Children’s Mobile Apps Privacy Investigation


Girard Sharp attorneys are investigating reports that certain mobile apps used by children, including Candy Crush Saga, Angry Birds, and Pixel Art, may be violating state and federal laws by collecting and sharing the personal information of minors.

Does your child use apps downloaded from the Google or Apple app store? Protect their privacy by contacting a Girard Sharp public protection attorney: call us toll-free at (866) 981-4800 or fill out the form below.

Speak to a Lawyer

More About Mobile Apps’ Potential Violations 

According to a recent study by Pixelate analyzing mobile apps targeting children, more than two-thirds of the 1,000 most popular iPhone apps likely to be used by children collect their personal information and share it with the advertising industry.

When in use, apps like Candy Crush, Angry Birds, and even certain educational apps can track children’s locations and gather other identifying information. The information is sent to companies that can track the minor users’ interests, predict their purchasing habits, or sell their information to others. Research suggests that children aren’t able to distinguish ads from regular app content, making them easy targets for advertisers seeking data to monetize.

If your child uses a kid-oriented app, you may have a legal claim for the violation of their privacy rights. Contact our firm if you think your child may have been affected by calling (866) 981-4800 or filling out the form above.

Our Commitment to Excellence

Girard Sharp has earned national Tier 1 rankings for Mass Tort and Class Action Litigation and has been named to the U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” list each year since 2013. Read about some of our results.

Our firm is a nationally recognized leader in class action litigation and arbitration of claims brought by consumers alleging privacy invasions, manufacturing defects, and false advertising. We are committed to advancing and protecting the rights of every citizen to control their own personal information and be free of hidden or undisclosed tracking.

In previous cases, we have successfully applied privacy laws on behalf of our clients to lead litigation that held websites and other companies accountable for alleged privacy violations. For example, in the Lenovo spyware litigation, Girard Sharp and its co-lead counsel negotiated a favorable settlement after the court certified a nationwide class of computer purchasers whose online activities were surreptitiously monitored by pre-installed software that degraded the computers’ performance, operating continuously in the background as it analyzed browsing activity and injected ads into visited webpages.

As lead counsel in the OPM data breach litigation, we obtained a reversal of the dismissal of claims brought on behalf of 22 million federal employees and job applicants whose highly personal facts were hacked and stolen. We then negotiated a settlement that, pending court approval, will provide for minimum $700 payments to class members with compensable loss. Similarly, in Corona v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, we represented Sony employees in the wake of a cyberattack attributed to North Korea as retaliation for the parody film The Interview. Girard Sharp and its co-lead counsel secured a settlement that fully reimbursed class members’ actual losses and provided extended credit monitoring—a structure adopted in many subsequent data breach settlements.

We also represented non-Yahoo subscribers whose emails with Yahoo email subscribers were illegally intercepted and scanned by Yahoo. As a result of our litigation efforts, Yahoo restructured its email delivery architecture so that incoming and outgoing email traffic is no longer intercepted while in transit—bringing its scanning practices into compliance with federal law—and fairly disclosed its email scanning practices. The Honorable Lucy H. Koh noted that “Class Counsel achieved these benefits” after prosecuting the case for the affected individuals “in an effective and cost-efficient manner.” 2016 WL 4474612 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016).

Main Menu