LG defends smart-TV features after allegations of audio surveillance

LG responds to surveillance allegations

LG has defended features in its smart televisions after allegations that the devices could enable audio surveillance, Al Jazeera reported on September 10. The available report establishes the existence of the allegations and the company’s response, but not a regulatory finding that LG broke privacy law. No conclusion about unlawful recording, the number of affected devices or the jurisdictions involved should be drawn without technical evidence or a decision from a competent authority.

The distinction matters because modern televisions can contain microphones, voice assistants, advertising identifiers and software that communicates with remote services. Some functions may be activated by a user, while others operate in the background to provide recommendations, updates or diagnostics. A dispute about those systems can concern consent, disclosure, data retention and security even when no malicious external compromise has been demonstrated.

Existing rules for connected devices

UK government guidance specifically includes smart televisions among internet-connected household products whose accounts and data may be exposed if security measures are inadequate. The guidance notes that British law changed in April 2024 to introduce new consumer-security protections for connected products. This is general regulatory background and does not amount to an official finding against LG.

European Union rules similarly treat data generated by connected products as potentially personal data. A Council of the EU overview reviewed in June 2026 says the General Data Protection Regulation governs how companies operating in the EU process and transfer such information, while giving individuals rights over its use. Separate EU cybersecurity legislation covers connected hardware and software across their lifecycle.

Questions requiring independent testing

The central technical questions are whether a television captures audio continuously or only after an activation event, whether recordings leave the device, what information is retained, and whether consent choices are clear and reversible. Researchers would also need to distinguish sound used locally to detect a command from audio transmitted to a company server. Those details cannot be established from the headline allegation alone.

What happens next depends on whether researchers publish reproducible tests or privacy regulators open formal inquiries. LG may also issue more detailed documentation describing affected models, software versions and controls. Until then, the verified development is limited: the company has publicly defended its smart-TV features in response to audio-surveillance allegations, while established UK and EU frameworks show why connected-device data collection is subject to security, transparency and privacy requirements.