San Diego County has sued AppLovin, alleging that the mobile advertising company bypassed parental controls to collect data from children and serve ads featuring adult services, alcohol, vaping products and sexually explicit content inside games used by minors.
The lawsuit, first reported by Bloomberg, was filed in San Diego Superior Court and accuses AppLovin of collecting sensitive information from children’s devices even when parental controls and advertising tracking restrictions were enabled. The claims have not been adjudicated.
According to the complaint, the information allegedly collected was detailed enough to potentially determine where children live and attend school, as well as whether they were asleep or awake.
San Diego County also alleges that AppLovin used device fingerprinting to continue identifying and tracking users when conventional advertising identifiers were unavailable or restricted.
The case centers in part on AppLovin’s role in the mobile advertising ecosystem. Its technology is used by app and game developers to monetize their products through advertising, while its ad network connects advertisers with users across mobile apps.
The county alleges that AppLovin’s systems circumvented safeguards intended to prevent children from being tracked and targeted with inappropriate advertising.
The complaint includes examples of ads that investigators say appeared on Android devices configured for six-year-old users with Google’s parental controls enabled.
One example cited in the filing involved an advertisement for a sexualized AI chatbot appearing inside a physics-based puzzle game. Another allegedly showed cannabis gummies on a similarly configured device. The complaint also points to advertisements involving alcohol, vaping, adult dating services, sexual material and violence appearing in mobile games considered suitable for younger audiences.
The county’s allegations extend beyond the content of the advertisements.
The lawsuit claims AppLovin collected information from children’s devices despite parental safeguards and opt-outs, and used data gathered from devices as part of its advertising operations.
San Diego County alleges the company used fingerprinting techniques to build identifiers from combinations of device and behavioral signals. The complaint argues that these methods allowed AppLovin to recognize users even when traditional advertising identifiers had been restricted.
AppLovin’s own policies state that the company does not knowingly collect personal information from children or serve advertisements to children. The lawsuit challenges whether the company’s actual advertising and data practices were consistent with those policies.
The county is bringing claims under California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law and is seeking injunctive relief, restitution and civil penalties.
The complaint also raises allegations about the way users interact with AppLovin-served advertisements.
San Diego County claims some ad interfaces make it difficult for users to skip or close advertisements, potentially generating interactions that are subsequently reported to advertisers. County officials allege that AppLovin financially benefits from those interactions because advertisers can be charged when users engage with ads.
The lawsuit therefore covers both alleged harms to children and potential effects on advertisers paying for engagement generated through AppLovin’s advertising system.
AppLovin had not immediately responded to Bloomberg’s request for comment on the lawsuit. Its published policies prohibit knowingly collecting children’s personal information or targeting children with advertising.
The case is one of the first actions brought by San Diego County’s newly established Consumer Fairness and Public Protection Unit.
The county launched the unit alongside three lawsuits involving AppLovin, Roblox and Polymaker. County officials said the cases cover issues including children’s safety, consumer privacy and other consumer protection concerns.
The AppLovin case also comes amid broader scrutiny of the company’s advertising and data practices.
The Securities and Exchange Commission previously investigated AppLovin’s advertising practices. AppLovin CFO Matt Stumpf said in August that the SEC had closed its investigation without taking enforcement action.
The San Diego lawsuit arrives shortly after AppLovin itself initiated legal action against Unity over data collected through Unity’s Ad Quality SDK.
In that separate dispute, AppLovin alleges Unity improperly collected and used data related to ads served through AppLovin’s mobile advertising business. AppLovin has sought restrictions on Unity’s collection and use of what it describes as protected advertising data, while Unity has disputed the allegations.
The two cases involve different legal claims. San Diego County’s lawsuit focuses on allegations concerning child safety, personal data collection, advertising content and user interactions, while AppLovin’s action against Unity centers on the collection and use of advertising data between competing mobile ad technology platforms.
No court has ruled on San Diego County’s allegations against AppLovin. The county is asking the court to impose restrictions on the practices described in the complaint and award restitution and civil penalties under California law.
Comments
Loading…