Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram
Jonathan Katz’s recent appointment to the Greenwich Board of Education deserves considerably more scrutiny than it has received. His professional background raises serious questions about his priorities, his commercial relationships, and whether the Board fully understood the nature of his business activities before entrusting him with responsibility for Greenwich’s public school children.
Most parents would reasonably expect someone appointed to the Board of Education to place the protection, privacy, and well-being of children above commercial interests. Katz’s professional history, however, raises questions about how he approaches that responsibility.
Katz is not simply an attorney with experience in digital media. He is the founder and CEO of Clamour, an influencer marketing and events company whose business involves connecting major toy manufacturers with social-media personalities whose content reaches children and families. According to materials from Clamour and The Toy Association, the company has established commercial relationships and hosted events involving major manufacturers including Mattel, Hasbro, Spin Master, and MGA Entertainment. Its influencer programs and “Influencer Choice” lists help manufacturers promote products through online creators, including those producing family- and child-oriented content. Clamour’s own descriptions highlight a network of family and toy influencers with a combined reach measured in the billions and hundreds of millions of annual views.
These are not incidental connections. Children’s online audiences are central to the commercial environment in which Katz operates. That background alone should have prompted serious questions about his suitability for a position overseeing educational policies, student privacy, classroom technology, and children’s exposure to commercial digital platforms.
When Federal Regulators Acted to Protect Children’s Privacy, Katz Focused on the Financial Interests of Content Creators
In 2019, the Federal Trade Commission and New York Attorney General announced a $170 million settlement with Google and YouTube over allegations that the companies illegally collected children’s personal information and used it for targeted advertising without obtaining the required parental consent. The enforcement action was intended to protect children from unlawful collection and commercial exploitation of their personal information.
When federal regulators cracked down on YouTube for illegally collecting children’s personal information and using it for targeted advertising, Katz publicly criticized the financial consequences of those protections for content creators. Rather than emphasizing the privacy violations that prompted the enforcement action, his public advocacy focused on the revenue creators stood to lose when restrictions on personalized advertising to children took effect.
In a published TubeTalk/vidIQ interview discussing the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Katz warned that independent creators could lose their livelihoods because of restrictions on personalized advertising. He stated:
“They’re all in peril. Their platforms are going to be taken away from them because they will be demonetized.”
He also co-authored (with Victoria Fener) a widely circulated Tubefilter piece titled “Is a YouTube COPPAcalypse Coming?” that warned of potential 60–90% revenue drops for creators of kid-directed content and organized comments to the FTC opposing aspects of the enforcement approach.
Katz was entitled to represent the interests of his clients and criticize the economic consequences of government regulation. But Greenwich parents are equally entitled to question what that professional advocacy reveals about his perspective on children’s privacy and commercial advertising. His argument emphasized the potential financial harm to creators. The FTC’s enforcement action addressed the unlawful collection and use of children’s personal information. Those are very different priorities.
And now Katz sits on a Board of Education responsible for making decisions that may directly affect children’s digital privacy, educational technology, and online safety. Greenwich parents deserve to know where Katz draws the line between protecting children and protecting businesses whose revenues depend on children’s digital engagement.
What Did Katz Tell the Board About His Professional Relationships Involving Children?
Perhaps the most troubling unanswered question is whether the Board of Education fully understood Katz’s professional activities before appointing him. Appointment coverage noted that he has children in the Greenwich Public Schools and highlighted his background as a practicing attorney (JD from Seton Hall University; BA in Media Studies from the University at Buffalo). It did not prominently address Clamour or his COPPA-related advocacy.
Did Board members ask Katz whether his legal practice involved children, family-oriented social-media creators, or businesses that profit from marketing to minors? Did they inquire about the clients he represents, the business relationships he maintains, or the potential conflicts those relationships might create? Did Katz identify his ownership and leadership of Clamour and explain the company’s involvement in marketing children’s products through social-media influencers? Did he discuss his public advocacy concerning federal enforcement of children’s online privacy protections?
And most importantly, was Katz entirely forthcoming about the extent of his professional involvement in an industry that generates revenue through children’s online audiences?
These are questions that deserve direct answers. An attorney’s obligation to protect confidential client information does not eliminate the responsibility of a public official to disclose legally relevant financial interests and identify potential conflicts of interest. The public should not have to piece together significant professional relationships through industry announcements and old interviews after someone has already been appointed to a position of public trust.
Katz should explain what he disclosed, what questions he was asked, and whether the Board was given a complete understanding of his professional activities involving children’s digital media. Public records also show additional roles consistent with this background, including in-house counsel work for Two Little Hands Productions, founding board membership of the Internet Creators Guild, and Of Counsel work at Rothman IP, alongside his own practice advising digital-first brands and creators on commercial and intellectual-property matters.
Where Is His Educational Experience?
There is also a more fundamental question: What experience qualifies Katz to help govern one of Connecticut’s most prominent public school systems? His publicly documented professional background emphasizes legal representation, social-media businesses, influencer relationships, and digital advertising. That experience may be commercially valuable. But it is not the same as experience in classroom instruction, curriculum development, educational administration, or public school governance.
Certainly, school board members need not be professional educators. A diversity of experience can be beneficial. But when a candidate’s principal qualifications involve commercial industries that intersect with children’s online activity, scrutiny of those interests becomes particularly important. Katz’s appointment raises an obvious question: Was his legal background treated as sufficient evidence of his qualifications without adequate consideration of the potential implications of his commercial interests? Being a successful attorney or entrepreneur does not automatically establish the judgment necessary to oversee public education.
Student Privacy Must Come Before Commercial Interests
The Greenwich Board of Education regularly confronts issues involving classroom technology, student data, online learning platforms, digital content, and children’s exposure to electronic media. These are precisely the areas in which Katz’s professional background warrants examination. A Board member with commercial relationships involving digital creators and children’s product advertising may bring useful industry knowledge. But that same background can create questions about independence when the Board considers policies affecting student privacy or commercial technology.
Does Katz maintain financial relationships with companies that could benefit from Board decisions? Would he participate in discussions concerning technology vendors, advertising restrictions, or student privacy policies that could affect his clients or business relationships? Has he established clear boundaries between his private commercial interests and his public responsibilities? And will he commit to disclosing and recusing himself from matters where an actual conflict exists?
The public deserves more than general assurances. It deserves transparency.
The Responsibility Belongs to Katz
It would be easy to place all responsibility on the Board members who participated in his appointment. Certainly, the Board has an obligation to evaluate candidates carefully and should be held accountable. But Katz is an attorney. He understands the importance of disclosure, conflicts of interest, and the distinction between private business and public responsibility. He voluntarily sought and accepted a position of public trust. That responsibility includes being candid about professional relationships that may reasonably raise questions concerning the Board’s responsibilities.
Katz cannot reasonably expect his professional credentials to be presented as qualifications for public office while his commercial interests and regulatory advocacy are treated as irrelevant to evaluating his suitability. His record warrants closer examination, and he should welcome the opportunity to explain it.
The central issue is not whether Katz had the legal right to accept an appointment. It is whether his professional background was sufficiently understood, whether relevant interests were properly disclosed, and whether Greenwich parents can have confidence that his decisions will be guided exclusively by the educational interests of students.
There is currently no established evidence that Katz violated COPPA, concealed a legally required disclosure, or engaged in professional misconduct. But the absence of proven wrongdoing does not eliminate legitimate questions about his judgment, qualifications, and independence. Greenwich parents deserve answers before those questions become conflicts affecting their children. And Jonathan Katz, not the parents whose children he now helps govern, bears the responsibility for providing them.
Stay updated with the latest in the Constitution State with The CT Centinal
