The US federal judge rejected a petition by Google regarding the termination of a case involving the violation of children’s laws. Now, the companies will have to face the court on charges of violating the laws protecting minors in California, Florida, and New York.
The lawsuit, filed in June last year, focuses on Google’s Designed For Families program, which was launched in 2015. This initiative aimed to help parents find safe applications for their children on the Google Play store. Developers could apply to participate in the program if they ensured their products met advertising requirements and contained appropriate content.
According to the plaintiffs, the DFF program had a significant flaw. It encouraged developers of applications intended for children under 13 to categorize them as suitable for a “mixed audience.” This classification allowed developers to circumvent strict limitations on data collection and targeted advertising.
While companies claiming their apps were primarily for young children were strictly prohibited from using user activity information for marketing purposes, family apps in the DFF program faced less stringent requirements.
Ultimately, developers continued to generate advertising revenue, some of which went to Google. The situation became paradoxical as a program originally intended to protect children appeared to contribute to privacy violations, according to the plaintiffs.
Google’s request for a complete dismissal of the case argued that the plaintiffs’ complaints lacked essential details, such as specific dates of alleged violations. This was significant because offenses committed before June 22, 2019, could not be considered due to statute of limitations.
Google also contended that data collected previously could not be used now, as the specific applications cited in the complaint (developed by Tiny Lab) had been removed from Google Play in September 2018.
Additionally, Google claimed that compliance with the Federal Law on Protecting Children’s Privacy online exempted the company from liability under individual state laws. Lawyers argued that users were informed about data collection practices and should not have expected complete confidentiality.
However, district judge Casey Pitts disagreed with Google’s arguments.