As far as I can see this is a non-Governmental non-profit doing this. So it has no legal merit. Can’t tell if this is the ad industry attempting to self-regulate? The Wikipedia articles are quite mealy.

I do tend to agree with the findings, regardless.

> As far as I can see this is a non-Governmental non-profit doing this. So it has no legal merit.

It has no legal weight. Lave of legal merit is a feature of a legal argument and is missing if the argument improperly represents the law, not if it comes from a source that doesn’t provide it legal weight. (Since you later say you agree with it. that is equivalent to saying that, insofar as it is a legal argument, that argument does have legal merit.)

> Can’t tell if this is the ad industry attempting to self-regulate?

No, it is a non-advertising industry non-profit doing research and reporting to the public, which potentially puts political pressure on government actors (State Attorneys-General and, maybe, the FTC) to take action (it could also provide ammunition for private lawsuits, except COPPA doesn’t provide a private cause of action.)

Note that a part of COPPA regulation is a Safe Harbor provision which involves industry self-regulation and certification, but that only protects against FTC, not state, action.

https://bbbprograms.org/about?faq=%5B_IsBBBNationalProgramsa...

Indeed. It's one of those "we joined this program so now you all can see we are very committed to ensure our consumers are well protected" non-profit organisations.

Yeah, ironically, it's the BBB, which used to rate businesses based in part on how much the business paid them (without disclosing this to consumers, of course).

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/business-bureau-best-ratings-...

Yeah the bbb continues to act like a federal agency even though its just a private group