Experts suggest evidence-based stories about harmful online marketing will drive policy action
Author Kathy Nickels
Date 24 April 2024
Researchers agree that compelling evidence-based stories about harmful digital marketing, and its impacts on people and society, are needed to prompt political action to address legal and regulatory gaps in online advertising.
This was one of the key learnings from Strategic Public Interest Litigation for Transparency and Accountability of Harmful Digital Marketing, a 2-day workshop supported by the Academy of Social Science in Australian (ASSA) Workshops Program.
Leading social science and socio-legal researchers, lawyers, and community advocacy groups joined the workshop to tackle issues of online advertising by harmful industries such as alcohol, unhealthy food, and gambling.
Professor Christine Parker, Chief Investigator with the ADM+S at the University of Melbourne, said, “Our workshop surfaced some compelling stories about the harm that can be caused by targeted and personalised social media advertising of alcohol, gambling and unhealthy food.
“But the overall feeling was positive because we were able to talk about ways in which communities impacted by harm can be empowered to address these challenges. Law reform and litigation are one of the tools available.”
The aim was to reflect on the regulatory and policy implications of harmful digital marketing and engage in dialogue about the potential benefits, challenges, and pitfalls of strategic public interest litigation to address these harms.
Discussions were directed towards informing and shaping practical strategies by regulators and community groups in advocating for greater transparency about harmful digital marketing, holding entities involved, such as platforms or advertisers, accountable and thereby reducing harm.
Professor Parker said, “It can take a while for law and regulatory practice to catch up with rapid technological innovation.
“We were able to explore some great ideas for how to make them fit for purpose in the new world of digital and increasingly AI generated advertising.”
Participants explored the potential of public interest litigation to make digital marketing transparent and accountable, and to prompt further regulatory and policy action.
Key discussion points
- The place of litigation in pursuing public interest goals, its efficacy in responding to concerns about digital marketing and the influence of digital platforms, and its strengths and weaknesses as a regulatory tool.
- What the research reveals about harmful digital marketing practices relating to alcohol, gambling, and unhealthy food, and the impacts of such practices: participants heard from, and discussed, the latest social science research and results, and how the evidence could be used.
- The potential for test case complaints to, and litigation by, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding harmful digital marketing.
- The potential for class actions by consumers/users of social media targeted by harmful digital marketing relating to alcohol, gambling, and unhealthy food.
- Lessons learned from current public interest litigation against harmful digital marketing promulgating crypto currency investment scams.
- The evidentiary, procedural, and technical hurdles to framing and proving cases of these kinds.
- Identifying gaps in the research about harmful digital marketing that would need to be addressed for the purposes of public interest litigation.
- The need for, and shape of, further regulatory reforms relating to harmful digital marketing that are indicated by the workshop’s analysis of the potentials and pitfalls of litigation.
It is anticipated insights gained from the workshop will contribute to informing impactful community and regulatory actions, thereby shaping the future of the digital marketing landscape.
The workshop was funded by the Academy of the Social Sciences of Australia workshops program and co-hosted by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society (ADM+S), the University of Melbourne’s Centre for AI and Digital Ethics (CAIDE) and the Health Ethics and Law Network (HELN) of Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne.
It was convened by Prof Christine Parker, Assoc Professor Paula O’Brien, Prof Jeannie Paterson (Melbourne Law School) and Prof Kim Weatherall (the University of Sydney Law School) and supported by Astari Kusumuwardani at the University of Melbourne node of ADM+S and Holly Jones from CAIDE.
