ALA Conflicts of Interest: Following the Money and Relationships

Why This Matters

The American Library Association has enormous influence on library practice. When the ALA takes a position on vendor relationships, digital lending rights, or data protection, libraries listen. Board members cite ALA positions. Librarians share ALA guidance with their directors. Other professional organizations follow ALA's lead.

But the ALA\'s positions aren\'t formed in isolation. They emerge from:

• Committees with members who work for vendors or have vendor relationships
• Conferences sponsored by the vendors the ALA is supposed to regulate
• Initiatives funded by technology companies
• Leadership roles held by people with direct financial interests in vendor success

None of this is hidden. The conflicts are documented in ALA materials, on LinkedIn, in conference agendas. But they\'re rarely named explicitly, and libraries often don\'t understand how these relationships shape the guidance they're receiving.

The Core Problem

The ALA tries to serve two constituencies simultaneously:

• Libraries: Institutions that buy from vendors and need honest guidance about vendor relationships
• Vendors: Companies that make decisions affecting library budgets and want the ALA's endorsement

These interests are in conflict. A vendor wants the ALA to:

• Recommend their products in ALA guidance
• Soften criticism of vendor licensing models
• Support policies that protect vendor IP over library autonomy
• Not advocate for alternatives that threaten vendor revenue

A library wants the ALA to:

• Provide objective guidance on vendor evaluation
• Advocate for library rights and digital ownership
• Protect libraries from exploitative vendor practices
• Support open alternatives to proprietary systems

These interests cannot be simultaneously satisfied. The ALA has chosen to prioritize vendor relationships, and the result is guidance that protects vendor interests at the expense of library autonomy.

How Conflicts of Interest Influence ALA Policy

Conference Sponsorships

ALA Annual Conference is the profession's largest gathering. It generates significant revenue through vendor sponsorships. Major vendors like OverDrive, EBSCO, Cengage, and Macmillan sponsor booths, sessions, and social events.

The conflict: ALA is dependent on vendor sponsorship revenue. Vendors expect sponsorship to result in favorable attention, access to committee members, and soft or absent criticism in official channels.

The consequence: You\'ll rarely hear the ALA publicly criticize sponsor companies or their practices. The ALA\'s "neutral" stance toward vendors is actually a vendor-friendly stance.

Committee Membership

ALA committees shape professional guidance. But many committee members work for vendors, sell to libraries, or have financial interests in vendor success.

Examples:

• Members of the ALA's access and licensing committee often work for companies that license materials to libraries
• Members of digital policy committees frequently work for tech vendors
• Members of diversity committees sometimes lead initiatives funded by vendors seeking to improve their image

The conflict: When a vendor is discussed in committee, people with financial interests in that vendor's success are present in the conversation. They shape the language, soften the critique, redirect toward vendor-friendly outcomes.

The consequence: ALA guidance on vendor relationships is systematically softer and more vendor-favorable than it would be if formed by librarians without vendor ties.

Funded Initiatives

Vendors don't just sponsor conferences. They fund research projects, task forces, and strategic initiatives.

Examples:

• EBSCO funds research on library usage metrics
• Macmillan supports initiatives around digital access and equity
• Google funds digital library projects and data initiatives
• Amazon supports ALA diversity programming

The conflict: When a vendor funds research on a topic they\'re involved in, the research is unlikely to produce strongly critical findings. Vendors don\'t fund projects designed to undermine their business model.

The consequence: ALA research on vendor practices tends to be favorable to vendors. Independent research often contradicts ALA-published findings.

Leadership Roles

Some ALA leaders simultaneously hold positions at or serve as consultants to major vendors.

The conflict: ALA leaders with vendor employment or consulting relationships face divided loyalty. Their professional advancement may depend more on the vendor relationship than on their ALA role.

The consequence: ALA positions on matters affecting their employer or client tend to be favorable. Other positions in the organization learn to avoid contradicting these leaders.

Tracking Conflicts: Key Areas to Watch

Ebook Licensing Policy

The ALA's position on ebook licensing has softened dramatically over the past decade. The ALA now generally accepts vendor licensing terms rather than advocating for library ownership rights.

Compare this to the Internet Archive\'s position on the same issue: strong, consistent advocacy for library digital lending rights. The difference? The Internet Archive isn\'t dependent on vendor sponsorship or funding.

Diversity Initiatives

Vendor-funded diversity work often frames diversity in ways that benefit the vendor:

• "Diversity in our platform" → vendor products are framed as diversity solutions
• "Diversity partnerships" → vendors partner with BIPOC organizations to improve their image
• "Equity in access" → vendor licensing is framed as a diversity solution rather than an equity barrier

Real equity work would name the actual barrier: library budgets are shrinking while vendor licensing costs are rising, creating unequal access for lower-funded institutions. But that critique damages the vendors funding the initiatives.

Data and Privacy Policy

The ALA's position on patron data privacy has become increasingly weak. Despite early strong advocacy for privacy rights, the ALA now accepts vendor data collection as inevitable.

Why the shift? Vendors have increasing influence over ALA privacy conversations. When you accept vendor sponsorship, you lose leverage to criticize vendor data practices.

Intellectual Property and Copyright

The ALA's copyright positions have shifted toward copyright expansion (benefiting publishers) rather than copyright balance (benefiting libraries and the public).

• Limited advocacy for fair use rights in library contexts
• Minimal support for controlled digital lending (CDL)
• Weak positions on library preservation rights
• Acceptance of DRM restrictions on library-owned content

Compare this to smaller, less vendor-dependent organizations like Digital Library Federation or the Scholarly Kitchen: much stronger copyright advocacy on behalf of libraries and the public.

Current Conflicts to Monitor

Questions to Ask Your ALA Representatives

• What vendor relationships do current committee members have? When does this need to be disclosed?
• What percentage of ALA conference revenue comes from vendor sponsorships? How much is this figure?
• How does ALA handle conflicts of interest when committee members work for vendors being discussed?
• What research has the ALA funded independently (without vendor funding) on vendor licensing practices?
• What is the ALA's current position on Controlled Digital Lending (CDL), and why has this shifted over time?
• Has the ALA considered stronger conflicts-of-interest policies to limit vendor influence on policy formation?

What You Can Do

Track It

• Document vendor relationships when you see them in ALA materials, committee lists, or conference agendas
• Keep a record of ALA positions over time. Identify shifts that coincide with vendor sponsorship increases
• Compare ALA positions to positions from organizations without vendor funding (Internet Archive, Digital Library Federation, SPARC)

Question It

• When ALA provides guidance on vendors, ask: Who funded this research? Who's on the committee?
• At ALA conferences, ask committee members directly about their vendor relationships
• When ALA takes a position, ask: How would this position change if we removed vendor financial interests from the conversation?

Organize It

• Work with other librarians to pressure the ALA for stronger conflicts-of-interest policies
• Create local or regional pressure for the ALA to take stronger positions on library digital rights
• Support alternative organizations (Internet Archive, DLF, SPARC) that work on these issues without vendor dependence

Fund It Differently

• Advocate for the ALA to reduce dependence on vendor sponsorship by increasing member dues or grant funding
• Support member initiatives that fund research independent of vendor interest
• Encourage your library to direct conference attendance dollars to organizations with clearer conflicts-of-interest policies

Further Reading

ALA Transparency Requests to Make

• Request a detailed list of conference sponsors by year (see if vendor sponsorship has increased)
• Request committee member employment information (see if there's been a shift toward more vendor-employed members)
• Request ALA policy voting records on vendor-related issues (track how positions have shifted)
• Request information on ALA-funded vs. vendor-funded research initiatives

These are reasonable requests for a transparent professional organization. The responses (or lack thereof) will tell you a lot about how seriously the ALA takes conflicts of interest.