| Course | ETM-7500 Ethics for Managers |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Written assignment 3: technology and business ethics |
| Length | About 692 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Thomas Edison State University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for ETM 7500 Module 3
Friends of Friends: Consent, Data and the Cambridge Analytica Case
Student Name
Master of Business Administration, Thomas Edison State University
ETM-7500: Ethics for Managers
Mentor Name
Month Day, Year
Friends of Friends: Consent, Data and the Cambridge Analytica Case
What Happened
In 2014, a researcher at Cambridge University built a personality quiz app on Facebook's developer platform. About 270,000 people installed it and agreed to share their profile data. At the time, Facebook's platform also allowed apps to collect data about users' friends, so the app gathered information on many millions of people who had never installed it. The data were transferred to Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, in violation of Facebook's policies. When the transfer was reported in 2018, Facebook estimated that up to 87 million people had been affected (Isaak & Hanna, 2018). In 2019 the Federal Trade Commission (2019) announced a $5 billion penalty against Facebook for violating a 2012 consent order on privacy, along with new requirements for board-level privacy oversight.
The Economic Incentive
Facebook's revenue came almost entirely from advertising, and the value of its advertising depended on how much it knew about users. An open developer platform attracted apps that kept users engaged and generated more data. Restricting what apps could collect, or auditing them closely, would have slowed growth. Facebook did restrict friend data in 2015, but by then the data had already left, and the company did not verify that it had been deleted when it learned of the transfer in 2015. The economic logic favored openness and growth over control.
Ethical Evaluation
Consent and Kantian reasoning
Kant's principle that people must be treated as ends, never merely as means, requires respecting their capacity to make choices about matters that affect them. The quiz takers consented, though few could have understood what they agreed to. Their friends did not consent at all. Using a person's data to build psychological profiles for political targeting, without their knowledge, treats them purely as a means. Byars and Stanberry (2018) emphasize that consent in business must be informed to be meaningful; buried settings and complex terms do not meet that standard.
Stakeholder reasoning
Stakeholder theory asks managers to weigh all groups affected by a firm's decisions. Users, especially those who never joined the app, bore the risk; advertisers and developers gained access; the public faced the possibility of manipulated political communication; and shareholders eventually paid for the penalty and the lost trust. Platform policy that served developers and growth at the expense of users' control over their information failed to balance these claims.
Technology and responsibility
The case shows how technology magnifies a small decision. One permissive setting in a developer interface, multiplied across millions of users and thousands of apps, produced exposure no individual employee intended. Responsibility in such systems lies in design choices made long before any harm, which is why ethical review has to happen when features are built, not after a scandal.
The Regulatory Response
The FTC's $5 billion penalty was the largest it had imposed for a privacy violation, and the order required an independent privacy committee on Facebook's board and quarterly certifications by the chief executive. Critics argued that the penalty was small relative to Facebook's revenue and that the order did not change the advertising model that created the incentive. The case did spur stronger privacy laws, such as California's Consumer Privacy Act, and fed debate over comprehensive federal privacy legislation in the United States.
Recommendations for Technology Companies
1. Privacy by design. Collect only data needed for a stated purpose, and make sharing with third parties opt-in, not default.
2. Audit the platform. Require developers to justify data access, audit apps that collect large volumes and verify deletion when policies are violated.
3. Govern privacy at the top. Give a board committee authority over privacy risk, with direct reports from privacy and security staff.
4. Consent people can understand. Use plain-language notices at the moment of sharing, and never treat one person's consent as consent for others.
Conclusion
The Cambridge Analytica case was not a hack but the predictable result of a business model and platform design that valued data collection over user control. Ethical management of technology requires building consent and restraint into products from the start, because once data leave a platform they cannot be recalled.
References
Byars, S. M., & Stanberry, K. (2018). Business ethics. OpenStax.
Federal Trade Commission. (2019, July 24). FTC imposes $5 billion penalty and sweeping new privacy restrictions on Facebook [Press release].
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8), 56-59. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.3191268
ETM 7500 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
For the MBA, the third module's dilemmas come from data, markets and the environment. The module aims at fixes for economic and corporate dilemmas and at judging ethical risks in any market. Expect to analyze a case where technology, profit or environmental impact raise ethical questions, identify stakeholders, apply theories and recommend practices. This sample examines technology and data privacy; prompts may also ask about environmental cases, and this module's MBA version expects recommendations at the level of corporate governance. Expect to apply ethical theories to data collection and use, including consent and privacy. Some versions ask how the case changed privacy law in the United States and Europe.
Inside the ETM 7500 Module 3 example
The paper summarizes the facts with sources, including the size of the exposure and the regulator's penalty. It then explains the business model and platform design that made the harvesting likely, before evaluating the conduct through Kantian consent, stakeholder balance and the way technology multiplies design decisions. A section assesses the FTC's response and its critics, and four recommendations follow, each tied to a failure identified in the analysis. The conclusion states the central lesson about designing for consent. The analysis distinguishes the platform's responsibilities from those of the firm that misused the data. The recommendations address consent, data access and audits of partners. The paper ends by naming the duty each party owed users.
Where the marks sit in the ETM 7500 Module 3 rubric
Cambridge Analytica's case is graded on how well incentives explain the failure. The rubric wants the case told accurately, incentives tied to the failure, theory used correctly and fixes aimed at root causes. Evaluating the regulatory response, including its limits, shows the critical judgment expected in an MBA course. Clear structure, credible sources and specific, practical recommendations complete a strong paper. Mentors also value recommendations that address consent and data access, not only public relations. Accurate facts from regulators and investigations support the analysis. For a data ethics case, the strongest papers explain how the business model rewarded collecting more data and propose controls that change those incentives.
Common ETM 7500 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Technology ethics papers lose credit for treating the case as a data breach, for analyzing ethics without the business model that drove it and for recommending only stricter laws. Explain how the company made money and why that shaped its choices. Distinguish people who consented from those who did not. Apply at least two theories. Recommend changes a company could make itself, as well as any regulation, and connect each to a cause. A free first sample of your own ETM-7500 Module 3 assignment is available on request. Separate what was legal at the time from what was ethical, and describe what regulators did afterward. Explain how users were affected, not only the companies.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More ETM 7500 and Master of Business Administration sample papers
- ETM 7500 Module 1: Written Assignment: A Controller, a Covenant and a Warranty Reserve
- ETM 7500 Module 2: Written Assignment: Enron's Culture and the Law That Followed
- ETM 7500 Module 4: Written Assignment: Bribery Abroad and the Siemens Case
- ETM 7500 Module 5: Final Project: Purdue Pharma, the Sacklers and the Limits of Bankruptcy
- MKR 7000 Module 2: A Three-Stage Research Design
- HRM 7600 Module 6: Redesigning Performance Management
- NEG 7310 Module 8: Final Project: A Personal Best Practices Manual for Negotiation
- SOP 7200 Module 3: Supply Chain and Inventory Problems
ETM 7500 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free ETM 7500 Module 3 sample paper?
The Cambridge Analytica paper above analyzes consent, the advertising business model, stakeholder harm and the FTC's response, with recommendations for technology firms.
How many Facebook users were affected by Cambridge Analytica?
Facebook estimated that data on up to 87 million users may have been shared, most of them friends of people who took the quiz.
What penalty did Facebook pay over Cambridge Analytica?
The Federal Trade Commission announced a $5 billion penalty in 2019 for violating a 2012 privacy consent order.
What is privacy by design?
Building data protection into products from the start, by collecting only what is needed and making sharing opt-in.
Why is consent important in data ethics?
Because using people's information without informed agreement treats them as means to others' ends and removes their control over matters that affect them.