In this case, a class of children (“Children”), represented by their parents and guardians, filed a lawsuit against Google LLC, YouTube LLC, and several other companies, alleging violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). The Children claimed that Google used persistent identifiers (via targeted advertising) to collect data and track their online behavior without their consent, which violated state law and COPPA regulations. More specifically, Children are seeking “damages and injunctive relief, asserting only state law claims: invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, consumer protection violations, and unfair business practices, arising under the constitutional, statutory, and common law of
California, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Tennessee. The parties agree that all of the claims allege conduct that would violate COPPA’s requirement that child directed online services give notice and obtain “verifiable parental consent” before collecting persistent identifiers.” Google argued that it wasn’t subject to COPPA because YouTube is a “platform for adults” even though it knows that children use the platform. [Editor’s note: That sure does seem like a stretch of an argument given just how much content directed at children there is on that platform.]

The district court dismissed the case, citing preemption grounds (that is that the state law claims were preempted by COPPA, a federal regulation), but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal in an amended opinion.

The Court first considered whether COPPA preempted state law claims that were based on the same conduct prohibited by COPPA. The court noted that: “[e]xpress preemption is a question of statutory construction. COPPA’s preemption clause provides: ‘[n]o State or local government may impose any liability . . . that is inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions under this section.‘ 15 U.S.C. § 6502(d).” (emphasis in original) The court determined that state laws that supplement or require the same as federal law are not inconsistent and do not stand as an obstacle to Congress’s objectives. Thus, the court concluded that COPPA’s preemption clause does not bar state-law causes of action that are parallel to, or proscribe the same conduct forbidden by, COPPA.

The court also addressed conflict preemption, which occurs when state law conflicts with a federal statute. They found that conflict preemption did not apply in this case because the state law claims did not prevent or frustrate the accomplishment of COPPA’s federal objectives.

As a result, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the case on preemption grounds and remanded it for further consideration of other arguments for dismissal.

Citation: Jones v. Google, LLC, Case No. 21-16281, 9th. Cir. (Jul. 13, 2023)

Disclaimer 1: This summary was initially generated by ChatGPT and then edited to include more specific information by a real human … because, you know, humans are still better than the machine tool.

Disclaimer 2: This is for general information purposes only. This should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. If you have a legal matter that you are concerned with, you should seek out an attorney in your jurisdiction who may be able to advise you of your rights and options.