Google and Its Mobile Advertising Arm Target Minors Without Parental Consent: Suit

Google and its AdMob mobile advertising subsidiary “knowingly and intentionally” used apps to collect minors’ personal information without parental consent to target them with “highly lucrative behavioral advertising at the expense of the children’s privacy rights,” said a class action (docket 5:23-cv-03101) Thursday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose.

Guardians Jen Turner of California, Kirenda Johnson of Florida and Barbara Hayden-Seaman of New York, representing six minors, said Google’s collection of minors’ personally identifiable information (PII) violated “well-established privacy protections, societal norms, and the laws embodying those protections.”

Google’s purchase of DoubleClick led to an internet-based surveillance network capable of tracking users’ activity across websites that comprise more than 80% of those visited via web browsers on desktop and laptop computers, said the complaint, citing a 2016 Princeton University analysis of online tracking. A website using Google’s ad services embeds code that allows Google to collect the PII of each visitor and show ads based on that information, it said. When a user visits another website using Google’s ad services, that website sends Google identifying information on the user, which Google uses to build “detailed individual profiles.” Google uses the data to deliver targeted ads to users as they visit websites, allowing it to “charge advertisers increased advertising rates,” the complaint said.

Google’s development of the Android operating system and Google Play store gave it similar control over the Android ecosystem on the mobile internet, where it tracks users’ activity using Android apps, the complaint said. Google shows ads to those customers via AdMob, which it bought in 2009 for $750 million, the complaint said, calling AdMob the Android equivalent of DoubleClick.

Google developed the Designed for Families (DFF) program, which certified that select apps were appropriate for families and children. Those apps have to adhere to a “stringent legal and policy bar,” and they were required to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and other children’s privacy regulations, the complaint said. Plaintiffs allege Google targeted children under 13 via the DFF program, noting their “valuable demographics” due to being “easily influenced” and their role as influencers for “the spending habits of their entire families.”

To generate content for DFF, Google incentivized app developers to make child-directed apps by promising them more visibility via the program’s “special perks,” such as search, browse, character pages, merchandising and badging, said the complaint. Google represented that the review under the DFF program was to ensure children were protected, but in reality, the review's purpose was "to ensure the Apps included in the DFF program would successfully attract children because Google did not want the DFF program to be full of Apps that were not effective at drawing in children -- a lucrative advertising audience,” alleged the complaint.

Google’s “unlawful collection” of PII and “manipulative advertising tactics substantially impact the amount of time children under thirteen spent using DFF Apps,” alleged the complaint. The company “exploited children” under 13 for financial gain by luring them with child-oriented content and “manipulating them” to remain engaged with the apps “to the detriment of their mental health, so that they could earn advertising revenue,” it said.

California plaintiffs' claims include violations of the Unfair Competition Law, intrusion upon seclusion, unjust enrichment, and the state’s constitutional right to privacy. Florida plaintiffs claim violation of the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, and New York plaintiffs claim violation of the state’s Consumer Protection Law and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek actual, compensatory, and/or statutory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and legal costs and an award of equitable, injunctive and declaratory relief, including orders of disgorgement of Google’s “unlawful gains," plus restitution. Google didn't comment.