Updated: 11.19.2024
Filed on: 05.07.2024

IXL Data Privacy Litigation

Shanahan, et al. v. IXL Learning, Inc. 3:24-cv-2724 (N.D. Cal.), 24-6985 (9th Cir.)

On May 7, 2024, Plaintiffs, K-12 students and their parents, sued IXL Learning, Inc., a data collection and analytics platform, alleging that IXL generates, collects, uses, and shares information about them without their consent. Plaintiffs assert claims under

1. the Federal Wiretap Act,
2. the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA),
3. the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CADAFA),
4. common-law invasion of privacy,
5. common-law intrusion upon seclusion, and
6. California’s Unfair Competition Law.

IXL moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) authorizes schools to bind minor children and their parents to private arbitration with a private company and thereby waive their constitutional right to a jury trial, or alternatively, that the plaintiffs agree to be bound to arbitration by using the product as required by their schools.

IXL also moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to state a claim.

Plaintiffs opposed the motions. The Federal Trade Commission, as the agency charged with enforcing COPPA, filed an amicus brief in which it observed that IXL’s argument in support of arbitration “relies on a mischaracterization of the Statement of Basis and Purpose (“SBP”) accompanying the COPPA Rule.”

On November 1, 2024, Judge Rita Lin denied IXL’s motions, holding that “neither [COPPA] nor common-law agency principles support IXL’s contention that school districts act as agents of parents when contracting with educational vendors.” She further held that “even if such an agency relationship existed, it is not ‘usual and necessary’ for a school district to enter into arbitration agreements on behalf of students or their parents to carry out the purposes of any such agency relationship.” Finally, Judge Lin held that IXL failed to meet its burden to show that the continued use of IXL at school, after parents learned of its terms, was voluntary and constituted consent to the terms of the arbitration agreement.

IXL filed an interlocutory appeal of Judge Lin’s order on November 19, 2024. The case is now on appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Key filings:

• Complaint
• IXL’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

  • Plaintiffs’ Opposition to IXL’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
  • The Federal Trade Commission’s Amicus Brief regarding IXL’s Motion to Compel
  • Commissioner Andrew Ferguson’s Concurrence to the FTC’s Amicus Brief
  • IXL’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion
• IXL’s Motion to Dismiss

  • Plaintiff’s Opposition to IXL’s Motion to Dismiss
  • IXL’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss
• Court Order Denying IXL’s Motion to Compel Arbitration

« Back to case listings