LG has responded to allegations that its smart TVs collect extensive household data, denying that its televisions continuously record or transmit private conversations while confirming that the devices can scan local networks for other connected hardware. The company issued the response after a technical investigation by Gamers Nexus, Level1Techs and independent security researchers raised concerns about voice processing, Automatic Content Recognition and device discovery on LG webOS televisions. LG says several claims made about its TVs are inaccurate, although it acknowledges that some of the underlying data-collection features identified by researchers do exist.
The investigation examined retail LG OLED televisions and analyzed network traffic, webOS behavior and stored data. Researchers reported finding evidence that TVs could discover phones, smartwatches and other devices on the same local network, while also examining how voice-recognition and content-identification systems operate when a television appears to be idle or in standby. Gamers Nexus framed the findings as a broader privacy issue because a smart TV can potentially gather information not only about what is shown on its screen, but also about devices elsewhere in the household.
LG strongly disputes the claim that its TVs continuously listen to or record ambient conversations. According to the company, voice data is processed only when a user holds the voice button on the remote or when the “Hi LG” wake phrase is recognized after Far-Field Voice Recognition has been enabled. LG says wake-word detection occurs locally on the television and that audio is immediately discarded when the wake phrase is not detected rather than being transmitted to its servers.
The researchers have challenged whether that explanation fully accounts for what they observed during testing. Gamers Nexus reported finding stored transcripts and audio-related logs that appeared to persist beyond the narrow interaction window users might expect from a voice assistant. The group also demonstrated behavior involving microphone input while testing standby and offline scenarios, although LG maintains that its TVs do not capture ordinary household conversations outside explicitly enabled voice features.
LG did confirm that its televisions scan for devices connected to the same home network. The company describes this as a standard smart-TV function used for features such as screen casting, media sharing and smart-home connectivity rather than surveillance. Security researchers involved in the wider discussion note that device discovery can still reveal significant information about a household, including device names, manufacturers, addresses and categories, depending on how the feature is implemented.
Automatic Content Recognition, or ACR, is another major point of disagreement. ACR identifies content being played on a television by creating fingerprints that can be matched against known media, allowing manufacturers and advertising systems to understand viewing habits. LG says its implementation is optional and requires consent, adding that the technology uses its internal audio-processing system to identify content rather than storing full screenshots, video recordings or voice recordings.
The company also says voice recognition and interest-based advertising are separate optional systems rather than a single always-on tracking mechanism. LG argues that users who do not agree to the relevant optional terms will not have ACR information used for advertising purposes. Critics, however, have questioned whether smart-TV consent screens communicate those distinctions clearly enough and whether users understand how much information can be derived from apparently ordinary convenience features.
The original investigation also highlighted LG Ad Solutions, the company’s advertising business, which promotes the ability to understand connected households and extend advertising campaigns across multiple devices. That commercial context is one reason researchers have treated network discovery and viewing-data collection as more significant than ordinary connectivity functions. LG has not disputed that its advertising business uses household and viewing information under applicable consent settings, but it rejects the characterization that its televisions operate as covert recording devices.
For LG TV owners, the dispute leaves two separate issues. LG categorically denies that its televisions continuously record ambient conversations, while the investigators maintain that their testing uncovered behavior deserving further scrutiny. At the same time, both sides effectively agree that modern LG smart TVs can perform local network discovery and support ACR, voice recognition and personalized advertising features when those systems are enabled.
The controversy is therefore less about whether LG smart TVs collect any data and more about how those systems operate, what users have consented to and whether the interfaces describing them are sufficiently transparent. Independent researchers are continuing to examine the security and privacy implications of webOS televisions, while LG maintains that its products comply with user settings and do not secretly record household conversations. The competing claims are likely to remain under scrutiny as more technical analysis of the TVs’ network traffic and stored data emerges.
