The Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit where parents sued IXL Learning for allegedly collecting and selling children's data without proper consent. The FTC argued that under COPPA, school district agreements to arbitration do not bind parents. The brief opposes IXL Learning's attempt to compel arbitration.
In-house legal teams should review all vendor agreements with educational institutions (e.g., school districts) and any direct customer agreements involving minors. Focus on clauses governing consent mechanisms (especially verifiable parental consent under COPPA), data collection and sharing (including the sale of children's data), arbitration provisions, and any language defining the school's role as an agent for parents. Changes may be needed to ensure parental consent is obtained separately and explicitly from school agreements, to remove or limit arbitration clauses' applicability to parents, and to revise terms to clearly state that school contracts do not bind parents to arbitration or other terms under COPPA.
Entity
IXL Learning, Inc.
Also known as: IXL Learning
Industry
EducationOfficial Press Release
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/ftc-files-amicus-brief-saying-coppa-cant-force-parents-arbitration
shanahan v ixl learning inc
https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/amicus-briefs/shanahan-v-ixl-learning-inc
Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Page
https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement
"IXL Learning, Inc."
"Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act"
"COPPA Rule"
"illegally collected, used and sold their children’s data"
The FTC referred a complaint against REPS & Company Inc. and company executives, alleging they bypassed ticket-issuer security controls and purchasing limits to acquire millions of tickets for resale. The complaint was filed by the Department of Justice, and the case will be decided by the court; the press release does not report a penalty or other remedy imposed.
The FTC sued Digital Forensics Corporation LLC and affiliated defendants, alleging they misled sextortion victims with promises of investigative and monitoring services that often were not provided, and used fake positive reviews. A federal court granted the FTC’s request to temporarily halt the defendants’ activities; the complaint remains for the court to decide.
The FTC alleged that Greenway Auto Group advertised vehicle prices thousands of dollars below the amounts consumers actually paid and used mailers falsely suggesting recipients had won cash prizes. Greenway agreed to an order requiring transparent pricing and prohibiting deceptive prize mailers and other misrepresentations; the press release does not state a monetary penalty.
The FTC sent warning letters to 24 large healthcare services companies, cautioning that incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely pricing information for scheduled medical care may be unfair or deceptive. The letters urge recipients to review their price-disclosure practices and take corrective action; they announce no fine or formal order.
$1.9M
The FTC alleged that Premier Franchising Group LLC and Franchise Fastlane LLC made deceptive and unsubstantiated claims about the Premier Martial Arts franchise opportunity and violated the Franchise Rule. The proposed settlements require the companies to pay a combined $1.85 million to compensate franchisees, prohibit certain misrepresentations, and require Franchise Rule compliance; certain franchisees may also cancel their agreements without penalty.
The FTC, Utah, and Nevada sued Lens.com Inc., alleging that it advertised artificially low contact lens prices while hiding mandatory checkout charges and misleading consumers about its AutoRefill subscription. The complaint seeks to stop the alleged practices; the court has not yet decided the case, and no penalty or remedy has been imposed.