United States v. Path
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2012 WL 7006381 (2012)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Path, Inc. (defendant) operated a social-networking website and apps that allowed individuals to post a personal journal that they could share with their network. As part of its website-registration process, Path required the user to supply the user’s email address and name. Path also provided an option to enter the user’s date of birth. Upon being given a user’s date of birth, Path was able to decipher the user’s age. Over a period of approximately 18 months, Path accepted the registration of around 3,000 individuals with birth dates indicating that they were children under the age of 13. Path collected the children’s personal information and permitted the children to publicly disclose the information without either (1) providing notice to the children or their parents or (2) receiving the parents’ consent for such use. Through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the United States government (plaintiff) sued Path in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Path had violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA). Following the government’s complaint, Path and the government reached a proposed settlement, which they presented to the court for approval.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Spero, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.