Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking PDF Free Download
1 / 103/103
100%
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
16 CFR 312
Project No. P195404
COMMENTS OF COMMON SENSE MEDIA
March 11, 2024
Common Sense Media (Common Sense) is pleased to submit these comments1in
response to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding
the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule.2
Common Sense supports the FTC’s continued efforts to keep the COPPA Rule current
and effective in the modern digital world, and appreciates the FTC’s consideration of Common
Sense’s comments when examination of the Rule began in 2019. While we believe a
congressional update to the statute is long overdue—and we continue to support the passage of
the bipartisan Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act3—the FTC’s diligence in
updating the Rule has been critical in keeping COPPA’s protections relevant over time and
technology. In particular, Common Sense is pleased to see: updates to sites covered; an emphasis
on data minimization and limits to third-party sharing and targeted ads; clarifications of
longstanding education guidance; and the explicit consideration of user-contact techniques that
maximize user engagement. Common Sense believes that user-contact techniques broadly,
especially pushes to purchase, should not be permitted without verifiable parental consent. We
recommend some clarifications to the proposed rule to further protect children’s privacy—and
give clear business guidance—in this space, specifically: regarding what data disclosures are
integral to a site and relatedly what uses of data are reasonably necessary to a site; regarding
disclosures of third parties; and with respect to notice in the school context. We support updates
to the definition of personal information and recommend the FTC take a broad interpretation of
this that matches current and emerging technology. We also support the continued development
of effective, privacy protective means of obtaining verifiable parental consent and the
exploration of platforms and other third party roles in such a process.
3Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act, S. 1418, 118th Cong. (2024).
2Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule, 89 FR 2034 (Jan. 11, 2024).
1Common Sense Media would like to thank Evan Engel, third-year law student at Stanford Law School,
for his assistance in the research and drafting of these comments.
1
Common Sense is a Longtime Champion for Children’s Privacy
Common Sense is a 20-year-old nonprofit organization that provides kids, families, and
educators the tools to make informed choices about media and technology. Families know us for
our independent, age-based reviews of movies, TV shows, podcasts, books, games, and apps.
Educators use our free curriculum and reviews of learning products to plan lessons and integrate
technology into their teaching practice. Common Sense also conducts reliable, independent
research about the impact of media and tech on kids’ physical, emotional, social, and intellectual
development, which informs all of Common Sense’s work. At our core, we are a children's
advocacy group. We work alongside people and organizations who care about kids as much as
we do. Together with our partners, we advocate for laws and policies that help all families thrive.
Better privacy laws and policies have been a major focus for Common Sense for more
than a decade. From our own research and on-the-ground work with families, we know that an
overwhelming majority are concerned about privacy. Kids' privacy is essential to their safety and
well-being, which is why we advocate for comprehensive data privacy and security protections
for all consumers, especially our kids. Common Sense has sponsored and supported numerous
state and federal laws to protect child, student, and consumer privacy, notably the first
vendor-focused student privacy law in the country, California’s 2014 Student Online Personal
Information Protection Act (SOPIPA), and a host of subsequent legislation across the country, as
well as the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act, which made California the first state to give
consumers online control over their personal information so that they can better protect their
privacy, with special protections for kids under 16. We are supporting legislation this year to
update California’s privacy law to cover kids under 18, to establish a comprehensive data privacy
law in Maryland, to enact a children’s data privacy law in New York, and, as noted above, to
update COPPA through bi-partisan federal legislation.
COPPA Must Protect Children Where They Are, With A Broader Understanding of
Covered Sites & Services
We support the FTC’s proposal to update the definition of “directed to children” in §
312.2.4Companies have long sought to avoid COPPA’s obligations by publicly asserting that it
489 FR 2034, 2046.
2
does not apply–that they are not directed to children, or do not have actual knowledge of
children, even if they tell advertisers5they can reach children or have internal charts boasting
penetration into 11-12 year olds.6Meta, for example, maintained separate “modified”
“estimated” or “imputed” ages of children, based on its algorithmic modeling, for most purposes,
and then a different “stated age” for privacy purposes.7Meta knew it could not trust the stated
ages teens provided for its business purposes, but purported to rely on them for legal compliance.
We appreciate regulators seeing through this charade, and ultimately holding companies to
account. We believe it will be helpful to the FTC’s enforcement efforts to update the directed to
children standard to explicitly state that the FTC will consider “marketing or promotional
materials or plans, representations to consumers or to third parties, reviews by users or third
parties, and . . . the age of users on similar websites or services” as examples of what factors it
may consider.8
We also support the FTC’s broadened acknowledgement of what “actual knowledge”
means but believe it could still go further. Common Sense does not believe the FTC is as
constrained in the definition of “actual knowledge” as the NPRM states–specifically because the
legal definition of actual knowledge includes “knowledge of information that would lead a
reasonable person to inquire further.”9Nonetheless, we commend the Commission for
acknowledging that, at the very least, “[t]he concept of actual knowledge includes willful
disregard.”10 Companies should not be allowed to turn a blind eye to children and practice
COPPA compliance by avoidance.
The FTC Should Prioritize Data Minimization
Common Sense has long believed that COPPA’s data minimization provisions are among
its most underenforced.11 It is not at all clear that many companies are following this
requirement. For example, as evident in the figure below, Common Sense research shows that
11 Common Sense Media, Comment Letter on Proposed Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act Rule 21
(Dec. 9, 2019).
10 89 FR 2034, 2037 n. 46.
9Actual Knowledge, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019).
889 FR 2034, 2047.
7Id.
6In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction, Case No. 4:23-cv-05448-YGR, at 107-204 (N. D. Cal. Nov.
22, 2023).
5Federal Trade Commission v. Google, Case No. 1:19cv2642 (D. D. C. Sept. 10, 2019).
3
among 200 popular kids and families products, only half say that information collected is limited
to what is necessary for providing the primary purpose of the product. This is the lowest number
since Common Sense began conducting this research. What’s more, an increasing number of
products explicitly state in their policies that the collection or use of data is not limited to product
requirements.
12
This graphic shows the results of a Common Sense review of popular kids and families apps’ privacy
statements over time. Statements that were determined to be “better” disclosed that data collected is
limited to what is necessary for providing the primary purpose of the product. Statements that were
determined to be “worse” explicitly disclose in their policies that the collection or use of data is not limited
to product requirements. Statements that were determined to be “unclear” do not indicate either way.
A company should practice data minimization principles and only collect the minimum
amount of data required to provide the product to users in order to decrease the risk that a user's
data is used for unintended purposes without informed consent. With only half of companies
disclosing that they engage in the practice of data collection limitation, the industry is not
practicing data minimization, or protecting the privacy of kids and families, which is especially
concerning given that products are collecting more data than ever. Without clear disclosures in
privacy policies that collecting data, especially from children, is not unlimited and unrestricted,
there can be no reasonable expectation that a child’s data will be used for the purpose for which
it was collected.
Relatedly, a company practicing data minimization under COPPA should not use
information for targeted ads. Again, Common Sense research indicates that this is not often the
case. Again, looking at 200 of the most popular applications and services used by kids and
12 Girard Kelly et al., State of Kids’ Privacy, Common Sense Media (2023). Attached as Appendix A.
4
families, even among the 119 products where company policies disclose they are intended for
children, 40% indicate they display targeted advertising. This indicates more data than is
reasonably necessary to provide the service is collected from users of products clearly intended
for kids, which may be used to target advertising to kids.13 In addition, for the 65 products that
purport to not be intended for children, but would still likely appeal to children because they are
the most popular products used by kids and families, the data indicates that nearly 72% of
products have “worse” practices that use personal information to display targeted advertising, at
least to some users of the product, that would inadvertently include children.
It therefore does not appear that many companies are only collecting what information is
reasonably necessary for children to participate in their services. We support proposed updates to
clarify that sites and services should not collect more information than is necessary with respect
to specific activities or components of their sites or services, as a child may be participating in
only a small subset of the services, particularly on larger platforms. And we support the FTC’s
observation that this is a prohibition, and not something for which sites can get consent.14 The
FTC should make it explicitly clear that sites cannot collect information from children solely for
the purpose of targeted ads–even with parental consent–as that would go beyond what is
reasonably necessary.
Relatedly, Common Sense believes the Commission should provide additional guidance
as to what is and what is not “reasonably necessary” for a child to participate in a service in §
312.3(d).15 The use of a child’s personal information for advertising should never be reasonably
necessary. This is important, as it is possible large platforms may never engage in “sharing” or
“disclosures” of information for advertising but may heavily engage in first-party use of personal
15 See 89 FR 2034, 2060.
14 89 FR 2034, 2060. "The Commission notes that this provision serves as an outright prohibition on
collecting more personal information than is reasonably necessary for a child to participate in a game,
offering of a prize, or another activity. Therefore, operators may not collect more information than is
reasonably necessary for such participation, even if the operator obtains consent for the collection of
information that goes beyond what is reasonably necessary." Id.
13 For products where the product’s policies disclose children are the intended audience and also display
targeted advertising, it may be the case that these companies are limiting the display of targeted ads to
anonymous and adult users of the product. This does not mean children are not the subject of targeted ads:
mixed‐audience products often allow children to create accounts without indicating their age with
age‐gates or other birth date verification systems – which means products may by default inadvertently
expose children to targeted advertising practices until the company has actual knowledge the user is a
child under 13 years of age, and is using a separate child account or profile.
5
information for such purposes, and this is also detrimental to children. Ad supported content
should only be delivered on a purely contextual basis not reliant upon personal information.
In the context of AI, data that is reasonably necessary should be limited; typically
de-identified and aggregated; and deleted promptly. Children’s personal information generally
should not be exposed to AI products that are in open beta testing. While Common Sense
acknowledges that systems designed for children may need appropriate data from children in
order to be effective and exhibit less bias, the use of data for machine learning and training
should not lead to a data free-for-all. Further, most if not all data that may be “reasonably
necessary” for an AI model should be de-identified and aggregated. Some data, like demographic
data, which could be needed for analyzing fairness and mitigating unfair bias as recommended
by National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) in their AI Risk Management
Framework (RMF), may not always be reasonably necessary, and could be obtained separately
under its own notice and consent. Furthermore, to the extent any data is determined to be
“reasonably necessary” for AI, it is critical to ensure that retention policies and other safeguards
are followed, and the FTC could consider providing more guidance with respect to retention and
prompt deletion of “reasonably necessary” data for AI retention. In the AI context especially,
Common Sense believes the FTC should consider whether any additional rules or safeguards are
needed to ensure that children’s privacy and security is respected, and to ensure that AI services
marketed to kids, or popular with kids, have a full understanding of child-specific privacy and
security risks.
Third Party Sharing Poses Serious Risks to Children’s Personal Information
We are also supportive of efforts to limit third-party sharing. The FTC proposes a number
of changes to the language of § 312.4 that broadly serve to clarify the scope and requirements of
the notice that operators are required to give to parents before collecting, using, or disclosing
their children’s data.16 Similarly, the FTC proposes modifying the text of § 312.5, mostly to
expand permissible forms of parental consent, but also to clarify what kinds of operator activity
require consent. Critically, the FTC notes that it has been acknowledged as far back as the
preamble of the original 1999 COPPA rule that, “disclosures to third parties are among the most
sensitive and potentially risky uses of children’s personal information,” especially because
16 89 FR 2034, 2049.
6
children lose the protection of COPPA once their information is disclosed to a third party.17 The
FTC thus proposes to clarify that § 312.5(a)(2) requires operators to obtain verifiable parental
consent for disclosures of child data separate from parental consent for an operator to collect or
internally use children’s online data. Common Sense emphatically supports this clarification of §
312.5(a)(2) and we believe that § 312.4 ought to similarly be clarified to require operators to give
notice and receive consent in order to disclose personal information to third parties, in addition to
notice and consent for the operator’s own collection and use of children’s data.
Surveillance of children by third parties has only become more common-place and more
invasive since COPPA was passed in 1998. Since 2015, the percentage of 12-year-olds with their
own smartphone has jumped from 41% to 71% while their average screen time has increased to
just over 5.5 hours every day.18 Against this backdrop, the vast majority of parents (81%) report
being concerned with third parties monitoring their children’s online activity.19 And parents are
right to be concerned: Robust evidence shows that apps targeted at children—particularly those
in the Family and Games & Entertainment genres—are “amongst the worst in terms of the
number of third party trackers associated with them.”20 Worse still, children of parents who don’t
hold college degrees and who report low digital literacy have their data transmitted to third
parties at higher rates than children whose parents are better equipped to monitor their online
privacy.21
Clarifying §§ 312.4 & 312.5 to require distinct notice and consent for data disclosure to third
parties would directly address these problems by specifically alerting parents who may be
concerned but unaware of apps tracking and sharing their children’s behavior. Moreover, an
additional notice and consent process would permit parents to opt-in to data collection and
use—maximizing children’s user experiences within a site or app—while opting out of
potentially more problematic disclosures. And this clarification presents no additional burdens on
operators or parents, since this additional consent could be included in the initial notice and
consent to collect and use data.
21 Fangwei Zhao et al., Data Collection Practices of Mobile Applications Played by Preschool-Aged
Children, JAMA Pediatrics (Sept. 8, 2020).
20 Reuben Binns et al., Third Party Tracking in the Mobile Ecosystem, WebSci (2018).
19 Mary Madden, Parents, Teens, and Online Privacy, Pew Research Center (Nov. 20, 2012).
18 Victoria Rideout et al., The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens, Common Sense
Media 3, 22 (2022).
17 89 FR 2034, 2051.
7
Similar to the need for the Commission to clarify what data use is “reasonably
necessary,” Common Sense believes the Commission should also clarify what disclosures may
be “integral” to a site or service.22 Operators should also have to make this clear in their privacy
statements and direct notices, but sites should not be able to list any service they so desire. The
NPRM indicates that the FTC believes that disclosure of personal information for advertising is
not an “integral disclosure”.23 The Commission should make this even more explicit. Further, the
Commission should clarify what disclosures may be “integral”—and what may not be—in the
context of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Common Sense believes that likely any
disclosures of children’s personal information in the AI context, especially automatic disclosures,
are not “integral,” and should require disclosure and separate consent.
Relatedly, the FTC proposes adding a new paragraph to § 312.4(c) requiring operators that
share personal information with third parties (assuming they have been given parental consent)
to provide “the identities or specific categories” of those third parties, as well as the purpose for
their sharing that data. Common Sense supports this revision and points to one modification.
Common Sense believes that the FTC should consider requiring operators to identify and
categorize third parties. In other words, rather than merely listing the names of third parties that
operators share data with, or listing categories alone, Common Sense supports a further
amendment to the rule which would require operators to organize the third parties they share data
with into categories based on their function or service and identify them. Such a requirement is
necessary in many cases for adequate clarity in disclosures since it is unreasonable to expect
parents to be able to identify the names of third parties who are often primarily
business-to-business service providers with little or no consumer-facing presence. Categorization
of these third parties shifts the burden of identifying what kind of business third parties are
engaged in onto operators who share the data in the first place and away from busy parents.
Common Sense supports this change for two additional reasons.
23 See 89 FR 2034, 2051. “Therefore, the Commission finds it appropriate to provide parents with greater
control over the disclosure of their children’s information by clarifying that § 312.5(a)(2) requires
operators to obtain separate verifiable parental consent for disclosures. This includes disclosure of
persistent identifiers for targeted advertising purposes, as well as disclosure of other personal information
for marketing or other purposes.” Id.
22 See 89 FR 2034, 2070.
8
First, identification and categorization of third parties is essential to informed consent.
Identification of third parties and the purpose of data sharing with them is the only way that
parents can truly become informed enough about how their children’s data is used to offer
informed consent for disclosure. For example, a parent may feel comfortable consenting to their
children’s data being shared out to watchdog or security organizations, but may object to
advertisers receiving the same information. Absent identification by the operator upfront, there is
no reliable method for parents to be able to easily determine where their children’s data goes.
Second, the proposed addition would bring COPPA in line with other legislation.
Landmark legislation in California (California Consumer Privacy Act), in the United Kingdom
(UK Age-Appropriate Design Code), and in the European Union (General Data Protection
Regulation) require operators to identify or categorize third parties they share data with and the
purposes for that sharing. In particular, the California law requires categorization of third
parties,24 the UK law requires specifying the purpose for sharing data and who the data is shared
with,25 and the EU regulation requires operators to identify third parties that data is shared with.26
This provision in the UK Bill empirically has been successful in curtailing data disclosure to
third parties.27 The existence of these provisions in both major international markets and the
largest domestic market also means there would be little or no additional regulatory burden for
operators who already must comply with these other pieces of legislation.
Targeted Behavioral Ads are Bad for Kids
Lastly, we understand the FTC to be taking a strong stance against the use and sharing of
children’s information for targeted ads and marketing. This is consistent with one of the original
impetus of COPPA, to limit marketers’ ability to sidestep parents and directly contact
children–here, that contact can happen in less-obvious-to-a-child ways in the form of
personalized ads as children move about the internet. This targeted ad system ecosystem exists in
a number of permutations, including sharing by a first party COPPA operator with third parties
(which would now require separate consent), and by operators who are themselves integrated
27 Elizabeth Denham & Steve Wood, Children's privacy laws and freedom of expression: Lessons from the
UK Age-Appropriate Design Code, IAPP (Nov. 13, 2023).
26 Id.
25 Age appropriate design: a code of practice for online services, Information Commissioner’s Office
(Oct. 2022).
24 Cal Civ Code § 1798.110.
9
into another operators website (and therefore they too would have to obtain consent). Relatedly,
we support the FTC’s proposal to remove the word “directly” from the definitions in § 312.2 to
ensure that operators who are ad networks who are integrated with child directed content, or on
sites with known child users and who collect information from users of those sites, are liable
even if information collection is not “directly” from children.28 Because there can be situations of
multiple operators, including situations of operators sharing information with third parties, under
COPPA, we hope the FTC will take a strong stance so that no ad networks–whether operators or
third parties–get access to children’s personal information without ensuring appropriate
verifiable parental consent.
Constant Contact of Children Needs to Stop
The FTC, proposes modifying § 312.5(c)(4) such that operators would be prohibited from
using children’s data to “optimize user attention or maximize user engagement with the website
or online service” without parental consent by removing this function from the internal
operations exception to parental consent obligations.29 The FTC specifies that this ‘anti-nudging’
provision would apply to push notifications on smartphones and tablets. Common Sense
endorses this change, but would ask the FTC to go a step further and clarify that operators would
have to provide notice and seek verifiable parental consent prior to using children’s personal data
for push notifications that broadly prompt or encourage engagement, including offers to purchase
or notifications of discounts, or anything similar.
Recent evidence shows that teens receive an average of 237 notifications on a daily basis.30
These notifications cause a wide range of disruptions from distracting children at school or while
doing their homework to causing sleep disturbances.31 Kids are also particularly susceptible to
advertising in the form of these notifications. Evidence suggests that children are virtually unable
to distinguish targeted ads from other content when those ads are tailored to their particular
31 Id. at 43.
30 Jenny S. Radesky, Constant Companion: A Week in the Life of a Young Person's Smartphone Use,
Common Sense Media 6 (2023). Attached as Appendix B.
29 Id. at 2059.
28 89 FR 2034, 2047. “Operators Collecting Personal Information From Other Websites and Online
Services Directed to Children “the Commission is concerned that entities with actual knowledge that they
receive large amounts of children’s data from another site or service that is directed to children, without
collecting it directly from the users of such site or service, may avoid COPPA’s requirements.” Id.
10
interests.32 Expanding the proposed modification to § 312.5(c)(4) to include such for push
notifications would thus limit the problematic impacts on children associated with constant
‘nudging.’ The proposed provision would also bring COPPA in line with UK legislation on this
question, which prohibits the use of nudging techniques—including push notifications—based
on a child’s personal information for any reason.
Limiting notifications for in-app and other commercial purposes is consistent with the
original statutory intent of COPPA, which included preventing marketers from contacting
children without a parent’s knowledge or involvement.33 Further, Common Sense points to one
additional concern that justifies a requirement to seek parental consent for push notifications,
especially when those notifications advertise or promote in-app transactions: state laws curtailing
targeted ads. The well-documented harms targeted advertising creates for children has recently
spurred several states to propose or adopt legislation that, in the case of children under 13,
generally requires parental consent for third-party targeted advertising.34 Congress has proposals
to ban targeted advertising to children and young teens, such as the Children and Teen’s Online
Privacy Protection Act. And the FTC’s own proposed rules support a further limitation of such
practices. As these rules come into force, they may incentivize advertisers or operators to ramp
up in-app purchases or microtransactions and push notifications of such. These pushes to
purchase in-app can be seen as particularly problematic for children, who are uniquely
susceptible to addiction to internet games and in-game purchasing.35
The Rule Should Recognize that the Educational Context is Unique
Common Sense supports the FTC’s inclusion of its “school exception” guidance from the
COPPA FAQs throughout the text of the Rule. Schools need to be able to consent on behalf of
parents in order to effectively use educational technology in the classroom. At the same time, it
is critical that school technology is not monetizing children’s personal information–student
information should not be for sale, or for creating commercial profiles, or marketing. This is
35 Phillip C. Raneri et al., The role of microtransactions in Internet Gaming Disorder and Gambling
Disorder: A preregistered systematic review, 15 Addictive Behav. Rep. (2022).
34 See S.B. 24-041, 74th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2024); Md. Online Data Privacy Act of 2024,
H.B. 567, Md. Gen. Assemb. (2024).
33 Ariel Fox Johnson, 13 Going on 30: An Exploration of Expanding COPPA’s Privacy Protections to
Everyone, 44 Seton Hall J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 419, 423-25 (June 2020).
32 Samuel Levine, Protecting Kids from Stealth Advertising in Digital Media, FTC (Sept. 2023).
11
consistent with landmark protections Common Sense helped put in place in California in 2014
with SOPIPA that were then in large part replicated across the country. Common Sense supports
the FTC’s position that schools may only give consent in narrow circumstances, specifically
where data is used for school-authorized educational purposes. “Educational purposes” should
itself be narrowly defined and confined to the educational context.36 Common Sense also
supports the proposal that there must be a written agreement in place between schools and ed
tech providers–as proposed in § 312.5(c)(10)–this requirement will force providers to consider
and confirm that they are abiding by COPPA’s requirements, and is something many providers
are already required to do in order to comply with the vast number of state student privacy laws.
Common Sense is sensitive to concerns regarding the Commission imposing obligations
on education agencies. Common Sense also does not wish to put additional burdens on schools.
With respect to the proposal that operators must post a notice of their privacy practices,37
Common Sense believes this is helpful, especially considering a lack of transparency Common
Sense noticed in the past.38 However, Common Sense believes operators’ own posting is not in
and of itself sufficient to adequately inform parents. It is hard to imagine that parents will know
which ed tech providers’ websites to visit to understand who is collecting data from their
children. As previously recommended,39 Common Sense believes that the FTC should work with
the U.S. Department of Education requiring that schools notify parents of contracted services’
practices–for example, providing guidance that in order to rely on the FERPA School Official
exception, schools must list such providers on their websites. Short of that, the FTC could within
this rulemaking require that ed tech providers provide schools, perhaps via contract or as part of
the agreement, with a privacy notice link that schools could easily pass on to parents. Schools
may still be free to do what they wish–which is why joint guidance would be preferable–but
39 Id. at 11.
38 Common Sense Media, Comment Letter, supra note 11, at 5-7.
37 89 FR 2034, 2057.
36 With respect to the Commission’s question regarding whether educational purposes should be expanded
to include things not directly related to teaching, such as safety, Common Sense is concerned that such a
concept is very broad and could lead to information collection parents would not expect, including more
information collection outside of the school building or school context. By entrusting schools to educate
their children, and to make educational decisions regarding their learning, parents are not necessarily
assuming or entrusting the school to track real time geolocation after school hours, or fitbits monitoring
sleep.
12
hopefully an easily provided link could limit the burdens for schools of sharing with parents and
therefore make such sharing more likely.
“Personal Information” Must Be Broadly Defined to Reflect Modern Technology
Personal Information should include, consistent with COPPA’s statutory requirements,
anything that permits the online or physical contacting of a child.40 This includes contacting a
child within virtual reality environments. Therefore, in response to FTC questions41 over whether
certain pieces of information should be included in the definition of personal information in §
312.2, Common Sense asks the FTC to consider whether that information would permit the
contacting of a child. For example, a screen name that does not permit contact within a service,
but does permit contact elsewhere, should be included as personal information. Avatars, of the
type that are able to be identified and contacted outside of a service or specific secession, should
be included as personal information. Government IDs should also be included as personal
information. Similarly, any biometric information, to the extent it is identifying and therefore
permits the contacting of a child, should similarly be included as personal information.
The Commission Should Support Development of New Methods of Parental Consent
Common Sense believes that platforms, mobile device providers, or potentially even
other third parties, could prove to be useful intermediaries in obtaining verifiable parental
consent.42 Streamlining consent to a moment when parents are focused–such as signing up for a
platform for the first time, or obtaining a new device for a child–could help ensure that parents
are able to give fully-informed consent. In addition, platforms or device providers may be in a
better position than others to ensure verifiable consent. The FTC could help support innovation
in this space, including by creating a regulatory sandbox type environment such as that created
by the British Information Commissioner’s Office.43 The FTC could also continue to consider
and “approve” or “deny” new methods of parental consent consistent with its current approach.
43 Regulatory Sandbox, Information Commissioner’s Office,
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/advice-and-services/regulatory-sandbox/.
42 Id.
41 89 FR 2034, 2070.
40 15 U.S.C. 6501(8)(F)
13
Conclusion
Common Sense strongly supports the FTC’s continued efforts to modernize the COPPA
Rule and ensure it is protecting children’s privacy to the full extent of its authority, and
appreciates its consideration of our comments.
Respectfully submitted,
James P. Steyer
CEO and Founder
Common Sense Media
Ariel Fox Johnson
Senior Advisor for Data Privacy
Common Sense Media
14
Appendix A - State of Kids’ Privacy, 2023
15
2023
State of Kids'
Privacy
Who is monetizing our data? A general lack of
transparency leads to a confusing landscape.
Credits
Authors: Girard Kelly, Common Sense Media
Jeff Graham, Common Sense Media
Steve Garton, Common Sense Media
Contributors: Jill Bronfman
Data analysis: Girard Kelly, Common Sense Media
Jeff Graham, Common Sense Media
Copy editors: Christopher Dare, Common Sense Media
Tasha Kelter
Designer: Jeff Graham, Common Sense Media
Photo: © iStock/StefaNikolic
Suggested citation: Kelly, G., Graham, J., & Garton, S. (2023). 2023 State of Kids’ Privacy: Who is monetizing our data? A general lack of transparency leads
to a confusing landscape. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License.
2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................. 1
Introduction ........................................................... 1
The Increased Awareness of Selling Data .......................................... 2
The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) ....................................... 3
Dening Selling or Sharing Data ............................................... 4
Confusing Sharing But Not Selling Data ............................................ 5
Evaluating Selling or Sharing Data .............................................. 6
Selling Data and Cross-Context Behavioral Advertising ................................. 7
Sell Data Evaluation Question .................................................. 7
Third-Party Tracking Evaluation Question ........................................... 8
Track Users Evaluation Question ................................................ 9
Ad Prole Evaluation Question ................................................. 9
Selling Data Multiple Privacy Practice Comparison .................................... 10
Data Sold: “Better” ........................................................ 10
Data Sold: “Worse” ........................................................ 12
Data Sold: “Unclear” ....................................................... 13
Examples of Selling Data Disclosures ............................................ 13
Transparently Better ....................................................... 13
Transparently Worse ....................................................... 14
Disagreement ........................................................... 14
Confusion ............................................................. 14
Inconsistencies .......................................................... 14
Obfuscation ............................................................ 16
Unclear ............................................................... 16
California Only .......................................................... 17
Limited Protections ....................................................... 17
Companies Need to Disclose That They Sell Your Data .................................. 18
Conclusion ............................................................ 20
Abstract
This paper is the Common Sense Privacy Program's 2023
in-depth analysis regarding the practice of selling data
for 200 of the most popular products used by kids and
families. Our data indicates that the majority of compa-
nies whose privacy policies say they do not sell or share
users' data to third parties actually have other forms of
data monetization practices that would likely be consid-
ered selling or sharing data under new California Privacy
Rights Act amendments. In addition, companies with
policies that remain non-transparent on the practice of
selling or sharing data and that are also non-transparent
on the use of other data monetization practices—such as
the use of third-party tracking, tracking users across the
internet, or the creation of advertising proles for com-
mercial purposes—are presumed likely to be selling data,
as supported by our long-term research.
The passage of the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA),
which amended the California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA), expanded the denition of selling data to include
whether a consumer's data is “sold or shared” with third
parties for “cross-contextual advertising.” The Common
Sense Privacy Program reads and evaluates the privacy
policies of hundreds of the most popular applications
and services used by children, students, parents, educa-
tors, and consumers. In this paper, we use these privacy
evaluations and respective data to analyze multiple pri-
vacy practices that are now covered under the CPRA,
and illustrate how companies are inaccurately inform-
ing consumers about various forms of data monetization
used to sell consumers' data to third parties.
Our results indicate that in 2023, 73% of the industry
should be disclosing in their privacy policies that they
are selling consumers' data, and 48% of the industry is
likely not in compliance with the CCPA's requirement
that businesses disclose whether a consumer's personal
information is “sold or shared” to third parties.
Introduction
The Common Sense Privacy Program1has created a
standardized framework to describe and analyze infor-
mation in privacy policies so that parents and caregivers,
teachers, and consumers can make smart and informed
choices about the tools they use for themselves and with
their children and students. And with the involvement
of over 400 schools and districts,2Common Sense is
working in collaboration with third-party software de-
velopers of some of the products we evaluated to bring
greater transparency to privacy policies across the in-
1Common Sense Media, Privacy Program,
https://privacy.commonsense.org.
2Common Sense Media, District Privacy Consortium,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/resource/district-consortium.
dustry. We have been collecting and incorporating feed-
back from various stakeholders about how to share the
results of our privacy evaluations since our rst State of
EdTech report was published in 2018.3We have spoken
with numerous children, teens, students, educators, par-
ents, developers, consumers, companies, privacy advo-
cates, policymakers, and industry representatives about
their perspectives on privacy to help inform our work.
Our previously released 2021 State of Kids' Privacy re-
port4represented the culmination of our research over
the previous four years in evaluating hundreds of ap-
plications and services geared toward kids, consumers,
and the education sector. This paper focuses primarily
on changes to consumer privacy laws and the practice of
selling data. When speaking to parents, educators, and
consumers, we consistently hear that “selling data” is
one of the most important, if not the most important,
privacy issues that they want to quickly and condently
understand before using a product.5Consumers often
say they feel incapable of providing meaningful consent
when it comes to how companies use their data, and
our research illustrates that most companies do not give
consumers a meaningful choice to provide consent be-
cause they fail to provide adequate notice to consumers
of their actual privacy practices.
This paper has been directly impacted by consumer pri-
vacy laws that were passed in 2018, including Europe's
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),6which
provides individual data rights and allows data subjects
to withdraw consent or object to the sale of their per-
sonal information. In addition, U.S. state legislation—
such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in
2019 and the subsequent California Privacy Rights Act
(CPRA)7amendments to the CCPA in 2020—now pro-
vides consumers with the right to opt out of the sale of
their personal information to third parties. Privacy pol-
icy changes that began in 2018 accelerated in the fol-
lowing years due to the passage of the CCPA, the CPRA,
and a patchwork of other U.S. state-specic consumer
privacy laws that were introduced in state legislatures
around the country due to a lack of a comprehensive fed-
eral consumer privacy protection law.8As a result, the
3Kelly, G., Graham, J., & Fitzgerald, B. 2018 State of Edtech Privacy
Report, Common Sense Privacy Evaluation Initiative. San Francisco,
CA: Common Sense (2018),
https://www.commonsense.org/education/articles/2018-state-of-
edtech-privacy-report.
4Kelly, G., Graham, J., Bronfman, J., & Garton, S. (2021). 2021 State
of Kids' Privacy. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media,
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/state-of-kids-
privacy-report-2021.
5Americans Can't Consent to Companies' Use of Their Data,
Annenberg School for Communication (Feb. 10, 2023),
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4391134.
6General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU)
2016/679.
7California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §§
1798.100-1798.198.
8International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), US
State Privacy Legislation Tracker, https:
//iapp.org/resources/article/us-state-privacy-legislation-tracker.
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 1
privacy policies we examined changed in waves, and the
privacy practices were enabled on the exact dates when
each of these new laws and regulations took effect. In
many cases, policy edits closely followed the letter of the
new laws, and the increased transparencyresulted in the
disclosure of privacy-invasive or privacy-compromising
practices, which we have summarized as “worse” prac-
tices.
While we closely examine new statutes and regulations
and assign points for transparency in the policies, we also
seek to identify and promote privacy-preserving prac-
tices that go beyond the letter of these laws, which we
have summarized as “best” practices. As a consequence,
we are keenly attuned to small differences in the word-
ing of privacy policy provisions that specically limit the
promises of new rights and abilities to a particular juris-
diction or type of user, versus those that expand the ap-
plication of the new laws to all users. In some cases it may
be appropriate to limit privacy protections to children
under the age of 13, such as for parental permissions.
However, it is almost never ethically defensible to limit a
privacy protective provision to just someone in the state
of California while denying such protection to someone
in a neighboring state. Many companies may look at their
own logistics and operational costs and discover it is eas-
ier and less expensive for their company to offer pri-
vacy protections to all users, due to economies of scale
and the transactional costs of compliance. Our evalua-
tion process awards the most points for transparency
and “better” practices to policies that grant privacy pro-
tections to all users, regardless of the jurisdictional legal
obligation.
The Common Sense Privacy Program was
created to champion child and student
privacy and support parents, educators,
schools, and policymakers on a path toward a
more secure and safe future for all kids.
In order to effectively evaluate the policies of all these
applications and services, we developed a comprehen-
sive, standardized framework based on existing interna-
tional, U.S. federal, and U.S. state law, as well as privacy
and security principles and industry best practices.9This
framework incorporates over 150 privacy- and security-
related questions that are expected to be answered in
policies for products used with children or in educational
or consumer contexts. In addition, qualitative and quan-
titative methods were developed to determine both the
particular issues that companies disclose in their poli-
cies and the meaning behind those disclosures. As a re-
sult, the Common Sense Privacy Program has produced
a substantial body of work, including these crucial pri-
vacy evaluations available to the public for review, anal-
9Common Sense Media, Full evaluation questions,
https://github.com/commonsense-org/privacy-questions-
output/blob/main/full-questions.md.
ysis, and consumer education for free.10 The paper cov-
ers only a small portion of the conclusions that could be
drawn from the rich data created by these evaluations. 11
Looking at the privacy policies and terms of service for
the top 200 educational and consumer apps used by chil-
dren and students is a great way to start illuminating
the dark corners of the industry and increasing the stan-
dards for kids' privacy.
The Increased
Awareness of Selling
Data
Selling data to third parties has always been a topic
of concern with parents, educators, and consumers be-
cause it means users' interactions and behaviors with
technology are exploited for prot. Consumers are gen-
erally aware that children and student's' personal infor-
mation has historically been protected from sale to third
parties12, and when surveyed, consumers say they want
the same strong privacy protections extended to every-
one.13 Our evaluation question related to selling data
was created to capture whether a company's policies dis-
close if any user's personal information is sold or rented
to third parties for monetary or other valuable consider-
ation.14 Selling users' data is an important issue for a pol-
icy to disclose because users want to know if their data is
shared with third parties in exchange for use of the prod-
uct, which may impact their decision whether to use the
product or service.
In 2018, the practice of selling data became a bipartisan
focal point for the rst time in California politics with
10Common Sense Media, Privacy Program,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluations.
11See Kelly, G., Graham, J., Bronfman, J., & Garton, S. (2021). 2021
State of Kids' Privacy. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media,
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/state-of-kids-
privacy-report-2021.
12See Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 16 C.F.R.
Part 312.2; See also Student Online Personal Information Protection
Act (SOPIPA), Cal. B.&P. Code § 22584(b)(3).
13See Perrin, A. (2020, April 14), Half of Americans have decided not
to use a product or service because of privacy concerns, Pew Research
Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2020/04/14/half-of-
americans-have-decided-not-to-use-aproduct-or-service-because-
of-privacy-concerns;See also Auxier, A., Rainie, L., Anderson, M.,
Perrin, A., Kumar, M., & Turner, E. (2019, November 15), Americans and
privacy: Concerned, confused, and feeling lack of control over their
personal information, Pew Research Center,
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-
andprivacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-
overtheir-personal-information.
14Common Sense Media, Full evaluation questions, Sell Data
evaluation question, https://github.com/commonsense-org/privacy-
questions-output/blob/main/full-questions.md (“Do the policies
clearly indicate whether or not a user's personal information is sold,
or exchanged for anything of value to third parties?”)
22023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
the introduction of ballot proposition 24, the Califor-
nia Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). 15 This pro-consumer
privacy proposition was the result of increased national
media attention focused on privacy because of numer-
ous data breaches including Equifax16, which affected
hundreds of millions of consumers, and numerous high-
level privacy scandals with whistleblowers revealing
third-party data misuse and rst-party negligence in-
volving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica.17 More-
over, it is concerning that the sharing of Facebook users'
data with third-party companies for their own research
purposes—which is a practice tracked by our Third-Party
Research evaluation question—was not consistent with
the principles of providing notice to users, obtaining in-
formed consent, or allowing participants the ability to
opt out.18
In order to make an informed decision about
the use of a product, existing or potential
users need to know if data collected from
their use of the product is sold to third
parties.
Companies updated their privacy policies in 2018 to
overwhelmingly disclose the “better” practice that they
did not sell users' data to third parties. This was the
result of selling data becoming one of the most con-
troversial and widely known privacy practices among
general consumers, with mainstream media headlines
and congressional committee hearings discussing Face-
book's data misuse scandal involving Cambridge Ana-
lytica. Also, companies updated their policies to reect
the recent passage of Europe's General Data Protec-
tion Regulation (GDPR), which prohibited the sale of per-
sonal information of European users without consent
as a legal basis for processing, and privacy laws already
protecting the data of children and students from sale,
but not consumers. Additionally, state legislation such as
the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) 19 pushed
for the right for all consumers to opt out of the sale of
their personal information to third parties for prot. As
a political compromise, the CCPA ballot initiative was re-
15See Californians for Consumer Privacy,
https://www.caprivacy.org;See also Epic, California's Proposition 24,
https://epic.org/californias-proposition-24.
16See Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Equifax Data Breach
Settlement: What You Should Know,
https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2019/07/equifax-data-
breach-settlement-what-you-should-know.
17Matthew Rosenberg, Nicholas Confessore and Carole
Cadwalladr, How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of
Millions, Mar. 15, 2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-
analytica-trump-campaign.html.
18See Adam D. I. Kramer, Jamie E. Guillory, Jeffrey T. Hancock,
Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through
social networks, (Jun. 02, 2014),
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1320040111.
19California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Cal. Civ. Code §§
1798.100-1798.198.
tracted. It was later introduced as legislation and passed
by the California State Legislature in 2019,20 and be-
came California state law effective in 2020. However,
based on concerns that the nation's rst privacy law did
not go far enough to protect consumers, the CCPA was
quickly amended to strengthen the law with a second
ballot initiative called the California Privacy Rights Act
(CPRA), which passed and went into effect January 1,
2023.21 Among numerous additions, the CPRA's amend-
ments broadened the scope of the CCPA's denition of
“sale” to include a consumer's right to know if their per-
sonal information was “sold or shared” with third parties
for cross-context behavioral advertising, which is a new le-
gal term meant to include the practice of tracking or pro-
ling users for targeted advertising. The “creepy factor”
concept of companies selling a user's data to third par-
ties by tracking their activity without their knowledge or
consent for targeted advertising was a primary concern
of voters in the passage of both laws, and is the research
focus of this paper.22
The California
Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA)
The CCPA included the following ve core rights for con-
sumers:
1. The right to know what personal information is col-
lected, used, shared, or sold.
2. The right to opt out of the sale of personal informa-
tion. Children under the age of 16 must provide opt-
in consent, with a parent or guardian providing con-
sent for children under 13. Parents can also opt out
on behalf of their children.
3. The right to access, delete, and download personal
information.
4. The right to non-discrimination in terms of price or
service when a consumer exercises a privacy right
under the CCPA.
5. A private right of legal action for a data breach
where reasonable security protections were not
used by the company.
20The CCPA was introduced as AB-375, by Ed Chau, member of
the California State Assembly, and State Senator Robert Hertzberg.
21See the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020, Proposition 24 in
the general election of November 3, 2020, https://thecpra.org.
22Goodwin Simon, Summary of Key Findings from California Privacy
Survey,https://www.caprivacy.org/icymi-summary-of-key-findings-
from-california-privacy-survey.
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 3
The California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) amendments
to the CCPA incorporated many additional rights, in-
cluding the following 10 most important rights for con-
sumers:
1. Created the right to limit the use of sensitive per-
sonal information.
2. Created the right to correct personal information.
3. Extended the right to opt out of sale to include opt-
ing out of the “sharing” of personal data.
4. Provided stronger safeguards for kids.
5. Created the right to opt out of automated decision
making and proling.
6. Established the California Privacy Protection
Agency (CPPA).
7. Required businesses to provide data protection by
default and to perform data protection impact as-
sessments.
8. Expanded the data breach private right of legal ac-
tion.
9. Increased nes and enforcement ($2,500–$7,500).
10. Reduced the ability to weaken the privacy law in
California.
Dening Selling or
Sharing Data
The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) 23 -
nalized regulations implementing the CPRA amend-
ments to the CCPA in March 2023.24 Companies are re-
quired to provide a clear and conspicuous link on the
business's internet homepage, titled “Do Not Sell or
Share My Personal Information,” if they meet the statu-
tory requirements of a covered “Business” and engage
in the practice of selling or sharing a consumer's per-
sonal information, or they can use the Alternative Opt-
out Link such as “Your Privacy Choices” or “Your Califor-
nia Privacy Choices,” in accordance with the CCPA.25,26
The CPRA amendments dene “sell,” “selling,” “sale,” or
“sold” as selling, renting, releasing, disclosing, dissemi-
nating, making available, transferring, or otherwise com-
municating orally, in writing, or by electronic or other
23California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA),
https://cppa.ca.gov.
24California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), California
Consumer Privacy Act Regulations,
https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/cppa_regs.pdf.
25California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code
§1798.140(d).
26California Consumer Privacy Act Regulations, § 7015.
Alternative Opt-out Link,
https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/cppa_regs.pdf.
means, a consumer's personal information by the busi-
ness to a third party for monetary or other valuable
consideration.27 In addition, the CPRA introduces the
new practice and denition of “share,” “shared,” or “shar-
ing,” which means “sharing, renting, releasing, disclosing,
disseminating, making available, transferring, or other-
wise communicating orally, in writing, or by electronic or
other means, a consumer's personal information by the
business to a third party for cross-context behavioral ad-
vertising, whether or not for monetary or other valuable
consideration, including transactions between a busi-
ness and a third party for cross-context behavioral ad-
vertising for the benet of a business in which no money
is exchanged.”28
Under the CPRA, the new denition of “cross-context
behavioral advertising” is “the targeting of advertising
to a consumer based on the consumer's personal informa-
tion obtained from the consumer's activity across busi-
nesses, distinctly branded websites, applications, or ser-
vices, other than the business, distinctly branded web-
site, application, or service with which the consumer in-
tentionally interacts.”29 Therefore, any targeted adver-
tising, tracking, or proling of a consumer with their
personal information would constitute selling or sharing
their personal information under the CCPA.
“Personal information” under the CPRA is included in
the denition of “sale,” “share,” and “crosscontext be-
havioral advertising” and includes “[i]nferences drawn
from any personal information to create a prole about
a consumer reecting the consumer's preferences, char-
acteristics, psychological trends, predispositions, behav-
ior, attitudes, intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes.”30 The
term “proling' means any form of automated process-
ing of personal information to evaluate certain personal
aspects relating to a natural person, and in particular to
analyze or predict aspects concerning that natural per-
son's performance at work, economic situation, health,
personal preferences, interests, reliability, behavior, lo-
cation or movements.” 31 Proling for personalized ad-
vertising purposes under the CPRA is not considered a
legitimate “Business Purpose” 32 and therefore, personal
information of a consumer cannot be used to build a
prole about the consumer or otherwise alter the con-
sumer's experience outside the current interaction with
the business.33
27See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.140(ad)(1).
28See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.140(ah)(1).
29See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.140(k).
30See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.140(v)(1)(K).
31See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.140(z), (aj).
32See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.140(e)(4).
33See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.140(e)(4).
42023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
The intersection of the CPRA's denition of “sell,”
“share,” “cross-context behavioral advertising,” “prol-
ing,” and “personal information” has created confusion
with consumers about whether a company is actually
selling their data, sharing their data, or both. Consumers
do not understand the legal distinction between the de-
nition of selling or sharing data, and simply want to know
if the company or product is making money from their
data.
The most important question consumers
want to know about a product is whether the
company is making money from their data.
Confusing Sharing But Not Selling Data
The CPRA amendments' inclusion of the new right to opt
out of the “sale or sharing” of personal information34 is
described as a single consumer right, but with two dif-
ferent “either/or” practices that companies may engage
in, which allows for consumers to opt out of one prac-
tice, but not the other. Generally speaking, the practice
of “selling” data requires: 1) a consumer's personal infor-
mation, 2) given to a third party, 3) for money or other
form of value. The practice of selling data is intended
to be a broad denition that is meant to be exible and
adapt to all the possible methods by which a company
could potentially monetize a consumer's data. The broad
scope of the denition of selling data is meant to include
the more specic method and practice of “sharing” data,
which requires: 1) a consumer's personal information, 2)
given to a third party, 3) for cross-context behavioral ad-
vertising, which means targeted advertising, 4) whether
or not for money or other form of value. The use of “sale
or share” language has been perceived by companies as
creating several different scenarios that involve both the
sale of data and the sharing of data.
Table 1indicates the nine different ways a company may
choose to disclose this information or not; yes indicates
that the policy discloses the company does engage in the
respective practice, no indicates the company does not
engage in the respective practice, and unclear indicates
the company makes no meaningful disclosure regarding
the respective practice. For example, the second row in
table 1indicates the scenario where a company discloses
“no” they do not sell data, and “yes” they may share data
under the CCPA. In this scenario, they may only offer a
cookie consent preference setting to opt out of targeted
advertising. However, in another example indicated by
row 6 in table 1, a company's policy may disclose “yes”
they sell data, but remain non-transparent or “unclear”
on whether they share data, and therefore they may only
offer a preference setting to opt out of the sale of data.
In situations like row 5 of table 1, where a company's pol-
34See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.120.
icy says both “yes” they may sell data, and “yes” they may
share data under the CCPA, consumers may think they
opted out of the sale of their data, when in fact they only
may have only opted out of sharing their data through a
prominently displayed cookie consent notice. The com-
pany may offer a separate mechanism to opt out of sale.
Automated opt-out mechanisms such as the Global Pri-
vacy Control (GPC),35 which is a technical specication
for transmitting universal opt-out signals, may be help-
ful in allowing consumers to automatically send their
“opt out of sale” preference under the CCPA. 36 How-
ever, these types of opt-out privacy tools have limita-
tions: They must be activated in the consumer's browser
on every device; they must be adopted by the company
with which the consumer is interacting; and, problem-
atically, these preferences are typically stored in per-
sistent tracking cookies or attached to their user ac-
count. Therefore, if consumers clear their cookies or if
they are not logged into their account, then automat-
ically sending universal opt-out signals to companies
would not protect consumers' anonymous interactions
with the company from being sold or shared with third
parties for commercial purposes. This is why alterna-
tive privacy proposals that would require opt-in consent
would better protect all users' privacy: By default, a com-
pany would not be able to sell or share a consumer's data
without their explicit consent. Universal opt-in consent
would also protect users' ability—especially children—to
anonymously interact with a company and not have their
data inadvertently monetized. Common Sense's evalu-
ation of privacy policies has found that companies dis-
close the following types of “sale or share” scenarios:
Table 1: Sell data and share data policy disclosure detail.
Sell Data Share Data
no no
no yes
no unclear
yes no
yes yes
yes unclear
unclear no
unclear yes
unclear unclear
The legislative intent of the denition of selling data was
meant to be inclusive of sharing data under the CCPA for
commercial purposes because selling data's third factor,
“for money or other form of value,” is sufciently broad
to cover any sharing of data for the benet of a business
35See Global Privacy Control (GPC),
https://globalprivacycontrol.org.
36See California Privacy Protection Agency, Final Regulations, §
7025.
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 5
evenwhen no money is exchanged. Consumers have sev-
eral choices when it comes to exercising their right to opt
out of sale or sharing. For example, consumers who opt
out of a product selling their data also opt out of shar-
ing for commercial purposes—but consumers can also
specically opt out only of sharing their data, which com-
panies have interpreted as opting out of only targeted
advertising, without also opting out of additional forms
of data monetization such as selling data to third parties.
Table 2: Consumer opt-out request and subsequent
vendor action(s).
Opt-out request Product sells Product shares
Sell data yes, opt-out yes, opt-out
Share data no change yes, opt-out
No request no change no change
These different situations can create confusion for com-
panies because they think they do not sell data under
the CCPA, but rather only share data with third par-
ties for targeted advertising, which requires the prac-
tices of tracking and proling users. This distinction be-
tween sell and share can also confuse consumers who
do not assume “sharing” their data with third parties
is the primary method that companies use to monetize
their data, because the term “sharing data” pre-dates the
CCPA or CPRA's appropriation of “share.” The phrase
“sharing data” is generally understood by consumers as a
requirement to make Internet-enabled applications and
services “just work.” It is not surprising that a majority of
companies disclose in their policies that they do not sell
data, but just share data for cross-context behavioral ad-
vertising, which is a practice they likely already disclosed
in their policies as targeted advertising before the CCPA
or CPRA amendments came into effect.
The practice of sharing data for cross-context
behavioral advertising is considered a form of
data monetization.
Alternatively, the CPRA amendments could have in-
cluded the practice of “disclosing a consumer's personal
information for cross-context behavioral advertising to
third parties” in the denition of “sell,” but cross-context
behavioral advertising was included in a new denition
of “share” to capture this specic practice and allow sep-
arate opt-out requests. We believe this is causing con-
fusion for both companies and consumers. The practice
of either selling or sharing data for cross-context be-
havioral advertising still monetizes users' data, but only
sharing data for monetary value is a more specic form
of selling. Therefore, for the purposes of our research
and this paper, when companies disclose they do not sell
data, but rather only share data for cross-context be-
havioral advertising, it is interpreted to meet the de-
nition of “sell” under the CCPA and the company needs
to change its policies to correctly disclose that they sell
data.
Evaluating Selling or
Sharing Data
The Common Sense Privacy Program created a com-
prehensive evaluation process for evaluators to answer
questions by reading privacy policies for popular mobile
applications and online services.37 Our evaluation pro-
cess attempts to address some of the common barriers
to understanding a product's privacy practices and sum-
marize answers to privacy questions to help users pro-
vide meaningfully informed consent, or to choose not to
use products as a result of their privacy practices. For ex-
ample, the following evaluation question requires a re-
viewer to read the policies of the application or service
and determine whether or not they disclose the issue
raised in the question by providing a yes or no response:
Question: Do the policies clearly indicate whether or not the
company collects personally identiable information (PII)?
If the reviewer responds yes to this question in our policy
annotator software, that means the application or ser-
vice discloses whether or not it collects personally iden-
tiable information. Given a “yes” transparent response
to this question, the evaluator is then asked a follow-up
question—a slightly adjusted version of the original at-
tempting to capture if they engage in a particular prac-
tice. In this case:
Do the policies indicate the company collects personally
identiable information (PII)?
A yes or no response about whether personally identi-
able information is or is not collected will determine the
nal question points based on whether the practices de-
scribed are considered qualitatively “better” or “worse”
for the purposes of our evaluation process. For the pur-
poses of this paper, our analysis focuses on the inter-
section of the denition of “cross-context behavioral ad-
vertising” and selling or sharing data under the CPRA
amendments with the following four evaluation ques-
tions:
37See Kelly, G., Graham, J., Bronfman, J., & Garton, S. (2021). 2021
State of Kids' Privacy. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media, pp.
14-15, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/state-of-kids-
privacy-report-2021.
62023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
•Sell Data:Do the policies clearly indicate whether or
not a user's personal information is sold, or exchanged
for anything of value to third parties?
•Third-Party Tracking:Do the policies clearly indicate
whether or not third-party advertising services or track-
ing technologies collect any information from a user of
the application or service?
•Track Users:Do the policies clearly indicate whether
or not a user's personal information is used to track and
target advertisements on other third-party websites or
services?
•Ad Prole:Do the policies clearly indicate whether or
not the company allows third parties to use a user's data
to create a prole, engage in data enhancement or social
advertising, or target advertising?
However, rst-party monetization, which includes our
Personalized Ads38 privacy evaluation question, is not in-
cluded in this data-sold analysis or covered in the Mul-
tiple Privacy Practice Comparison section below. This is
because the CPRA excludes the practice of behavioral
or targeted ads—which is often referred to as Person-
alized Ads—in its denition of cross-context behavioral
advertising, when personal information is used for per-
sonalized advertising only from the rst-party business,
distinctly branded website, application, or service with
which the consumer intentionally and directly inter-
acts.39 Our evaluation question interprets targeted or
behavioral ads that are displayed to the user on the rst-
party platform to be associated with the Personalized Ads
evaluation question. However, if personal information is
shared with third parties to display targeted or behavioral
ads to users on other third-party applications or services
across the internet which the consumer does not inten-
tionally interact with, we categorize that practice with
our Track Users evaluation question.
38Common Sense Media, Full evaluation questions, Personalized
Advertising evaluation question, https://github.com/commonsense-
org/privacy-questions-output/blob/main/full-questions.md (“Do the
policies clearly indicate whether or not advertising based on a user's
personal information are displayed on the rst-party product?”)
39See example of rst-party advertising.Discord, Privacy Policy,
https://discord.com/privacy (“We are proud of the product we've
built. We may tell you about our paid services and other features
directly in the services and through our own channels, and we spend
money advertising Discord on other platforms.”) (Accessed April 1,
2023).
Selling Data and
Cross‐Context
Behavioral
Advertising
The new CPRA intersection of cross-context behavioral
advertising is fully represented in our existing Sell Data,
Third-Party Tracking,Track Users, and Ad Prole evaluation
questions, which are expected to include all of a com-
pany's data monetization and selling practices. Since our
evaluation process has always included these four ques-
tions, we can compare their historical practices since
2018—as shown in gure 1below—and speculate about
what “selling” data practices a company should disclose
since the CPRA amendments became law in January
2023. As indicated in our Sell Data evaluation question,
as companies move from non-transparency about sell-
ing data to discussing statutory requirements related to
selling data such as the CPRA's cross-context behavioral
advertising, tracking, and proling, they will most likely
disclose “worse” practices for kids and families. Our re-
sults indicate compliance with the CPRA amendments
is low, but we expect that companies' transparency will
increase in the future. Companies will likely disclose
“worse” practices, as covered by the denition of “sale”
under the CCPA with our Sell Data evaluation question,
which is expanded to include “sharing” a user's personal
information with third parties for “cross-context behav-
ioral advertising.” This change implicates the following
four privacy evaluation questions.
Sell Data Evaluation Question
The Sell Data evaluation question indicates whether
the policies disclose that a user's personal informa-
tion is sold or rented to third parties for monetary or
other valuable consideration. Selling users' data is an
important issue to disclose in the policy because users
want to know if their data is shared with third par-
ties in exchange for use of the product and the an-
swer may impact whether they decide to use the prod-
uct or service.40,41,42,43,44,45 A “better” response to this
40See Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 16 C.F.R.
Part 312.2.
41See Student Online Personal Information Protection Act
(SOPIPA), Cal. B.&P. Code § 22584(b)(3).
42See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.120(b)-(c).
43See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.135(a).
44See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.140(ad)(1).
45See General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Art. 13(2)(b),
14(2)(c), 15(1)(e), 18(1)(d), 21(1), 21(4).
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 7
evaluation question indicates the product does not sell a
user's data to third parties. A “worse” response indicates
the product does sell a user's data to third parties. “Un-
clear” indicates that no relevant disclosure is made avail-
able in the policies.
Figure 1: Sell Data: Do the policies clearly indicate
whether or not a user's personal information is sold, or
exchanged for anything of value to third parties?
9% 14% 15%
33% 29% 20% 14% 12%
65% 69% 71% 72% 73%
0
25
50
75
100
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Percent
Response better unclear worse
Figure 1does not indicate any signicant differences
from 2021 to 2022 in the practice of selling data. We
see 73% of companies disclosing the better practice that
they do not sell users' data. Additionally, we see a small
decrease—from 14% to 12%—in companies not disclos-
ing whether or not they sell data. However, this decrease
in non-transparency or “unclear” results in a similar in-
crease from 14% to 15% of companies updating their pri-
vacy policies to disclose under the CCPA that they sell
users' data. The data from 2022 indicates, similar to prior
years, that the vast majority of companies that remain
non-transparent about selling data are more likely to al-
ready be engaging in the sale of data, but without giv-
ing users adequate notice. These companies may con-
tinue to remain non-transparent on the practice of sell-
ing data for as long as possible in order to minimize their
business risk if they disclose the wrong practice and to
avoid costly legal consulting fees. Current business prac-
tices incentivize remaining non-transparent without an
increased risk of regulatory enforcement or customer
awareness of their non-transparency. If a company dis-
closes they now sell consumers' data, the change could
negatively impact their sales revenue, could decrease
marketing leads, and would require expensive legal fees
to change their privacy policy and complete a privacy im-
pact assessment of their product to come into compli-
ance.
Third-Party Tracking Evaluation Question
The Third-Party Tracking evaluation question indicates
whether the company allows third-party companies to
use cookies or other tracking technologies on its prod-
uct, enabling those third-party companies to collect and
use a user's personal information for their own purposes.
A company should not permit third-party advertising
services or tracking technologies to collect any infor-
mation from a user who is using the service. A user's
personal information provided to a product should not
also be used by a third party to persistently track that
user's behavioral actions on the product to inuence
what content they see in the product and elsewhere on-
line. Third-party tracking can inuence a user's decision-
making without their knowledge, which may cause un-
intended harm.46,47,48 A “better” response to this eval-
uation question indicates that the company does not al-
low third-party companies to use cookies or other track-
ing technologies on its product. A “worse” response in-
dicates that the company does allow third-party compa-
nies to use cookies or other tracking technologies on its
product. “Unclear” indicates that no relevant disclosure
is made available in the policies.
Figure 2: Third-Party Tracking: Do the policies clearly
indicate whether or not third-party tracking
technologies collect any information from a user of the
product for the third party's own purposes including
advertising?
37% 41% 50% 55% 59%
42% 24% 17% 14% 14%
21% 35% 33% 31% 27%
0
25
50
75
100
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Percent
Response better unclear worse
Figure 2indicates an increase in third-party tracking
“worse” disclosures since 2021. We see a small decrease
of from 31% to 27% of companies disclosing the better
practice that they do not use personal information for
third-party tracking purposes. However, there remains
no change in the 14% of companies that still do not dis-
close whether they engage in the practice of third-party
tracking. The decrease in better practices unfortunately
results in a similar increase from 55% to 59% of compa-
nies updating their privacy policies to now disclose un-
der the CPRA amendments that they engage in third-
party tracking practices. The increase since 2018 in a
company's transparency to disclose “worse” third-party
tracking practices in their policies was likely motivated
in part because of the passage of Europe's General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR)49 in 2018. The GDPR in-
cluded the concept of “tracking” as part of a company's
46See Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 16 C.F.R.
Part 312.2.
47See California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA), Cal.
B.&P. Code § 22575(b)(7).
48See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §§
1798.140(k), (l), (ah), (aj).
49General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Regulation (EU)
2016/679.
82023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
legitimate interests to process data for marketing pur-
poses, which may have incentivized companies to de-
scribe this data monetization method in their privacy
policies so they could obtain consent as a lawful basis of
processing.50
This increase in transparent “worse” practices may also
be the result of increased consumer awareness of the
term “tracking,” because of its recent prominent inclu-
sion in app stores under Apple privacy nutrition labels51
and Google safety sections.52 In addition, passage of the
CPRA amendments with a focus on “cross-context be-
havioral advertising” may have further claried the prac-
tice of third-party tracking for companies, resulting in
previously “better” practices being updated to “worse”
practices to appropriately reect the new changes in
state legislation. Therefore, our data indicates that a
small percentage of companies are updating their pri-
vacy policies to switch from better to worse third-party
tracking practices to comply with the new CCPA re-
quirements, but not also updating their practice of sell-
ing data at the same rate. This indicates a knowledge
gap where companies are not considering the practice of
third-party tracking as a data monetization method that
requires them to disclose they also sell data.
Track Users Evaluation Question
The Track Users evaluation question indicates whether
the product allows a third-party company to use cook-
ies or other tracking technologies, or whether it other-
wise enables a third party to display advertisements to
the product's users on other apps and services across
the Internet. A company should not track users to tar-
get them with advertisements on other third-party web-
sites or services. A user's personal information provided
to a product should not be used by a third party to per-
sistently track that user's behavioral actions over time
and across the Internet on other apps and services for
commercial purposes.53,54,55,56,57 A “better” response
50See Information Commissioner's Ofce (ICO), Legitimate
interests, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-
protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-
gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/legitimate-interests.
51Apple. (2022, February 9). About privacy information on the App
Store and the choices you have to control your data.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211970.
52See Google Play Help, “Understand App Privacy & Security
Practices with Google Play's Data Safety” section,
https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/11416267;See also
Google Play Console Help, “Provide Information for Google Play's
Data Safety” section, https://support.google.com/googleplay/
androiddeveloper/answer/10787469.
53See Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 16 C.F.R.
Part 312.2.
54See Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 34 C.F.R.
Part 99.1.
55See Student Online Personal Information Protection Act
(SOPIPA), Cal. B.&P. Code § 22584(b)(1)(B).
56See California Privacy Rights for Minors in the Digital World, Cal.
B.&P. Code §§ 22580-22582.
57See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §§
1798.140(e)(4), (k), (ah), (aj).
to this evaluation question indicates that the company
does not allow third-party companies to track users over
time and across the Internet on other apps and services.
A “worse” response indicates that the company does al-
low third-party companies to track users over time and
across the Internet on other apps and services. An “un-
clear” response indicates that no relevant disclosure is
made available in the policies.
Figure 3: Track Users: Do the policies clearly indicate
whether or not a user's information is used to track
users and display personalized advertisements on other
third-party websites or services?
21% 33% 43% 48% 51%
51% 29% 21% 18% 19%
28% 38% 36% 34% 30%
0
25
50
75
100
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Percent
Response better unclear worse
Figure 3indicates an increase in tracking users across
the Internet for commercial purposes since 2021. We
see a small decrease, from 34% to 30%, in companies
disclosing the “better” practice that they do not use
personal information for third-party tracking purposes.
However, there remains little to no signicant change
in the 18% to 19% of companies that still do not dis-
close whether they engage in the practice of tracking
users. The decrease in better practices unfortunately re-
sults in a similar increase from 48% to 51% of compa-
nies updating their privacy policies to now disclose that
they engage in tracking users for commercial purposes.
Similar to the increase of third-party tracking, the Track
Users data indicates that a small percentage of compa-
nies are updating their privacy policies to switch from
better to worse third-party tracking practices to comply
with the new CCPA requirements, but not updating the
practice of selling data at the same rate. This indicates
a knowledge gap where companies are not considering
the practice of tracking users for commercial purposes
as a data monetization method that requires them to dis-
close they also sell data.
Ad Prole Evaluation Question
The Ad Prole evaluation question indicates whether or
not a product creates an advertising prole or allows
third-party companies to use cookies or other tracking
technologies on the product that would enable those
third-party companies to create a behavioral prole or
audience segmentation about a user based on the user's
personal information, preferences, and characteristics
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 9
for advertising or marketing purposes across the Inter-
net. A company should not create advertising proles
or allow third parties to use a user's data to create a
prole, engage in data enhancement or social adver-
tising, or target advertising based on that prole. Au-
tomated decision making, including the creation of ad
proles for tracking or advertising purposes, can lead
to an increased risk of harmful outcomes that may dis-
proportionately and signicantly affect children or stu-
dents.58,59,60,61,62,63 A “better” response to this evalu-
ation question indicates that the company does not al-
low third-party companies to create or use a behavioral
prole of any user. A “worse” response indicates that
the company does allow third-party companies to cre-
ate or use a behavioral prole of any user. An “unclear”
response indicates that no relevant disclosure is made
available in the policies.
Figure 4: Ad Prole: Do the policies clearly indicate
whether or not the company allows third parties to use
a user's data to create an automated prole or engage
in data enhancement for the purposes of personalized
advertising?
10% 23% 34% 39% 43%
64% 33% 25% 25% 23%
26% 44% 41% 36% 34%
0
25
50
75
100
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Percent
Response better unclear worse
Figure 4indicates an increase in companies disclosing
that they are creating or sharing behavioral proles of
users for commercial purposes since 2021. We see a
small decrease from 36% to 34% of companies disclos-
ing the better practice that they do not use personal in-
formation for third-party tracking purposes. However,
there was also a small decrease, from 25% to 23%, in
companies that still do not disclose whether they engage
in the practice of creating behavioral proles. The de-
crease in better practices and the decrease in remain-
ing non-transparent or “unclear” unfortunately results
in an increase, from 39% to 43%, in companies updat-
ing their privacy policies to disclose that they engage in
58See Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 16 C.F.R.
Part 312.2.
59See Student Online Personal Information Protection Act
(SOPIPA), Cal. B.&P. Code §§ 22584(b)(2), 22584(e)(2).
60See California Privacy Rights for Minors in the Digital World, Cal.
B.&P. Code §§ 22580-22582.
61See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §§
1798.140(e)(4), (v)(1)(K), (z), (aj).
62See Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 16 C.F.R.
Part 312.8.
63See Student Online Personal Information Protection Act
(SOPIPA), Cal. B.&P. Code §§ 22584(b)(4)(E)(i), 22584(b)(4)(E)(ii).
creating behavioral proles of users for commercial pur-
poses that includes targeted advertising. Similar to the
increase in third-party tracking and tracking users, the
data indicates that a small percentage of companies are
updating their privacy policies to switch from better and
unclear to worse advertising prole practices in order
to comply with the new CCPA requirements. However,
these same companies are not updating the practice of
selling data at the same rate. This indicates a knowledge
gap where companies are not considering the practice of
creating advertising proles of users for commercial pur-
poses as a data monetization method that requires them
to disclose that they also sell data.
Selling Data Multiple
Privacy Practice
Comparison
The multiple privacy practice comparison explores the
privacy practices of a product at the intersection of mul-
tiple issues used in our rating criteria. For example, con-
sider a product that discloses they do not sell data to
third parties, but also discloses that the product engages
in other data monetization methods that would meet the
denition of “selling or sharing” data under the CPRA
amendments such as using third-party tracking tech-
nologies, tracking users across the internet for commer-
cial purposes, or creating advertising proles for com-
mercial purposes. This multivariable analysis is critically
important to help illustrate the complex compliance re-
quirements of selling data and how companies may be in
compliance with one variable or practice, but not other
practices under the CCPA when you consider additional
data monetization methods.
Data Sold: “Better”
The practice of monetizing users' personal information
by selling data to third parties is a complex and evolv-
ing privacy issue. The passage of recent state consumer
privacy protection laws enable consumers to opt out
of a company selling their data, but the denition of
what selling data means for companies was expanded
to include the use of data monetization practices such
as third-party tracking and proling technologies. Ta-
ble 3indicates for the 143 companies that disclose in
their policies that they do not Sell Data to third par-
ties, labeled as “better,” whether they also disclose other
problematic privacy practices that could be considered
monetizing users' data for monetary or other valuable
consideration, labeled as “worse.” Three additional rat-
ing criteria questions are ltered below: the use of
Third-Party Tracking technologies, Tracking Users on
10 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
other applications and services across the internet, and
creating Ad Proles of users for commercial purposes.
Table 3: Sell Data better vs. Third-Party Tracking vs.
Track Users vs. Data Prole 2022. Row coloring
indicates the expected “Sell Data” disclosure after the
CPRA comes into effect Blue indicates a “better”
disclosure, orange indicates “unclear” but likely “worse,”
and red indicates “worse.”
Third-Party
Tracking
Track
Users
Ad
Prole count
better better better 50
unclear unclear unclear 15
unclear unclear better 1
unclear better better 1
better unclear unclear 1
better better unclear 1
worse worse worse 44
worse worse unclear 6
worse worse better 6
worse unclear worse 3
worse unclear unclear 6
worse unclear better 2
worse better worse 2
worse better unclear 2
worse better better 2
unclear worse worse 1
unclear worse better 2
We are encouraged that 34% (50/143) of the 143 prod-
ucts that disclose they do not sell a user's data, high-
lighted in blue, also disclose they do not use third-party
tracking technologies, and do not track users across the
internet, and do not create advertising proles for com-
mercial purposes. However, 52% (74/143) of companies
that disclose they do not sell data, highlighted in red,
still engage in one or more data monetization practices
such as Third-Party Tracking, or Track Users, or Ad Pro-
le, which would be considered selling data under the
denition of cross-context behavioral advertising under
the CPRA amendments. In addition, the approximate
13% (19/143) of companies that disclose that they do
not sell users' data, highlighted in yellow, but are non-
transparent about use of one or more practices such
as third-party tracking technologies, tracking users, or
ad proles are assumed to engage in “worse” practices.
These results show that 65% (93/143) of companies that
disclose they do not sell data, highlighted in red and yel-
low, still engage in one or more data monetization prac-
tices or are “unclear.” This assumption is based on the Sell
Data evaluation question data over the long term that in-
dicates when companies update their unclear policies to
disclose whether or not they sell data, those disclosures
are more likely qualitatively “worse.”
Companies are required under the CCPA to incorpo-
rate the use of third-party tracking technologies, track-
ing users across the internet, and creating advertising
proles for commercial purposes into their disclosure of
“selling or sharing” a consumer's data to third parties
in exchange for monetary value or other valuable con-
sideration. As a result, our data indicates there should
be a signicant shift in the industry with the percent-
age of companies that change their policies to disclose
they now sell users' data under the CPRA's amendments.
The changes related to selling data are expected to be
a monumental shift in the industry in 2023 and beyond,
with companies required to update their policies with
more transparency to come into compliance by disclos-
ing the selling or sharing of their users' data. Our data
indicates the industry has so far chosen to simply ig-
nore the changes in the denition of selling or sharing
data in response to the CPRA's amendments and con-
tinue Third-Party tracking, Track Users, and Ad Prole prac-
tices on their products while claiming ignorance in their
privacy policies that they “do not sell data.” Companies
that already say they sell data are not likely to change
their “worse” practices or policies regarding the sale of
data, but they may increase their transparency on shar-
ing data with the use of tracking technologies and adver-
tising proles for commercial purposes that are now con-
sidered a “sale or share” under the CPRA.
An estimated 65% of companies that disclose
they do not sell data engage in one or more
data monetization practices.
The industry will likely continue to use tracking tech-
nologies in their products to monetize user data, but may
update their privacy policy to say they now sell data and
still use tracking technologies and advertising proles
for commercial purposes. It is also likely that companies
will update privacy policies along with multiple changes
that happen to include the change that they now sell
users' data without many consumers being aware of this.
For example, we evaluated64 Netix's privacy policy65
dated November 2, 2021, which disclosed “We do not sell
personal information,” but was later updated on Novem-
ber 1, 2022—before the CPRA amendments came into
effect—to completely switch practices and now disclose
they sell users' data: “As of the date of this Privacy No-
tice, we may use certain types of information to offer mem-
bers an ad supported subscription plan or engage in cer-
tain marketing activities. Under the CCPA, this activity may
be considered 'selling' or 'sharing.'” This example is com-
plex, because Netix chose to introduce a new behav-
ioral advertising-supported subscription plan before the
64See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation of Netix,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Netflix.
65See Netix Privacy Policy,
https://help.netflix.com/en/legal/privacy.
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 11
CPRA went into effect, and its new selling data disclo-
sure relates only to the new ad-supported plan but not
its other paid subscription plans. This may confuse users
who are not subscribed to the ad-supported plan; they
could assume from this disclosure that their data is not
sold, when in actuality, it is.
Even if consumers receive notice of policy changes with
privacy policy update emails or pop-up notications,
they may not understand what the changes mean. Often,
when consumers learn that the companies and brands
they trust switch their historical practices from “we will
never sell your data” to “yes, we sell your data” to re-
ect their already existing practices, there will likely be
product or brand reputational damage, as well as con-
sumer confusion over the change in disclosure and lost
revenue for companies as consumers lose trust. Con-
sumers are increasingly concerned about their privacy,
and they fundamentally understand that “selling data”
means companies make money from various methods
that include tracking their activities on the product and
selling their data to third-party data brokers and compa-
nies for advertising purposes, even when consumers pay
high subscription fees.66 Consumers are likely to stop
paying to use products that continue to charge higher
subscription fees every year and also sell their data to
third parties. This “double dipping” approach of charging
customers and also monetizing their data goes against
the common narrative that “if you are not paying for the
product, then you are the product.” Increasingly, con-
sumers are paying premium prices or subscription fees
to use their favorite apps and services, all while their data
is also being monetized, which means the costs outweigh
the benets.
Consumers are learning that even when they
are paying a premium for the product, they
are also the product.
In their policies, companies claim the denition of “sell”
under the CCPA is too broad or unclear, which we dis-
cuss further in the Examples of Selling Data Disclosures
section below. This is similar to how companies histor-
ically argued that the industry cannot agree on how to
respond to Do Not Track (DNT) Response requests.67
We expect that companies may conate the passage of
multiple state consumer privacy laws and regulatory in-
consistencies in their policy changes that say they now
sell data. However, there may be pushback from con-
sumers against companies that now say they now sell
66See Pew Research Center, Nov. 2019, Americans and Privacy:
Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their
Personal Information,
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wpcontent/uploads/sites/9/
2019/11/Pew-ResearchCenter_PI_2019.11.15_Privacy_FINAL.pdf.
67Some browsers have incorporated “Do Not Track” (DNT)
features that can send a signal to the websites you visit indicating you
do not wish to be tracked. Because there is not a common
understanding of how to interpret the DNT signal, our Site does not
currently respond to browser DNT signals.
consumer data but disagree with what selling means, in
an attempt to redirect blame onto confusing privacy laws
rather than their own data monetization practices. We
have already seen companies take a minimum privacy
compliance approach where they conspicuously claim
they are not selling data of users identied as children
or students, but later disclose that they are selling data
of other users such as consumers, parents, and educa-
tors of the product as shown in the Examples of Selling
Data Discloses section below. A consumer might reason-
ably conclude that any time a company says clearly that
they do not sell children's or student's' data that the
company does, in fact, sell other users' personal data.
The CPRA's expansion of the denition of selling data
is generally understood by consumers to more closely
align with their awareness and expectations of what sell-
ing data actually means, rather than how companies use
various technologies and methods to make money from
users' data. Ultimately, the different methods of data
monetization or exceptions to sale or share are not im-
portant to consumers—they just want to know if the
product is making money from their data.
Data Sold: “Worse”
Table 4indicates whether, for the 31 products that dis-
close the qualitatively “worse” practice that they do sell
data to third parties, the company also discloses privacy
practices that could be considered monetizing users'
data for monetary or other valuable consideration un-
der the CCPA, labeled as “worse” in the table. Three addi-
tional rating criteria questions are ltered below: Third-
Party Tracking technologies, Tracking Users on other appli-
cations and services across the internet, and creating Ad
Proles for advertising purposes.
Table 4: Sell Data worse vs. Third-Party Tracking vs.
Track Users vs. Data Prole 2022. Row coloring
indicates the expected “Sell Data” disclosure after the
CPRA comes into effect. Blue indicates a “better”
disclosure, orange indicates “unclear” but likely “worse,”
and red indicates “worse.”
Third-Party
Tracking
Track
Users
Ad
Prole count
worse worse worse 24
worse worse unclear 3
worse worse better 1
worse unclear worse 1
unclear unclear unclear 1
better better better 1
It is not surprising that 77% (24/31) of the 31 compa-
nies that disclose they do sell a user's data, highlighted
in red, also disclose that they use third-party tracking
technologies, track users across the internet, and create
12 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
advertising proles for commercial purposes. As dis-
cussed, these additional monetization practices are all
considered selling data with cross-context behavioral
advertising under the CPRA amendments to the CCPA.
Companies that disclose they sell data but are “unclear”
about the use of third-party tracking technologies, track-
ing users, or creating ad proles are assumed to also en-
gage in these “worse” practices.
Data Sold: “Unclear”
Table 5indicates whether, for the 24 products that do
not transparently disclose either the qualitatively “bet-
ter” or “worse” practice that they do or do not sell data
to third parties, the company also discloses privacy prac-
tices that could be considered monetizing users' data
for monetary or other valuable consideration under the
CPRA amendments, labeled as “worse.” Three additional
rating criteria questions are ltered below: Third-Party
Tracking technologies, Tracking Users on other applica-
tions and services across the internet, and creating Ad
Proles for commercial purposes.
Table 5: Sell Data unclear vs. Third-Party Tracking vs.
Track Users vs. Data Prole 2022. Row coloring
indicates the expected “Sell Data” disclosure after the
CPRA comes into effect. Blue indicates a “better”
disclosure, orange indicates “unclear” but likely “worse,”
and red indicates “worse.”
Third-Party
Tracking
Track
Users
Ad
Prole count
unclear unclear unclear 5
unclear better unclear 1
worse worse worse 9
worse worse unclear 4
worse worse better 1
worse unclear worse 2
worse unclear unclear 1
unclear worse worse 1
Approximately 75% (18/24) of the 24 products that do
not disclose whether they sell a user's data, highlighted
in red, do disclose either that they use third-party track-
ing technologies, track users across the internet, or cre-
ate advertising proles for commercial purposes. Com-
panies likely do not consider their third-party tracking
or advertising practices the same practice as selling a
user's personal information to third parties. Companies
may think they are simply making money by providing ac-
cess to their product for third parties with their users' au-
tomatically collected personal information, which is why
they remain unclear about selling data. As discussed,
there is a higher awareness among consumers about the
practice of explicitly selling data, which may indicate why
companies remain “unclear” or non-transparent on the
practice—they don't want to risk losing current users,
subscription revenue, or future app downloads. How-
ever, these companies still disclose the practice of us-
ing third-party tracking technologies, tracking users on
other sites and services across the internet, or creat-
ing advertising proles for commercial purposes. As dis-
cussed, these additional monetization practices are also
considered selling or sharing data with cross-context be-
havioral advertising under the CPRA amendments, but
companies are not in compliance. Based on historical
trends and on this analysis, companies that do not say
whether or not they sell data and are “unclear” or non-
transparent about the use of third-party tracking tech-
nologies, tracking users, or creating ad proles can be
reasonably assumed to be selling users' data and engag-
ing in these “worse” data monetization practices.
Examples of Selling
Data Disclosures
Our results indicate a majority of companies (73%) cur-
rently disclose the “better” practice that they do not sell
users' data to third parties, but they have other data
monetization practices that would be considered selling
or sharing data under the CCPA. As companies updated
their privacy policies in 2022 to disclose whether or not
they sell users' data to third parties, we identied several
different types of policy disclosures related to how com-
panies describe the practice of selling data. The follow-
ing categories illustrate the different approaches our re-
viewers identied in how companies choose to disclose
the practice of selling data in their policies:
Transparently Better
We see a minority of companies (~20%) with policies that
consistently and transparently disclose they do not sell
users' data, and that also transparently disclose they do
not engage in other data monetization methods such as
third-party tracking, targeted advertising, or proling,
which is consistent with the CPRA's denition of selling
or sharing data. These companies earn our highest blue
“Pass” privacy rating68 because they do not engage in
any forms of data monetization and typically earn rev-
enue through the sale of hardware, paid monthly sub-
scriptions, paid app downloads, in-app purchases, or li-
cense fees. For example, we evaluated69 Apple Siri's pri-
vacy policy70, which says, “Apple does not sell your personal
68See Common Sense Media, Privacy Ratings,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/resource/privacy-ratings.
69See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation of Apple Siri,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Apple-Siri.
70Apple, Privacy Policy,
https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww (Accessed April 1,
2023).
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 13
data including as 'sale' is dened in Nevada and California.
Apple also does not 'share' your personal data as that term is
dened in California.”
Transparently Worse
We see a small percentage of companies consistently
and transparently disclose they sell users' data (~16%),
and also transparently disclose they engage in other
data monetization methods, such as third-party track-
ing and targeted advertising, which are consistent with
the CPRA's denition of selling or sharing data. These
companies are clear and honest about their data mone-
tization practices, and we nd they typically begin their
privacy policy by saying they respect and value the pri-
vacy of their users. These companies are in compliance
with the CPRA amendments, but they are in the minor-
ity within the industry. Our research shows most other
companies in the industry are not in compliance with the
CPRA with respect to disclosing their data selling prac-
tices, which puts transparently “worse” companies at a
competitive disadvantage in the marketplace. For exam-
ple, we evaluated71 Roku's supplemental “Your Privacy
Choices”72 policy, which says “We disclose personal infor-
mation as described in our privacy policy for different pur-
poses, including to bring you more relevant ads, help you dis-
cover content, and provide a more tailored experience to you
on our services. Some of these disclosures may be considered
a 'sharing' of personal information for 'cross-context behav-
ioral advertising' or 'targeted advertising,' or a 'sale' of per-
sonal information under relevant law.”
Disagreement
We see a minority of companies updating their policies in
2023 to transparently switch practices from historically
saying they will never sell data to now disclosing they do
sell data, but the policy change is made with contradict-
ing language that is difcult to understand because the
company disagrees with the CPRA denition of selling
data.. Change is hard, and these policy changes often say
the denition of “sale” and “share” is too broad and not
within the commonly understood meaning of exchanging
data for money, but it's not clear to consumers with these
policy changes whether or not the company actually sells
their data. For example, we evaluated73 ABCMouse's
privacy policy74, which says, “[W]e will never monetize the
PI of any User of the Services by providing it to a third party
in exchange for money. The CCPA has a broader denition of
the term 'sell' which includes disclosing PI to any third party
71See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation of Roku,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Roku.
72Roku, Your Privacy Choices, https://privacy.roku.com/ccpa
(Accessed April 1, 2023).
73See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation of ABCMouse,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/ABCmouse.com.
74See ABCMouse, Privacy Policy,
https://www.abcmouse.com/abc/privacy/current (Accessed April 1,
2023).
for valuable consideration. When we work with our adver-
tising partners, we are disclosing certain information such as
cookies for their services, which are of value to us. You may be
entitled to direct us to stop disclosing your PI to third parties
for monetary or other valuable consideration.”
Confusion
Many companies say they don't sell data, but confusingly
still offer the ability for users to opt out of sale, which
implies they do sell data. They sometimes also state fac-
tual inaccuracies in their policies about the CCPA in their
attempt to understand how the practice of selling data
applies to their own privacy practices. For example, we
evaluated75 the gaming company Storm8's privacy pol-
icy76, which says, “The California Consumer Protection Act
('CCPA') requires us to disclose categories of personal in-
formation sold to third parties and how to opt out of such
sales. The CCPA denes personal information to include on-
line identiers, including IP address, cookies, and mobile IDs.
The law also denes a 'sale' to include simply making data
available to third parties. We let advertising and analytics
providers collect IP addresses, cookie IDs, mobile IDs through
our sites and apps when you use our online services, and they
may further 'sell' such information, but we do not 'sell' any
other types of personal information. If you do not wish for
us or our partners to 'sell' or further 'sell' your personal in-
formation to third parties for advertising or analytics pur-
poses, you can make your Do Not Sell Request by opting
out of third-party tracking as described in this Cookie sec-
tion.” This type of confusion about selling data is quite
common. First, the CCPA does not dene selling or shar-
ing as simply making data available to third parties. Sec-
ond, the company is confused into thinking third-party
advertising companies are the ones selling their users'
data, but that they are not selling data because they don't
sell other types of user data to those same third parties.
Lastly, the company makes the contradictory statement
that users can opt out of selling their data from both
Storm8 and their “partners,” including some types of per-
sonal information but not other types of personal infor-
mation. This can be confusing to consumers.
Inconsistencies
We see far too many companies still transparently dis-
closing they do not sell their users' data, but also incon-
sistently disclosing that they sell or share data in supple-
mental policies or that they engage in other data mon-
etization methods such as third-party tracking, prol-
ing, and third-party targeted advertising of their users,
which would satisfy the requirement of selling or sharing
75See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation for Property Brothers
Home Design,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/property-brothers-
home-design.
76Storm8, Privacy Policy,
https://www.storm8.com/notice-of-privacy (Accessed April 1, 2023).
14 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
data under the CPRA. These companies typically mar-
ket themselves prominently as privacy-protecting prod-
ucts that “care about your privacy” and that would never
sell their users' data to third parties for prot, but they
still share data for personalized advertising. There is also
likely confusion about whether monetizing a user's data
with the rst-party company is a sale under the CCPA, or
only if data is shared with a third party, or if sharing data
with partners, afliates, or service providers constitutes
a sale depending on if they are categorized as rst party
or third party. Whether intentional or not, these com-
panies are falsely disclosing that they do not sell their
users' data. As a result, these products give children, stu-
dents, parents, and educators a false sense of privacy
and safety because they market their product as more
privacy-protecting than it really is by disclosing that they
don't sell data but only share it for cross-context behav-
ioral advertising. This practice does not give users appro-
priate or adequate notice about their data monetization
practices, so users cannot provide informed consent.
For example, we evaluated77 Amazon's Privacy Policy78,
which says that a user's personal information is not sold
or rented to third parties: “Information about our cus-
tomers is an important part of our business, and we are not in
the business of selling our customers' personal information to
others.” In addition, Amazon's policy discloses: “No sale of
personal information. In the twelve months prior to the effec-
tive date of this Disclosure, Amazon has not sold any personal
information of consumers, as those terms are dened under
the California Privacy Rights Act.” However, Amazon's “Ad-
ditional State-Specic Privacy Disclosures”79 policy in-
consistently says they share a list of categories of cus-
tomer's personal information for cross-context behav-
ioral advertising: “Any personal information Amazon may
have shared for the purpose of cross-context behavioral ad-
vertising, as that term is dened by the California Privacy
Rights Act, in the twelve months prior to the effective date
of this Disclosure falls into the following categories...”. Ama-
zon states that they do not sell data in their policy and
then later provides the detail that they share data only
for monetary value under the CCPA.
Companies know that consumers are more likely to
make a decision not to use a product that discloses
they sell their data, but consumers may have fewer
concerns with products that say they only share but
not sell data. Therefore it is not surprising that com-
panies have adopted methods of disclosure that enable
them to claim they are privacy-protecting because they
only share data, but do not sell as dened under the
CCPA. Similarly, Microsoft's “U.S. State Data Privacy
77See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation for Amazon Alexa,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Amazon-Alexa.
78Amazon, Privacy Policy, https:
//www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468496
(Accessed April 1, 2023).
79See Amazon, Additional State-Specic Privacy Disclosures,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=
GC5HB5DVMU5Y8C (Accessed April 1, 2023).
Laws Notice” 80 states that they “share” personal infor-
mation with third parties for personalized advertising
purposes—which is a form of data monetization—but Mi-
crosoft also discloses they do not sell personal informa-
tion.
In another example, we evaluated81 Meta's “Privacy Pol-
icy”82 and “About Facebook Ads” page,83 which says,
“We don't sell any of your information to anyone, and
we never will.” In addition, Meta's supplemental “United
States Regional Privacy Notice” 84 says, “We don't 'share'
your Personal Information, as dened in the California Con-
sumer Privacy Act ('CCPA'). We also don't sell any of your Per-
sonal Information, and we never will.” Being a social media
company, Meta's disclosure that they do not sell or share
data under the CCPA is counterintuitive, because by de-
sign the entire business model of Meta and similar social
media companies is built on the monetization of users'
behavioral data for tracking and personalized advertis-
ing.
Lastly, we evaluated85 AI company Midjourney's Privacy
Policy86, which says, “Midjourney does not sell Your Per-
sonal Information, as dened under CCPA. If in the future we
do sell your personal information, we will notify you and you
may have the right to opt out of such sale.” This type of in-
consistent language, and the disclosure that a consumer
has the right to opt out of sale, is confusing because it
provides no expectation of a company's privacy practices
if they can change their most important practices at any
time, and for any reason. If a company promises they will
not sell data until they decide to change their mind in the
future, then there can be no consumer trust in how that
company will collect and use their personal information.
This type of disclosure may also be an attempt by com-
panies to claim that they provide notice of a consumer's
rights to opt out of sale under the CCPA regardless of
whether they sell data, which actually may be more con-
fusing because it is less clear to consumers what a com-
pany's actual practices are when they disclose that they
do not sell data but also that they will provide the ability
to opt out of sale.
Companies may also explicitly reserve the right to sell
data in the future as a potential monetization strategy,
which should be interpreted by consumers that the com-
pany does sell their data. Companies that reserve the
80See Microsoft, U.S. State Data Privacy Laws Notice,
https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-US/ccpa1 (Accessed April 1, 2023).
81See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation for Facebook,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Facebook.
82Meta, Privacy Policy, https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policy
(Accessed April 1, 2023).
83Facebook, About Facebook Ads,
https://www.facebook.com/about/ads (Accessed April 1, 2023).
84Meta, United States Regional Privacy Notice About this Notice,
https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policies/uso (Accessed April 1,
2023).
85See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation for Midjourney,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Midjourney.
86See Midjourney, Privacy Policy,
https://docs.midjourney.com/docs/privacy-policy (Accessed April 1,
2023).
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 15
right to sell data in the future may also be trying to miti-
gate potential compliance risks as privacy laws and de-
nitions change.
Obfuscation
We see some companies indirectly disclose the prac-
tice of selling data but without using the words “sale” or
“sell,” so it's difcult for consumers to skim privacy poli-
cies looking for keywords to try to understand whether
the company sells their data. Also, some companies dis-
cuss their data monetization practices in the abstract
within the context of “sharing” assets with third parties
for personalization or commercial purposes. These dis-
closures are also typically found in privacy policies right
before or after discussions of transferring assets of the
company to third parties—which includes personal in-
formation from users—in the event of a merger, acqui-
sition, or bankruptcy, which implies that any asset trans-
fer to third parties does not meet the CPRA denition of
“sell,” because transferring data is an exception to sale.87
This type of policy language is often difcult to compre-
hend even for privacy experts, and it ultimately does not
provide sufcient notice to parents, educators, or con-
sumers about the company's data selling practices.
For example, we evaluated88 Bloomberg's privacy pol-
icy89, which says, “While we do not 'sell' your personal in-
formation in exchange for money or 'share' your personal
information for cross-context behavioral or targeted adver-
tising outside of the use of electronic technologies to pro-
vide relevant advertisements, to the extent that certain prac-
tices described above relating to advertising constitute tar-
geted advertising, or are considered 'selling' or 'sharing' un-
der California privacy law, you may adjust your preferences
by using the designated tool within Bloomberg's digital prop-
erties.” This type of confusing “sandwich” disclosure be-
gins with the “better” statement that the company does
not sell data, which is what most consumers are look-
ing for when they do a keyword search in a privacy pol-
icy and could reasonably assume as the company's prac-
tices. However, the statement has subsequent excep-
tions for the use of electronic technologies to provide
targeted advertising, which allows for the “worse” prac-
tice of selling data that applies to all users. The selling
data clause then concludes with the “better” statement
that opt-out privacy controls and preferences are avail-
able in these situations. Unfortunately, this is an all-too-
common practice in the industry when describing the
practice of selling data. It is not clear to consumers and
ultimately does not adequately inform or allow users to
87See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.140(ad)(2)(C), (ah)(2)(C); See also California Online Privacy
Protection Act (CalOPPA), Cal. B.&P. Code § 22575(b)(5).
88See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation for Bloomberg, https:
//privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Bloomberg-Business-News.
89See Bloomberg, Privacy Policy,
https://www.bloomberg.com/notices/privacy (Accessed April 1,
2023).
provide meaningfully informed consent about whether
the company sells or shares data under the CCPA.
Unclear
We still see numerous lesser-known companies that
have not updated their policies to disclose whether or
not they sell users' data (12%), either because they are
still unaware of the CPRA compliance obligations, or
because they think just disclosing general statements
that they don't collect any data is sufcient to convey
they also don't sell data.90 However, some companies
may not understand that simply providing access to their
users' data to a third party for their own commercial pur-
poses could be selling data. Therefore, these companies
likely prefer to remain non-transparent on the practice
of selling data because they do not fully understand the
practice, and they also remain non-transparent on other
data monetization methods in the hope that users as-
sume that because they do not discuss selling data, they
must be more privacy-protecting than they really are.
Companies may incorrectly assume that users do not ex-
pect to see all the possible practices, or lack thereof, of
a product in its privacy policy because they assume that
like a nutrition label, listing all of the ingredients a prod-
uct does and does not contain would be too much infor-
mation. However, privacy policies and nutrition labels
for products are not the same. If a product's nutrition la-
bel does not disclose that it contains a potentially harm-
ful ingredient that consumers look for when making a
decision on whether to purchase the product, such as
wheat, dairy, or nuts, that should mean that the prod-
uct does not contain those potentially harmful ingredi-
ents and therefore the product does not pose a risk for
that particular consumer.
Unlike a product's nutrition label, a
company's privacy policy that is unclear or
non-transparent regarding a privacy practice
means the product may still engage in that
practice without providing any additional
notice.
Even more problematic is when companies cannot agree
on a standard denition of what an ingredient actually
contains, or on the ingredient's origin, and may use mul-
tisyllabic and confusing names to describe ingredients.
We see similar issues in the privacy landscape with ob-
fuscating language, and in some cases we see a lack of
vocabulary and societal awareness necessary to discuss
issues in a consistent manner. This lack of consensus re-
sults in the use of different language to explain simi-
lar privacy practices, which further confuses consumers.
A product's privacy policy that does not transparently
90See Clipish, https://www.clipish.info/privacy (“The world's
smallest privacy policy”) (Accessed April 1, 2023).
16 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
disclose its “worse” practices, which consumers look for
when making a decision to use the product, means the
product should not be presumed safe, because the prod-
uct still reserves the right to engage in the “worse” prac-
tices without any notice, putting users at risk for poten-
tial harm.
Regardless, for food labeling, some ingredients are so
harmful to some people that top allergens are often ex-
plicitly disclosed for clarity (e.g., Contains: Nuts, Dairy,
Wheat, Soy). Many privacy issues pose similar risks and
should be explicitly disclosed, regardless of whether or
not a company engages in such a practice.
California Only
Unfortunately, many companies disclose that the right to
opt out of sale under the CCPA is available only to users
of their product in the state of California. This means
that the company excludes California users' data from
sale, but sells every other user's data regardless of juris-
diction. These types of companies allow only the users
who are residents of the state of California to opt out
of sale once they prove residency. Every other user of
the product in a U.S. state other than California, or lo-
cated in another country outside the European Union,
is not provided the same privacy rights. This is similar
to the “Limited Protections” scenario discussed below,
where only some users, such as children and students,
receive stronger privacy protections. Rather than sim-
ply applying the same CCPA privacy rights to opt out of
sale or sharing to all of a product's users, the company
provides only the minimum amount of privacy rights to
the minimum number of users, which is not a privacy-
protecting best practice. Counterintuitively, however,
this approach is likely to actually increase a company's
privacy compliance and transactional costs.
There are already several U.S states with similar privacy
laws modeled after the CCPA, including Colorado, Con-
necticut, Iowa, Nevada, Utah, and Virginia.91 However,
many companies do not also have a supplemental privacy
policy for each of these additional states to determine
which different privacy practices apply to which users in
which states. For example, Meta's supplemental “United
States Regional Privacy Notice” 92 says, “This Notice ex-
plains how we collect, use, and disclose your Personal Infor-
mation. It also describes how to exercise your rights under the
California Consumer Privacy Act, the Colorado Privacy Act,
the Connecticut Act Concerning Personal Data Privacy and
Online Monitoring, the Utah Consumer Privacy Act, and the
Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act. We call those laws
collectively the 'U.S. Privacy Laws.'” Therefore, companies
are likely to simply add new state consumer privacy laws
to the same supplemental policy and use the U.S state
91IAPP, US State Privacy Legislation Tracker, https:
//iapp.org/resources/article/us-state-privacy-legislation-tracker.
92Meta, United States Regional Privacy Notice,
https://www.facebook.com/privacy/policies/uso (Accessed April 1,
2023).
with the broadest and strongest consumer privacy law—
typically California's CCPA—as the highest bar applied
to all other state consumer privacy laws in order to avoid
differences in statutory and regulatory denitions and
ensure compliance.
Limited Protections
Some companies with products for a mixed audience
that includes children, students, parents, educators, and
consumers transparently disclose they do not sell the
data of kids or students, but also transparently disclose
that they do sell the data of other users such as par-
ents, educators, and consumers. This mixed-user exam-
ple often sends mixed messages that the product ap-
pears safer for the privacy of all users than it actually
is. Some companies prominently disclose only that they
don't sell kids' data—which is a prohibited practice any-
way under the CCPA93. This implies that the company
also does not sell data generally when there is no other
afrmative disclosure that they do or do not sell data
of other users. For example, we evaluated94 HBO Max's
privacy policy95, which says: “We do not sell personal in-
formation from Kids Proles,” but provides no other dis-
closures related to selling data in its privacy policy. Con-
sumers would only learn that HBO Max sells other users'
data if they also read the “California and Other US States
Rights”96 policy, which says: “We may collect, share, sell,
or otherwise process these categories of personal informa-
tion, including Sensitive Personal Information, for the fol-
lowing business or commercial purposes.” In another ex-
ample, we evaluated97 Disney's privacy policy98, which
does not disclose anything about their practice of sell-
ing users' data, but Disney's “Your California Privacy
Rights”99 supplemental policy does say: “We do not sell
personal information of known minors under 16 years of
age.” However, Disney's “Your California Privacy Rights”
policy also says that “As the term is dened by the CCPA, we
'sold' the following categories of personal information in the
last 12 months...”.
In addition, many companies do not disclose their data
selling practices in their privacy policy where consumers
would expect to nd it, but rather only in a supplemen-
tal “California Privacy Rights” or “State Privacy Notice”
93See California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.120(c).
94See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation for HBO Max,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/HBO-Max.
95See HBO Max, Privacy Policy,
https://www.hbomax.com/privacy/en-emea (Accessed April 1, 2023).
96See HBO Max, California and Other US States Rights,
https://www.hbomax.com/privacy/usrights/en-us (Accessed April 1,
2023).
97See Common Sense Privacy Evaluation for Disney,
https://privacy.commonsense.org/evaluation/Disney.
98See Disney, Privacy Policy,
https://www.disneyplus.com/legal/privacy-policy (Accessed April 1,
2023).
99See Disney, Your California Privacy Rights,
https://www.disneyplus.com/legal/your-california-privacy-rights
(Accessed April 1, 2023).
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 17
policy, which is more difcult for users to nd because
they may not be aware of the association of selling data
with “California” or “U.S States.” For example, Disney's
privacy policy100 does not disclose anything about their
practice of selling data, which is where the majority of
consumers looking for that information would expect it
to be found. Rather, Disney only describes its data sell-
ing practices in its supplemental “Your California Privacy
Rights”101 policy.
Notice in privacy policies about the practice of selling
data is required to be disclosed under the CPRA's reg-
ulations and must be easy to read and understandable
to consumers.102 Privacy policies need to be easy to nd
and use plain, straightforward language that is easy to
understand and avoid technical or legal jargon. However,
from the examples provided above, it is extremely dif-
cult for an average consumer to understand whether a
company is selling their data.
The Common Sense “Warning” privacy rating ags the
use of any collected data for commercial purposes (such
as selling data or displaying targeted ads) from any user.
We do not make the distinction between stronger pri-
vacy protections given to children or students vs. weaker
privacy protections for other users such as parents and
educators. Privacy policies rarely disclose if privacy pro-
tections change when a child user becomes a teen or
adult user, or a student user becomes a teacher user.
In mixed-privacy environments, as children under 13
become teens, and teens under 18 become adults, the
privacy practices related to their data would automati-
cally change to worse practices. As a result, companies
could use previously collected data, without further no-
tice or consent, in different contexts than those agreed
to when the data was collected. Alternatively, inferences
from a parent user's account can be linked to a child
user's behavior to indirectly target advertisements to
the child through the parent, or with student data pro-
vided through a teacher account. Consumers, parents,
and educators all use privacy ratings to make informed
decisions to use the product themselves as well as with
their children and students. Therefore, any privacy prac-
tice of a product that puts any user's data at risk is
agged with a “Warning,” so any user who is viewing pri-
vacy ratings is informed of the risks and has all the infor-
mation necessary to make an informed decision to use
the product.
100See Disney, Privacy Policy,
https://www.disneyplus.com/legal/privacy-policy (Accessed April 1,
2023).
101See Disney, Your California Privacy Rights,
https://www.disneyplus.com/legal/your-california-privacy-rights
(Accessed April 1, 2023).
102California Consumer Privacy Act Regulations, § 7003,
Requirements for Disclosures and Communications to Consumers,
https://cppa.ca.gov/regulations/pdf/cppa_regs.pdf;See also,
California Consumer Privacy Act Regulations, § 7011. Privacy Policy.
Companies Need to
Disclose That They
Sell Your Data
The majority of companies that currently disclose they
do not sell users' data to third parties, but that have other
practices that are considered selling data under the new
CPRA amendments, are expected to disclose they now
sell users' data, which will increase the percentage of
companies that sell data signicantly, from 16% to at
least 62%. Figure 5indicates that companies are cur-
rently disclosing their data-selling practices in a manner
that is inconsistent with the requirements of the new
CPRA. Therefore, 48% of the industry will need to switch
from “better” to “worse” data selling practices in their
policies, or risk enforcement from the California Privacy
Protection Agency (CPPA) 103 or the Ofce of the Attor-
ney General.104 In addition, companies with policies that
remain non-transparent on the issue of selling data, and
that are also non-transparent on the use of third-party
tracking, tracking users, or the creation of ad proles,
are presumed to likely be selling data as supported by
our long-term research on this issue. Including the non-
transparent or “unclear” products in our analysis is ex-
pected to increase the portion of companies that should
disclose they sell data under the CCPA from 62% to 75%.
Figure 5: Speculative Sell Data responses in 2022 if
industry does not change practices based on current
responses to Sell Data, Third-Party Tracking, Track
Users, and Data Prole
9% 14% 15%
62.5%
33% 29% 20% 14% 12%
12.5%
65% 69% 71% 72% 73%
25%
0
25
50
75
100
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
CPRA Selling
Percent
In addition, the Sell Data evaluation question indicates
that in 2022, 73% of policies said they don't sell data.
However, the previously discussed Third-Party Tracking
evaluation question indicates that, at most, 27% disclose
103State of California, California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA),
https://cppa.ca.gov.
104State of California, Department of Justice, Ofce of the Attorney
General, https://oag.ca.gov.
18 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
the “better” practice that they do not engage in third-
party tracking for commercial purposes and could con-
sistently say they don't sell data. Note that this is a gen-
erous interpretation, since 59% explicitly say they allow
third-party tracking, while 14% don't explain their third-
party tracking practices. From our data, we know that it's
extremely unlikely that “better” practices are being used
by the majority of the 14% of products that don't clearly
disclose their Third-Party Tracking practices.
The bottom line is that at least 48% of the
industry is not in compliance with the
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)'s
disclosure requirements for selling data to
third parties.
Therefore, if we take a more nuanced look at the 73%
of companies that said they don't sell data in 2022, rel-
ative to the other practices, we can see what a more re-
alistic interpretation of data-selling practices looks like.
After we account for all three of the other practices men-
tioned above (Third-Party Tracking, Tracking Users, and Ad
Proles), a more accurate interpretation would be that
approximately 25% of companies actually don't sell data,
that approximately 12% are “unclear” across all prac-
tices (or a mix of better and unclear practices), and that
a majority 62% of companies should disclose they actu-
ally sell data under the CPRA. This is a huge discrepancy
between how companies are choosing to discuss their
data-selling practices and their obligations to appropri-
ately and accurately disclose those practices. Our previ-
ous research indicates it is most likely that the majority—
if not all—of the remaining 25 products (approximately
13%) with policies that are either a.) inconsistent, but not
explicitly worse, across multiple practices, or b.) that do
not provide enough information to determine their ac-
tual selling practices, as indicated by “unclear” under the
CPRA Sell Data column in table 6, are also likely selling
data. That suggests that between 62% and 75% of the
industry is selling data in 2023—which means the entire
industry is ipped upside down if 73% of companies cur-
rently disclose they don't sell data under the CCPA. Fig-
ure 6attempts to further illustrate the inconsistency in
policy disclosures with respect to practices around sell-
ing data as dened by the CPRA.
Table 6: 2022 Sell Data privacy policy disclosures as
compared to what CPRA Sell Data disclosures should
be.
Sell Data CPRA Sell Data Products
worse worse 31
unclear worse 18
unclear unclear 6
better worse 76
better unclear 19
better better 50
Figure 6: Disparity in sharing versus selling
approximately 48% (76 + 19)/200 of products
evaluated indicate they do not sell data, or are unclear
about selling data, but under the CPRA denitions of
sell, share, and cross-context behavioral advertising
these companies should be disclosing they sell data.
CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LICENSE 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY 19
Conclusion
Parents, educators, and consumers are increasingly con-
cerned about their privacy, and they already understand
that companies make money by tracking their online ac-
tivities and selling their data to third-party companies
for prot. What's currently unclear for many consumers
are the complex and indirect ways that companies go
about monetizing their data through third-party track-
ing, bundling, and proling personal information and be-
havior in order to further inuence parents', kids', stu-
dents', and consumers' behavior. When surveyed about
privacy, consumers overwhelmingly say, “I want to have
control over what marketers can learn about me online,”
(91%) and “I would like to understand how digital mar-
keters use the information they collect about my online ac-
tivities” (87%).105 Laws like the CCPA were passed in
order to help bring clarity to these practices and force
companies to use more plain, understandable, and direct
terms in their policies, rather than overly complex, in-
direct, and confusing language, or technical jargon that
works to prevent an understanding of a company's ac-
tual practices by the average parent or consumer. Com-
panies need to provide clear and easy-to-understand no-
tice of whether they sell any user's data to third parties
for prot.
It's estimated that almost three-quarters of
companies currently disclosing that they do
not sell consumers' data will either need to
change their policies, or they will need to
improve their practices to better protect
their users' data and privacy.
The CPRA amendments to the CCPA were a good rst
step toward increasing clarity on what the sale of data
means in order to better protect kids and families, who
can now make better informed decisions about whether
to use products that say they sell kids' data for prot. But
we can't stop there. The next step will require holding
companies accountable when they don't follow the rules
or when they mislead consumers by saying they don't
sell data. Companies don't give consumers a meaningful
choice or ability to provide consent about whether their
data is sold–if companies can say one thing, but do an-
other, which is misleading. It is also unfair and deceptive
to parents and caregivers, because it impacts their de-
cision making ability and the practice is not reasonably
avoidable if nearly three-quarters of the industry are
monetizing data in some way–which is especially con-
cerning given that millions of children are impacted.
Enforcement may come from the Federal Trade Com-
mission (FTC) with jurisdiction over unfair and deceptive
105Americans Can't Consent to Companies' Use of Their Data,
Annenberg School for Communication (Feb. 10, 2023),
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4391134.
trade practices, or under the CCPA with the new Califor-
nia Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), as well as state at-
torneys general and local district attorneys. Otherwise,
companies will continue to use incomprehensible, hard-
to-nd language in their policies that is confusing to con-
sumers and that often misleadingly claims to be more
protective of privacy than they really are. This ultimately
impacts kids' and families' privacy and creates an unfair
and deceptive marketplace for everyone.
The Common Sense Privacy Program will continue to
provide free privacy ratings of the apps and services that
kids and families use every day in order to help parents,
educators, and consumers make more informed deci-
sions about which products they are comfortable using.
However, to fully protect kids' privacy, we need mean-
ingful consent. To obtain meaningful consent, consumers
need to know which companies and products say they
sell their data, as well as a stronger, more comprehen-
sive state or federal privacy law that bans the practice
of selling data for all users unless separate opt-in con-
sent is explicitly obtained. Without these baseline expec-
tations, the industry will continue to make money by in-
uencing and exploiting kids' and families' data for com-
mercial purposes, all while claiming they respect our pri-
vacy.
20 2023 STATE OF KIDS’ PRIVACY commonsense.org
About Common Sense
Common Sense is the nation’s leading nonprot organization
dedicated to improving the lives of all kids and families by providing
the trustworthy information, education, and independent voice
they need to thrive in the 21st century. Our independent research
is designed to provide parents, educators, health organizations,
and policymakers with reliable, independent data on children’s use
of media and technology and the impact it has on their physical,
emotional, social, and intellectual development. For more
information, visit privacy.commonsense.org
commonsense.org
© 2023 Common Sense Media. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public
License. Common Sense, associated names, associated trademarks, and logos are trademarks of Common Sense Media, a
501(c)(3) nonprot organization, FEIN 41-2024986.
Cover image: © iStock/StefaNikolic
Appendix B - Constant Companion: A Week in the Life of a Young Person’s Smartphone Use
16
2023
Constant
Companion:
A Week in the Life of a Young Person's
Smartphone Use
Constant Companion:
A Week in the Life of a Young Person's
Smartphone Use
COMMON SENSE IS GRATEFUL FOR THE GENEROUS SUPPORT AND
UNDERWRITING THAT FUNDED THIS RESEARCH REPORT
Bezos Family Foundation
Jennifer Caldwell and John H.N. Fisher
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Margaret and Will Hearst
A Letter from Our Founder
Smartphones have become a constant companion in our teens' lives. From connection
with family and friends to entertainment and background noise, young people rely on their
smartphones for different types of mental health support, relaxation, and distraction—at
home and at school, and during the day and night.
This year, Common Sense has focused our research efforts on hearing directly from young
people about both the role and the impact of media and technology in their lives. This
report fills a gap in our understanding of how teens actually use their smartphones,
combining data from kids' phones themselves with feedback from our Youth Advisory
Council. And they told us that the draw of their smartphone is both complicated and
powerful. Here's what else we learned from this report:
•Teens are fielding a barrage of notifications from the apps on their phones. On a
typical day, participants received a median of 237 notifications. Of those, about a
quarter arrived during the school day, and 5% at night.
•School phone use is common, and policies are inconsistent. During school hours
almost all of the participants used their phones at least once, for a median of 43
minutes. But they also reported that policies about phone use in schools vary—some-
times even from classroom to classroom—and aren't always enforced.
•Smartphones both help and hurt sleep. Over half of participants used their phones on
school nights, often to listen to music to wind down or get to sleep. But sometimes
their days are so busy that they only get to relax with their phone at bedtime, and that
pushes sleep later.
The good news is, many young people reported they have grown savvier about their
phone's attempts to draw them in, and they're taking steps to protect their digital well-
being, like setting time limits and prioritizing certain types of notifications. But the
business model of these apps and devices hinges upon young people picking up their
phones and engaging with them as much as possible, and it's clear that teens are struggling
to set boundaries.
Research like this helps shed light on what young people are really doing on their phones,
and allows families, educators, and leaders to better understand where and when to
provide support. But the industry can take steps to recognize that young people need to
be able to use their phones for all of their important benefits but without the challenges
that negative content, persuasive design, and aggressive business models pose to digital
well-being.
At Common Sense, we will continue to provide parents, caregivers, educators, industry
leaders, and policymakers with the tools, resources, research, and information they need
to help kids build healthier relationships with the technology in their lives. And it's our
hope that this research allows for continued focus on youth voices in our mission to make
the digital world work better for kids everywhere.
James P. Steyer,
Founder and CEO
Suggested citation: Radesky, J., Weeks, H.M., Schaller, A., Robb, M., Mann, S., and Lenhart, A. (2023). Constant Companion: A Week in the Life of a Young Person's
Smartphone Use. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense.
Credits
Authors: Jenny S. Radesky, M.D., Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School
Heidi M. Weeks, Ph.D., Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Michigan School
of Public Health
Alexandria Schaller, B.A., Department of Pediatrics, University of Michigan Medical School
Michael B. Robb, Ph.D., Former Head of Research, Common Sense Media
Supreet Mann, Ph.D., Director of Research, Common Sense Media
Amanda Lenhart, M.A., Head of Research, Common Sense Media
Copy editors: Christopher Dare and Jennifer Robb
Designers: Emely Garcia and Chris Arth
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by Common Sense Media. We thank Candice Odgers
for consultative assistance with survey measures. We also thank Andy Chen for
assistance collecting app store data.
Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Main Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Supplemental Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Smartphones entered the lives of children and adolescents in
2007. Compared to earlier devices (flip phones), smartphones
allowed more than just texting and taking photos. Young
people could now browse the internet, choose from thou-
sands of mobile applications ("apps") and games, and connect
immediately with their communities through social plat-
forms—from anywhere.
As internet speeds and computing power increased exponen-
tially over the past 15 years, smartphones have become even
more powerful and versatile, allowing livestreaming, multi-
player gaming, and creation and distribution of content. Over
a relatively short period of time, these handheld computers
have become a disruptive force in the lives of young people, in
positive and negative ways that adults who grew up with land-
lines may not fully grasp.
Getting a smartphone is now a rite of passage for most chil-
dren and adolescents in the United States. According to
Common Sense Research, 43% of tweens (age 8 to 12) and
88% to 95% of teens (age 13 to 18) have their own smartphone
(Rideout et al., 2022; Pew 2022). About half of U.S. children
get their first smartphone by age 11 (Rideout et al., 2022).
Young people describe a range of supportive and stressful
experiences with their smartphones—some wish they hadn't
gotten one so early, while also describing it as an appendage
that they cannot live without (Moreno et al., 2019). The deci-
sion of when to get a smartphone, and negotiations about
rules and boundaries around smartphone use, are frequent
sources of parental stress and family arguments (Mathes et al.,
2021; Francis et al., 2021; Hiniker, Schoenebeck, & Kientz,
2016).
Several factors contribute to young people's attachment to
their phones. First, it is developmentally appropriate for ado-
lescents to seek connection and feedback from their friends
and communities, and to want to do so on a frequent basis.
Children and adolescents have developmentally adaptive
curiosity about information, culture, entertainment, and
stories that help them make sense of their world.
However, the design and marketing choices made by technol-
ogy companies to meet their business objectives also make it
challenging for young users to separate from their smart-
phones. More time spent on mobile apps translates to more
advertising revenue and in-app purchases, so many apps
contain persuasive design features to encourage prolonged
engagement (Radesky et al., 2022; 5 Rights Foundation,
2021). These design features include encouragement of
content creation (so there is always more content to recom-
mend to users), reduction of friction (e.g., the swipe-up
movement that allows a user to easily move on to another
video), time pressure (e.g., notifications urging users to watch
a livestream before it stops), quantified reinforcers (e.g., likes,
shares, virtual currency), or algorithmic recommendations
that analyze a user's digital behavior to predict what they
might click on next.
Underlying these design features are marketing incentives to
keep young people on their phones—and ideally win their
brand alliance. Smartphones are an unprecedented marketing
vehicle because they are taken everywhere and provide
insight into users' daily behavior, preferences, and social net-
works. The data traces recorded by smartphones (such as
location, purchases, likes, and shares) allow businesses to
create user profiles, which can then be sold or used to earn
revenue through targeted advertising.
Considering the competing interests of 1) a business model
that prioritizes engagement and 2) a developing adolescent
human user with various passions, drives, and obligations, it is
not surprising that both young people and their parents com-
plain of feeling like they spend more time on their phones than
they intend (Pew 2022; James & Weinstein, 2022).
Smartphones are nearly ubiquitous in the life of U.S. adoles-
cents, but research on how they are used has been elusive.
This research typically relies on self-reporting of daily usage
habits, momentary reports (e.g., pinging participants through-
out their day to assess moment-to-moment changes in media
use), or asking young users what they experience through
their phones (e.g., social support or bullying; toxic or inspira-
tional content). However, if we want to interrogate the role of
Introduction
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 2© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
To that end, we enrolled 203 11- to 17-year-olds in the United
States to let us track their smartphone use for one week by
installing Chronicle, a study app (Radesky et al., 2020). This
app runs unobtrusively in the background and provides con-
tinuous data about which apps were used and when, how
many pickups and notifications occurred, and how much
smartphones were used during the school day and overnight
hours. The study was conducted with Android phone users
only, because Apple device tracking does not share with the
research community the names of specific non-Apple apps
that young people commonly use (e.g., social media apps,
mobile games).
After analyzing results, we reviewed them with 15 members
of the 2023 Common Sense Youth Advisory Council, a group
of 14- to 18-year-olds of various races/ethnicities and genders
who live in communities across the United States. These youth
advisors worked with Common Sense from January to May
2023, but their phones were not tracked as part of the study.
Through these conversations, we gained insights into the push
and pull that adolescents feel with their phones, with the ulti-
mate goal of imagining how smartphones could be designed to
support the agency of younger users.
Along with our main findings, this report includes relevant and
actionable takeaways for parents and policymakers, as well as
discussion prompts for talking with kids about their some-
times complicated relationships with smartphones.
smartphones—and all of their complex uses in the daily lives of
young people, from communication to entertainment, creativ-
ity, marketing, and productivity—then we need research
methods that measure the behavior of phones. This is possible
through the harnessing of data that is already collected by
technology companies and marketing firms to monitor smart-
phone users, but that is not typically shared with researchers
on an individual-user basis.
For this study, we used software to collect data from the
smartphones of a diverse sample of about 200 11- to 17-year-
olds. We then interpreted this data with assistance from an
advisory council of young people to understand the nuanced
relationships that young people develop with their
smartphones.
Our research aimed to address the following questions:
•How much time are preadolescents and adolescents
spending on their smartphones?
•Which types of apps do they use most frequently and for
the longest periods of time, and why?
•Are they accessing apps intended for older audiences?
•How many notifications are they receiving per day, and
from which apps?
•How much smartphone use occurs during school hours,
and why?
•How much smartphone use occurs at night, and why?
•How much tension or frustration are preadolescents and
adolescents experiencing about their smartphones, and
how do they manage this?
•Are there new insights about youth experiences and
practices with smartphones that could lead to better
design to improve young people's well-being?
3 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Key Findings
The key findings in this report combine
granular data about young people's smart-
phone use with teens' own interpretation of
the role that these devices play in their lives.
This unique perspective gives us a glimpse
into teens' relationships with their devices,
including the attraction that smartphones
and apps hold for teens, the corresponding
pressures, and the strategies they use
(whether barriers, rules, or friction) to
manage smartphone use in their day-to-day
experiences.
1. The smartphone is a constant
companion, both providing background
buzz and encouraging regular pickups
over the more than four hours of teen
smartphone use on an average day.
Smartphones are integrated into young people's lives in ways
that help them connect with friends, give their brain a rest, or
help them laugh and calm down during their busy days. On a
typical day, the participants in our study used their smart-
phones for a median of almost four and a half hours. However,
simply showing average daily smartphone duration across our
sample doesn't tell the whole story. Some participants used
their phones for only a few minutes per day, while others aver-
aged over 16 hours a day (Figure 1).
Adolescents' smartphone use doesn't always match adults'
narrative of "teens always staring at their screens." In addition
to more active use, some teens in our focus groups talked
about how they also use their smartphones to provide a back-
ground "buzz" by playing movies, videos, or music while they
do homework or laundry.
And for most of the teens in our sample, their smartphones
were close at hand and picked up and checked frequently
throughout the day—a median of 51 times per day, ranging
from two to 498 times per day. Younger participants (11- to
12-year-olds) tended to pick up their phones less frequently
each day, while adolescents (age 13 and older) were more
likely to check their phone over 100 times per day (Figure 2).
Teens in our focus groups told us that younger smartphone
users usually have more rules or restrictions placed on their
use, while older teens are given more independence as they
learn the appropriate time and place to use their phone.
Younger teens may be less likely to have peers with smart-
phones, and fewer friends to contact.
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 4© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 1. Distribution of average daily duration of
smartphone use
>10 hours
9-10 hours
8-9 hours
7-8 hours
6-7 hours
5-6 hours
4-5 hours
3-4 hours
2-3 hours
1-2 hours
30-60 min
0-30 min
9%
5%
2%
12%
16%
15%
9%
8%
7%
4%
4%
9%
FIGURE 2. Average daily smartphone pickups, by
participant age
26−50
0−25
16−17
13−15
11−12
28%
25%
16%
36%
15%
12%
51−100
29%
27%
28%
0%
>200
2%
8%
101−150
5%
16%
24%
151−200
8%
20%
0%
5 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
2. Phone use during school hours is
nearly universal but varies widely,
reflecting a patchwork of different
school policies.
Smartphone use at schools is fairly widespread, and it
varies based on school rules, teacher and staff enforce-
ment, and student compliance. During school hours
(Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., excluding holi-
days), 97% of participants used their phones, for a median
of 43 minutes (ranging from less than one minute to six and
a half hours). The median number of pickups was 13 per
school day, ranging from less than one to 229. The app cat-
egories that took up the highest proportion of time during
school hours were social media (32% of smartphone use
during school hours), gaming (17%), and YouTube (26%),
among participants who used those app categories (Figure 3).
Youth advisors told us that schools have a wide variety of poli-
cies, and variable enforcement within those policies, which
students may or may not follow:
FIGURE 3. Median* duration of use of different smartphone
app categories during school hours**
*Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over.
**Includes only participants who used that category of apps during specified
time frame.
Parent Controls (n=19)
Email (n=69)
Education (n=51)
Shopping (n=37)
Calls (n=132)
Reading (n=23)
Music and Audio (n=81)
Art and Photos (n=133)
Streaming Video (n=30)
Messaging (n=146)
Browser (n=150)
Gaming (n=119)
YouTube (n=111)
Social Media (n=126)
Average School Day Minutes (Median)
20100
For my school, we do have a phone policy and
we're not technically allowed to have it out during
class, but a lot of people do in spite of that. And
definitely, I think if you track kids at my school,
their phone usage, you would definitely see them
checking their phones, and then checking
Snapchat during class.
—10th grader
It's kind of up to teacher discretion. So at the
beginning of the year, they said it's not allowed,
but it's really up to each teacher whether they
allow it in the room or not. A lot of them do.
—11th grader
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 6© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
3. Notifications are plentiful, with
half of our participants receiving 237
or more per day. These interruptions
are both delightful and distracting,
leading many young users to feel the
need to manage what they get notified
of, and when.
While phone pickups signify how often a user is engaging with
their phone, notifications show us how often a phone tries to
engage its user. On a typical day, participants received a
median of 237 notifications. Of the notifications delivered to
their phone, participants saw or engaged with about a quarter
(median 46 per day). Notification frequency varied widely,
with maximums of over 4,500 delivered and over 1,200 seen
(Figures 4 and 5).
About a quarter (23%) of notifications arrived during school
hours, and about 5% during school night hours, suggesting
that phones and apps could do a better job of eliminating
unnecessary notifications at times of day that are more dis-
ruptive to young people. Very few participants received no
notifications at all during school hours or school night hours.
Because notifications are so numerous and occur day and
night, they require management by young users. Our youth
advisors described different approaches to managing these
interruptions. They said it was essential to filter or block noti-
fications, particularly from "spam" content, favoring
notifications of direct messages (DMs) from people.
Snapchat and Discord ranked highest in the number of notifi-
cations sent to participants in a typical day, with some
participants receiving hundreds of messages from these plat-
forms. But our youth council members noted that they've
become savvy to the ways in which some apps try to pull them
in with frivolous notifications.
Yeah, for me, I have notifications on for the apps
that are messaging apps, but then for the other
ones, I don't have notifications on for YouTube or
Instagram … For me, I don't like the notifications
that just tell you to go back on the app or just
something random like that, like an update or
something. I don't really care about those ones.
But the ones I do like getting are the ones that are
from the messaging apps, like if someone sends
me a text, I wanna know what it says.
—10th grader
FIGURE 4. Average daily notifications received by
smartphones
FIGURE 5. Average daily notifications seen by the user
>500
401-500
301-400
201-300
101-200
0-100
20%
20%
23%
9%
9%
20%
>200
151-200
101-150
51-100
26-50
0-25
28%
24%
21%
12%
7%
8%
7 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
I also think the TikTok algorithm is just way better
than any of the others. Even Instagram reels and
then YouTube Shorts is like the same thing as
TikTok, but the algorithm for TikTok is just way
more addicting, I feel like [it]… draws you in more,
and it also adapts really quickly. So if I skip a few
of the same type of video, it'll stop playing that
pretty quickly … I think it just happens naturally.
You just scroll without really looking at a certain
type of video a few times and then you'll see it
adapts and gives you some other type.
—11th grader
4. TikTok is irresistible, offering
bite-size pleasure and low-friction
interaction that quickly adapts to
the user's interests or mood.
TikTok was one of the most popular and longest-duration apps
used in the sample of 11- to 17-year-olds whose phones we
tracked. TikTok was used by 50% of our participants, for a
median of one hour and 52 minutes per day. Compared to
other social media apps, TikTok users were more likely to
spend several hours per day using it (upwards of seven hours
a day), often during school hours and overnight. In contrast,
the longest amount of time spent on Snapchat and Instagram
was around three hours per day.
Youth advisors explained to us that TikTok provides an experi-
ence that other social or video-sharing platforms don't. TikTok
was described as "easy" because videos simply start to play—
the user doesn't have to make any decisions, so there's no
friction. Adolescents we talked to said that the TikTok algo-
rithm "knows" them so well, they can expect that they will
likely find something fun to watch. If the user isn't interested
in the video that starts to play, the app quickly adapts to some-
thing more engaging or that fits their mood or desires. Finally,
the videos are short, so they provide small doses of pleasure
when young people need a break but don't have a lot of time.
Then TikTok, I honestly feel just because it's so
easy to feel, 'Oh, I only have 10 minutes. Let me
get onto TikTok right now 'cause I don't really
have time for anything else.' Because it provides
kind of instant entertainment, you don't really
have to go in, like on YouTube you have to go in,
you have to search for something, you have to
find a video that you wanna watch. And on
TikTok it's really just there. You can open it kind
of whenever you want. And even on a short
amount of time, you can still watch at least two
or three videos.
—11th grader
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 8© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 6. Median* duration of use of different smartphone
app categories during school nights**
*Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over.
**Includes only participants who used that category of apps during specified
time frame.
Parent Controls (n=3)
Email (n=11)
Education (n=5)
Shopping (n=11)
Calls (n=9)
Reading (n=6)
Music and Audio (n=18)
Art and Photos (n=24)
Streaming Video (n=14)
Messaging (n=27)
Browser (n=49)
Gaming (n=32)
YouTube (n=54)
Social Media (n=60)
Average School Night Minutes (Median)
20100
5. Over half of teens used their phones
overnight on school nights, primarily
for social media, gaming, or YouTube.
We defined school night usage as any use Monday through
Friday during the hours of midnight to 5 a.m. (excluding holi-
days). Over half of participants (59%) used their phones on
school nights, with a median of about 20 minutes per night,
although use ranged from less than a minute to five hours.
Similarly, 67% of participants had pickups on school nights,
with a median of one per night, though at least one participant
picked up their phone 18 times on a typical school night.
App categories that took up the highest proportion of school
night use included YouTube (47% of smartphone usage on
school nights), social media (39%), gaming (29%), and reading
(18%), among participants who used those app categories.
YouTube appeared to be the longest-running app due to
several participants running it overnight, likely with music or
white noise playing. TikTok was also commonly used in the
overnight hours on school nights, but youth advisors reported
that TikTok can be overstimulating and lead to difficulties in
falling asleep.
I might say that for certain apps, like TikTok,
it's really hard to fall asleep once you use it close
to when you're gonna go to sleep. I can't use it
within an hour, or else I'd struggle … and then
I'll just get back on the app 'cause I'm not
sleeping anyway.
—10th grader
9 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
For me, even throughout the day, I keep 'do not
disturb' on, not even because I wanna not
respond to people or anything like that. I like
being able to not have my phone buzzing, but
being able to click on ... I don't know if I can show
you guys, but like here, you see this. Like you
have to click on that to see all of the notifications
that people have sent or everything that ... All the
notifications that you would have gotten if you
weren't on 'do not disturb.' For me, I like the extra
step because then it's like me having to do more
work to be on my phone, and I don't know, I feel
like it's a little strategy for me.
—11th grader
6. Smartphones can allow access
to age-inappropriate experiences,
including social media for kids under
13 and apps with mature/adult-only
ratings.
Of 85 participants who were under age 13, 68% used social
media apps, and they all used at least one app rated "Teen" or
higher. The most popular social platforms among 11- to
12-year-olds were TikTok (used by 47%), Snapchat (31%),
Discord (25%), Instagram (16%), Facebook (16%), and
Pinterest (14%).
In addition, almost half (45%) of our participants used apps
with mature (17+) or adult only (18+) ratings, such as Pornhub,
fantasy sports/betting apps (Yahoo Fantasy Sports & Daily,
Sleeper Fantasy Football), Telegram, Reddit, Parler, 4chan,
casino games, or violent games such as Call of Duty.
A small number (14) of participants used social media apps
with risky features, like being able to connect with strangers
for messaging, sending photos, or video chat. Although these
riskier social media apps did not take up as much time as more
mainstream social media apps, even brief use might lead to
problematic interactions with adults.
7. Young users admit they have
challenges managing their technology
use, but through steps like curation and
adding friction, they're working on it.
In addition to tracking their phones, we surveyed our 203
participants to ask whether they had any problems managing
their technology use. Over two-thirds of these 11- to 17-year-
olds said they "sometimes" or "often" find it difficult to stop
using technology, use technology to escape from sorrow or get
relief from negative feelings, and miss sleep due to being on
their phone or the internet late at night. These impacts may be
due to the natural pull that adolescents feel toward their social
contacts through their phone, but the engagement-prolonging
design of apps and platforms also likely contributes.
Interestingly, our youth advisors described ways of adding
friction to their phones to try to use them more intentionally:
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 10© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
11 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Study design
A diverse sample of 203 U.S. preadolescents (ages 11 to 12)
and adolescents (ages 13 to 17) with their own smartphones
were recruited by Horowitz Research between August and
November 2022 (see Table 1). Parents and caregivers of
tweens and teens were contacted with brief information
about the study, and if interested, provided informed consent
for the child and shared the child's email address. Children
were then contacted by email and provided online informed
consent before completing a baseline questionnaire and
installing the Chronicle app (Methodic, Inc) onto their smart-
phone. Eligibility criteria included: 1) ages 11 through 17; 2)
speaks English or Spanish fluently enough to complete
informed consent and surveys; 3) has their own Android
(version 6.0 or above) smartphone (e.g., Samsung, Google
Pixel, Motorola, etc). iPhone users were not included because
data collection access for detailed app usage (i.e., names of
specific apps such as YouTube, Snapchat, etc.) was not avail-
able for researchers at the time of data collection. The study
was approved by the University of Michigan IRB.
Baseline surveys
Parents reported their educational attainment, household
income, and their child's race/ethnicity. Child participants
completed a brief online survey that included the Technology
Impairment Scale (six items, alpha = 0.76, Burnell & Odgers,
2023, adapted from Meerkerk et al., 2009) which assesses
compulsive technology use or interference with daily activi-
ties (e.g., Do you feel restless, frustrated, or irritated when you
cannot access the internet or check your mobile phone? Do you use
technology to escape from your sorrow or get relief from negative
feelings?) on a response scale of 0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 =
often.
Mobile device tracking
Participants were instructed on how to install and set up the
Chronicle app and keep it running on their device for nine
complete days. This app was developed with NIH funding,
pilot-tested and validated against pen-and-paper logs of
smartphone use, and has been used in child and parent popu-
lations (Radesky et al., 2020). After nine days, participants
were contacted and prompted to uninstall Chronicle and data
were exported from the Methodic Chronicle dashboard.
Chronicle provides timestamped data about which app is
running in the foreground and when pickups and notifications
occur, but does not collect information about contacts,
message content, which websites are visited, or what content
is viewed on platforms. In the informed consent form, partici-
pants were provided clear explanations of what data would be
collected, how it would be used, and how soon it would be
deleted.
Data cleaning and inspection processes were used to identify
any missing gaps in smartphone data (e.g., no data for >12
hours) and reduce the duration of apps that sometimes run
long but are not true usage (e.g., launcher, screen saver, alarm
clock). Some participants' data crossed two time zones, indi-
cating that they traveled during data collection, so we
removed the time zones that occurred on fewer days before
analyzing time-stamped data. We visually inspected all over-
night data to ensure that it showed data characteristics of true
usage (i.e., rather than data irregularities that occasionally
occur). Chronicle data was then processed to calculate hourly
and daily duration, pickups, and notifications, as well as dura-
tion and notifications for popular apps and app categories.
Notification and pickup data were not available for four par-
ticipants with older versions of the Android operating system.
Data for each participant were also visualized using R.
App categorization
We pulled data from the Google Play store API corresponding
to each app package name, including the app category (e.g.,
gaming, photography, shopping, social) and content rating
(e.g., Everyone, Teen, 17+, 18+/Adult). Apps that could not be
found on the Play store were manually categorized. We col-
lapsed or expanded some categories to reflect the main types
of apps used by 11- to 17-year-olds. For example, "communica-
tion" apps were recategorized into more precise categories
that reflect different uses, such as calls, email, or chat/messag-
ing. We categorized any app as Social Media if it involved a
non-SMS platform that facilitated the exchange of text, video,
and photo content with interaction by users (e.g., Snapchat).
However, we separated YouTube into its own category (includ-
ing YouTube, YouTube Kids, and YouTube TV) because of the
unique usage patterns YouTube has shown in our prior work
(e.g., Radesky et al., 2020).
Methodology
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 12© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
TABLE 1. Participant characteristics
Characteristic N%
Age category
11 to 12 85 41.9%
13 to 15 93 45.8%
16 to 17 25 12.3%
Gender
Female 89 43.8%
Male 112 55.2%
Nonbinary 10.5%
Other/prefer not to answer 10.5%
Race/Ethnicity
Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
20 9.9%
Black or African American 39 19.2%
Hispanic/Latino/a/x/e 44 21.7%
Some other race 94.4%
White 91 44.8%
Household annual income category
<$50,000 71 35.5%
$50,000 to $99,999 77 38.5%
$100,000 or more 52 26.0%
Respondent parent education
High school/technical school or less 31 15.4%
Some college 55 27. 2%
College degree 73 36.1%
More than a college degree 43 21.3%
Children in household (including participant)
167 33.0%
267 33.0%
341 20.2%
4 or more 28 13.8%
Respondent parent marital status
Married or living with a partner 146 71.9%
Separated or divorced 21 10.3%
Single 33 16.3%
Widowed 31.5%
Data analysis
We conducted descriptive analyses of the average daily dura-
tion of use, number of pickups (defined as the number of times
the screen turned on due to a user action), and number of
notifications. Notification data from the Chronicle app
included both notifications delivered to the smartphone
(regardless of whether the notification was audible or
silenced, as Chronicle does not collect that information) as
well as notifications seen by the user (indicating that the noti-
fication was interacted with by the user or appeared when the
user had the phone screen on). Notifications are delivered by
a wide range of apps, from utilities to texting apps, so duration
and notification data were also analyzed for particular app
categories and individual apps popular within the sample (e.g.,
TikTok). If a participant did not use their phone on a given day,
that day was excluded from analyses, so that the estimates
reflected what tweens and teens did during typical days of
use. We also segmented estimates of duration and pickups
into school hours (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 14:59
p.m., excluding summer/holidays), or school overnight
(Monday through Friday, 12 a.m. to 4:59 a.m., excluding
summer/holidays) period. We calculated the number/percent-
age of participants who used app categories, specific common
social media apps and video games, and whether participants
endorsed positive or negative online experiences or different
technology impairment symptoms.
We used Chi Square and Kruskal Wallis bivariate tests to
study associations between smartphone usage variables and
age range (11 to 12, 13 to 15, and 16 to 17).
Post-analysis youth focus groups
Fifteen members of the 2023 Common Sense Youth Advisory
Council participated in four separate online focus groups with
the goal of helping the research team interpret and contextu-
alize findings from smartphone data. Parents or guardians of
Youth Advisory Council members had provided consent for
their children to participate, and members provided verbal
consent for audiotaping of Zoom focus groups, which were
then transcribed. First and last authors then reviewed themes
that arose from these groups and selected quotes for the
current report that aided with interpretation of findings from
a youth point of view.
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 14© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Main Findings
How much time were
preadolescents and adolescents
spending with their smartphones?
Time spent with smartphones, or any digital media for that
matter, can mean a variety of things. One hour of smartphone
use might mean an hour laughing with friends, messaging
about homework, consuming influencer content on social
platforms, responding to harassing comments, or getting lost
in a video game. Time spent with a smartphone might find an
adolescent user fully engaged, or might reflect apps running in
the background while the user multitasks. Therefore, these
results regarding smartphone time are the most basic
measure of a young person's relationship with their phone;
however, they hint at how pervasively a phone occupies a
teen's time on a typical day.
When averaged across all days their smartphones were
tracked, participants used their phones for a median of about
four and a half hours per day, but there was a wide range of
usage among different teens as shown by the duration catego-
ries in Figure 1. At the high end, almost 10% of participants
used their smartphones for 10 or more hours per day on
average.
Hour-by-hour averages of smartphone use are shown in
Figure 7. Across all 203 participants, it is clear that the peak of
usage occurs in the afternoon and evening hours. Our youth
advisors stated that their smartphone is often by their side
after school, while doing homework, or when trying to wind
down before bed. Compared to younger participants, more
older teens (16- to 17-year-olds) used their phone in the over-
night hours.
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
0
10
20
30
40
50
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
Average Duration in Minutes (median [IQR])
Time of Day
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
16-1713-1511−12
*Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over. IQR is the Interquartile Range, which is the middle 50% of users, with 25% of users under the first value
and 25% of users over the second value. Bar shows the median value; line shows IQR.
FIGURE 7. Hour-by-hour plots (from midnight to midnight) of average smartphone use* in minutes, split by age group
15 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
However, they also expressed that managing their smart-
phone takes work, and being without their phone can be
freeing:
I feel like we'd all feel a lot better if we were on it
less. Like, when I lost my phone … I didn't have a
phone for a week, and that week was amazing.
Although I couldn't... I had to use my friends'
phones to contact people if I needed to text
them. Just not having a phone, it takes this weight
off of you. It almost sets you free in a way.
—11th grader
When I'm doing work, I like putting my phone to
the side, and whenever I give myself breaks, I'll go
to my phone and check notifications.
—11th grader
Participants picked up their phones a median of 51 times per
day, ranging from two to 498 times per day. When pickups
were graphed hour by hour (Figure 8), it was apparent that
teens (age 13 to 17) check their phone regularly through the
middle of the day (i.e., during school hours) as well as after
school. Younger participants (age 11 to 12) had the lowest
frequency of pickups per hour. Our youth advisors thought
this was probably due to younger smartphone owners having
more phone restrictions and rules placed by their caregivers
as well as smaller social networks to keep in touch with.
Time spent on smartphones varies widely.
Youth advisors were also intrigued by the extreme ends of
smartphone usage found in our study sample. While most
agreed that five hours per day seemed like the amount of time
most of their peers spend on their phone, they were surprised
that some 11- to 17-year-olds would use phones for only a few
minutes per day, or up to 16 hours/day. The daily usage pat-
terns of five participants with the lowest-duration usage, and
five with the most pervasive usage, are shown in Figures 9 and 10.
When talking about how much time their phone use takes up
in a day, most youth advisors felt that their phone integrates
into their daily experience in a non-burdensome way, and
provides small amounts of pleasure or social connection while
they do other things.
Average Pickups (median [IQR])
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
Time of Day
16-1713-1511−12
*Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over. IQR is the Interquartile Range, which is the middle 50% of users, with 25% of users under the first value
and 25% of users over the second value. Dot shows the median value; line shows IQR.
FIGURE 8. Hour-by-hour plots (from midnight to midnight) of average smartphone pickups*, split by age group
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 16© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
TAKEAWAYS
For most adolescents, smartphones take up a large
proportion of their waking hours. Whether this feels
like time well spent depends upon what they're expe-
riencing, what the smartphone is augmenting vs.
interrupting, and the other positive activities the
person had access to that day.
It's important to remember that smartphones are
going to be in both the background and the foreground
of kids' minds.
Young people's phone use patterns vary significantly
from each other, and the unique way that smartphones
interweave into a young person's day feels personal.
Many kids have a signature or pattern to their phone
use, their main "thing" that they love doing (or feel
obsessed with) on their phone, so it's worth helping
them reflect on how their particular personality influ-
ences their relationship with their phone.
TALKING POINTS
Adults can ask:
•What is your favorite app? Do you feel stressed
or excited by it? Or both?
•Does it feel like a job or "work" to stay up to date
on everything?
•What does it feel like when your phone is
commanding your attention vs. just being in
the background of your mind?
•What does it feel like when you don't have your
phone or the room is too quiet? Are you worried
about missing out on anything?
•Have you ever noticed what you're thinking
about if there's no background noise on?
•Do you ever get a sense that you've been on your
phone too long? What are the signs for you?
The adolescents we talked to also reflected on the fact that,
when looking at phone usage visualizations, it seemed that
each participant had their own "style" of use—their "thing"
that they tended to do more than any other activity on their
phone, such as social media (shown as pink shading; Figure 11),
mobile games (red shading; Figure 12), or YouTube (royal blue
shading; Figure 13).
Not all smartphone use is active; some is
background noise.
Youth advisors emphasized that it's important not to assume
that all usage appearing on participants' day-to-day visualiza-
tions was active smartphone usage. They described use of
phones as "background noise"—for example, streaming
movies or videos or music—while doing other activities. This
ambient use of smartphones in the background was described
as having a "stimulation" or calming purpose, in contrast to
engaged usage, such as texting with a friend, that "you can't
just blur out" into the background.
It seems like everybody has their own thing that
they're obsessed with. Like this person has
reading, versus another person has some sort of
YouTube. And it's different for each person, but
everybody seems to be using one thing as a
means to stay connected or to spend time.
—12th grader
Like I see kids in school literally just have
TikTok on autoplay while they're doing work,
like it's sitting on their desk, but they're not even
looking at it. It's just like to have some sort of
stimulation in their brain, I guess, while they're
doing something.
—10th grader
I know a lot of people who work with
Netflix playing. They'll just have it playing
either on their phone or on their computer,
or they'll sleep to it.
—11th grader
I definitely do that. Like if I'm doing laundry, if I'm
doing homework, I'll just have something so that
my room isn't quiet. I kind of enjoy that buzz.
—12th grader
17 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 9. Participants with light smartphone usage
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
App Categories
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Messaging
Social Media
Tools
YouTube
2022−10−06
2022−10−07
2022−10−08
2022−10−09
2022−10−10
2022−10−11
2022−10−12
2022−10−13
13-year-old male
2022−10−08
2022−10−09
2022−10−10
2022−10−11
2022−10−12
2022−10−13
2022−10−14
2022−10−15
2022−10−16
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
App Categories
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Email
Messaging
Shopping
Tools
Video Chat
YouTube
13-year-old male
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 18© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
App Categories
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Gaming
Messaging
Music and Audio
Tools
Social Media
YouTube
2022−10−06
2022−10−07
2022−10−08
2022−10−09
2022−10−10
2022−10−11
2022−10−12
2022−10−13
2022−10−14
2022−10−15
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
13-year-old female
App Categories
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Messaging
Gaming
Tools
2022−10−14
2022−10−15
2022−10−16
2022−10−17
2022−10−18
2022−10−19
2022−10−20
2022−10−21
2022−10−22
2022−10−23
2022−10−24
2022−10−25
2022−10−26
2022−10−27
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
13-year-old female
19 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 10: Participants with longer daily duration of smartphone use
2022−08−27
2022−08−28
2022−08−29
2022−08−30
2022−08−31
2022−09−01
2022−09−02
2022−09−03
2022−09−04
2022−09−05
2022−09−06
2022−09−07
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Education
Entertainment
Email
Gaming
Live Gaming
Music and Audio
Messaging
Shopping
Social Media
Streaming Video
Tools
YouTube
App Categories
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
11-year-old female
2022−11−08
2022−11−09
2022−11−10
2022−11−11
2022−11−12
2022−11−13
2022−11−14
2022−11−15
2022−11−16
App Categories
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Entertainment
Email
Gaming
Live Gaming
Music and Audio
Messaging
Parent Controls
Reading
Social Media
Tools
YouTube
17-year-old male
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 20© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
2022−10−13
2022−10−14
2022−10−15
2022−10−16
2022−10−17
2022−10−18
2022−10−19
2022−10−20
2022−10−21
2022−10−22
2022−10−23
2022−10−24
Art and Photos
App Categories
Browser
Calls
Education
Email
Gaming
Health and Fitness
Music and Audio
Messaging
Shopping
Social Media
Tools
YouTube
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
14-year-old male
2022−10−05
2022−10−06
2022−10−07
2022−10−08
2022−10−09
2022−10−10
2022−10−11
2022−10−12
2022−10−13
Art and Photos
App Categories
Browser
Calls
Email
Gaming
Music and Audio
Messaging
Reading
Social Media
Streaming Video
Tools
YouTube
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
12-year-old female
21 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 11. Participants who primarily used social media apps
2022−10−07
2022−10−08
2022−10−09
2022−10−10
2022−10−11
2022−10−12
2022−10−13
2022−10−14
2022−10−15
2022−10−16
Art and Photos
App Categories
Browser
Calls
Education
Email
Music and Audio
Messaging
Parent Controls
Social Media
Streaming Video
Tools
Video Chat
YouTube
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
14-year-old female
2022−09−29
2022−09−30
2022−10−01
2022−10−02
2022−10−03
2022−10−04
2022−10−05
2022−10−06
2022−10−07
2022−10−08
2022−10−09
2022−10−10
2022−10−11
Art and Photos
App Categories
Browser
Calls
Education
Email
Gaming
Health and Fitness
Music and Audio
Messaging
Parent Controls
Shopping
Social Media
Streaming Video
Tools
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
16-year-old female
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 22© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
2022−09−02
2022−09−03
2022−09−04
2022−09−05
2022−09−06
2022−09−07
2022−09−08
2022−09−09
2022−09−10
2022−09−11
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Education
Email
Gaming
Messaging
Social Media
Tools
Art and Photos
App Categories
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
15-year-old female
2022−10−13
2022−10−14
2022−10−15
2022−10−16
2022−10−17
2022−10−18
2022−10−19
2022−10−20
Art and Photos
App Categories
Browser
Email
Gaming
Music and Audio
Messaging
Social Media
Streaming Video
Tools
YouTube
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
12-year-old male
23 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 12: Participants who primarily used mobile games
2022−08−31
2022−09−01
2022−09−02
2022−09−03
2022−09−04
2022−09−05
2022−09−06
2022−09−07
App Categories
Browser
Entertainment
Email
Gaming
Messaging
Social Media
Tools
YouTube
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
11-year-old male
2022−11−12
2022−11−13
2022−11−14
2022−11−15
2022−11−16
2022−11−17
2022−11−18
2022−11−19
2022−11−20
Browser
App Categories
Calls
Gaming
Messaging
Reading
Tools
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
11-year-old male
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 24© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Art and Photos
App Categories
Browser
Calls
Entertainment
Email
Gaming
Messaging
Shopping
Social Media
Streaming Video
Tools
Video Chat
YouTube
2022−09−30
2022−10−01
2022−10−02
2022−10−03
2022−10−04
2022−10−05
2022−10−06
2022−10−07
2022−10−08
2022−10−09
2022−10−10
2022−10−11
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
14-year-old female
2022−11−01
2022−11−02
2022−11−03
2022−11−04
2022−11−05
2022−11−06
2022−11−07
2022−11−08
2022−11−09
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Gaming
Messaging
Social Media
Tools
YouTube
App Categories
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
11-year-old male
25 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 13: Participants who primarily used YouTube apps
2022−08−26
2022−08−27
2022−08−28
2022−08−29
2022−08−30
2022−08−31
2022−09−01
2022−09−02
2022−09−03
2022−09−04
2022−09−05
2022−09−06
App Categories
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Education
Email
Gaming
Music and Audio
Messaging
Tools
Video Chat
YouTube
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
12-year-old female
2022−11−09
2022−11−10
2022−11−11
2022−11−12
2022−11−13
2022−11−14
2022−11−15
2022−11−16
2022−11−17
2022−11−18
2022−11−19
2022−11−20
2022−11−21
2022−11−22
2022−11−23
2022−11−24
2022−11−25
2022−11−26
2022−11−27
App Categories
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Entertainment
Email
Gaming
Health and Fitness
Music and Audio
Messaging
Social Media
Streaming Video
Tools
YouTube
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
11-year-old female
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 26© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
2022−10−06
2022−10−07
2022−10−08
2022−10−09
2022−10−10
2022−10−11
2022−10−12
2022−10−13
2022−10−14
2022−10−15
2022−10−16
2022−10−17
App Categories
Art and Photos
Browser
Entertainment
Email
Gaming
Music and Audio
Messaging
Social Media
Tools
YouTube
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
15-year-old female
2022−10−11
2022−10−12
2022−10−13
2022−10−14
2022−10−15
2022−10−16
2022−10−17
2022−10−18
2022−10−19
App Categories
Art and Photos
Browser
Calls
Entertainment
Email
Gaming
Messaging
Social Media
Streaming Video
Tools
YouTube
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
16-year-old male
27 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 14. Median and IQR* of daily duration of different
app categories**, ranked from longest to shortest duration
*Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over. IQR is the
Interquartile Range, which is the middle 50% of users, with 25% of users under the
first value and 25% of users over the second value. Bar shows the median value;
black line shows IQR.
**Includes only participants who used that category of apps.
Which types of apps did participants
use the longest, and why?
While time is often held out as the most important measure of
how young people use their screen-based devices, time is only
one dimension of the smartphone experience. What young
people do, the content they view and the interactions they
have on their smartphones are critical components of how
they use their devices. Research shows that the quality of the
content and types of activities youth engage with online are
more strongly associated with well-being (Popat & Tarrant,
2023). For example, creative and positive social uses of media
are associated with higher well-being, while viewing more
violent or toxic content is linked with more distress. And while
our methodology cannot tell us exactly what content youth
saw on their phones, understanding what types of apps are
used and in what duration gives us a framework to begin to
understand youths' exposure to different types of content.
The 203 participants in our sample used a total of 1,644
unique apps over the week that their smartphones were
tracked. Individual participants used anywhere from five to
125 different apps over the course of the week, averaging
about 40 different apps overall.
When we looked at categories of apps, social media apps were
used for the longest each day, on average, followed by
YouTube (which includes YouTube, YouTube Kids, and YouTube
TV), mobile games, browser, messaging, and streaming video
(see Figure 14). When considered as a proportion of a partici-
pant's overall smartphone usage, social media (42%), YouTube
(19%), and gaming (11%) apps took up the largest percentage
of time per day, among participants who used those apps. In
contrast, despite their popularity, photography/camera apps,
phone calls, and music apps were only used for a few minutes
per day.
Parent Controls (n=48)
Email (n=146)
Education (n=75)
Shopping (n=79)
Calls (n=181)
Reading (n=44)
Music and Audio (n=144)
Art and Photos (n=192)
Streaming Video (n=93)
Messaging (n=193)
Browser (n=200)
Gaming (n=178)
YouTube (n=177)
Social Media (n=153)
Average Daily Minutes (Median [IQR])
75 100 125 150 175 20050250
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 28© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Younger participants had the longest duration of the gaming
category of apps. One youth advisor explained the change in
smartphone habits by age this way:
Definitely with more mature teenage audiences,
I feel like there's less game usage ... but I think it
also kind of just depends on who the phone user
is. But I also think that it can be a mix of both.
Like you said, we kind of all get drawn to our
phones when we don't have anything to do, and
definitely I think that social media has kind of
replaced games for older audiences, because it's
like you can pick it up and it's quick entertain-
ment, which is kind of like what a game is, it's
interactive quick entertainment.
—9th grader
This used to apply to me. I'm not active on it
anymore. But the game Hay Day is kind of ... it's
one of the games where you have to come back at
certain intervals to maintain your farm. So I can
see that, like waking up at 8 a.m. and coming back
to it consistently every day, just being integrated
into your schedule because that's how a lot of
people are with it. They know that whenever they
wake up, oh, there's new things to check, you
have to go and maintain your farm, and it's just
like part of their everyday lives.
—11th grader
Over the study week, 657 different mobile games were played
overall, of which 211 (32%) had violent content ratings. When
looking at the mobile gaming patterns found in our partici-
pants, youth advisors found it interesting that some gaming
took place at seemingly random times of day. This was
explained by the fact that some games send notifications to
re-engage the player every day, while other games are
designed in ways that expect frequent engagement to main-
tain progress in the game:
TABLE 2. Popular apps, their number of users, average daily duration, and percentage of total smartphone use they
composed on a typical day*
App name N (%) users
Average daily duration
Median [IQR]**
Range
(hour:minutes)
Percentage of daily use
(median)***
TikTok 102 (50.2%) 1:52 [0:24 - 2:57] <0:01 - 7:48 38.4%
YouTube 175 (86.2%) 0:40 [0:05 - 1:52] <0:01 - 10:13 18.2%
Instagram 70 (34.5%) 0:16 [0:03 - 0:52] <0:01 - 2:56 5.9%
Snapchat 79 (38.9%) 0:10 [0:02 - 0:36] <0:01 - 3:13 3.6%
Discord 72 (35.5%) 0:07 [0:02 - 0:24] <0:01 - 12:20 2.5%
Roblox 74 (36.5%) 0:06 [0:01 - 0:40] <0:01 - 6:25 2.6%
Chrome 191 (94.1%) 0:04 [0:01 - 0:13] <0:01 - 1:24 1.5%
Netflix 53 (26.1%) 0:03 [0:01 - 0:17] <0:01 - 7:31 0.8%
Spotify 81 (39.9%) 0:01 [<0:01 - 0:04] <0:01 - 0:31 0.6%
Facebook 40 (19.7%) 0:01 [<0:01 - 0:04] <0:01 - 1:34 0.1%
Google quick
search box 180 (88.7%) 0:01 [<0:01 - 0:03] <0:01 - 0:21 0.6%
Amazon 47 (23.2%) 0:01 [<0:01 - 0:03] <0:01 - 0:20 0.3%
Pinterest 36 (17.7%) 0:01 [<0:01 - 0:03] <0:01 - 0:48 0.4%
*Calculated only among participants who used that app.
**Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over. IQR is the Interquartile Range, which is the middle 50% of users, with 25% of users under the first
value and 25% of users over the second value.
***Percentage of daily use is calculated among those who use the app and as a percentage of all their smartphone use in a day.
29 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
I'd say compared to YouTube, [TikTok] is that you
don't have to search through to find a video that
you wanna watch ... I mean if you're on the
Explorer tab for Instagram, or for YouTube, you
have to kind of decide, but it does it for you. So
you can open the app and instantly have a video
you'll probably like.
—10th grader
It's just you watch a video and it's interesting and
you scroll and it's another interesting video. You
don't even have to find videos on your own, it's
right there, it's customized, and you can share
funny things with your friends, so it's addicting.
—12th grader
TikTok: Teens talk about the ease and capture of
the endless short video scroll
When we asked the youth advisors why their peers scrolled
TikTok for nearly two hours a day, taking up almost 40% of
their total phone time, they had lots to say! While text-based
platforms like Twitter are "more work," TikTok was described
as "so easy" because users can simply open up the app and
videos start to play endlessly, compared to having to "actively"
click on videos. Discussing TikTok, two youth advisors shared:
Apps that dominate time: TikTok and YouTube
Some of the most popular apps used by 11- to 17-year-olds in
our sample are shown in Table 2. Of these, those with the
longest daily duration were TikTok, YouTube, Instagram,
Snapchat, Discord, Roblox, Chrome, and Netflix. (Of note,
although Spotify usually streams music for long periods of
time, it is not recorded by our study app as 'in use' because the
screen is usually off while music streams).
Figure 15 shows the distribution of daily duration of use of the
longest-running popular apps in our sample. TikTok and
YouTube had far more users who spent several hours per day
using these apps, with 64% spending more than an hour/day
on TikTok, and 41% doing the same on YouTube. Our youth
advisors attributed this finding to video length, the friction-
less features of these platforms, and the algorithmic tailoring
of videos to a users' interests, making it difficult to disengage.
In contrast, 22% of Snapchat and 7% of Discord users aver-
aged more than one hour/day on these platforms, which youth
advisors noted are primarily for chatting with friends, so they
are used for briefer snippets of time.
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 30© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 15. Average daily duration of select popular apps
TikTok (n=102)
5%
10%
22%
20%
10%
5%
22%
8%
4-5 hours
3-4 hours
2-3 hours
1-2 hours
30-60 min
15-30 min
0-15 min
>5 hours
4-5 hours
3-4 hours
2-3 hours
1-2 hours
30-60 min
15-30 min
0-15 min
>5 hours
0%
0%
Discord (n=72)
1%
1%
12%
17%
64%
4%
4-5 hours
3-4 hours
2-3 hours
1-2 hours
30-60 min
15-30 min
0-15 min
>5 hours
YouTube (n=175)
3%
6%
10%
17%
14%
10%
34%
5%
0%
0%
Snapchat (n=79)
1%
5%
15%
5%
10%
63%
4-5 hours
3-4 hours
2-3 hours
1-2 hours
30-60 min
15-30 min
0-15 min
>5 hours
4-5 hours
3-4 hours
2-3 hours
1-2 hours
30-60 min
15-30 min
0-15 min
>5 hours
Instagram (n=70)
0%
0%
11%
11%
17%
11%
49%
0%
4-5 hours
3-4 hours
2-3 hours
1-2 hours
30-60 min
15-30 min
0-15 min
>5 hours
0%
0%
Roblox (n=74)
1%
15%
12%
5%
64%
3%
31 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Another key piece of TikTok's appeal to teens was that it could
be consumed in small bites of time, such as in between classes,
compared to more "time-consuming" platforms that need a
time or mental investment, such as YouTube or Netflix. They
also noted with TikTok how quickly the algorithm can learn
what they want and shift to meet their current needs.
A lot of people I know are actually defaulting
more to TikTok and social media sites where they
can get kind of like the quick hit of just like a
short video. So I was surprised that some people
spent that much time on YouTube 'cause most
people I know, if they wanna watch video
content, then they'll go to TikTok. You can easily
just scroll past it. But then also, they're just so
short that even if you're not necessarily that
interested, watching it won't really take up that
much time anyway.
—10th grader
Something that usually breaks that chain of
scrolling on Twitter is … I'll see a tweet that I've
already seen before, so I'm like, 'OK, time for
me to get off.' Whereas TikTok there's nothing to
really break that chain of constant new
information and the stimulation … But TikTok
is definitely more of an internal struggle to
actually be like, 'let me get off,' simply 'cause
the content is just so easy to consume, so it just
feels like an urge to continue to keep scrolling.
—11th grader
TikTok is one of the worst forms of it because it's
not much work, you're just scrolling, and also, you
keep on scrolling and you're finding maybe these
things interesting because your feed is accustomed
to you. And it's easy, it's quick, and I feel like that's
also why a lot of our attention spans are getting
much shorter, because even sometimes ... I'm not
on TikTok as much as I used to be, but when I was
really on it, I would find myself skipping videos
that were over 30 seconds because I couldn't ... I
just wanted to keep on scrolling, keep on scrolling.
—11th grader
Automatic advancement of content feeds also contributed to
the "overflowing" experience of using TikTok or YouTube, and
the challenges some teens feel in breaking away from the feed
of videos:
You have to have a bunch of ideas and a bunch of
different videos flowing into your mind and just
that constant flow of information just overflow-
ing, kind of being overwhelming, I feel like, to an
extent. And I feel like for Netflix, though, it's
helpful and it's better in terms of splitting up the
movies you watch because there's that like ... It's
like start the new episode, and then you kinda get
that guilt like, 'Oh, should I start this whole new
episode and waste another 20 minutes, or should
I just go start my homework?' So I feel like that's
why TikTok is so much more time-consuming, and
YouTube as well, because it just never stops.
There's no end… so they all just, I would say, inev-
itably just keep going on and just blend together.
—10th grader
Youth advisors also mentioned how design features like lack
of friction, infinite content, and the short video format influ-
enced their behavior on TikTok:
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 32© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Personally, I have one on my TikTok for 45
minutes, but there definitely are some days where
I see it and it's like, 'You have five minutes left for
the day for TikTok,' and I'm like, 'I don't care,' and
I just ignore it. [chuckle] So I think it depends on
how I'm feeling in the day, 'cause sometimes I do
follow that guideline or that restriction, but
sometimes I don't.
—11th grader
I think that most teens don't really follow it, espe-
cially if they set it themselves. It has to be
parent-enforced with a passcode or whatever for
teens to actually follow it. But I feel like, in my
experience, for TikTok, I'm spending two or three
hours a day on TikTok. And I'll set these restric-
tions, yet I'll just block it every time I see it. So I
find it annoying after a while, but I think it's
helpful once I get the notification over and over
to realize that I'm really just wasting my time.
—10th grader
But I also know that YouTube has a sleep notifica-
tion. Like sometimes I get, 'It's time for bed,' and
then you could dismiss it or continue on the app.
—11th grader
We asked youth advisors whether they had tried out time limit
features on TikTok or YouTube, and some had—with mixed
success:
TAKEAWAYS
Time on smartphones among young people is domi-
nated by apps that provide social interaction,
entertaining videos, and games—many of which have
design features that encourage prolonged engage-
ment. These include finely tuned algorithms that can
even adapt to how a child or teen is feeling in the
moment, infinite scrolling of content made by creators
who are competing for attention, and "frictionless"
navigation. (In contrast, a design feature that adds fric-
tion would slow down navigation, cause the user to
pause and make a decision, let them know that they
are "caught up," or encourage them to take a break.)
TikTok in particular was described by our youth advi-
sors as having a lot of engaging ingredients as well as
an ability to be consumed in bite-size bits during down-
time or in between classes. In contrast, apps that
young people use for goal-oriented purposes (such as
taking photos, shopping, or looking something up on a
browser) commanded much less time. Caregivers
should be sensitive to the fact that the companies who
build apps have incentives to design features that
capture kids' attention for longer (such as wanting
more advertising revenue or data collected for tar-
geted marketing), and it's not just kids' lack of
"willpower" that keeps them on their phones.
TALKING POINTS
Adults can ask:
•Which apps take up most of your time (and my
own time, as a parent)? Why is this?
•Are there design features that make your favorite
app hard to put down?
•What do you think social media platforms know
about us, in terms of who we are and how we are
feeling? How do algorithms predict what we
might want to watch or follow?
•How do you see the platform's algorithms at
work? Have you noticed when it's working to
keep you on the app, and how it does that?
•What are some ways to be "in the driver's seat"
while using your phone, other than timers that
don't always work? Are there ways to be con-
scious of the need to not use your phone at
certain times of day? Are there places that you
could keep your phone, some apps that you could
remove, or "do not disturb" settings that could
help you feel more in control?
33 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
App stores have age ratings that
recommend how old the users of
specic apps should be, but these are
not routinely enforced. Age-restricting
"gates" on apps and app stores, such
as entering a birth date, have always
been easy to get through. This means
that it is easy for young smartphone
users to wade (or intentionally jump)
into territory that was not intended
for them. Therefore, we explored
whether our participants appeared
to be accessing age-inappropriate
apps on their smartphones.
NSFK? What we found about participants
using apps intended for older audiences
Under-13s regularly use social media and
age-inappropriate apps
Of 85 participants who were younger than 13, 68% used
social media apps, and they all used at least one app rated
"Teen" or higher. Among 11- to 12-year-olds, the most
popular social platforms were:
Reddit
4%
sendit
5%
BeReal
6%
Twitter
7%
WhatsApp
8%
Pinterest
14%
Facebook
16%
Discord
25%
Snapchat
31%
TikTok
47%
Instagram
16%
Facebook Messenger
6%
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 34© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
SCREENSHOTS from app store descriptions of social media apps that provide anonymous connections
(L to R: Monkey, TIYA, Obimy, LMK)
Almost half of our participants used apps
with mature/adult age ratings
Use of mature (17+) or adult only (18+) apps was relatively
common, occurring in 45% of participants. These included
Pornhub, fantasy sports/betting apps (Yahoo Fantasy Sports
& Daily, Sleeper Fantasy Football), Telegram, Reddit, Parler,
4chan, casino games, or violent games such as Call of Duty.
Sexy themes show up in some apps,
mostly video games
Of all the apps used by participants in this study,
47 had content flags about sexual themes, nudity,
or suggestive themes, 34 of which were video games.
Use of risky anonymous social platforms
In addition, 14 participants used social media apps with risky
features, like being able to connect with strangers for
messaging, sending photos, or video chat. These included
Obimy (allows random contacts between users), Monkey
(allows users to chat with "new people all over the world"),
TIYA (allows chats with "strangers and friends"), and LMK
(allows instant talking and dropping into audio rooms with
strangers). These apps potentially open child and adolescent
users to unsafe or exploitative interactions with others.
35 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
When I had Discord, it was really, really annoying
with every single message 'cause it wasn't
relevant to me at all, and I just wanted messages
from my friends that I've personally DMed …
there's multiple channels, and if you don't,
I guess, mute certain channels, you will get
every single notification.
—11th grader
I get most excited over Snapchat notifications,
and it doesn't really matter who it's from. I think
that's solely because you get the little Bitmoji,
you get to see who it's from and it's a person
every time, whereas with TikTok or Instagram,
the platform sends you so many just random
notifications that aren't really relevant, there
aren't people interacting with you, that they're
kind of uninteresting.
—11th grader
I know that TikTok, whenever it sends you
notifications, it combines all of them into one.
So if you have a bunch of likes on a post, it won't
send you a notification for each individual one. It
will compile it and it'll be like, 'You have 16 new
notifications,' whereas Snapchat, every time you
get a Snapchat from somebody, it'll give you an
individual message, or every time someone's
typing, you'll get an individual message for that,
and then on top of that, their chat. So those
compile very quickly.
—11th grader
How many smartphone notifications
are young people receiving per day,
and from what apps?
Notifications from apps on our smartphones—whether seen,
heard, felt or silent—are a frequent occurrence for many teen
and adult smartphone users. Compared to smartphone
pickups (see Main Findings section 1), which indicate how
often a user engages with their phone (regardless of whether
they are responding to a notification), notifications signify
how often the phone itself is pinging for attention. These noti-
fications can helpfully direct us to an important message, but
can also serve as a potent distraction from other activities and
draw the user back to their device. Notifications are also one
of the main smartphone design features that users have
control over, which means they can be modified with the goal
of improving focus, family time, or sleep.
Notifications on our participants' smartphones registered in
two ways: notifications delivered and notifications seen by the
user (indicating that they looked at the notification or had
their phone screen on when they received the notification).
On a typical day, participants had a median of 237 notifica-
tions delivered to their smartphone, and they saw or engaged
with 46 of these. This varied considerably between partici-
pants, likely because of the different apps they use, how they
manage notifications, and whether they use "do not disturb"
settings at certain times of day. Notifications were most
numerous from apps young people use to chat with their
friends, such asSnapchat, Instagram, and Discord (see Table 3),
which is consistent with how youth advisors said they priori-
tized their notifications from people they know, rather than
from random platforms, brands, or channels.
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 36© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
I think notifications are very annoying. I have
mine off or always on 'do not disturb,' especially
during school, 'cause I feel like after a while, they
just compile and then it's just notification after
notification, and then I can't even see previous
notifications. And then it's just a lot of informa-
tion with just picking up my phone, and it's
almost like the app is trying to get you to get
more involved and go back to the database.
—10th grader
When plotted over the 24 hours in a day (midnight to mid-
night), seen notifications appeared to jump in the morning
hours (possibly when overnight "do not disturb" settings were
disabled or participants first picked up their phones in the
morning) and then peak in the late afternoon/evening. (See
Figures 16 and 17).
Similar to patterns seen with pickups and duration, younger
users (11-12 years) tended to receive and view fewer notifica-
tions than older users (13-15 and 16-17 years).
Youth advisors explained that it is essential to turn off notifi-
cations to reduce the feeling of overload and interruption:
I think it's seen as a way to just re-instill interest
in their app after long periods of time of not being
on it, and it's just a way to keep you engaged with
it, because by sending you so many random
things, it's bound to hit your interest eventually.
But generally, I do think it's annoying [chuckle]
because so many of them are just irrelevant, and I
think that if they sent less of them, it would be a
better way of going about that.
—11th grader
Another thing with notifications, one thing I've
noticed with Instagram is, over time, they keep
adding new, different types of notifications.
Like when they rolled out reels, they had a
notification like, 'Check out the most watched
reels for today.' So over time, you have to keep
turning off those specific notifications because I
still wanna receive messages from my friends
through DMs. I don't wanna receive those kind
of unimportant messages.
—11th grader
They described needing to not just manage the volume of
notifications, but also the proliferation of types of notifica-
tions from different platforms, to keep things in check and
make space for communication with friends.
TABLE 3. Notifications delivered and seen by the most popular apps
App name
N (%)**
who received
notifications
Median [IQR]*
notifications
delivered
per day Range*
N (%)**
who viewed
notifications
Median [IQR]*
notifications
seen per day Range*
Snapchat 78 (39.2%) 19.6 [5.0 - 67.3] 0.1 - 1026.2 75 (37.7%) 8.3 [2.9 - 27.0] 0.2 - 363.6
Discord 59 (29.6%) 11.8 [3.4 - 42.3] 0.1 - 763.7 57 (28.6%) 4.7 [1.6 - 17.9] 0.1 - 491.6
Instagram 70 (35.2%) 8.9 [3.3 - 27.7] 0.2 - 808.6 69 (34.7%) 5.6 [2.0 - 14.6] 0.1 - 121.0
Facebook 37 (18.6%) 4.0 [1.4 - 5.8] 0.1 - 15.4 36 (18.1%) 3.2 [0.8 - 5.0] 0.1 - 7.8
TikTok 79 (39.7%) 2.9 [1.4 - 5.1] 0.1 - 16.1 76 (38.2%) 1.7 [1.0 - 4.3] 0.1 - 13.2
YouTube 141 (70.9%) 2.4 [1.0 - 6.4] 0.1 - 122.2 127 (63.8%) 1.8 [0.7 - 4.3] 0.1 - 90.6
Pinterest 37 (18.6%) 1.9 [1.1 - 2.2] 0.2 - 17.4 36 (18.1%) 1.6 [1.1 - 2.1] 0.1 - 6.1
Roblox 7 (3.5%) 0.2 [0.1 - 1.0] 0.1 - 8.3 5 (2.5%) 0.2 [0.2 - 0.3] 0.1 - 0.3
*Calculated only among participants who received or viewed notifications from that app, respectively.
**Percentage of 199 participants with notification data.
37 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
FIGURE 16. Hour-by-hour plots of average notifications* delivered to participants' smartphones, by age
10
20
30
40
Average Notifications Received [median (IQR)]
0
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
Time of Day
16-1713-1511−12
*Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over. IQR is the Interquartile Range, which is the middle 50% of users, with 25% of users under the first value
and 25% of users over the second value. Dot shows the median value; line shows IQR.
FIGURE 17. Hour-by-hour plots of average notifications* seen or interacted with by participants, by age
Average Notifications Seen (median [IQR])
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am 12am 6am 12pm 6pm 12am
11−12 13-15 16-17
Time of Day
*Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over. IQR is the Interquartile Range, which is the middle 50% of users, with 25% of users under the first value
and 25% of users over the second value. Dot shows the median value; line shows IQR.
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 38© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
TAKEAWAYS
Notifications are plentiful, sometimes fun, sometimes
annoying, and they are one of the main things young
people can control in their smartphones. Notifications
from marketers were the least essential and most
irritating to the adolescents we talked to, who were
also wary of platforms trying to get their attention in
inauthentic ways (e.g., by telling them when a distant
acquaintance had posted but didn't tag them). One of
the main things caregivers and teachers can do is help
young people reflect on how smartphone notifications
affect their emotions, concentration, and habits of
checking their device—and then empower young users
to manage their notifications and set "do not disturb"
times that align with their needs.
TALKING POINTS
What adults can say and do:
•Try looking at settings for screen time and digital
wellness on your phone, and on your child's
phone, to talk about which apps send you the
most notifications.
•Then discuss how to intentionally update the set-
tings (both within apps and in phone notification
settings) to cut out all of the extra disruptions
that young people mention as their biggest
annoyance.
•Although it takes time to do it, stopping to reflect
on how your phone tries to get your attention can
lead to great discussions in families and class-
rooms, and it can give users a feeling of control
over how much they use their smartphone.
39 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Parent Controls (n=19)
Email (n=69)
Education (n=51)
Shopping (n=37)
Calls (n=132)
Reading (n=23)
Music and Audio (n=81)
Art and Photos (n=133)
Streaming Video (n=30)
Messaging (n=146)
Browser (n=150)
Gaming (n=119)
YouTube (n=111)
Social Media (n=126)
Average School Day Minutes (Median [IQR])
50403020100
How much does smartphone use
occur during school hours, and why?
Phone use in school has been a subject of intense public
debate, but for many young people it is a necessity, as their
phones may contain school schedules and allow coordination
with family and friends. It is also a potential source of distrac-
tion or avoidance when school feels stressful.
Among the participants in our study, some degree of smart-
phone usage during school hours (Monday through Friday 8
a.m. to 3 p.m.) was nearly universal, and median use was about
43 minutes/day. Young people handled their phones quite a bit
during the school day with a median of 13 pickups (turning the
screen on) during school hours, ranging from <1 to 229.
Smartphone usage visualizations shown in Figures 10, 11, 12,
and 13 illustrate the variety of patterns of smartphone usage
during school hours. Although messaging and browser app
categories were most frequently used during school hours,
this averaged only a few minutes, while social media (32% of
smartphone usage during school hours), YouTube (26%), and
mobile games (17%) took up the largest proportion of time
during school hours, among participants who used those
types of apps.
Surprisingly, parental control apps sent the highest number of
notifications during school hours, sending a median of nearly
30 notifications to young people, with 70 notifications/school
day at the top end. Other app categories sending the most
notifications during school hours were social media (median
5.6, max 759), messaging (median 3.4, max 158), and browser
(median 4.0, max 403). Notifications seen during school hours
were mostly social media (median 2.7, max 205), messaging
(median 2.0, max 92), and browser (median 1.3, max 159),
which is consistent with the ways youth advisors said they
used their phones during school hours.
FIGURE 18. Median and IQR* of duration of use of different
smartphone app categories during school hours**
*Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over. IQR is the
Interquartile Range, which is the middle 50% of users, with 25% of users under the
first value and 25% of users over the second value. Bar shows the median value;
black line shows IQR.
**Includes only participants who used that category of apps during specified time
frame (Aug. 29 onward; holiday dates removed from analysis).
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 40© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Definitely at lunch, I could see people using
their phone a lot. But in class, it depends on the
school, but if your school has everyone with
computers, then I think computers. If you're
gonna get distracted doing something, it would
be on computers.
—11th grader
Yeah, it's the same for me, but sometimes if it's
a Friday and it's last period and I'm so drained,
sometimes I go on TikTok for the last 15 minutes
just to get me through it, just 'cause when you're
on TikTok, you lose track of time. So if I'm
scrolling on TikTok for what it feels like five
minutes, it's actually been like 13 minutes,
and I'm like, 'Nice. Now the school day is over.'
—11th grader
School policies and smartphones
School phone policies varied widely among the adolescents
we talked to. For example, some youth advisors described
having a total ban on smartphones in their high schools, with
detentions resulting if students used their phone. In other
schools, youth advisors described having policies that ranged
from no restrictions or class-specific rules, including teachers
encouraging use during class (e.g., to look something up or
participate in class discussions), allowing students to use
phones once they completed in-class assignments, and gener-
ally allowing smartphone access between periods. Some
youth advisors' teachers used strategies such as having stu-
dents put their phone in a bag at the front of class, to avoid it
being a distraction. School policies also varied by the age of
students, with the high school age youth advisors reflecting
back on stricter rules in middle school.
Youth advisors provided insight into why they would use
phones in school, when, and what effect it has on them. Many
described using the phone to take small breaks during lunch or
class, but also noted it could be challenging to keep the phone
use to their preset goals or a minimum:
Sometimes I use my phone just to scroll during
lunch. If I have a free period, like on the rare
occasion that I do have a free period, sometimes
I'll use my phone … but I generally try to avoid
touching my phone during school because I don't
want it to throw me off … the reason why I try not
to touch it at all, 'cause even if I set the boundary
of, 'OK, maybe I'll only be on my phone for a
cumulative of 30 minutes of the school day,' it's
hard to know whether I can actually stick to that
boundary, so I'd rather just not pick it up in the
first place to prevent going over that boundary.
—11th grader
It's just like, 'Don't use it during class.'
—11th grader
It's supposed to be no phone until passing times,
that's like four minutes long, but the reality,
students just use it if they wanna use it. And
teachers will start off saying, 'Don't use it,' but if
students want to use it, who's really gonna stop
them? … Teachers definitely say, 'Put your phones
away,' but students get clever. And also just
because of the phone problem, there's a new rule
where you trade in your phone for the pass to go
to the restroom. 'Cause you spend more time
probably in the bathroom with your phone there.
—12th grader
41 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
I played spring sports, so being able to check my
phone and make sure if we weren't sure about the
weather and knowing whether or not the game is
happening or where we were meeting, that was
really helpful. It's harder to check on my com-
puter than it is on a phone. Not me personally, but
there's definitely kids who listen to music during
class or during lunch instead of interacting with
other kids. So I think that would be an area in
which it's not helpful … [this is driven by] I think
either stress or boredom, generally boredom.
—10th grader
I think for school, using it just for communication,
like just texting friends to meet up sometime
during lunch or something, that's definitely
useful. But then when it becomes distracting,
getting a lot of notifications in class and stuff, it
can become a problem.
—11th grader
We have a no-phone rule, and if it's out, the deans
and our teachers are pretty harsh about giving us
detentions. So I think that mostly keeps our
phones away, but I would definitely say in class if
we're just ... If I'm done with an assignment, my
phone will be in my backpack and I'll tap the
screen to see if there's any notifications. And
obviously it's kind of pointless because it's like,
OK, well, you can't actually open those notifica-
tions, but it's just like seeing what's there, and I
think that's kind of the addicting part of it … But
yeah, I would say I think the rules kind of help us,
and I personally am OK with it, yeah. And I think
most of my friends would agree too.
—9th grader
Use during school hours was predominantly social
media apps, which youth advisors said is consistent
with their experience of enjoying checking in with
friends, coordinating meeting up, and getting small
doses of fun. However, they also recognized when
phone use becomes too distracting, is an avoidance
strategy, or serves the purpose of relieving boredom.
The inconsistency between different teachers and classroom
expectations can be frustrating to some adolescents, but
stricter rules are sometimes appreciated in retrospect:
Well, generally my school is pretty relaxed. It's
just some teachers that really do not like phones
in their classrooms. And I feel with those teachers
that are really strict on it, I feel like if anything, it
just causes kids to wanna act out even more.
Because now it's not like, 'Oh, I have my phone
out and she's telling me respectfully, like, hey,
could you put this away?' Now it's like this whole
big deal where the kid's like, 'Oh, but it's not fair
that I never get to use my phone.' When I was in
middle school, we had super, super strict [rules
about] phone use, and at the moment I was like,
'Yeah, this is so annoying,' but now, looking back
on it, it actually was a really good thing.
—11th grader
In my school, we tend to have longer passing
periods, or at least they're close enough together
that lots of students will arrive at class and then
check their email on their phone or check
Snapchat in the remaining time they have before
class starts.
—10th grader
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 42© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Currently, my school is really lenient about phone
rules and our teachers are OK with us using
laptops or iPads to help us learn, to take down
notes. And we also, at any moment, can just
access our phone, just not doing tests or quizzes
or anything that it's like an assessment …
And even if, sometimes let's say you get bored in
class, if it's just for a few seconds our teachers
allow us to just quickly check our phones, and
then reset and then come back with a better
sense of concentration.
—12th grader
I really don't find having my phone next to me in
class a distraction. If anything, it's just like, oh, I
have my phone there in case I need it. But when I
do use my phone in school, I find that it's either to
look something up because I don't really under-
stand something, or just after I've finished all my
work, just to be able to relax for a little bit … I will
say that I'm at least tapping my phone to see if I
got a notification or just opening it really quickly
to maybe scroll on Instagram while I'm waiting for
the teacher's directions or something like that.
—11th grader
TAKEAWAYS
Smartphone use in schools is not driven only by young
people's interests and behaviors; it is also largely
shaped by school phone policies and how they are
enforced. Phone policies vary by child age. For
example, middle schoolers often have stricter rules
about not using phones in class, while some high
schools allow students more phone use (Tandon et al.,
2020). This is an opportunity for students to learn self-
regulation and intentional (in other words, not
habit-driven) smartphone usage. Since school is one of
the main environments where adolescents interact
with their peers, it makes sense that phones are being
used for that purpose.
TALKING POINTS
What adults can say and do:
•Ask: What are your school's policies for tech use?
How well are those rules enforced by teachers,
and do students follow them? What do you think
are the positive and negative effects of these
policies?
•Adults can help children and adolescents reflect
on how using smartphones in school makes your
brain feel (in terms of emotions, attention, and
thinking), and when it's an avoidance strategy.
•If they don't want to talk about their own phone
use during school, ask about peers' use: When
does your child think that other kids are using
their phones too much, and why?
43 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
How much smartphone use occurs
during school night hours, and why?
Sleep is critical for the health and development of children and
adolescents. Concerns and debate over the role of phones and
apps on the sleep habits of teens and tweens have been
ongoing, but studies have rarely looked at the patterns of
smartphone use that occur overnight. We focused specifically
on school nights because insufficient sleep before school can
contribute to feeling unfocused, sleepy, and irritable.
Almost 60% of participants used their smartphone during
school night hours (Monday through Friday, midnight until 5
a.m.) at least once during the study period. Overnight usage
on school nights was shorter (median 19.8, range less than one
minute to 300 minutes) than non-school nights (median 30.3,
range less than one minute to 299 minutes)—typically 20 vs.
30 minutes, respectively. As is illustrated in Figures 9, 10, 11,
12, and 13, social media, gaming, and YouTube were the most
commonly and longest-used app categories during school
night hours. Specific apps seemed particularly engaging over-
night, including mobile games like Nikke, Klondike, Random
Dice, WWE Super Card, or Cat Game. The longest-running
social media app overnight was TikTok.
On a typical school night, the median number of times a teen
or preteen picked up their smartphone was 1.0, ranging up to
18 times in a night. Both notifications delivered and notifica-
tions seen on school nights were relatively sparse, with a
median of less than one per night for most app categories.
Interestingly, the category with one of the highest rates of
notifications overnight was parental control apps (median
15.3 delivered, 0.4 seen, ranging up to 38 delivered and 15
seen per night). This might reflect parental controls pinging
users to tell them they've exceeded bedtime limits.
FIGURE 19. Median and IQR* of duration of use of different
smartphone app categories during school nights**
*Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over. IQR is the
Interquartile Range, which is the middle 50% of users, with 25% of users under the
first value and 25% of users over the second value. Bar shows the median value;
black line shows IQR.
**Includes only participants who used that category of apps during specified time
frame (Aug. 29 onward; holiday dates removed from analysis).
Parent Controls (n=3)
Email (n=11)
Education (n=5)
Shopping (n=11)
Call (n=9)
Reading (n=6)
Music and Audio (n=18)
Art and Photos (n=24)
Streaming Video (n=14)
Messaging (n=27)
Browser (n=49)
Gaming (n=32)
YouTube (n=54)
Social Media (n=60)
Average School Night Minutes (Median [IQR])
3020100
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 44© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
And then, also I think definitely before bed, the
times that show in the night, I think that especially
right before bed, if you're not feeling extremely
tired 'cause you just did a ton of homework, so
you're ready to go, you're feeling productive, I feel
sometimes when you get into bed, you don't
necessarily feel ready to go to sleep. So one of the
things you'll do is just pull out your phone. And I
definitely don't think that's healthy at all, which is
why my parents make me keep my phone
downstairs when I go to bed. But yeah, I would
say that that kind of explains the really late
times of using it.
—9th grader
For me, going on TikTok or something before
I go to sleep, it's like a way for me to procrastinate
actually going to sleep. So now when I go to sleep,
I wake up and then I'm going back to school and it's
back to the stresses of life. But when I'm in bed is
the one time where I really don't have to do
anything, so I'm kind of happy to put off sleeping
if I can just chill for like another hour or something.
—11th grader
Youth advisors thought it was unsurprising that participants
showed this pattern of smartphone use into the overnight
hours, focusing on apps that let them relax and have fun during
what may be their main "downtime." The low frequency of
notifications seen is also consistent with the fact that many
young people put "do not disturb" settings on overnight.
Youth advisors described that time with their phone before
bed might be the only free downtime —their time—that they
have in the day, so they want to use it on something pleasur-
able, like social media or videos/movies.
However, youth advisors endorsed that smartphone use at
night is a mixture of procrastination (because falling asleep
means they have to wake up for the next day, which is school),
losing track of time, and wanting to calm down.
I know that, at least for me, a lot of people
would be still on their phone like at 12 or 1 a.m.
—11th grader
Realistically when you're in school, you can't really
use your phone. When you get home, especially if
you're in middle school or high school, you're
spending hours doing homework, and maybe after-
school stuff. And then when you get home, you're
spending hours doing homework. So I know a lot of
people, especially my age, they will stay up late
because they feel like that's really the only time
that they can be on their phones or that they can
really do anything outside of school. So it's really
not that surprising when you actually think about
it. But initially it is like, 'Oh, yeah, they should be
sleeping,' but it actually does make sense.
—11th grader
45 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
TAKEAWAYS
Phone use at night serves several purposes for young
people, primarily to try to unwind at the end of the day
(something parents use it for too!). However, our
youth advisors felt that social media and video content
is both relaxing and sleep-displacing, and can become
a procrastination strategy. The adolescents we talked
to who reported putting their phone in another room,
using "do not disturb," or other strategies to limit
phone use overnight had less complicated narratives
about phone use at night. In addition to using strate-
gies to keep phones quiet at night, it's also important
to understand how much pressure young people feel
during the day, and give them time to decompress with
or without technology, so they are not packing this
into the end of the day.
TALKING POINTS
What adults can do and say:
•If your child is using their phone a lot at the end of
the day, talk with them about what the rest of
their day looks like: Are they getting enough time
to relax and unwind? Are they overscheduled or
having difficulty finishing homework? Strategize
on how to help de-stress the other parts of their
day first.
•If your child finds it hard to separate from their
phone at night, talk about what types of apps or
content "wake their brain up" versus help them
let go and calm down, and try to only use the
calmer apps before bed.
•Our youth advisors told us that timers and limits
aren't always effective, but they can remind you
that you've spent more time on an app than you
intended, so they're worth a try for kids who feel
like they're wasting time watching videos or
reading other people's posts.
•Experiment with a few nights of using the "do not
disturb" settings, or putting the phone in another
room overnight (for parents, too). Reflect with
your child the next day about how it felt.
I definitely would stay up very late most nights
if I was on YouTube or Instagram. I've caught
myself like, 'Oh, it's already an hour past when I
was planning to go to bed, and I'm just there on
my phone on Instagram.' … Reading or
entertainment or calls…would probably go a lot
less late because I feel like that's not keeping
you glued to the screen.
—10th grader
Youth advisors also recognized the way different apps' design
affordances influence their ability to fall asleep, although this
might vary between adolescents:
I think that's the case with social media,
but not with YouTube. I often watch YouTube right
before I fall asleep and it doesn't cause any
problems for me. It helps me fall asleep, actually.
So that's one way it could be helpful. TikTok, I
think for everybody at least, is just a bunch of
videos over and over again, so a lot of information
coming in at once, as well as a variety of colors and
flashing lights in a sense. And then what I like to do
on YouTube is listen or watch long video essays
that are a couple of hours long and I'll just put that
on and I'll fall asleep to it and I won't even look at
the screen. So I think that helps, in a sense,
not keep me up.
—10th grader
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 46© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Because you're with 10- to 12-year-olds who
maybe just got their first phone and that's all that
they wanna do, that's all they wanna use, and
they don't really have as much self-control.
Because it does ... Your relationship with your
phone changes. As you grow older, you realize
like, hey, there's a time and a place, and right now
isn't that place. So I feel like now that I'm in high
school and they kind of ... It's your decision. If you
wanna be on your phone while they're teaching a
lesson, that reflects on you. You know what I
mean? And so I feel like it's also something
that comes with age.
—11th grader
How much tension or frustration
are preadolescents and adolescents
experiencing about their smart-
phones? How do they manage this,
and what does it mean for how
phones could be designed better?
Prior research shows that young people have complicated
relationships with their phones, and often need to put in effort
to feel positive and balanced with the rest of their lives. Based
on responses of our 203 participants to the Technology
Impairment Scale in the survey portion of our study, we found
that the majority endorsed "sometimes" or "often" using tech-
nology in ways that interfered with socializing in person,
getting enough sleep, disengaging from media when they
wanted to, or following through on chores (Figure 20).
FIGURE 20. Self-reported technology management
challenges of 203 11- to 17-year-olds
42% 38% 20%
Do you choose to spend more time online
over going out with others?
31% 39% 30%
Do you use technology to escape from your sorrow
or get relief from negative feelings?
30% 53% 18%
Do you feel restless, frustrated, or irritated when you cannot
access the internet or check your mobile phone?
39% 45% 16%
Do you neglect your daily obligations (school or family life)
because you are using technology?
33% 49% 18%
Are you short of sleep due to being on your phone
or the internet late at night?
14% 50% 36%
Do you find it difficult to stop using technology such as
the internet or your mobile phone, once you start?
Never Sometimes Often
Surprisingly, about one-fifth to one-third of participants
endorsed feeling like technology was getting in the way of
other things "often." Thirty-six percent of participants
reported they often find it difficult to stop using technology
once they have started; 30% reported often using it to escape
from sorrow or get relief from negative feelings; 18% reported
often being short of sleep due to being on their phone or the
internet late at night; 18% reported often feeling restless,
frustrated, or irritated when they could not access the inter-
net or check their phone; 20% reported often choosing to
spend more time online rather than going out with others; and
16% often neglected daily obligations such as school or family
life due to using technology. These technology impairment
reports increased as participants got older.
Youth advisors told us that their relationship with their smart-
phone evolved with age, based on experience, trial and error,
spending more time on their phone, and their growing reflec-
tion and self-awareness:
47 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Well, one thing that I've changed this year is for
text message notifications. I used to have it so
that when I open my phone, it shows the actual
message, but now I have it so that it just has two
notifications because it makes it a little bit less
tempting to click on it and a little bit easier
to say, 'OK, I'll look at this later.'
—10th grader
I also have 'do not disturb' on, occasionally, but for
the most part I just manually go into settings and
turn off any apps that I think don't really require
notifications. Like what [another Youth Advisory
Council member] said, Spotify or any fitness apps.
I don't work out often so I don't really need it. For
social media apps and just texting and stuff, my
phone is always on vibrate. And I don't really text
people much besides like immediate family and a
few close friends. So besides that, I get maybe just
a hundred notifications per day, which I think is a
healthy amount. For apps, like gaming apps on my
phone, I don't really play games on my phone,
it's just too small for me. And I feel like that really
helps me just concentrate and focus on just
talking to a few friends and family rather than
playing around and receiving like a thousand
notifications per day.
—12th grader
They also talked about adding friction to their phone use at
times of day when they want to resist the urge to check
notifications:
They also describe needing strategies to feel like they are in
control of their phone use, and not vice versa. These primarily
focused on curation of what apps they use and send them
notifications:
I think if you're an active user of your phone,
there's so many notifications you're gonna get
from different platforms that you're not even
using, they're not even just for communication.
You're just gonna get so many that if you don't
curate, you're gonna be overwhelmed.
—11th grader
I always keep my phone on 'do not disturb' at
night, just so that I'm not tempted to go on my
phone, but I also don't keep it in my bedroom.
—9th grader
Yeah, I do, sometimes when I'm asleep, I have
'do not disturb' on, and I usually also put it on
airplane mode. Sometimes if I just wanna stop
any sort of interaction with my phone, I'll just
put on airplane mode.
—10th grader
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 48© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
When I'm doing homework, what I do a lot
to avoid going on my phone is I set ... I had this
app, and it's like ... I don't know. It's like growing
a plant, so like the time that you put your phone
down and you don't touch it and you don't open
up your phone, the plant grows, so it's like a
little incentive.
—10th grader
For me, my parents were concerned about my
phone usage time for a while, but any time they
tried to put the restriction, it didn't really work out
that well. But when I put on my own restrictions,
they lasted a lot or they have been lasting a lot
longer and actually worked … I think, in a sense,
my parents being really into it was a little bit coun-
teractive because it made me less willing to do it
'cause I felt like I didn't want them to take away my
phone really, and I just used it more. And then
when ... The further we got out from COVID, I real-
ized how much time I was spending on my phone
and that I think I could have come to a little sooner
if I didn't feel the need to go against my parents.
—10th grader
Youth advisors reflected on how limits placed by outside
forces, such as a screen time notification or parent rules, were
less effective than students' own self-motivated strategies:
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 50© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
From a research perspective, our results are consistent with
other published research in terms of the amount of time that
adolescents self-report spending on social media (Rideout,
2022). App tracking also provides insights into the times of day
when phones are used and notifications are delivered. The
adolescents we interviewed pointed out that the most signifi-
cant limitation of app tracking is that it doesn't tell researchers
what type of content the participant is seeing, what they are
posting, or how they are engaging with others. One focus
group participant said, "Although some people can be on the
same app for the same amount of time in a day, they can be on
completely different sides of the apps and consuming differ-
ent types of content and just utilizing the apps in different
ways." Therefore, future research will need to supplement this
method with either screenshots (e.g., citizen science-type
sampling) or youth self-reporting about what they encoun-
tered on different platforms and how it made them feel.
Another limitation is that app usage statistics are currently
available only from Android devices. However, because
Android device users tend to be from lower socioeconomic
strata than iPhone users (e.g., see Radesky et al., 2020), this
allowed us to enroll a more diverse sample.
Recommendations for parents and caregivers
Specific talking points and conversation starters are described
in the prior sections, but they all involve a few important
concepts:
1. It can be challenging to strike a positive balance between
smartphone usage and the other parts of life that matter
to tweens and teens. Rather than jump to judgment or
frustration, adults should be curious about their experi-
ences to meet them where they are.
2. Kids are often worried that parents will take away their
phones if they reveal negative experiences. Let your child
know at the outset that they can tell you about anything
that happens on their phone and you'll help them through it.
3. Parents themselves use smartphones for several hours
per day, and sometimes the same apps that kids use. Use
this as a way to reflect, exchange experiences, or experi-
ment with changes in phone use to consider how it
changes your mood, concentration, and sleep.
Discussion
Children's smartphone use is a common source of frustration
for adults. We worry that kids are spending too much time, too
much attention, and are being exposed to too many negative
things through these handheld computers that burst into our
lives 15 years ago. However, as adults, we also need to recog-
nize that this generation of young people haven't been given
other technological options (aside from flip phones) to carry
out the developmentally appropriate task of connecting with
their peers, exploring their identities, and learning about the
world independently. The device that's available to them is
also a potent marketing vehicle that tries to keep them
engaged and profile their interests.
In this study, we have explored this topic by combining insights
from the usage data of 203 young people's smartphones with
the narratives of youth advisors. Our goal is not to add to the
debate about when children or teens should get smartphones,
but instead to see the issue from the perspective of how
smartphones shape the experiences of young people. Without
understanding how young people build relationships with
these technologies that contain their friendships, entertain-
ment, stress relievers, and distractions—and how this depends
upon design features of the phones themselves—we will not
be able to support their healthy technology use.
Therefore, our takeaways and recommendations for caregiv-
ers and teachers revolve around supporting, scaffolding, and
building insight around young people's smartphone use,
rather than judging them. We do kids and their digital well-
being a disservice by being overly negative and prescriptive,
since this will likely only shut down conversations and make
young people feel that they cannot come to us when they
experience phone-related challenges—which most do, at one
time or another.
In addition, our recommendations are focused on the smart-
phone manufacturers, operating systems, platforms, and apps
that make up kids' digital ecosystems. There is clear room for
improvement when apps are pinging for attention during the
school day; when teens can access pornography sites, sports
betting, or other apps rated as "Adult"; and given that the
majority of 11- to 12-year-olds in our sample broke through
social media age gates.
51 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
3. Update operating systems so that they help notify apps,
app stores, and platforms that the user is a child or ado-
lescent. This way, apps and stores can use responsible
settings that don't recommend risky content or apps.
4. Mobile carriers should make more affordable, intermedi-
ate device options available to families when they want to
get a phone that is more than a flip phone, but not a full-
access smartphone. Phone models are being introduced
that might serve kids better at different developmental
stages, but they are often expensive or not compatible
with various phone plans.
5. Currently, digital wellness options include timers, lock-
outs, and "do not disturb" settings, which have variable
effectiveness according to the adolescents we inter-
viewed. Some young users have developed approaches
like adding friction or avoiding certain content during
evening hours, but this is far from universal. In fact, two-
thirds of our sample felt their phone use impinged upon
important parts of their life like sleep or emotional
coping. Youth-centered co-design of smartphone options
with adolescents would move the burden away from indi-
vidual children and onto the digital ecosystem around
them. Such an approach would benefit our population as
a whole (Frieden, 2010).
4. Every child is different, and their use of phones and social
media will reflect that individuality. Understanding and
accepting your child's unique way of living in the world is
a big part of understanding and communicating about
their phone use.
5. Installing parental controls, filters, timers, and other
device restrictions is the main option that lots of parents
have for monitoring their child's phone use, but these are
blunt tools that require a lot of upkeep and parent
involvement. Most importantly, none of them will tell you
how your child is feeling. Have regular conversations to
understand how they feel about their life online.
Recommendations for industry
We conclude by listing several insights from this research
that could be used to improve the smartphone user experi-
ence for young people. Children and adults are provided the
same options for smartphone models, operating systems,
and app stores, which means that they are subject to the
same business models, content problems, and persuasive
design practices. Not surprisingly, young users are putting in
a lot of work to manage their relationships with smart-
phones. While it is important not to restrict young people's
opportunities to find good content and information through
their phones, device and app design could be improved to
ease this process for young people and their parents. Below
are some actions that companies and product designers
could take to go beyond their current menu offerings of
parental controls and truly bake youth-centered design into
their products:
1. Create user interface and onboarding processes (for
example, when a young user first gets a phone or creates
an account) that easily allow users to set "do not disturb"
times, manage when they want to get notifications and
from whom, and set goals for how much they would like
to use their phone. These settings should not be buried
or need a separate app to install. This sets the norm that
it's important to be intentional about the time and place
when smartphone use does and does not fit daily life.
2. Work with adolescents and families to design ways to
revisit settings and goals regularly, and to adapt as young
users grow, learn about their smartphone habits, and
develop different daily routines and interests. Different
seasons or school years present appropriate times for
prompts and reflection cues that would engage young
users in the process of thinking about smartphone
balance.
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 52© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Radesky, J. S., Weeks, H. M., Ball, R., Schaller, A., Yeo, S., Durnez,
J., ... & Barr, R. (2020). Young children's use of smartphones
and tablets. Pediatrics, 146(1). https://doi.org/10.1542/
peds.2019-3518
Radesky, J., Hiniker, A., McLaren, C., Akgun, E., Schaller, A.,
Weeks, H. M., ... & Gearhardt, A. N. (2022). Prevalence and
characteristics of manipulative design in mobile applications
used by children. JAMA Network Open, 5(6),
e2217641-e2217641.
Rideout, V., Peebles, A., Mann, S., & Robb, M. B. (2022). Common
Sense census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2021. San
Francisco, CA: Common Sense.
Tandon, P. S., Zhou, C., Hogan, C. M., & Christakis, D. A. (2020).
Cell phone use policies in U.S. middle and high schools. JAMA
Network Open, 3(5), e205183-e205183.
Vogels, E.A., Gelles-Watnick, R., and Massart, N. (2022) Teens,
Social Media and Technology 2022, Washington, DC: Pew
Research Center.
Weinstein, E., & James, C. (2022). Behind their screens: What teens
are facing (and adults are missing). MIT Press.
References
5 Rights Foundation (2021). Pathways: How Digital Design Puts
Children at Risk. https://5rightsfoundation.com/uploads/
Pathways-how-digital-design-puts-children-at-risk.pdf
Burnell, K., & Odgers, C. L. (2023). Trajectories of Perceived
Technological Impairment and Psychological Distress in
Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(2), 258-
272. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10964-022-01679-1
Francis, Kathleen, et al. Insights about screen-use conflict from
discussions between mothers and pre-adolescents: A the-
matic analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health 18.9(2021): 4686. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph18094686
Frieden, T. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: The
health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health,
100(4), 590-595. https://doi.
org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2009.185652
Hiniker, A., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Kientz, J. A. (2016, February).
Not at the dinner table: Parents' and children's perspectives
on family technology rules. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM
conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social
computing (pp. 1376-1389). https://doi.
org/10.1145/2818048.2819940
Matthes, J., et al. Fighting over smartphones? Parents' excessive
smartphone use, lack of control over children's use, and con-
flict. Computers in Human Behavior 116(2021): 106618.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106618
Meerkerk, G. J., Van Den Eijnden, R. J., Vermulst, A. A., &
Garretsen, H. F. (2009). The compulsive internet use scale
(CIUS): Some psychometric properties. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, 12(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0181
Moreno, M. A., Kerr, B. R., Jenkins, M., Lam, E., & Malik, F. S.
(2019). Perspectives on smartphone ownership and use by
early adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 64(4), 437-
442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.08.017
Pew Research Center, (2021): Mobile Fact Sheet: Demographics
of Mobile Device Ownership and Adoption in the United
States, Washington, DC.
Popat, A., & Tarrant, C. (2023). Exploring adolescents' perspec-
tives on social media and mental health and well-being–A
qualitative literature review. Clinical Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 28(1), 323-337. https://doi.
org/10.1177/13591045221092884
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 54© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Supplemental Tables
SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 1. Select app categories: Average daily duration and percentage of daily use*
App Category N (%) users
Average Daily Minutes
(Median [IQR]**) Range
Percentage of Daily Use
(median)***
Overall 203 (100%) 266.5 [159.5 - 406.9] 2.7 - 976.1 –
Messaging 193 (95.1%) 4.1 [1.6 - 11.5] 0. 01 -102. 8 1.7%
Calls 181 (89.2%) 1.7 [0.6 - 3.8] 0.004 - 49.0 0.7%
Education 75 (36.9%) 0.8 [0.1 - 2.5] 0.004 - 65.1 0.3%
Video Chat 61 (30.0%) 0.3 [0.01 - 3.6] 0.002 - 136.8 0.1%
Reading 44 (21.7%) 1.8 [0.1 - 8.8] 0.001 - 273.8 0.7%
Art and Photos 192 (94.6%) 2.5 [0.7 - 5.8] 0.002 - 43.1 0.9%
Browser 200 (98.5%) 6.8 [2.2 - 17.3] 0.01 - 611.6 2.7%
Email 146 (71.9%) 0.5 [0.1 - 1.1] 0.002 - 24.1 0.2%
Social Media 153 (75.4%) 91.6 [21.7 - 195.7] 0.01 - 806.4 41.5%
Gaming 178 (87.7%) 25.1 [5.0 - 59.4] 0.002 - 681.2 10.9%
Live Gaming 15 (7.4%) 0.1 [0.01 - 0.3] 0.002 - 5.7 0.01%
YouTube 177 (87. 2%) 44.3 [5.6 - 118.1] 0.01 - 613.2 19.3%
Streaming Video 93 (45.8%) 3.9 [0.2 - 18.3] 0.002 - 452.0 1.6%
Music and Audio 144 (70.9%) 2.4 [0.8 - 7.2] 0.002 - 102.6 1.0%
Shopping 79 (38.9%) 1.1 [0.3 - 3.6] 0.01 - 55.6 0.3%
Parent Controls 48 (23.6%) 0.1 [0.1 - 0.4] 0.002 - 47.8 0.1%
News and Magazines 11 (5.4%) 3.6 [0.4 - 7.8] 0.003 - 33.4 2.9%
*Calculated only among participants who used that app category.
**Median is the value that 50% of the users are under and 50% are over. IQR is the Interquartile Range, which is the middle 50% of users, with 25% of users under the first
value and 25% of users over the second value.
***Percentage of daily use is calculated among those who use the app category and as a percentage of all their smartphone use in a day.
55 CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE © COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 2. Select app category duration and notification frequency during school hours*
App Category N (%) users**
Median (IQR)
duration of daily
use during
school hours***
Percentage of
school hours use***
Notifications
received
school hours
(median [IQR])****
Notifications
seen
school hours
(median [IQR])****
Overall 187 (96.9%) 42.7 [19.1 - 93.4] –50.1 [20.2 - 100.4] 12.6 [3.9 - 33.9]
Messaging 146 (75.6%) 1.5 [0.6 - 3.9] 3.8% 3.4 [1.0 - 9.5] 2.0 [0.6 - 5.3]
Calls 132 (68.4%) 0.4 [0.1 - 1.0] 1.1% 1.1 [0.4 - 2.1] 0.5 [0.3 - 1.2]
Education 51 (26.4%) 0.8 [0.1 - 1.9] 1.4% 1.4 [0.6 - 3.2] 1.1 [0.6 - 2.8]
Reading 23 (11.9%) 2.8 [0.1 - 5.7] 3.5% 0.7 [0.4 - 1.1] 0.6 [0.3 - 1.0]
Art and Photos 133 (68.9%) 0.9 [0.2 - 2.5] 1.5% 0.8 [0.4 - 1.7] 0.4 [0.3 - 0.7]
Browser 150 (77.7%) 1.6 [0.4 - 4.5] 3.5% 4.0 [1.9 - 6.0] 1.3 [0.6 - 2.5]
Email 69 (35.8%) 0.3 [0.1 - 0.7] 0.4% 2.4 [0.7 - 7.7] 1.2 [0.5 - 2.8]
Social Media 126 (65.3%) 15.0 [2.9 - 46.6] 32.3% 5.6 [1.5 - 19.0] 2.7 [0.8 - 11.3]
Gaming 119 (61.7%) 8.0 [2.7 - 18.4] 17.3% 1.3 [0.4 - 2.9] 0.8 [0.3 - 2.3]
YouTube 111 (57.5%) 11.3 [2.6 - 28.9] 25.7% 1.0 [0.5 - 3.4] 1.0 [0.4 - 2.7]
Streaming Video 30 (15.5%) 4.0 [0.1 - 13.7] 5.4% 0.3 [0.2 - 1.0] 0.4 [0.2 - 1.0]
Music and Audio 81 (42.0%) 0.8 [0.2 - 2.8] 1.6% 0.9 [0.5 - 2.4] 0.4 [0.2 - 1.2]
Shopping 37 (19.2%) 0.6 [0.1 - 1.4] 0.6% 1.0 [0.3 - 2.1] 0.8 [0.3 - 1.8]
Parent Controls 19 (9.8%) 0.1 [0.03 - 0.3] 0.2% 29.4 [0.7 - 45.6] 2.0 [0.7 - 5.1]
*For 193 participants enrolled from Aug. 29 on; holiday dates removed from analysis.
**Number (percentage) of participants who used the app category during school hours; this differs from the number of participants who received or viewed notifications.
***Calculated only among participants who used that app category.
****Calculated only among participants who received or viewed notifications from that app category, respectively.
CONSTANT COMPANION: A WEEK IN THE LIFE OF A YOUNG PERSON'S SMARTPHONE USE 56© COMMON SENSE MEDIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
SUPPLEMENTAL TABLE 3. Select app category duration and notification frequency on school nights*
App Category N (%) users**
Median (IQR)
duration of daily
use during school
night hours***
Percentage of
school night
hours use***
Notifications
received school
night hours
(median [IQR])****
Notifications
seen school
night hours
(median [IQR])****
Overall 114 (59.1%) 19.8 [1.1 - 46.1] –15.9 [4.7 - 47.6] 2.5 [0.6 - 8.1]
Messaging 27 (14.0%) 0.2 [0.03 - 0.8] 0.9% 0.5 [0.2 - 1.0] 0.3 [0.1 - 0.6]
Calls 9 (4.7%) 0.2 [0.03 - 1.2] 6.0% 0.5 [0.2 - 0.8] 0.4 [0.2 - 0.6]
Education 5 (2.6%) 0.1 [0.1 - 3.3] 0.5% 0.3 [0.2 - 0.5] 0.3 [0.2 - 0.5]
Reading 6 (3.1%) 13.9 [6.4 - 21.2] 18.2% 0.3 [0.2 - 1.0] 0.5 [0.2 - 0.6]
Art and Photos 24 (12.4%) 0.2 [0.1 - 2.0] 0.8% 0.3 [0.2 - 0.6] 0.2 [0.1 - 0.4]
Browser 49 (25.4%) 0.8 [0.3 - 4.2] 4.9% 3.5 [1.6 - 5.3] 0.6 [0.2 - 1.2]
Email 11 (5.7%) 0.5 [0.1 - 1.0] 0.6% 1.2 [0.3 - 4.3] 0.6 [0.3 - 1.0]
Social Media 60 (31.1%) 7.8 [1.3 - 29.1] 38.6% 1.2 [0.4 - 4.9] 1.0 [0.3 - 3.2]
Gaming 32 (16.6%) 9.0 [2.1 - 25.6] 29.0% 0.6 [0.2 - 1.1] 0.5 [0.2 - 1.0]
YouTube 54 (28.0%) 4.3 [1.4 - 29.7] 46.9% 0.8 [0.4 - 1.3] 0.4 [0.2 - 0.9]
Streaming Video 14 (7.3%) 2.4 [0.7 - 7.6] 5.1% 0.3 [0.2 - 0.5] 0.2 [0.2 - 0.3]
Music and Audio 18 (9.3%) 0.2 [0.1 - 1.0] 1.0% 0.8 [0.5 - 2.0] 0.2 [0.1 - 0.4]
Shopping 11 (5.7%) 0.2 [0.04 - 2.7] 0.3% 0.3 [0.1 - 0.5] 0.3 [0.2 - 0.6]
Parent Controls 3 (1.6%) 0.2 [0.1 - 4.1] 9.7% 15.3 [2.3 - 17.0] 0.4 [0.3 - 1.0]
*For 193 participants enrolled from Aug. 29 onward; holiday dates removed from analysis.
**Number (percentage) of participants who used the app category during school night hours; this differs from the number of participants who received or viewed
notifications.
***Calculated only among participants who used that app category.
****Calculated only among participants who received or viewed notifications from that app category, respectively.
© 2023 Common Sense Media. All rights reserved. Common Sense, associated names, associated trademarks,
and logos are trademarks of Common Sense Media, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization (FEIN: 41-2024986).
About Common Sense
Common Sense is the nation's leading nonprofit organization
dedicated to improving the lives of all kids and families by providing
the trustworthy information, education, and independent voice
they need to thrive in the 21st century. Our independent research
is designed to provide parents, educators, health organizations,
and policymakers with reliable, independent data on children’s use
of media and technology and the impact it has on their physical,
emotional, social, and intellectual development. For more informa-
tion, visit commonsense.org/research.
commonsense.org
