The IXL lawsuit is a putative federal class action, Shanahan v. IXL Learning, Inc., alleging that the education technology company collected and monetized the personal data of millions of K-12 students without parental consent. Three Kansas parents filed the case in May 2024 in the Northern District of California, and after an April 2026 Ninth Circuit ruling on whether the parents can be forced into arbitration, the case has been sent back to the district court for further proceedings.
What the Parents Allege
The complaint claims IXL runs what plaintiffs call a “massive data-harvesting apparatus” that gathers information on children and turns it into a commercial product without parental knowledge or consent.1K-12 Dive. IXL Learning Class Action Lawsuit Student Data Privacy According to the filing, IXL sells predictions about children’s attributes and behaviors, uses student data for marketing, embeds tracking that follows users after they leave the platform, and retains unlimited rights to use student-created content for profit.2Public Interest Privacy. FTC Amicus Briefs – IXL Learning The plaintiffs also allege that neither students nor parents are allowed to review what IXL has collected about them.3Market Brief – EdWeek. IXL Learning Faces Lawsuit Over Claims of Violating Children’s Data Privacy
The legal claims include alleged violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and common-law invasion of privacy.4EdTech Law Center. Nonconsensual Student Data Mining – PowerSchool and IXL Learning The complaint does not allege a direct violation of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, because COPPA gives individuals no private right of action.2Public Interest Privacy. FTC Amicus Briefs – IXL Learning
The named plaintiffs — Gretchen Shanahan, Amy Warren, and Kimberly Whitman — sued on behalf of themselves and their minor children.5CourtListener. Shanahan v. IXL Learning Inc. – Parties The case was brought by the EdTech Law Center and assigned to Judge Rita F. Lin. IXL reports that more than 15 million students use its platform, including students in 95 of the 100 largest U.S. school districts, so the potential class is enormous.3Market Brief – EdWeek. IXL Learning Faces Lawsuit Over Claims of Violating Children’s Data Privacy
How IXL Has Responded
IXL has publicly described the claims as “speculative concerns about educational technology in general” and said “student privacy is of the utmost importance to IXL.”3Market Brief – EdWeek. IXL Learning Faces Lawsuit Over Claims of Violating Children’s Data Privacy Its privacy policy states that IXL does not display targeted advertising, does not sell student data (except in a corporate transaction such as a merger), and treats student data provided by schools as confidential.6IXL Learning. Service Privacy Policy
In court, IXL’s strategy has focused less on the underlying privacy allegations and more on trying to get the case out of court entirely. The company moved to compel arbitration under its Terms of Service, arguing that school districts acted as agents for parents when they signed IXL’s contracts, and that a clause in those Terms — in which schools represent they have authority to consent for parents — bound the parents to arbitration.7U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Shanahan v. IXL Learning Inc., No. 24-6985 IXL also argued that COPPA itself creates a presumptive agency relationship between schools and parents, citing the FTC’s 1999 Statement of Basis and Purpose. It filed a separate motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The Arbitration Fight in the District Court
On November 1, 2024, Judge Lin denied both motions.8EdTech Law Center. Order Denying Motions to Compel Arbitration and Dismiss She rejected IXL’s central theory, ruling that “neither the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (‘COPPA’) nor common-law agency principles support IXL’s contention that school districts act as agents of parents when contracting with educational vendors.”1K-12 Dive. IXL Learning Class Action Lawsuit Student Data Privacy
Judge Lin also concluded that IXL had not shown the parents voluntarily accepted the Terms of Service. Because public school attendance is mandatory and students were required to use IXL as part of the curriculum, she found that not pulling a child out of school did not amount to voluntary consent to arbitration.9Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Voluntary Acceptance
Why the FTC Weighed In
The Federal Trade Commission took the unusual step of filing two amicus briefs supporting the parents: one in the district court in September 2024, and another in the Ninth Circuit in August 2025.10FTC. Gretchen Shanahan et al v. IXL Learning Inc. The agency’s core position was that nothing in COPPA or the COPPA Rule creates an agency relationship between schools and parents. Prior FTC guidance said only that the Rule “does not preclude” schools from serving as intermediaries in the parental-consent process; it did not create a federal agency relationship by operation of law.11FTC. Brief for Amicus Curiae Federal Trade Commission in Support of Appellees
Even if such a relationship existed, the FTC argued, it would cover only the data-consent process and could not extend to unrelated contract terms like mandatory arbitration.2Public Interest Privacy. FTC Amicus Briefs – IXL Learning The agency pointed to its earlier enforcement action against Edmodo, in which it established that school-provided consent is limited to educational purposes and does not authorize commercial data uses. The FTC has not brought a COPPA enforcement action against IXL itself.
What the Ninth Circuit Decided
IXL appealed the arbitration ruling. A panel of Judges Gould, Nguyen, and Bennett issued a memorandum decision on April 13, 2026, affirming in part and reversing in part.7U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Shanahan v. IXL Learning Inc., No. 24-6985
On the agency question, the panel sided with the parents and with the FTC. School districts were not the parents’ agents and had no authority to bind them to arbitration. A defendant cannot prove agency simply by pointing to language in its own Terms of Service, and even if those Terms bound the schools, they only authorized consent to data collection, not to arbitration. The court also rejected the COPPA-based argument, noting that the FTC itself had filed a brief repudiating IXL’s interpretation.
On voluntariness, the panel reversed. Under California Civil Code Section 1589, someone who accepts the benefits of a contract is deemed to have accepted its obligations unless the acceptance was involuntary, and the Ninth Circuit ruled that the burden of proving involuntariness sits with the parents opposing the arbitration clause, not with IXL.9Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Voluntary Acceptance The panel also disagreed that mandatory school attendance in Kansas automatically made using IXL involuntary. Kansas law requires children to attend school; it does not require the use of any particular educational software.
Where the Case Stands Now
The case is back in the Northern District of California for discovery on a narrow set of factual questions: when each plaintiff learned of IXL’s Terms of Service, whether the version they saw contained an arbitration clause, whether their children kept using IXL after the parents learned of those Terms, and whether that continued use was actually voluntary or practically unavoidable given school requirements.7U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Shanahan v. IXL Learning Inc., No. 24-6985 Arbitration is not currently proceeding, and whether it ever does turns on that discovery.
In June 2026, the FTC’s appearance as amicus curiae was terminated at the Commission’s own request, indicating the agency views its role in the arbitration dispute as finished for now.12Justia. Shanahan v. IXL Learning Inc., Order Terminating FTC Appearance Class certification has not been sought; the case remains a putative class action.13FTC. Amicus Brief – Shanahan v. IXL Learning Inc. The underlying privacy claims have not been tested on the merits.
How This Fits Into Edtech Privacy Litigation
The IXL suit is one of several similar cases brought by the EdTech Law Center against companies including PowerSchool, Google, Seesaw Learning, Instructure, Curriculum Associates, and Renaissance Learning.14EdTech Law Center. Cases They share a common theory: that edtech vendors collect and commercially exploit student data without meaningful parental consent, using schools as consent intermediaries in ways that exceed what privacy law allows. In August 2025, a federal judge in California dismissed a comparable case against Instructure, faulting the plaintiffs for failing to provide specific facts about data misuse; that ruling is on appeal.15Kirkland & Ellis. Kirkland Secures First Dismissal of Children’s Privacy Case in EdTech Industry The IXL case has cleared the pleading stage and produced what may be the most consequential ruling in this line of litigation so far on whether schools can effectively sign away parents’ legal rights when they adopt classroom software.