Shanahan v. IXL Learning, Inc.
3:24-cv-02724
| N.D. Cal. | Nov 1, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (Shanahan, Warren, Whitman) filed a class action alleging IXL Learning unlawfully collected and monetized data from their minor children (students in two Kansas public school districts) without parental consent.
- The lawsuit claims violations under the Federal Wiretap Act and various state laws.
- IXL moved to compel arbitration, arguing that school districts agreed to arbitration with IXL and that parents/students were therefore also bound.
- IXL alternatively claimed parents ratified arbitration by their children’s continued use of IXL as part of mandatory school curriculum.
- The school districts, as IXL customers, assented to Terms of Service containing an arbitration clause, but those terms were never directly presented to or signed by parents or students.
- The Court considered whether COPPA or common-law agency authorized school districts to bind parents/students to arbitration, and whether parental actions constituted ratification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| School districts’ authority to agree to arbitration for parents | Schools lack authority to bind parents/students to arbitration | School districts are agents of parents and can bind them | Districts are not agents who can bind parents to arbitration |
| COPPA creates agency for arbitration | COPPA does not establish agency, nor authority for arbitration | COPPA lets schools consent to data collection & arbitration | COPPA grants only narrowly limited agency, not for arbitration |
| Common-law agency binds parents to arbitration | No agency as parents lacked control/direction over schools | Schools routinely act for parents in education, including arbitration | No control = no agency; arbitration not within agency scope |
| Ratification by continued school attendance/use of IXL | Continued use was not voluntary or knowing assent | Parents ratified terms by not withdrawing students | No ratification absent genuine, voluntary, informed assent |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2000) (sets standard for motions to compel arbitration)
- Shivkov v. Artex Risk Sols., Inc., 974 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020) (contract principles govern whether parties agreed to arbitrate)
- Soltero v. Precise Distribution, Inc., 102 Cal. App. 5th 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (agency only binds non-signatories with sufficient evidence of agency)
- Hernandez v. Meridian Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 87 Cal. App. 5th 1214 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023) (details requirements for common-law agency)
- Logan v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC, 82 Cal. App. 5th 365 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (health care agent’s scope did not cover arbitration agreements)