\n<\/p>\n
The section specifically responding to the rumors reads:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nApple has never used Siri data to build marketing profiles, never made it available for advertising, and never sold it to anyone for any purpose. We are constantly developing technologies to make Siri even more private, and will continue to do so. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\nAfter The Guardian\u2019s<\/em> report in 2019, Apple apologized and changed its policy<\/a>, making the default setting not to retain audio recordings from Siri interactions and saying that for users who opt-in to sharing recordings, those recordings would not be shared with third-party contractors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nHowever, reports about the settlement noted that in earlier filings like this one from 2021<\/a>, some of the plaintiffs claimed that after they mentioned brand names like \u201cOlive Garden,\u201d \u201cEaston bats,\u201d \u201cPit Viper sunglasses,\u201d and \u201cAir Jordans,\u201d they were served ads for corresponding products, which they attributed to Siri data. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nApple\u2019s statement tonight says it \u201cdoes not retain audio recordings of Siri interactions unless users explicitly opt in to help improve Siri, and even then, the recordings are used solely for that purpose. Users can easily opt-out at any time.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nFacebook responded to similar theories in 2014<\/a> and 2016<\/a> before Mark Zuckerberg addressed it directly<\/a>, saying \u201cno\u201d to the question while being grilled by Congress over the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nSo, if Apple (and Facebook, Google, etc.) is telling the truth, then why would you see an ad later for something you only talked about? <\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nThere are other explanations, and attempts to check the rumors out include an investigation in 2018<\/a> that didn\u2019t find evidence of microphone spying but did discover that some apps secretly recorded on-screen user activity that they shipped to third parties. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n