The Attorney General alleged that Sling TV did not offer an easy way to opt out of the sale of personal data for targeted ads and did not do enough to protect children’s privacy. Sling agreed to pay $530,000 and to stop sending people to cookie preferences instead of a proper opt-out tool. It also agreed to drop web forms for logged-in users, add opt-out inside its TV-device apps, and offer kids’ profiles with targeted ads off by default.
On 30 October 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced a $530,000 settlement with Sling TV L.L.C. and Dish Media Sales L.L.C. under the California Consumer Privacy Act. It was the first enforcement action from the Attorney General's sweep of streaming services, which began in January 2024 and looked at how streaming apps and connected TVs let people opt out of the sale of their personal information.
The Attorney General alleged that Sling TV did not give people an easy way to stop the sale of their personal information for targeted advertising, which the state said used details such as age, gender, location and income. According to the announcement, Sling TV combined its cookie preferences with the opt-out, although turning off cookies was not enough to stop the sale. To opt out fully, people had to find a link to a web form and click through confirmation steps.
The state also alleged that customers who were already signed in, and whose identity Sling TV knew, still had to type their name, address, email and phone number into that form. There was no way to opt out inside the Sling TV apps on living-room devices such as smart TVs and streaming boxes. And the state said Sling TV did not do enough to protect children's privacy, for example by offering profiles for children that reduce targeted advertising.
Under the settlement, which was subject to court approval, Sling TV agreed to pay $530,000 and to stop sending people who want to opt out to cookie preferences. It agreed to stop asking signed-in customers for information it already holds, to add an opt-out inside its apps on living-room devices, and to let parents mark one or more profiles as a kid's profile with the sale and sharing of data and targeted advertising off by default. It also agreed to give parents clear disclosures and tools. The settlement resolved the state's allegations; the announcement does not say Sling TV admitted them.
Nothing was stolen or leaked in this case. It turned on a cookie panel standing where a real opt-out should be.
It is not the only case of its kind. In March 2025, the California Privacy Protection Agency settled with American Honda Motor Co. for $632,500, after alleging, among other things, that Honda's online privacy tool did not offer choices in an equal way.
Why it matters for your siteA cookie-preferences panel is not the same thing as a ‘Do Not Sell or Share’ opt-out.
The transcript
Five hundred thirty thousand dollars. That's what Sling TV agreed to pay California's Attorney General in October 2025, to settle claims about how people could opt out of the sale of their data. It was the first case from the state's sweep of streaming services.
So what was it accused of? The Attorney General said that when people asked Sling TV to stop selling their data, it sent them to its cookie preferences. But turning off cookies, the state said, was not enough to stop the sale. To really opt out, people had to find a link to a web form, and click through more steps.
It didn't stop there. Even customers who were already signed in had to type their name, address, email and phone number into that form. There was no way to opt out inside the Sling apps on TVs and streaming devices. And the state said Sling didn't do enough to protect children's privacy when kids were watching.
And what did it pay? Five hundred thirty thousand dollars, under the California Consumer Privacy Act. Sling TV also agreed to stop sending people to cookie preferences to opt out, to stop asking signed-in customers for details it already had, to add an opt-out inside its TV apps, and to offer kids' profiles with targeted ads switched off by default. The settlement resolved the state's allegations, with no admission by Sling.
Notice what this was not. No hacker. No leaked data. Just a cookie panel, standing in for a real opt-out.
And it's not alone. In March 2025, California's privacy agency settled with Honda for six hundred thirty-two thousand, five hundred dollars. It alleged that Honda's privacy tool made saying yes easier than saying no.
A cookie panel is not the same thing as a Do Not Sell or Share opt-out. Does your opt-out actually stop the sale? Does it ask for more than it needs? And do the ad tags really stop?
That's what Tolbrook checks. We go through your site the way a shopper would, and show you what we find, with the evidence.
Read our sector reviews at tolbrook dot com slash reports. Find it. Fix it. Watch it.
Each summary is ours, drawn from the public announcement it links to. Allegations are the regulator’s own, and a settlement usually comes without any admission. This page reports what was announced. It is not legal advice, and it says nothing about any site we audit.
Find these problems before anyone else does
The digital compliance problems behind actions like these are the ones we look for. We find them on your site and show you exactly where each one sits.