The Ninth Circuit recently held that the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, which gives the Federal Trade Commission  authority to regulate the online collection of personal information from children under the age of 13, does not preempt consistent state law, potentially increasing the risk of class action litigation based on alleged COPPA violations.  See Jones v. Google LLC, No. 21-16281, — F.4th —- (9th Cir. 2022).

COPPA’s preemption provision states that “No State or local government may impose any liability . . . in connection with an activity or action described in this chapter that is inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions under this section.”  15 U.S.C. § 6502(d).  Based on the FTC-focused remedial scheme and the lack of a private right of action, the district court held that COPPA “does not leave room for state laws to impose additional liability” and dismissed state law privacy, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims premised on violations of COPPA.  Hubbard v. Google LLC, 508 F. Supp. 3d 623, 630 (N.D. Cal. 2020); see also Hubbard v. Google LLC, 546 F. Supp. 3d 986 (N.D. Cal. 2021). 

The Ninth Circuit reversed.  Focusing on the preemption clause’s use of the word “inconsistent,” it explained that its precedents analyzing similar clauses bar only “contradictory state law requirements, or . . . requirements that stand as obstacles to federal objectives.”  It rejected the argument that the use of the word “treatment” in COPPA’s preemption clause indicated an exclusive remedial scheme.  As a result, the Ninth Circuit held that state law remedies for violations of state law overlapping with COPPA violations were not preempted in these circumstances.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision aligns with the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Nickelodeon Consumer Priv. Litig., 827 F.3d 262, 292 (3d Cir. 2016), which also held that COPPA did not preempt consistent state law.  Defendants faced with state-law claims overlapping with COPPA violations should continue to assess whether asserted claims may be inconsistent with COPPA or whether plaintiffs have proved all elements of the independent state law claims (and not just a COPPA violation), which could provide grounds to distinguish these decisions.  See, e.g.H.K. through Farwell v. Google LLC, 595 F. Supp. 3d 702, 709-11 (C.D. Ill. 2022) (holding that COPPA preempts BIPA claims asserted by plaintiffs under age of 13 because BIPA and COPPA impose different substantive standards).

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Amy Heath Amy Heath

Amy Heath is a class action and commercial litigator who helps the world’s leading companies in the technology, consumer products, and other sectors navigate their most significant disputes. She has had exceptional success with early dispositive motions, distilling complex arguments to show why…

Amy Heath is a class action and commercial litigator who helps the world’s leading companies in the technology, consumer products, and other sectors navigate their most significant disputes. She has had exceptional success with early dispositive motions, distilling complex arguments to show why claims should not proceed. A former intelligence analyst, Amy brings the same sound strategic judgment, analytical rigor, attention to detail, efficiency, and commitment to client service to her practice of law.

Amy frequently litigates matters involving privacy, wiretap, contract, consumer protection, fraud, unfair competition, antitrust, and intellectual property claims. She has significant experience throughout the litigation lifecycle, including developing strategies to coordinate litigation across jurisdictions, including multidistrict litigation; briefing dismissal, class certification, and summary judgment motions; effectively navigating joint defense groups; and drafting and arguing appeals.

Amy also regularly counsels clients on the strategic considerations related to arbitration agreements. She drafts and revises arbitration clauses and class action waivers in terms of service, including to mitigate mass arbitration risk.

Before joining the firm, Amy clerked for the Honorable Michelle T. Friedland of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Honorable Lucy H. Koh, then of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Amy maintains an active pro bono practice that focuses on direct services for individual clients.

Before practicing law, Amy served as an intelligence analyst at CIA, where she was a regular contributor to the President’s Daily Brief.

Photo of Kathryn Cahoy Kathryn Cahoy

Kate Cahoy co-chairs the firm’s Class Actions Litigation Practice Group and serves on the leadership committee for the firm’s Technology Industry Group. She defends clients in complex, high-stakes class action disputes and has achieved significant victories across various industries, including technology, entertainment, consumer…

Kate Cahoy co-chairs the firm’s Class Actions Litigation Practice Group and serves on the leadership committee for the firm’s Technology Industry Group. She defends clients in complex, high-stakes class action disputes and has achieved significant victories across various industries, including technology, entertainment, consumer products, and financial services. Kate has also played a key role in developing the firm’s mass arbitration defense practice. She regularly advises companies on the risks associated with mass arbitration and has a proven track record of successfully defending clients against these challenges.

Leveraging her success in class action litigation and arbitration, Kate helps clients develop strategic and innovative solutions to their most challenging legal issues. She has extensive experience litigating cases brought under California’s Section 17200 and other consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws, including the Sherman Act, California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), along with common law and constitutional rights of privacy, among others.

Recent Successes:

Represented Meta (formerly Facebook) in a putative nationwide advertiser class action alleging violations under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) related to charges from allegedly “fake” accounts. Successfully narrowed claims at the pleadings stage, defeated class certification, opposed a Rule 23(f) petition, won summary judgment, and defended the victory on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Daily Journal selected Covington’s defense of Meta as one of its 2021 Top Verdicts, and Law.com recognized Kate as a Litigator of the Week Shoutout.
Defeated a landmark class action lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI contending that the defendants scraped data from the internet for training generative AI services and incorporated data from users’ prompts, allegedly in violation of CIPA, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), and other privacy and consumer protection laws.

Kate regularly contributes to the firm’s blog, Inside Class Actions, and was recently featured in a Litigation Daily interview titled “Where Privacy Laws and Litigation Trends Collide.” In recognition of her achievements in privacy and antitrust class action litigation, the Daily Journal named her as one of their Top Antitrust Lawyers (2024), Top Cyber Lawyers (2022), and Top Women Lawyers in California (2023). Additionally, she received the Women of Influence award from the Silicon Valley Business Journal and was recognized by Daily Journal as a Top Attorney Under 40.