Securly Lawsuit: Claims, Ruling, and Minnesota Comparison

The Securly lawsuit is an active proposed class action in federal court in California accusing the K-12 web-filtering company of secretly collecting students’ precise geolocation data and video-watching histories through software installed on school-issued devices, then selling or licensing that data to third parties without consent. The case, Bate v. Securly, Inc., was filed in July 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, survived two attempts by Securly to end it, and is now in discovery as of mid-2026.¹

What the Parents Allege

Two California parents, Sheri Bate and Azucena Mejia, filed the complaint on July 17, 2023, on behalf of themselves and their children.² They say Securly’s filtering software, once pushed onto school-issued Chromebooks, reached further than its stated safety purpose. According to the complaint, the software made “unauthorized connections” with student devices to capture precise geolocation data tied to visits to sensitive locations, along with a record of every video a student watched.³

The parents allege Securly then sold or licensed the data to third parties for targeted advertising and other commercial uses, with no notice to families.³ The proposed class is described as “tens of thousands” of people, with statutory damages sought above $5 million, calculated at up to $12,500 per affected plaintiff.⁴

Securly’s software is installed on devices in more than 20,000 schools and reaches over 20 million students, which gives the proposed class its potential scale.⁵

The Legal Claims

The lawsuit was built on a mix of federal and California statutes. The federal piece is the Video Privacy Protection Act, which the plaintiffs say Securly violated by knowingly disclosing personally identifiable information about students’ video viewing to unrelated third parties.³ The state-law claims included illegal wiretapping under the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), unlawful use of an electronic tracking device, violations of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), and unfair business practices under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL).¹

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in September 2024, narrowing some claims while keeping the VPPA count.⁶

What Securly Says About Student Data

Securly’s privacy policy, last updated in January 2026, directly rejects the lawsuit’s central factual premise. The company states that it “does not use Student Information for any commercial purpose,” does not sell student information, does not build student profiles for commercial purposes, and does not use student data for advertising or marketing.⁷ Student data is shared with third-party vendors only for contracted functions such as hosting, and vendors are contractually limited to that use.⁸ On location, the policy says Securly uses IP addresses to estimate device location roughly and only collects precise geolocation when a school-issued device is reported lost or stolen.

The policy draws a line between student data and data gathered from adult visitors to Securly’s public website. For non-student site visitors, the company acknowledges it “may sell or share” personal information, including device and usage information, geolocation, and inferred interests, with ad networks and adtech vendors for targeted advertising.⁷⁹

What the Judge Kept and What He Threw Out

Securly moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in September 2024. After a July 1, 2025 hearing, District Judge Andrew G. Schopler granted the motion in part and denied the rest.¹

Dismissed without leave to amend:

The parents’ own individual claims, for lack of standing. Only the children’s claims continue.
The intentional wiretapping claim under the first clause of CIPA, though the rest of the CIPA claim survived.
The unlawful electronic tracking device claim.
Claims under the CDAFA, the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Unfair Competition Law.

The court’s minute order said the motion was “otherwise denied.” That leaves the remaining portions of the CIPA wiretapping claim and the VPPA claim alive.¹ The surviving CIPA count rests on California Penal Code § 631, which bars intercepting communications in transit without the consent of all parties. The Ninth Circuit held in 2022 that Section 631(a) reaches internet-based interception, covering anyone who “reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents” of a communication without consent.¹⁰

Securly then tried a second time to end the case, filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings on August 15, 2025. Judge Schopler denied it on October 30, 2025, for “reasons stated on the record.”¹

Where the Case Stands Now

The case is in discovery. A scheduling order entered in September 2025 governs the timeline for discovery and a future motion for class certification, which has not yet been filed. Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher has been running discovery conferences, and a protective order was entered in November 2025 to govern confidential materials.¹

On June 1, 2026, Judge Schopler adopted a report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge Butcher granting the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for approval of a compromise. The compromise terms were not publicly available, and the motion was unopposed by Securly.¹¹ No appeal has been filed. No classwide settlement has been reported.

A Related Case in Minnesota Went the Other Way

A separate proposed class action against Securly in Minnesota reached the opposite result. In Hunter v. Securly, Inc., filed June 5, 2024, plaintiff Nicole Hunter alleged Securly collected and disclosed geolocation data and video-watching histories of students in the Saint Paul public school system, violating state privacy laws. Judge Donovan W. Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the case, finding Hunter did not show an injury sufficient for standing and writing that there is “no legitimate expectation of privacy in [the] school setting.”¹² The case was terminated on December 4, 2024.¹³ The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Hunter could have amended, though the docket does not show that she did.

Saint Paul Public Schools has since turned on an “Enhanced Privacy Mode” in the Securly app to comply with Minnesota Statute § 13.32(14), which bars schools and technology partners from routinely accessing and monitoring students’ web-browsing on school devices. Under that mode, browsing history is no longer shared with parents through Securly’s companion app, though safety flags for self-harm or violence remain active.¹⁴

1
CourtListener. Bate v. Securly, Inc.
2
Bloomberg Law. Securly Sued Over Surveillance of Students on School Chromebooks
3
THE Journal. Class Action Lawsuit Says Securly Collected, Sold Student Location Data, Video History
4
K-12 Dive. California Parents Class Action Lawsuit Securly
5
Securly. Securly – Student Safety Platform
6
Midpage. Bate v. Securly, Inc.
7
Securly. Securly Privacy Policy
8
Securly. Securly Children’s Online Privacy
9
Securly. Securly Data Types and Disclosures
10
California Legislative Information. California Penal Code Section 631
11
Leagle. Bate v. Securly, Inc.
12
Bloomberg Law. Securly Beats Suit Over Collection, Disclosure of Student Data
13
CourtListener. Hunter v. Securly, Inc.
14
Saint Paul Public Schools. Securly Home