On-Demand Entertainment: 13 Reasons Why Congress Should Revisit Regulations on the Entertainment Industry
Jennifer Bautista
In the wake of the
devastating 1999 shooting in Littleton Colorado, President Clinton asked the
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to study
whether the movie, music recording, and computer and video game industries
intentionally market and advertise entertainment media to youngsters that are
inappropriate for children or otherwise warrant a parental advisory due to
their violent content.[i] In response to President Clinton’s
request, the FTC published a Report in 2000 (“2000 FTC Report”) that
concluded yes.[ii]
Entertainment media has long espoused violent
content which, thanks to the advent of on-demand media, children have easy
access to. Children’s exposure to violent media content, especially at
high concentrated levels, can cause a myriad of psychological, social, and
health problems.[iii] Nonetheless, the entertainment industry claims that
its marketing and targeting of violent media to children is limited, and asks
everyone to entrust their self-regulatory system.[iv] Notwithstanding the
clear conflicts of interest, the voluntary ratings program has found little
success due to the entertainment industry’s failure to adequately explain the
labels, and place them in its advertisements.[v]
Since the advent of Netflix, data mining capabilities
allow the on-demand entertainment industry to target and influence young
consumers like never before.[vi] A revolutionary force, the changes
brought on by the on-demand entertainment industry are of legal significance,
as they demonstrate how the industry is quickly datifying individuals,
and robbing them of their individuality, autonomy, and
self.[vii] On-demand entertainment demonstrates just how easy it
will be for the entertainment industry to continue to target and influence
children as the industry markets its highest-valued product: violent
media.[viii]
The technological capabilities
brought upon by on-demand media entertainment, with the entire entertainment
industry’s unethical marketing and targeting of young consumers, warrant
Congressional action[ix]. Further, these technological capabilities
expose how the entertainment industries’ advertisements and marketing
techniques warrant less constitutional protection under the commercial speech
doctrine. As the entertainment industry works to turn individuals into data as
pricing for third party advertisers, the psychological harms at stake
demonstrate a clear abrogation of consumer protections and parents’ ability to
limit their children’s exposure to such harms.
[i] Fed. Trade Comm’n, Marketing Violent
Entertainment to Children: A Review of Self-Regulation and Industry Practices
in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries,
1 (Sept. 2000), available at https://www.ftc.gov/reports/marketing-violent-entertainment-children-review-self-regulation-industry-practices-motion
[hereinafter 2000 FTC Report].
[ii]. See
id. at 12.
[iii].
See Craig A. Anderson et al., The Influence of
Media Violence on Youth, 4 Psychol.
Sci. Pub. Int. 81 (2003).
[iv]. See 2000 FTC Report, supra note
1, at 53. “The motion picture industry…take[s] the position that
targeting children is consistent with their rating and labelling programs…but
violations are widespread.” Id.
[v]. See In
the Matter of Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, 22
F.C.C.R. 7929 (2007).
[vi]. See Sarah
Arnold, Netflix and the Myth of Choice/Participation/Autonomy, in The Netflix Effect 49, ## (Kevin
McDonald et al. eds., 2016).
[vii]. See
id.
[viii]. See
Netflix Subscriber Growth Continues Unabated, As Margins Improve, supra note
206.
[ix]. See In
the Matter of Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, 22
F.C.C.R. 7929 (2007).
