73 F.4th 636
9th Cir.2022Background
- Plaintiffs are minors (through guardians) who sued Google/YouTube and channel owners, alleging covert collection of "persistent identifiers" to track kids and serve targeted ads without parental consent.
- Plaintiffs pleaded only state-law claims (privacy, unjust enrichment, consumer-protection/unfair-practices) across several states but alleged underlying conduct violated COPPA and its FTC regulations.
- FTC adopted 2013 COPPA regulations barring collection of children’s persistent identifiers without verifiable parental consent; COPPA itself provides enforcement to the FTC and state attorneys general (no private federal right of action).
- The district court dismissed the Third Amended Complaint as expressly preempted by COPPA §6502(d), finding the core allegations were covered by COPPA.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding COPPA’s preemption clause does not bar state-law causes of action that parallel COPPA and that conflict preemption likewise did not apply; case remanded for consideration of other preserved defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COPPA §6502(d) expressly preempts state-law claims that parallel COPPA | State claims enforce parallel duties and remedies for conduct that COPPA-regulates; COPPA’s lack of private right doesn’t imply preemption | COPPA’s preemption clause bars inconsistent state liability for activities covered by COPPA; wording ("treatment") shows intent for an exclusive remedial scheme | COPPA does not expressly preempt state-law claims that proscribe the same conduct as COPPA; parallel state remedies are consistent with COPPA |
| Whether the word "treatment" in §6502(d) evinces intent to foreclose state remedies (i.e., create exclusive federal enforcement) | "Treatment" should not be read to eliminate consistent state remedies; allowing state damages does not thwart COPPA | "Treatment" indicates Congress intended a uniform, exclusive federal scheme enforced by FTC/state AGs, not private state suits | The Court rejects the exclusive-remedy reading; "treatment" does not demonstrate clear congressional intent to preclude consistent state-law causes of action |
| Whether COPPA conflict-preempts state claims because they frustrate COPPA's objectives | Allowing parallel state claims furthers COPPA’s goals (compliance, child protection) | State claims would stand as an obstacle or impose inconsistent duties, thus conflict-preempted | Conflict preemption not shown — state laws that supplement or mirror federal requirements do not frustrate COPPA’s objectives |
Key Cases Cited
- Metrophones Telecomms., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecomms., Inc., 423 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2005) (interpreting "inconsistent" preemption clauses and asking whether state law obstructs federal objectives)
- Beffa v. Bank of the West, 152 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1998) (state negligence claims not preempted where they "supplement" rather than contradict federal regulation)
- Ishikawa v. Delta Airlines, 343 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2003) (state common-law duties consistent with federal guidelines are not preempted)
- Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005) (existence of a federal regulatory scheme does not bar state tort damages that parallel federal requirements)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (state common-law remedies allowed where duties "parallel" federal requirements)
- Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008) (Congressional purpose is the ultimate touchstone in preemption analysis)
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (describes the two types of conflict preemption inquiry)