Hubbard v. Google LLC

Background

The plaintiffs were parents bringing claims on behalf of minor children under 13. They sued Google LLC, YouTube LLC, and several companies and entities identified as Channel Owners. The plaintiffs alleged that Google and the Channel Owners knowingly tracked, profiled, and targeted children on YouTube to generate advertising revenue. They alleged that Google collected information such as cookies, internet protocol addresses, and device identifiers, used that information to develop profiles, and served behaviorally targeted advertisements.

The complaint asserted claims for intrusion upon seclusion, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, unjust enrichment under the laws of several states, violations of consumer-protection statutes in several states, and violation of the California constitutional right to privacy. The defendants moved to dismiss, primarily arguing that the claims were preempted by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and, alternatively, that the complaint failed to state claims for relief.

COPPA and Preemption

COPPA regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information from children under 13 by covered websites and online services. The statute requires covered operators to obtain verifiable parental consent in circumstances covered by the statute. Its preemption provision states that a state or local government may not impose liability for covered commercial activities that is inconsistent with the treatment of those activities under COPPA.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ state-law claims were expressly preempted. It found that all of the claims were based on allegations that the defendants collected data from children under 13 without parental consent, conduct regulated by COPPA. The court concluded that the claims did not allege conduct independent of COPPA’s requirements. It also reasoned that allowing private plaintiffs to impose liability through state-law claims would be inconsistent with COPPA’s enforcement structure, which gives enforcement authority primarily to the Federal Trade Commission and provides a role for state attorneys general.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that only state laws inconsistent with COPPA’s specific requirements were preempted. It read the preemption provision together with COPPA’s detailed enforcement scheme and concluded that the scheme did not leave room for private state-law liability based solely on COPPA-regulated conduct.

The court distinguished cases in which alleged deception went beyond the conduct regulated by COPPA. In this case, the complaint stated in a conclusory way that Google deceptively collected and used user activity, but it did not explain what was deceptive or address whether Google had disclosed its data-collection practices. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had not alleged that the Channel Owners collected data or engaged in deception.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court dismissed the action without prejudice and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Any amended complaint would need to address the identified deficiencies, including allegations showing conduct beyond a mere COPPA violation and allegations supporting claims against the Channel Owners.