The recommended class-action lawsuit, registered upon the Walt Disney Company and others by Amanda Rushing and her child recognized only as “L.L.” claims that Disney’s gaming apps are installed with code that traces children’s data, which is eventually used for “behavioral promotion to kids whose profile fits a set of demographic and behavioral traits.”
“Most customers, including parents of children customers, do not grasp that apps designed for children are engineered to secretly and unlawfully manage the child-users’ personal data, and then exfiltrate that data off the smart device for broadcasting and other commercial purposes,” the lawsuit, filed Thursday, reads.
According to the suit, Disney is breaking the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1999, which delivers that “developers of child-focused apps, and any third-parties working with these app developers, cannot lawfully receive the personal information of children under 13 years of age without first obtaining verifiable permission from their parents.”
Rushing fights that no such permission was obtained or even asked when L.L. began playing Disney Princess Palace Pets app when she was below the age of 13.
“Plaintiff never more knew that Defendants obtained, disclosed, or used her child’s private information because Defendants at all events failed to provide Plaintiff any of the expected disclosures, never attempted verifiable parental consent, and never presented a mechanism by which Plaintiff could give verifiable consent,” the lawsuit reads.
In extension to Disney Princess Palace Pets, the lawsuit lists various other Disney-related apps that supposedly violate COPPA.
“Children are particularly exposed to online tracking and the resulting behavioral promotion. As children’s cognitive abilities still are growing, they have limited recognition or awareness of modern advertising and therefore are less likely than adults to see the actual content of online gaming apps and the advertising content that is targeted to them adjacent it,” the suit reads. “Thus, children may join with advertising content without realizing they are
doing so.”
“Defendants’ tracking and a set of L.L.’s personal knowledge without her verifiable paternal permission is highly offensive to Ms. Rushing and orders an invasion of her child’s privacy and of Ms. Rushing’s right to defend her child from this invasion,” the suit notes.
Take your time to comment on this article.