not earned enough of it yet.
References
LG Electronics, “Understanding Privacy on LG Smart TVs,” September 12, 2026. LG’s current explanations of ACR, voice features, device discovery, Wi-Fi information, consent, advertising, security, and user controls.
LG: Understanding Privacy on LG Smart TVs
State of Texas v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Original Petition, December 2025. Contains Texas’s ACR allegations and its claims concerning dark patterns and consumer consent.
Read Texas’s complaint against LG
Texas Office of the Attorney General, LG privacy settlement, May 11, 2026. Details LG’s informed-consent, disclosure, and opt-out agreement.
Texas-LG privacy settlement announcement
Ars Technica, “LG TV shown scanning LAN for third-party phones and other devices,” September 8, 2026. Reports on the network-discovery findings and LG’s response.
Read the Ars Technica LG network investigation
Malwarebytes, “LG TV flaws could let attackers listen in, even in standby mode,” September 2026. Covers reported security vulnerabilities and clarifies that the ambient-audio demonstration involved compromised hardware.
Read the Malwarebytes LG security report
LG Ad Solutions, “Trusted ACR Technology.” LG’s own advertiser-facing description of viewing data, purchases, ads, gaming, viewing habits, location, and customer categories.
LG Ad Solutions: Trusted ACR Technology
LG Ad Solutions, “Superior Solutions for Performance Advertisers.” Includes home-screen advertising and LG’s “Own the living room” cross-device pitch.
LG Ad Solutions: Advertising Solutions
LG Ad Solutions and Akkio, June 2025. LG describes ACR as insight into genuine human behavior and discusses making massive ACR datasets more accessible to advertisers.
LG Ad Solutions: ACR Intelligence Partnership
LG Ad Solutions, Leadership Team. Current listing of Serge Matta as President, Global Ad Sales.
LG Ad Solutions leadership page
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, September 24, 2019. SEC enforcement announcement regarding Comscore and former CEO Serge Matta.
SEC: Comscore and Serge Matta enforcement action
