|
July 15, 2008
Contact: Josh
Golin (617.278.4172;
jgolin@jbcc.harvard.edu)
For Immediate
Release
CCFC to FTC: Whatever
Happened to BabyFirstTV?
It’s been over two years
since The Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) filed a
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Complaint against Baby Einstein,
Baby Brainy, and BabyFirstTV for false and deceptive marketing.
The FTC’s subsequent investigation spurred significant changes
to Baby Einstein’s and Brainy Baby’s marketing strategies. But
for BabyFirstTV, it’s business as usual.
In a
letter sent today,
CCFC urged the FTC to hold BabyFirstTV accountable for its false
and deceptive marketing and to offer refunds to past and current
subscribers to the channel. The FTC has never responded
explicitly to CCFC’s Complaint against the nation’s first ever
24 hour television station for babies. As a result, BabyFirstTV
continues to make brazen claims about the channel’s educational
benefits for infants and toddlers – without providing
substantiation. There is no evidence that television is
beneficial for children under two and growing concern it may be
harmful.
“The FTC’s delay in
addressing our Complaint is concerning and puts countless babies
at risk,” said Susan Linn, CCFC’s director and author of The
Case of Make Believe: Saving Play in a Commercialized World.
“BabyFirstTV’s false and deceptive marketing makes it likely
that a whole cohort of babies has already missed out on
experiences essential to their growth and development. Research
suggests that the more babies watch television, the less time
they spend engaged in creative play and interacting with parents
– two activities proven to have educational value.”
In response to CCFC’s
Complaint against Baby Einstein and BabyFirstTV, the FTC stated
that, “advertisers must have adequate substantiation for
educational and/or cognitive development claims that they make
for their products, including for videos marketed for children
under the age of two.” Yet BabyFirstTV continues to make what
appear to be unsubstantiated claims that its channel “is an
educational tool” that can give babies a “head start, in art,
math, language, and music.” BabyFirstTV even claims that
specific programs are designed to develop specific skills such
as language development, pattern identification, or creativity.
"The standards established by
the FTC clearly indicate that BabyFirstTV must substantiate any
educational claims about its programming," said Coriell Wright,
Esq. of the Institute for Public Representation and Counsel for
CCFC. "If, as the evidence suggests, BabyFirstTV cannot provide
research to support these claims, they should be held
accountable for violating Section 5 of the FTC Act and their
ongoing deception of parents."
CCFC believes that
BabyFirstTV cannot substantiate its educational claims because
there is no publicly available research demonstrating that
television is beneficial to children under two. In 2007,
BabyFirstTV sent a cease and desist letter to CCFC stating that,
“any and all claims [BabyFirstTV] makes about its programming
are backed by overwhelming substantiation.” Yet the “evidence”
offered by BabyFirstTV consisted of research conducted almost
exclusively with older children and entirely with children
watching programming other than BabyFirstTV. For instance,
BabyFirstTV cites a study that found, “Preschoolers who viewed
educational TV programs had higher grades and read more books in
high school” as part of the “overwhelming substantiation” that
its own programming is educational for babies.
“Given the significant
developmental differences between infants and preschoolers, it
is ludicrous to claim that research conducted with older
children tells us anything about BabyFirstTV,” said Dr. Linn.
“It’s past time for the FTC to hold BabyFirstTV accountable.”
The complete text of
the letter can be found at
http://commercialfreechildhood.org/pdf/bftlettertoftc.pdf
Timeline of Events
May 1, 2006 –
CCFC files a Complaint and Request for Investigation against
Brainy Baby and Baby Einstein for falsely and deceptively
marketing their videos as educational for babies.
http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pressreleases/babyvideoftccomplaint.htm.
May 11, 2006 –
BabyFirstTV, the first twenty-four television network for babies
is launched in the U.S.
http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pressreleases/babyfirsttv.htm.
June 13, 2006 –
CCFC adds BabyFirstTV to its Complaint against Brainy Baby and
Baby Einstein.
http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pressreleases/babyfirsttvcomplaint.htm.
May 15, 2007 –
CCFC, in connection with its FTC Complaint against BabyFirstTV,
sends a letter to ten U.S. cable companies urging them not to
carry BabyFirstTV because the channel “seduces potential
subscribers with false claims that its programming is
educational for infants.”
http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pressreleases/babyfirstcable.htm
.
May 17, 2007 –
BabyFirstTV sends a cease and desist letter to CCFC and demands
a retraction of CCFC’s May 15 letter to the cable companies. BabyFirstTV’s letter claims there is “overwhelming
substantiation” that BabyFirstTV is educational for babies. As
evidence, the letter refers to eight studies. Seven of the
studies were conducted on children older than BabyFirstTV’s
targeted audience and the findings of the eighth – which was
conducted on a small sample size with no control group – have
been contradicted by more recent studies. Given that it is
clearer than ever that BabyFirstTV cannot support its
educational claims, CCFC refuses to retract the letter.
BabyFirstTV's letter to CCFC:
http://commercialfreechildhood.org/pdf/bftvtoccfc.pdf.
CCFC's response:
http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/babyvideos/ccfctobft.pdf
December 5, 2007
– The FTC responds to CCFC’s Complaint against Baby Einstein and
Brainy Baby. The FTC says it is not recommending enforcement
action, but notes that both companies have made significant
changes to their website and that both companies “agreed to take
steps to ensure that any claims of educational and/or
developmental benefit for children under the age of two are
adequately substantiated.” The FTC notes that research
conducted on older children will not be considered adequate
substantiation and that its ruling “would apply to
representations made by any marketer of products claimed to
provide educational or developmental benefits to children under
two.”
http://commercialfreechildhood.org/actions/lettertoccfc.pdf.
July 15, 2008 –
Noting that BabyFirstTV continues to claim – without
substantiation – that its programming is educational for babies,
CCFC urges the FTC to take explicit action against BabyFirstTV.
http://commercialfreechildhood.org/pdf/bftlettertoftc.pdf.
|
