1

Facebook states in this Terms and services that it respects Google plays advertising id:

Yes, the Audience Network SDK for Android uses the Advertising ID and respects its limit tracking option in accordance with Google Play's terms and conditions.

I checked it by sniffing its traffic, and it is true. But it is striking that it does not obey google plays opt-out mechanism:

enter image description here

I still could see that it used the IDFA Header even after opting out.

https://graph.facebook.com/network_ads_common/
MAKE:               LGE
IDFA_FLAG:          1
APPVERS:            1.1.10
ATTRIBUTION_ID:     
NUM_ADS_REQUESTED:  1
CARRIER:            
SDK:                android
SCREEN_HEIGHT:      592
VIEWABLE:           1
ADAPTERS:           AN
REQUEST_TYPE:       0
SDK_CAPABILITY:     [3,4,5,7,11]
CLIENT_EVENTS:      
COPPA:              false
PLACEMENT_ID:       ????
SDK_VERSION:        4.7.0
TEMPLATE_ID:        200
OS:                 Android
BUNDLE:             ???
DENSITY:            2.0
APPNAME:            ???
OSVERS:             4.4
SCREEN_WIDTH:       384
SCHEMA:             json
PLACEMENT_TYPE:     native
APPBUILD:           10
LOCALE:             en_GB
MODEL:              Nexus 4
IDFA:               a6a1bca3-1f90-408e-8a9b-960ba26aa60a

So is that behavior legal from Facebook and can I do something about that?

Edit It seems that they need to obey the opt out mechanism:

Usage. The Android advertising identifier must only be used for advertising and user analytics. The status of the “Opt-out of Interest-based Advertising” setting must be verified on each access of the ID.

From: Google Play Developer Programe Policies

1

This question expresses two misconceptions: first being that the terms of service agreement language cited governs whether Facebook uses the ID "at all," and in fact they likely need to use the ID to identify BOTH users who are opt-in, AND users who are opt-out. So the ID is going to be present regardless...and second, that presence of the ID notwithstanding,this is not a question of "legality." Ignoring their own terms of service is not "against the law," it's "against the contract."

|improve this answer|||||
  • "against the contract" is "against the law" - the redress is civil rather than criminal but the fact the courts can enforce contracts make their terms "the law". – Dale M Nov 3 '15 at 22:36
  • when a court intervenes and directs an action, it becomes a matter of law. Before that point, it's a matter of (dis)agreement. – dwoz Nov 3 '15 at 23:40
  • No, we can disagree that I have breached the contract; however, if I have or have not is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact and ultimately we may ask a court to decide that fact. Notwithstanding, if I have breached the contract then I have broken the law that says I must not breach contracts I enter. – Dale M Nov 3 '15 at 23:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.